Canada's Institutional Landscape and The Government's Ignorance of Farmer's Needs
Saskatchewan farmers have been continually ignored in Canada's institutional landscape. Never has the situation been more evident as it is with the possibility of Quebec separation. The Canadian governments ignorance of farmers' needs has caused a cynical view of the political process in the eyes of farmers. One of the major sources of the cynicism is that Canadian federal institutions are developed so that most political of the clout is developed from the east. The eastern domination of the House of Commons, and indirectly the
Senate, means that Saskatchewan wheat farmers do not have a strong voice in
Canadian political decisions. But what does the Saskatchewan lack of representation in Canada's political institutions in Ottawa mean? What can
Saskatchewan wheat farmers do to rectify the situation? And, following a Quebec separation what can wheat farmers do to uphold their livelihood? The intent of this report is to focus on the actions Saskatchewan wheat farmers can take to ensure their success in the future. A focus on the recent political policy decisions by the federal government, the need for intrastate institutional reform, and effects of a possible Quebec separation will all be analyzed.
The current institutional landscape of Canada has not acted favorably for Saskatchewan wheat farmers. The development of the institutions, ie. the
House of Commons and the Senate, and the policies that have developed from these institutions have continually ignored the needs of prairie farmers, emphasizing the cynicism Saskatchewan wheat farmers have towards the political process. The antipathy towards the political institutions has developed because of recent cost-cutting initiatives and deregulatory procedures by the government and by mis-representation of farmers' needs in government today. The failure of
Saskatchewan wheat farmers to express their needs in the Canadian political arena successfully, when compared to other constituencies, is based on the fact that Saskatchewan's representation in Canada's political institutions is weak.
The result is the development of policies contrary to what would be accepted by farmers. Saskatchewan wheat farmers, in accordance with most constituencies in the west, have desired a institutional change to the Upper House in Canada. In
1867, when the institutions were developed, the goal was to develop two different political "bodies". One, the House of Commons, would represent the
Canadian people by means of elected representatives in a representation by population scenario. The second, the Senate, would be a source of "sober second thought." In its creation the senate was intended to protect the ideals of individual regions. However, to the chagrin of Saskatchewan wheat farmers, the intended regional focus of the senate never developed and, hence, the senate has
Through the period of 1865-1900, America’s agriculture underwent a series of changes .Changes that were a product of influential role that technology, government policy and economic conditions played. To extend on this idea, changes included the increase on exported goods, do the availability of products as well as the improved traveling system of rail roads. In the primate stages of these developing changes, farmers were able to benefit from the product, yet as time passed by, dissatisfaction grew within them. They no longer benefited from the changes (economy went bad), and therefore they no longer supported railroads. Moreover they were discontented with the approach that the government had taken towards the situation.
Canada has had a long and storied history especially in the 20th century. A key part of this history is Canada’s road to autonomy. The first step on this road is Canada’s role in fighting and ending World War I. The second step is Canadian involvement in the United Nations’ early days to the mid 1950’s. The last step on the road to autonomy is the Constitution Act, 1982. These three moments in time form the backbone of Canada’s road to autonomy.
Farmers everywhere in the United States during the late nineteenth century had valid reasons to complaint against the economy because the farmers were constantly being taken advantage of by the railroad companies and banks. All farmers faced similar problems and for one thing, farmers were starting to become a minority within the American society. In the late nineteenth century, industrialization was in the spotlight creating big businesses and capitals. The success of industrialization put agriculture and farmers on the down low, allowing the corporations to overtake the farmers. Since the government itself; such as the Republican Party was also pro-business during this time, they could have cared less about the farmers.
The farmers of the late 1800s had many reasons for being dissatisfied with their situation. Unfair railroad practices, such as rebates and drawbacks, hurt them severely. Even common issues of shortage of money, drought, and mortgages were all issues that hurt farmers economically. The farmers of the period, though, used these issues to change the shape of American politics.
Topic and Specific Case: The topic that I have chosen is the impact that the shift to neoliberal government policies has had on workers in Canada. I have chosen to explore this topic through looking at the restructuring of unemployment insurance in the 1990’s neoliberal era when it came to be called employment insurance (McBride, 2005, pg. 90).
Lazar, Harvey. “The Spending Power and the Harper Government.” HeinOnline. 34 Queen's L.J. 125 2008-2009
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
The farmers feared that Eastern industrialists and bankers were gaining too much influence, power and control over the government. During the “bust” cycle, and times of difficulties, farmers got together, talked about their problems and formed the Populist Party. The Populists were formed because of challenges and difficulties in which they were forced to deal with every day. These challenges included crop failures, falling prices, and the inability to pay loans. The Populists party called for reform by wanting the government to intervene and lessen the impact of economic depressions, regu...
...struggling to earn any income at all and sometimes do not even get the opportunity to eat. Another issue that Raj Patel did not touch on is the lack of care consumers have for the farmers. It seems that consumers care about farmers about as much as the corporations do, which, in my opinion, is not a lot. When consumers only care about low prices and large corporations only care about making a profit, the farmers are left out to dry. Many consumers believe “food should be available at a bargain price, a belief that relies on labor exploitation and environmental exhaustion at multiple points along the commodity chain.” (Wright, 95) Corporations as well as consumers generally tend to be selfish and I think Raj Patel is afraid to mention this. If only these people cared a little bit more about each other I believe the hourglass of the food system will begin to even out.
There are Canadian citizens who thought that the Canadian government we have is perfect, citizens who believed that every aspect of the government was truly democratic, and citizens who believe that government could do no wrong. Truly this group of believers has been living a lie. In our Canadian system of government, large aspects within are far from democratic and need to be changed. Liberal-minded people will cry out for a change in order for government to serve the people better, and on the other hand the more conservative thinkers will argue that no change is needed because our government is efficient and considerate. However, our voting system, our Senate, and the power vested to the Prime Minister are far from democratic, do not meet the actual needs of the people and definitely need to be addressed.
Evidently, during the 1870-1900 period, farmers expressed drastic discontent in which their attitudes and actions had a major impact on national politics. First and foremost, farmers began to feel that their lives were threatened by competition with railroads, monopolies, trusts, currency circulation shortage, and the desire for Mother Nature to destroy their crops. The majority of the people of America were slaves, and monopoly was the master (Document C). Monopolies were dictating the way the agricultural industry functioned as a whole. Additionally, the deflation of prices was particularly crucial, because it put the farmers in a high state of debt. Furthermore, competition was another major contributing factor liable for the farmers’ dissatisfaction.
“Multiculturalism” entered public speech in the late 1960s and early 1970s in Canada that focused on unique cultural diversity, nationalities, and ethnicity across the nation. Multiculturalism and Immigration are important factors in the development of Canada to attain a strong multicultural example of economic stability, social and political growth which leads to the emergence of Canada’s identity and culture.
Regionalism is a political ideology based on a collective sense of place or attachment, and is discussed in terms of Canadian society, culture, economy and politics (Westfall, 3). Canada is known internationally as a nation incorporating several multiregional interests and identities into its unification of culture. Its diverse population is comprised of numerous ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations and traditions; and all resides under one federal government. Ever since the founding of Canada, it has developed into regional cleavages and identities, based on various geographical topologies, lifestyles and economic interests (Westfall, 6). It is these characteristics which make it problematic for the federal government to represent all demands of its people on a national level. Regionalism is thus an issue within regards to political proficiency in the Federal government.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.
Farmers are essentially the back-bone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production, (CSS statistics). Without farmers, there would be no food for us to consume. Big business picked up on this right away and began to control the farmers profits and products. When farmers buy their land, they take out a loan in order to pay for their land and farm house and for the livestock, crops, and machinery that are involved in the farming process. Today, the loans are paid off through contracts with big business corporations. Since big business has such a hold over the farmers, they take advantage of this and capitalize on their crops, commodities, and profits. Farmers are life-long slaves to these b...