Introduction
It could be stated with certainty that regulatory processes play an integral role in contemporary political decision-making. When implementing new legislation in the spheres of the political, social, and economic life of a local community, politicians should consider a wide range of factors that can influence their decision to a vast extent. Accordingly, one of such factors that are of specific interest is procedural fairness. The application of this concept in various situations, where political decision-making is involved, is of immense importance. This paper aims to employ the example from the recent events in the political life of Canada, namely, the controversy that surrounded the Ontario government’s promise to raise the minimum wage. As it will be argued, this situation does not only exemplify the crucial significance of the concept of procedural fairness in such situations. Additionally, the incident under consideration should be viewed in the broader social, political, and economic context. Accordingly, a comprehensive conclusion will be built based on the discussion.
Brief Overview of the Conflict Situation and Essential Concepts
First of all, before dwelling upon the investigation of the issues related to the phenomenon of procedural fairness, it is essential to briefly observe the conflict situation itself as well as concepts that are essential for the discussion. The emergence of the situation took place in 2007 when the Ontario government announced the budget and made the statement about the projected increase in the minimum wage by the end of 2010. However, in March 2009, Premier McGuinty, in the private meeting with the representatives from various business sectors, stated that he might cancel the promised increase due to the unfavorable economic conditions. The information about this situation leaked to the public sphere and the Premiere was forced to clarify his intention transparently. Premier McGuinty publicly announced that the government owes fairness to the Ontario workers and employees. Accordingly, his main claim was that the government was committed to the promise to raise the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour by the end of 2010.
Enough, the situation under consideration is highly controversial, primarily in terms of procedural fairness, as well as in the broader context. To conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the conflict, it is essential to refer to course materials for the definition of primary concepts that are useful for the discussion of this case. First of all, it is essential to mention that regulation is the specific type of law that is aimed at controlling particular details of the statutes that generally set broader policies. Further, the regulatory processes involve the use of procedural instruments, which primarily manifest themselves in the form of the government’s decisions and enactments.
Accordingly, the concept of procedural fairness is also applied to such situations. Based on the course materials as well as on the studied academic sources, it is possible to formulate the definition of the given concept in the following way. Procedural fairness is the critical aspect of political decision-making, which provides citizens (namely, employees and workers) with the right to have a clear, concise, and comprehensive understanding of the implemented decision as well as the right to argue for the fairness of the said decision. Due to the immense complexity of the practical application of procedural fairness, caused primarily by the fragmented legislative response within the same policy area, the possibility of non-enforcement of the existing laws by the government, and the overall complexity of the procedural processes and decision-making, an extensive discussion of the related issues should be conducted.
Procedural Fairness Issues
Regarding the situation with the Ontario government’s promise to increase the minimum wage, it is possible to mention several problems related to procedural fairness. Arguably, the most evident issue is the government announced the state’s budget, which conveyed the plan of the continuous increase in the minimum wage that should achieve the $10.25 an hour mark in 2010. This statement is an evident example of the regulatory decision, and thus the cancellation of this plan could be perceived as the government’s inability to enforce its legislation. Accordingly, this is the first aspect of the procedural fairness problem because the government is responsible for the implementation of the promised regulatory changes.
Secondly, the issue of transparency is at stake in the discussed situation. It is apparent from course materials that procedural fairness requires the equal ability of all involved stakeholders to have all required information about the implemented regulatory process. As it is evident from the description of the situation, Premier McGuinty was not initially planning on the discussion of the cancellation of the minimum wage increase plan with the broad public audience. Instead, he discussed this issue in the private meeting with business leaders, and he only addressed the issues under consideration to the citizens of Ontario only after the information about the meeting leaked. Therefore, a principal procedural fairness issue is exemplified in this case as the employees, who are directly affected by the minimum wage legislation were not initially involved in the discussion of the enactment’s implementation.
Accordingly, there are two evident procedural fairness problems with an immense magnitude in this situation: the lack of transparency in the discussion of the minimum wage plan and the non-enforcement of the regulatory change by the government. Moreover, these two aspects of the problem are reinforced by the additional impact of related issues. For example, it is possible to observe that the case under consideration represents the structural problem of the government’s departments and their effectiveness in the implementation of regulatory changes. Enough, there is a lack of efficient policy-making in terms of continuous implementation of the promised budget plan. Even though the Premier’s hesitation about the success of the minimum wage increase was caused by the impact of the global financial crisis, the implementation of the given regulatory change was still within the responsibility of the government.
Governmental Decision-Making in the Broader Context
As the previous section discussed the procedural fairness issues related directly to the incident under consideration, it is also appropriate to address other problems that arise in the broader context of the situation. Firstly, what does this incident means in the overall political context? According to the article by Fanelli and Thomas (2011), given the impact of the global financial crisis, various countries across the world seek to implement measures to recover from the consequences of the crisis. As the authors state, “neoliberalism as a political-economic project seems to be gaining renewed momentum the world over amid capitalist militancy and the absence of broad-based and sustained resistance” (Fanelli & Thomas, 2011, p. 142). Accordingly, the Ontario government is characterized by the authors as neo-liberal, and it is stated several times in the article that the Ontario government works toward the implementation of fairer and comprehensive labor legislation (Fanelli & Thomas, 2011). Thus, the inability of the government to follow the principles of procedural fairness is the direct downturn of the neo-liberal policies.
Additionally, it is possible to mention the article by Coulter (2009), in which the author exemplifies the social context of neoliberal politics and the overall economic situation in Ontario. The article explores the history of poverty policies as well as gender discrimination against women as employees. The author mentions several instances of the conservative government’s legislation that worked against the fairness of job application and minimum wage policies. For example, Coulter (2009) states that “the Conservatives also took credit for any jobs that were created in Ontario, and rarely specified that these were most often temporary, minimum wage, contract, or part-time work” (p. 30). Particularly, it is explicitly stated that the set level of minimum wage contributes to the development of poverty among the population of Ontario. Therefore, in the context of the incident that is primarily discussed in this paper, it is essential to state that the controversy under discussion also has a social and economic magnitude.
Finally, it is of immense importance to mention the study by Kennedy and Sossin (2017), which focuses on various aspects of procedural law in Canada. In particular, the authors primarily refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, stating that the government should “act in the public interest (or as a ‘model litigant’) and uphold the rule of law” (Kennedy & Sossin, 2017, p. 707). Therefore, it is possible to state that the article explores matters related to procedural fairness. In general, the authors argue that the implementation of government legislation should always comply with the principles of procedural fairness.
Future Implications and Recommendations
Considering the future implications of the topic under discussion, one can trace the overall positive dynamics in the political decision-making in Ontario. According to the Ontario government website, the minimum wage was increased to $11.60 per hour as of 2017 (“Minimum wage increase,” 2018). Therefore, it could be stated that the government learned from the 2009 incident, and now it works toward better conditions for employees. Also, it is mention on the website that it is projected to increase the minimum wage up to $15 per hour on January 1, 2019 (“Minimum wage increase,” 2018). It appears to be an ambitious project, and it is recommended that the government would act more realistic given the previous incidents with procedural fairness.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can observe that the investigation of procedural fairness issues is a challenging task because it involves a set of different aspects that contribute to the overall magnitude of the problem. However, it is argued that this paper represents a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the 2009 incident as the author investigates numerous issues related directly to the concept of procedural fairness as well as to the broader social, economic, and political context of Ontario. Additionally, the paper provides an overall observation of the situation and the general concepts related to the discussion along with the discussion of future implications of the described political experience. In general, it should be stated that procedural fairness plays a key role in the regulatory change processes related to the country’s economy and political decision-making.
References
Coulter, K. (2009). Women, poverty policy, and the production of neoliberal politics in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 30(1), 23-45.
Fanelli, C., & Thomas, M. P. (2011). Austerity, competitiveness and neoliberalism redux: Ontario responds to the great recession. Socialist Studies/Études Socialistes, 7(1/2), 141-170.
Kennedy, G. J., & Sossin, L. (2017). Justiciability, access to justice and the development of constitutional law in Canada. Federal Law Review, 45, 707-723.
Minimum wage increase. (2018). Web.