<div class="page photo" style=""> <article> <header style=" background-image:url(/uploads/53d6eb5b1d4f4.jpg); "> <div class="box"> <div class="intro" style="color: #ffffff;"> <h1 style="color: #ffffff !important;">Some Honorable Members</h1> <p class="summary"></p> </div> </div> </header> <div class="main"> <div class="container"> <p class="byline">James Rimmer </p> <p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Walking through the halls of the Center Block there are in giant plaques that list of all those who participated the 40 odd parliaments that have sat since confederation: <em>Allan Fraser, Joseph O’Keefe, Joseph Tweed Shaw, Lynn Myers, Monique Begin,Marcel Monette, Byron Moffatt Britton, James Henry Metcalfe, Alcide Simard…</em></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">About these people, the House of Commons records much information. Intriguingly they record for members past and present their occupation. Divided into some 25 categories these groupings tell is just who is involved with the running of the country. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Since 1867 a majority of the house has been made up for essentially two groups. The first, “Law, Social Science, Education, Government Services and Religion” is a chunkily named group for lawyers, professors, consultants, political hacks, activists, military officers and everyone else’s whose stock and trade is the discussion, trading, promotion and attacking of ideas. They have been the largest group since Confederation and have been generally nearly 40% of any given Parliament. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">The second group, divided by the House of Commons, are the business types. While merchants are ruled “Sales and Service Intermediate Occupations” and CEOs “Management – Senior Management” and there are subtle differences between the groups, they all participate in the ownership, management and operation of for-profit organizations of some kind.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Some groups’ participation has not been so constant. Medical professionals were around 10% of the House until their peak of 16% in 1930. Their role in the legislature soon vanished and now they are 3% of the House. This decline may reflect the increased professionalization and specialization of the medical profession. It takes years for doctors to recoup their medical school investment and a political career would put that greatly at risk. Further, the ‘country doctor’, a community leader known by all is now just a mythical archetype. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Farmers, (labeled “Primary Industry – Skilled Occupations”) also have had a constant presence in the House. They have averaged near 20% of the house historically, however since 2011 only 6% of the House are part of this category; the lowest level since Confederation. Their decline may reflect the combined forces of increased urbanization and industrialization of farming. With much of farming now by large agribusinesses and factory farms, the family farmer has transformed into the business owner, managing millions in assets, with much more in common with the accountant than the generalist agrarians the Progressives elected in the 1920s. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Noteworthy is the absence of the trades, of technical fields like engineering and of industrial workers. Further, groups like landowners, religious leaders and military personnel participate in such small numbers they are folded into other groups. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Looking through the data, the consistency is striking. No matter the swings in government, Canada’s is run by our professionals – our accountants, lawyers, professors, journalists, managers.We are run by our business owners, our NGO presidents, our University Chancellors. Our legislators are, and have always been, profoundly stepped in the ideas of management and bureaucratic leadership. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Georgia;">This background in turn shapes our political debate and discourse. Our arguments are now and have always been managerial – who can best implement a plan, or manage an economy. Larger, more abstract, more passionate, more emotional concepts never had a chance against a room looking for balance sheets. </span></p> </div> </div> </article> </div><!-- /page-->