Under Redistribution The Power Remains In The Big Cities
Friday, February 15, 2013 @ 3:45 AM
While it is nice to see that BC will see an increase in the number of seats held in the House of Commons. Legislation will boost the number up to 42 from 36, but the rural areas of the province continue to fall behind in representation.
We are not alone, in virtually every section of the country based on the population; the larger metropolitan centers are seeing a growth in the number of seats that they hold as compared to their rural counterparts.
Ontario will see an increase of 15 seats from 106 up to 121, Quebec an increase of three seats to 78, Saskatchewan remains the same at 14, while Alberta goes from 28 to 34, and Manitoba from 12 to 14.
The Western provinces, while gaining standing in the House, will still face the problem of Ontario and Quebec being in a position to form government without the benefit of the western provinces. It means there is no change in where the major parties will look to gain votes if they want to form government. To be blunt, they don’t need us.
In the meantime, the rural ridings including our own Prince George- Peace River will see more area added to the constituency. It is a problem given that in these provinces wealth lies in large measure in the area covered in the three constituencies covering the central and northern part of BC.
It is an age old problem in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, where while the economy hinges on the wealth producing sections of the province, the clout remains in the large cities when it comes to the political will.
It is hard to convince the population of the lower mainland in the value of investing in the central and northern half of the province, when they see their priorities as being close at home, and they have the ability to reflect that at the ballot box.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.
Comments
I guess I must be missing something. Is Mr. Meisner’s contention that because many rural populations happen to live nearest to the country’s resources that entitles them to some sort of disproporationate representation in government?
The fact is that most of Canada lives in urban centres and fewer people are living in rural locations. Unfortunately, the ‘political will’ will always go to where the population is, not where the trees and oil are.
I totally agree with you JB. That is very old thinking.
If it were not for the masses of people living in central places
1.The resources from the hinterlands would have virtually no value.
2.The ideas generating regions would not enable improvements in exploration, extraction, manufacturing, marketing, shipping and trade agreements.
In other words, we have nothing of value until the masses in this country and other countries add that value to the resources we happen to live closer to. THAT is not only not unique but, with a few exceptions is the most common state of affairs.
Canada is set up so that resources belong to the provinces. We can see the resulting disparity in the Country.
I doubt that setting up the provinces so that a parallel system would exist with respect to resources belonging to Regional Districts or the economic regions which may be established would make any improvements.
It would simply mean that the Peace would be stinking rich as would the GVRD due to its location and population, and the rest of us would continue to be comparative subsistence economies.
Comments for this article are closed.