UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A survey of Dominion-provincial relations, 1906-1941 Braidwood, Darrell Thomas 1941

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1941_A8 B5 S8.pdf [ 7.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098668.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098668-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098668-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098668-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098668-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098668-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098668-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098668-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098668.ris

Full Text

A .SURVEY OF  LX)MIMIOM-PROVINOIAL CONFERENCES  1906 - 1941 Bjr DARRELL THOMAS BRAIDWOOD An essay submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r the degree of Master of Arts i n the Department of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science The University of B r i t i s h Columbia September 1941 i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I The Dominion-provincial In Canadian Government Conference Page 1 CHAPTER II The Conference of 1906 •VA ^  - Page 5 CHAPTER III The Conference of 1915 Page 19 CHAPTER IV The Conferences of 1918 Page.,22 CHAPTER V The Conference of 1927 • - Page 28 CHAPTER VI The Conferences of 1931 1932 and Page 45 CHAPTER VII The Conference of 1933 Page 49 CHAPTER VIII The Conferences of 1934 Page 53 CHAPTER IX The Conference of 1935 0 Page 56 CHAPTER X The Conference of 1941 Page 79 CHAPTER XI The Future of the Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l Conference Page 97 * tt' tt. tt * # APPENDIX I L i s t of Delegates to the Dominion-provincial Conferences Page 107 APPENDIX II State-Federal Governmental Conferences i n the Commonwealth of A u s t r a l i a Page 116 « # * * # BIBLIOGRAPHY Source^ of Information Page 126 tt tt * « * « CHAPTER I  THE DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE IN CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AAfederal system of government, suoh as that under which the Dominion of Canada functions, involves a - d i v i s i o n of the powers of government between the central and p r o v i n c i a l a u thorities concerned. Since both the power si and the interests of these authorities i n many cases-overlap, i t i s e s s e n t i a l that there be cooperation between them i f the government of Canada i s to be c a r r i e d on with the most advantage to a l l . Where interests c o n f l i c t there must be some process of give-and-take i f harmonious relations are to he maintained between the governments concerned, Ai recent Royal Commission has expressed i t s e l f as follows: "Despite- the undoubted advantages of a federal system .of government i t i s l i a b l e to have ce r t a i n inherent d e f e c t s i Two of these are r i g i d i t y and i n e l a s t i c i t y * i n the: d i v i s i o n of powers: between* the c e n t r a l and p r o v i n c i a l (or state) authorities^, and a lack of means of cooperation between autonomous- governments: i n matters of common i n t e r e s t . " 1 / To promote cooperation between the various ^governments and to attempt to eliminate r i g i d i t i e s , i t i s /natural that representatives of the governing bodies should meet i n conference ••, Such meetings have occurred and have been of two main t y p e s — i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l conferences and 1 Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-provincial Relations, 1940, Vol. I I , p. 68. Hereafter referred to as the Rowell-Slrols Report. - 1 -Dominion-provincial conferences. The former are defined as being: "Those- conferences between p r o v i n c i a l representatives - i n which the Dominion government eithe r did not p a r t i c i p a t e at a l l or d i d so only upon i n v i t a t i o n . " The l a t t e r are.defined as being: /^"Those-conferences summoned by the Dominion Government .or i n which that government took an active part."-5 The conference might well be termed an " u n o f f i c i a l " addition to our government. Under the Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, the conference has no o f f i c i a l status.- I t has no power but that of o f f e r i n g an opportunity f o r discussion which may or may not influence future p o l i c y of the governments concerned. Nevertheless, i f the governments wish to place high value on the conference as a unit of government, i t w i l l automatically assume a more- important r o l e . I t may be r e c a l l e d that the cabinet system of govern-ment e x i s t s ; i n Canada; not because- i t i s set out i n a written const i t u t i o n but because the w i l l of the people, as expressed through the members- of parliamenti desires i t s existence. This paper deals with the Dominion-provincial conferences only.^ The f i r s t of these Dominion-provincial conferences was c a l l e d i n 1906 and since that time-,- conferences have been held at varying i n t e r v a l s — a n d with varying r e s u l t a . Certain meetings have been more Important than others but a l l 2 Rowell-Siroie?Report, p. 68 3 Ibid, p. 68 4- In some cases accurate records are not available and reliance must be placed upon press reports. -3 have had some bearing on the relationships between the various governments i n Canada. The conferences have been of two types—* the major conferences, dealing with Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l relations i n general and the minor conferences c a l l e d to discuss a few s p e c i f i e d issues. Major conferences have been held i n 1906, 1918, 1927, 1935 and 1941, with minor conferences being held i n 1910, 1915, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. In studying these conferences, i t i s important to consider both the subject matter and the organization. The subject matter of the.past conferences i s important as a record of what has been accomplished and as an i n d i c a t i o n of what might be achieved i n the future. . Conferences on ce r t a i n subjects have met with evident success; The mere mention of c e r t a i n matters has, on the other hand, caused conferences to close i n chaos. The organization of past conferences has i t s important aspects, too. For by studying the organization plans of e a r l i e r conferences, i t i s possible to discover some of the reasons for the success or f a i l u r e of these conferences. / In the following chapters, a survey of both the ^ s u b j e c t matter and the organization of the Dominion-provincial '..conferences has been attempted. As a survey, much of the work must needs be a r e c i t a t i o n of Conference records and minutes. However, i n an attempt to give a broader and more revealing picture, addresses of p o l i t i c a l leaders- and private c i t i z e n s , newspaper and p e r i o d i c a l comment, and extracts from from the studies of the Royal Commissions on.Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l Relations have beenincluded^ In studying these conferences-, several questions should be considered. What has been t h e i r substance? What hasbeen the general atmosphere surrounding them?- What have been the r e s u l t s — b o t h tangible and intangible? What factors have contributed to t h e i r success or to t h e i r f a i l u r e ? What hope i s there 1 f o r the future productiveness of such conferences? What steps could be taken to make them more productive? In the consideration of these-questions, i t must be kept i n mind that the basic idea underlying the conferences: i s to bring together the representatives of the Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l governments so that they may discuss c o n f l i c t s between them and.common problems, and perhaps devise common remedies for such d i f f i c u l t i e s , thereby serving the best interests of government i n Canada,. CHAPTER- II THE CONFERENCE OF 1906 Many of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of federal government became apparent soon a f t e r Confederation. Expenditures were r i s i n g : without a corresponding increase i n income. The provinces, facing heavy- debt charges;; and with no revenue-•-sources to meet them, were i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y bad 1 p o s i t i o n . In 1887 representatives of f i v e of the 2 provinces- decided to meet together to discuss mutual .problems. Although an i n v i t a t i o n to attend was sent to Nthe Dominion government, the l a t t e r declined to p a r t i c i p a t e . The conference, however; was- held- and the main discussions were-on the matter of Dominion subsidies to the provinces. As w i l l be shown l a t e r , a plan was evolved f o r an increase of these subsidies. Nothing-,- however j was done about this plan i n the ensuing years. Mr. Wilfred Eggleston explains 3 this f a i l u r e as follows: The P r o v i n c i a l Conferences of 1887 and 1902 ;were, i n f a c t , p o l i t i c a l expressions of f i s c a l need on the part of c e r t a i n provinces. The former, c a l l e d by Mercler, and, warmly supported by F i e l d i n g , then r i d i n g the creat of a"secesslon" wave i n Nova Scotia, proceeded.to pass resolutions c a l l i n g for substantially 1 See Dominion-provincial Subsidies and-Grants, Royal Commission on Dominion-provincial Relation Studies, 1939, p. 30 --34, W. Eggleston & C. T. K r a f t , 2 ("Prince Edward Island and B r i t i s h Columbia were not S represented. For an excellent discussion of t h i s period ( see "Provincial Conferences & Better Terms" by J . A. ( Maxwell. Proceedings of the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science l Association. 1934. Jackson Press. Kingston, p 162-174. 3 Idem. p. 30 - 31 increased grants.....There were-both p o l i t i c a l and f i n a n c i a l reasons why- these requests: were-not granted. S i r John- A MacDonald treated the conference as an affront to the Dominion Government and as inadequately representative of the provinces:; Besides-there- was ^ - no surplus- to d i s t r i b u t e ; The Dominion budget had / reported heavy d e f i c i t s , on ordinary account i n 1885 and J> 1886 and a po l i c y of l i m i t i n g borrowing from the London market had been inaugurated i n 1887 to keep Canada's c r e d i t sweet, and her int e r e s t rates - low. F i n a l l y i n 1902 another i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l conference was c a l l e d under the auspices of the government • . 4 of Quebec; to discuss subsidies Certain a l t e r a t i o n s were made i n the-resolutions made i n 1887• S t i l l the Dominion government to ok no^acti on! on; the matter. However, the provinces -continued t h e i r pressure on the leaders of the Federal Government, both p u b l i c l y and p r i v a t e l y . Meanwhile federal revenues were increasing, due- to some extent to - p r o v i n c i a l development. In several statements made by S i r Wilfred Laurier, there were-suggestions favoring a- Qominion-provincial conference, however, action was postponed. Then- i n October,- 1905, the provinces; sent a note-to Ottawa asking f o r such a meeting; F i n a l l y on September 10> 1906, S i r Wilfred Laurier addressed the following communication to the Premiers of the provinces: 4 The Report of t h i s Conference may be found i n "Proceedings of the I n t e r - P r o v i n c i a l Conference held at the Ci t y of Quebec from the 18th to the 20th day of December, 1902, Inclu s i v e l y " SESSIONAL PAPER 68, Session Papers, 1903, Vo l . XXXVII, No. 13. 7 S i r , -In accordance with- the request of the P r o v i n c i a l Governments f o r a conference with- the Dominion Government to discuss the f i n a n c i a l subsidies to the provinces, I beg to inform you that such a conference w i l l take place at the C i t y of Ottawa on Monday, the 8th of October next, at eleven a.m., which you. are: invited^ to attend. Your-obedient 1 servant, (signed) Wilfred Laurier , With th i s l e t t e r , he summoned together the f i r s t Domini on-provincial C onference i n Canada's hist o r y • The provinces accepted; the i n v i t a t i o n and sent 5 t h e i r delegates- to Ottawa; At the opening meeting, a f t e r b r i e f speeches of welcome, the Conference* elected the Hon;-Lomer Gouin, Premier of Quebec to be Chairman. The•subsidy question, the main reason Maind t h e . c a l l i n g of the conference was the: :fIrst'-matter ^ of: consi^ieratlan;'- Quebec, under the 6 <leadership.of the Hon. Lomer Gouin had been p a r t i c u l a r l y active i n t h i s regard. Mr. Gouin had v i s i t e d the Maritlmes• and Ontario i n an attempt to persuade these provinces to demand reform from the Dominion Government. Ontario was "\ somewhat doubtful f o r she feared she would have t o shoulder-too large a part of the burden brought about by increased / subsidies. In a statement to the "Globe" Toronto* on 5 See Appendix I 6 Professor Maxwell attributes the c a l l i n g of the Conference to the fact that-Sir-Wllfredi-,Laurier- needed to consolidate the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n i n Quebec and f e l t he could do so by granting Mr. Gouin 1 s demands;. P r o v i n c i a l Conferences and Better Terms, p, 165 - 166. 8 Septembers, the Hon. Mr. Whitney, Premier of Ontario, stated In reference to the celebrated 1902 resolutions on subsidies$ "The present Government was not then i n o f f i c e , and .while we w i l l attend the coming Conference we do not f e e l committed to the terms of the.Resolutions adopted i n 1902 or to the reasons given f o r t h e i r adoption at that time." Manitoba with a Conservative government, was b i t t e r toward the Dominion Government over the lands question. ^ E r i t i e h Columbia's obvious desire f o r increased subsidies \ was seen i n an a r t i c l e i n the Dally Colonist, V i c t o r i a ^ on I January 14th, 1906. "B:; C. i s the only Province i n the Dominion i n which there i s d i r e c t taxation.,.In any of the other eight Provinces a proposition to impose d i r e c t taxes A would, as an Eastern exchange expressed I t , put and Government 'out of business' that attempted i t . In B. C. i t would be impossible.to conduct public business without resort to taxes." The Federal Government's attitude to the matter may be seen i n a speech made by the Hon. Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, at Knowlton on September 6th, 1906^ Just four days before-the-Prime Minister issued his i n v i t a t i o n . Mr. Fisher said i n part, "...I can say- that S i r Wilfred Laurier has arranged .within the next few weeks to meet the Premiers of the various Provinces and to l i s t e n t o the case they are able to make out for an increased subsidy. I am also r i g h t i n assuring the people that i f the case made out be good and strong we w i l l have to y i e l d to i t . . . b u t they w i l l have to make i t good and strong before we can y i e l d to i t . " ' In October the provinces and the Dominion Government assembled to discuss the problem of subsidies. They did not 7 Canadian Annual Review, 1906, p. 515 9 meet on equal terms; Rather, the provinces met the Dominion i n the manner of a family., headed by a father, tolerant to (hear the opinion of his children, but nevertheless firm i n the conviction that he was the head of the house. And throughout the Conference, the father, S i r Wilfred Laurier, controlled .the_proceedlngs» The p r o v i n c i a l delegations f i r s t met together to discuss the demands they would make to S i r Wilfred Laurier and the Dominion Government. The f i r s t resolution passed by t h i s group was: Whereas the members of t h i s Conference are of opinion that i t i s desirable i n the i n t e r e s t of the-people of Canada and e s s e n t i a l to the development of the provinces that an immediate provision be made for an inorease^of the subsidies granted by the Dominion to the-several provinces and f o r the award to the p r o v i n c i a l govern-£ ments by Canada of an amount s u f f i c i e n t to meet the ~,costs of the administration of criminal j u s t i c e ^ not [exceeding;twenty cents per head of the population; Therefore, i t i s unanimously C<B^0LVED--1^ That the subject matter of the resolutions adopted by the conference -of the representatives of the several provinces, held at O^ uebec^  i n December 1902, and which were shortly thereafter presented to the Government of the Dominion and which were r a t i f i e d by the l e g i s l a t u r e s of the then e x i s t i n g provinces, except that of B r i t i s h Columbia., be, now pressed; upon the_ Government of the Dominion f o r immediate and favorable action," -under a reserve of ""the right" "df ""any "province to^how submit to such government memoranda^ i n w r i t i n g } concerning any claims i t may have to larger sums than s those set outMn the said resolutions, or to a d d i t i o n a l d " ^ ^ consideration or recognition." 8 Sessional Papers, V o l . XLI, No. 12, 1906 - 07, No. 29A 10 ^RES^VEp--^ That i n ease of the Government of Canada concurring- i n the views of the conference, as expressed i n the above resolution, a measure should be submitted to the Parliament of Canada at the next session /providing f o r payment of such increased subsidies and ^allowances as may be determined upon, pending an ( amendment of the B r i t i s h North America Act, i f such an amendment should be deemed necessary.9 An amendment was also passed to Subsection C of Resolution I of the: 1902 Conference', s e t t i n g out that the population of B. C , Manitoba-, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be considered to be that at which payments were-being currently made u n t i l the population should-become^great enough to use actual population figures.; In both these resolutions, there- was complete: ^unanimity among the members;- The Hon. Mr. Gouin and the Hon. Mr. Whitney, leaders of the two most powerful provinces were appointed to present the resolutions to the Dominion . Government. Mr. Whitney then presented a b r i e f on behalf of Ontario. He argued f o r "some d e f i n i t e and permanent -arrangement" respecting subsidies. Nevertheless, he held that the subsidy figures as laid.down*, i n the B r i t i s h North • America Act should be capable of r e v i s i o n . He suggested; that.the drawers of the Act- intended to l e g i s l a t e only f o r t h e i r own time. Mr. Whitney claimed that..the Dominion Government . was not concerned with t h e - r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of an independent nation. The government's duties-were purely domestic. He . held that the p r o v i n c i a l expenditures and Dominion revenues were both increasing*-a f a c t which, unless readjustment 9 Sessional Papers V o l . XLI, No. 12, 1906 - 07, No. 29A 11 was made—would throw a great burden-on.the people. Mr. Whitney placed- before the - conf e renee, the example of the Australian Act of Union. Under this-Act no f i n a l arrangements as to s p e c i f i c amount of subsidies from the- federal to the state governments were -made-and f a r more i n proportion * f customs and excise c o l l e c t i o n s were redis t r i b u t e d to the states than was red i s t r i b u t e d by the federal government to the provinces i n Canada. Mr. Whitney claimed that Ontario was bearing an especially heavy burden and that her case should receive \very c a r e f u l consideration. He urged, too, that no further special grants from-the federal treasury to the provinces 10 should be made. The lengthiest formaI address of the conference was made by the^on.Mr. McBride i n a memorandum requesting special consideration f o r B r i t i s h Columbia. While agreeing with the Conf erence resolutions;' as far as they went, Mr. McBride declined to accept them as a f i n a l s olution. He held that B r i t i s h Columbia should have special consideration and submitted to the Conference a detailed report presented by the--British-Columbian government 11 to the Dominion Government i n 1905. He held that the readjustment recommended would, i f adopted, leave B r i t i s h Columbia i n no better position-. Her 10 Special grants had been made on occasion to various provinces to tide them over temporary d i f f i c u l t i e s . 11 Appendix to Minutes, p. 15 - 39. 12 excessive contributions to the Federal Treasury would cause her to pay more than her share of the increase i n subsidies to a l l the provinces. Further, B r i t i s h Columbia had, he pointed out, special geographical d i f f i c u l t i e s with respect to population and the use of population as a guide-stick for the proposed subsidy system would be disadvantageous to the P a c i f i c province-. Mr. McBride traced the d i f f i c u l t i e s between B r i t i s h Columbia and the Dominion Government from the Settlement Act of 1884 to the time of the Conference. In substance his argument was-, that due to economic and geographic \ disadvantages^, B r i t i s h Columbia deserved more than she had j thus f a r received from her union with the other Canadian i ' provinces; He asked that a commission be appointed to investigate the matter f u l l y . The Conference-discussed Mr. McBride's memorandum but came to no immediate conclusion. Mr. Gouin then presented a resolution concerning the p o l i c y c a r r i e d out by the Dominion Government of deducting any claims held by It against the provinces from the subsidies paid to those provinces. S i r Wilfred Laurier did not desire to discuss t h i s subject so at his request the resolution was withdrawn f o r l a t e r consideration. S i r Wllfred ; Laurier, the-Prime Minister and his Ministers then Joined the conference. S i r Wilfred addressed the delegates with respect t o Mr. McBrides memorandum. (He c r i t i c i z e d the idea of setting up an a r b i t r a t i o n commission but, with great p o l i t i c a l grace, l e f t the matter i n the handsof jthe Qonference. He suggested, however, that Mr. McBride should 13 \ \ approach the Conference immediately, with a proposal f o r a further grant; In response to this statement by t h e - F i r s t Minister, the Conference passed- the following resolutions /"That i n the- opinion of the Conference i t i s inadvisable / that the claim, i n the way of subsidies,, of any —province be referred to a r b i t r a t i o n . 1 2 B r i t i s h Columbia -voiced the only dissenting vote. l Regardless of Mr. McBride's declaration: that the Conference should not consider B r i t i s h Columbia's claim; t h a t i t was a matter-between B r i t i s h Columbia and the: Dominion; the Conference then passed a resolution recommending that i n view of B r i t i s h Columbia's special claims, she should receive an extra allowance o f $100,000 per year f o r a period of ten years. Mr. McBride p o s i t i v e l y refused to agree - with t h i s resolution and d i d not vote on i t . He expressed to the Chairman his intention of taking no further part-In the i 12 Sessional Papers, V o l . XLI, No. 12, 1906 - 07, No. 29A 13 Mr. McBride's declaration was as follows: "I protest that the question of B r i t i s h Columbia's claim . upon the Dominion Government- f o r a reference -should--not be considered by t h i s Conference, but that i t i s a question between the government o f . B r i t i s h Columbia and the Dominion." 14 14 Conference. The f i n a l session of the Conference -was dominated by the powerful figure of S i r Wilfred Laurier, who call e d : 15 for harmony i n working out the problems. 14 O^ne of Mr. McBride's-main platform planks i n the Conservative Party's campaign to election v i c t o r y had been- "Better Times." His championing of B. C ' s cause at a Conference called; toy the L i b e r a l Federal Government, was intense and whole-hearted. The following extract from a chronicle of the 1 times i l l u s t r a t e d the col o u r f u l popularity of t h i s (^zealous p r o v i n c i a l statesman... ''Mr. McBride c e r t a i n l y made B; C. the f i r s t and (-last object of his advocacy. He was offered I something, he wanted more. He was made much of personally but refused to be persuaded into accepting, anything less than what he deemed Justice. A f i n a l compromise was suggested; j^-v; he r e p l i e d by withdrawing from the Conference •U - and promising to carry the exceptional and d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n of his province to the foot /of the Shrone. The attitude taken seems to /have touchedvthe public imagination i n B.C. and I a special welcome for the-Premier was arranged \ for his return to V i c t o r i a on October 26th. Canadian Annual Review of Public A f f a i r s , 1906. p. 483. Annual Review Publishing,Go., Toronto;, 1907. C'Mr. McBride was strongly supported by a Majority of the people i n his home province. Feeling became so intense that a t one time the -Kamloops "Standard" adopted! the slogan of "Succeed or Secede." ; Canadian Annual Review, p. 522. "Certain sections of the presa assueed Mr. McBride .of being a "man with a grievance" who deliberately made impossible claims. Glofee, Toronto. October 15, 1906. 15 In arspeech delivered at a dinner to the delegates given by the "Canadian Club of Ottawa, S i r Wilfred Laurier stated: "We cannot claim that our constitu t i o n i s l o g i c a l or symmetrical but i t has been made p r a c t i c a l and i t has given us 40 years of harmony amongst the di f f e r e n t elements composing the Ganadian nation, and that i s enough to t e s t i f y to the value of the constitution, because without harmony no progree was p o s s i b l e . Globe. Toronto, Ontario. Oct. 10, 1906. 15 He announced that his Government had.decided to , agree to the resolutions affirming the views of the 16 Interprovincial Conference of 1902, with the exception of those recemmendatlons suggesting increased subsidies f o r 17 criminal j u s t i c e administration. Nor would he agree to introduce a b i l l to Parliament providing for larger subsidies: u n t i l an amendment to the British.North-America Act could be made. The Prime Minister did state that the Hon. Mr. F i e l d i n g and he- would t r a v e l to London the following. Spring to obtain the neces sar-y amendment., 16 The net f i n a n c i a l r e s u l t of the Conference of 1906 was estimated as follows-; dependent upon approval of the Dominion Government (Canadian Annual Review, 1906. p. 518) Province E x i s t i n g Proposed Increased Subsidy Subsidy Subsidy. Ontario 1,339,287 2,128,771 789,484 Quebec 1,206,413 : 1,806,278 599,865 Nova Scotia 432,805 610,464 177,659 New Brunswick 491,360 621,360 130,000 Manitoba 646,862 776,862 130,000 B. C. 307,076 522,076 215,000 P. E. Island 211,931 281,931 70,000 Alberta- 1,124,125 1,254,125 130,000 Saskatchewan- 1,124,125 1,254,125 130,000 However i n March 1907, while addressing the House, S i r Wilfred Laurier estimated the increased cost to the Government to be $3,346,000 17 There had been a demand f o r a grant of twenty cents per capita f o r p r o v i n c i a l j u s t i c e administration. 16 S i r Wilfred held that the resolutions thus remaining * were i n e f f e c t those of the Quebec Conference of 1887, of which he approved^ The c o n t r o l l i n g hand of the Government i s well seen i n the statement i n the minutes: The F i r s t Minister added that h i s Government desired, to impress upon the Conference the fact.that these resolutions of 1887 seemed to have been drawn and considered with great care and they are of the opinion that the terms agreed to at that time ought not to be departed from. r B x These resolutions -of 1887 had attempted to set out 'a basis f o r a f i n a l and unalterable settlement for subsidies. 18 In Preamble to 1887 Resolution 19 New: Subsidies recommended were: (a) Where population i s under 150,000 $100,000 (b) Where population does not exceed .200,000 $150,000 (c) Where population i s 200,000 but does not exceed 400,000 $180,000 (d) Where population i s 400,000 but does not exceed 800,000 $190,000 (e) Where population i s 800,000 but does not exceed -1,500,000 $220,000 (f) Where population;exceeds 1,500,000 $240,000 B3.; New Grants were per head: 80j^ per head on population as at l a s t census up to 2,500,000 b. 60$ per head f o r a l l population over 2,500,000 On March 18, 1907, S i r Wilfred Laurier introduced t h i s proposal to the-House. Coupled with i t was a grant f o r 10 years= to B r i t i s h Columbia of an ad d i t i o n a l §100,000 per year. The re v i s i o n of 1907 was the l a s t general r e v i s i o n to date i n the subsidies. 17 S i r W i l f r e d regretted the lack of unanimity caused by B r i t i s h Columbia's s p e c i a l claim but promised to introduce the changes i n Parliament, /~- The Prime Minister brought up the matter of .discrimination against Dominion charters by P r o v i n c i a l governments and suggested that-such discrimination should v cease. In the c l o s i n g moments of the-conference, discussion - took place on the matter of f i s h e r i e s . S i r Wilfred spent some- time discussing the d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g out of the divided j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s matter.- I t was generally f e l t that the Dominion Government could deal most e f f i c i e n t l y with t h i s matter. New Brunswick and Quebec, however* were very firm i n standing on t h e i r rights as l a i d down.by the Privy Council to obtain revenues f o r f i s h i n g l i c e n s e s . Both provinces f e l t that Nova Scotia had benefitted disproportionately i n the Halifax Award of the Privy Council. The Prime Minister then-referred to a discussion of p r o v i n c i a l taxes on Commercial Travellers:. He was informed by the Chairman that the-matter had been discussed and that the various premiers had agreed to recommend each to his respective l e g i s l a t u r e that the t a s t e abolished. The Conference closed with a resolution i n d i c a t i n g the delegates to be in;favour of annual i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l conferences i n the future. In statements to the press, a l l the Premiers, except Mr. McBride, expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n at the r e s u l t s of the Conference. Newspaper opinion on the whole, however, was 18 not as.generous. The globe, Toronto, an opponent of any tendency toward c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , c r i t i c i z e d the increasing of subsidies, claiming, on October 16th that i n doing so... ) ...the people of Canada put themselves under heavier ( tr i b u t e to a bad system. In another part of the c r i t i c i s m , the Globe, stated: / So long as P r o v i n c i a l p o l i t i c i a n s are l e d to f e e l / that when they get into deep water the Dominion w i l l V__come to t h e i r a i d , they w i l l get into deep water with deplorable re g u l a r i t y . The Hamilton Times, the Montreal Witness, the Toronto News and the Ottawa Journal a l l f e l t that the provinces were seeking to get as much as they could at the expense of the Federal treasury. The Conference was marked by strong f e e l i n g between the L i b e r a l Premiers who were i n the majority and the Conservative Premiers, who had the advantage of having ""Mr. McBride, the most striking, figure at the Conference, as t h e i r leader. Later i n the year a very b r i e f conference took place between the Federal Government and the representatives., from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan on matters a f f e c t i n g the Dominion and these provinces. However r e s u l t s from this meeting were n e g l i g i b l e . 19 CHAPTER II I * . . - 1 r THE - CONFERENCE OF 1915 In the nine years following the f i r s t Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l conference, the Dominion Government made no attempt t o c a l l a general conference ?i A minor conference on company law was c a l l e d i n 1910 under the supervision of Mr. Thomas Mulvey, then Under Secretary of State;. One session was held but the views expressed by the delegates 2 were so contrary that ;the conference broke up, Immediately. Two 1nter^provinelal conferences were held i n th i s period«p—one i n 1910 to discuss f i x i n g Maritime representation at a set f i g u r e , — a n d another i n 1913 to discuss Maritime representation and subsidies. Neither of these conferences-produced .any important r e s u l t DOmlnion-prov i n c i a l conf erence. By 1915 the problem of dealing with returned and-discharged soidiers^began to ;assume large proportions. Action on t h i s matter had at f i r s t been taken only by.the Dominion Government under , t h e i r M i l i t a r y Hospitals Commission. As the numbers of such men grew, I t was necessary to attack the problem with 1 The Report of t h i s Conference i s to be found i n an unpublished Sessional Paper #86, Feb;. 7 - 10, 1916, Library of Parliament, Ottawa. 2 No records were printed on this conference but Mr. Mulvey 1s notes and memoranda are on f i l e i n the Department of the -Secretary of State at Ottawa. 20 witn the united e f f o r t of a l l Canadian governments; Accordingly S i r Robert Borden dispatched the following 3 telegram to the p r o v i n c i a l premiersT Ottawa, Ontario October-11 * 1915 My Government has appointed a M i l i t a r y Hospitals Commission; Included i n t h e i r duties.are provision of employment.for returning soldiers-and t r a i n i n g of disabled s o l d i e r s , which can only be dealt with successfully through cooperation of the provinces. I a m requesting a l l the P r o v i n c i a l Premiers and" t h e i r Ministers of Education to meet Hospitals Commission and myself at Ottawa on the 18th instant noon to consider &nd formulate scheme f o r dealing with t h i s important question. The presence and cooperation of you and Minister of Education are-especially desiredv In the event of your i n a b i l i t y to attend please delegate one of your Ministers?; R. L. Borden On October: 18th and 19th, 1915, the M i l i t a r y Hospitals Commi s s i on.met^at Ottawa-%to get her with 4 representatives of the : P r o v i n c i a l Governments; The- Hon. Richard McBride, Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, unable - t o be-present•-, - telegraphed-his -desire \Ao /^oncur -• in- -any-. .:difte^ gi.o.ns^ made--- -by.--. -the- -0 onffereliieev ^ ^ A l l the members expressed t h e i r desire to a i d to the f u l l the work of the Hospitals Commission. I t was agreed to appoint P r o v i n c i a l Committees or Commissions- to c a l l P r o v i n c i a l Conferences and from.these to organize c i v i c committees. 3, ; Sessional Paper, #86, Feb. 7 - 10, 1916, p 2. 4, Appendix I 5 A memorandum waa drawn up of f e r l n g suggestions for the-solution of the problem. Among these suggestions were- plans to organize Central P r o v i n c i a l Committees which should assume ce r t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n finding employment for returned s o l d i e r s ; Certain-administrative expenses i n t h i s connection were to be shouldered by the P r o v i n c i a l Governments v I t was agreed that the memorandum was to be presented to each P r o v i n c i a l Government. I t was also decided that i f any P r o v i n c i a l Government should make any changes i n the suggested plan* that government would n o t i f y each of the other- p r o v i n c i a l governments. The- b r i e f conference closed with r e i t e r a t i o n of the support of the-Provincial governments of the work of (the M i l i t a r y Hospitals Commission. I t i s worthy of note that i n respect to t h i s problem which constituted, i n a sense, a minor national emergency, the various governments were- more- than w i l l i n g ^y^jnti^^ and to act i n harmony with each other.. 5 Appendix I, Sessional Paper 86, 1916 Library of Parliament (Unpublished.) 22 CHAPTER IV. THE DOMINION-PROVINCIAL. CONFERENCES-OF 1918 In JLj^8j_with war problem* again pr9S3ing,__two Domlnlon-provinelal- conferences, were held. In February of 1918, the Hon. J . A. Calder, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, acting at that time, temporarily, as Minister of the In t e r i o r , c a l l e d a conference of the P r o v i n c i a l Premiers and Ministers: at Ottawa. This mi^r^confjerence 14th and 15th to disease the-then current foo^d emjergency. The subjects discussed during t h i s b r i e f , informal conference were: 1. Cooperation i n a campaign for greater food production; 2. The problems of A g r i c u l t u r a l labour, and of f u e l ; 3. The r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of returned s o l d i e r s ; 4. The formation of 'an a f t e r the war* - 1 immigration p o l i c y . In general the conference arrived 1 at a s a t i s f a c t o r y { conclusion with regard to cooperation between the Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l governments on these matters. Informal agreements were made with a view toward Increasing food production. ! Canadian Annual Review, 1918, p. 318 23 In October of the same year, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Borden c a l l e d a formal Dominion-provincial Conference by dispatching the following telegram to each of the P r o v i n c i a l Premierss Ottawa 26th October, 1918 I t i s the desire of the Dominion Government to have a conference with the P r o v i n c i a l Premiers i n Ottawa, commencing on Tuesday., November 19th, for the purpose of considering the problem^f s o l d i e r s ' se^ttl-emejit., the general .-proj^emv o f ^ ^ -/and the request of the P r a l r £e; Provinces" for the /transfer to them- of. t h e i r natural resources -Other subjects f o r d i s c u s s i o n may be proposed. We earnestly request your attendance. Conference should not occupy more-than three or four days. R. Lv. Borden -In the absence of the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Mr. Borden, S i r ; Thomas-- White-, Acting Prime Minister, -'welcomed 2 the delegates.. At t h e . f i r s t session the Hon. F. B. Carve 11, M i n i s t e r of Public Works, was appointed Chairman of the Conference; T h e . f i r s t matter discussed at the Conference was the a p p l i c a t i o n made- by Manitoba., Saskatchewan and Alberta that they be given control o f t h e i r natural resources. The a p p l i c a t i o n was made i n i d e n t i c a l terms by each of the three Premiers of the Provinces: concerned. In part t h e i r communication read: 2 See Appendix I 24 . . . i t haa been agreed between us to make.....the proposal that the f i n a n c i a l terms already arranged between the provinces and' the Dominion as compensation-for lands should stand as-compensation f o r lands already -alienated-••.•for. the general benefit of Canada* and that a l l lands:; remaining within the boundaries of the respective provinces, with a l l . n a t u r a l resources included., be transferred to the said-provinces, the. provinces accepting respectively the.. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administering the same. The.provincial premiers held.a s p e c i a l conference to discuss the matter. As a r e s u l t of t h i s s p e c i a l conference, a committee was set up to present the viewpoint of the conference to the representatives of the Dominion. At the next s i t t i n g of the Conference, the Minister of Immlgration_and_ Colonization gave an outline of Dominion p o l i c y with respect to land settlements and offered suggestions for better cooperation between the Federal and. P r o v i n c i a l governments':. The Dominion Government -seemed to be i n favour of granting the r e q u e s t o f the P r a i r i e Provinces that they be given control of t h e i r natural resources; Accordingly the six other provinces presented to the Conference j o i n t r esolution that should Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan receive the lands, proportionate allowances, computed on the basis f o r granting subsidies set down by the o r i g i n a l 4 acts, should be granted to the remaining provinces. Proceedings of the Conference Between theGovernment of Canada & the P r o v i n c i a l Governments at Ottawa, Kings P r i n t e r 4-5 Ed. VII, cc3 and 42 25 British_ tColumbia ^ again came to ..the_fore when the Hon. John O l i v e r presented a formal request for consideration by the Gonference of B r i t i s h 0olumbia' s claim„to. have returned- the- lands which had been conveyed to the Dominion Government f o r railway purp^pseai There was some dissension between the Hon. Mr. Meighen, the Minister of the I n t e r i o r , and Mr. O l i v e r over the i n c l u s i o n of t h i s matter i n the discussions. One of Mr. Meighen's statements would seem to indicate a patronizing attitude on the part of the Dominion representatives. He said: Before such a step (discussion of B r i t i s h Columbia's claim) could he taken, the subject should be d e f i n i t e l y put upon the agenda by the consent of a l l , i n c l u s i v e i of the Federal Government who had c a l l e d the Conference.' The Conference was punctuated at various i n t e r v a l s by statements of the Dominion M i n i s t e r s . She Minister of the I n t e r i o r , the Hon. Mr. Meighen, made a statement, i n regard to sold i e r s settlements; the Minister of M i l i t i a and Defence, General Mewburni presented a memorandum on demobilization. The Acting Erime Minister, S i r Thomas White, made a b r i e f address on general problems of Industry and finance i n Canada. The Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. Robertson, advocated cooperation between the governments to es t a b l i s h employment exchanges-and to develop housing and technical education projects. The Minister of Soldiers C i v i l Re-establishment, S i r James Lougheed, outlined p o l i c i e s f o r 5 Report of the Proceedings of the Conference between the Government of Canada and the P r o v i n c i a l Governments at Ottawa, p. 153 26 the employment of demobolized soldiers:. While speaking on Dominion-provincial taxation, the Minister of Finance, S i r Thomas White, suggested-the: c a l l i n g , at a l a t e r date, o f a s p e c i a l conference t o deal with t h i s important matter. These addresses were * however* merely f o r purposes:of information and no resolutions developed from. them. .- The -Prairie- delegates presented another-formal l e t t e r to the-Conference. In i t they r e i t e r a t e d t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the return of the disputed lands.- They refused, however-, to admit that the other provinces of Canada should be compensated f i n a n c i a l l y i f the p r a i r i e provinces got back t h e i r lands. The Conference- closed on the usual note o f mutual p f e l i c i t a t i o n and goodwill without making any formal decision i n regard to-the'demands of the P r a i r i e Provinces., Looking at the Conference as a whole, nothing of a d e f i n i t e nature was accomplished. A great many discussions took place and i n many cases-, there was much difference of thought. The Conference* i n t h i s regard, seemed to offer-merely an opportunity to a i r opinions. Evidence of how l i t t l e the Federal Government thought of the Conference may be seen i n the fact that Hansard for-1918 contains only one minor reference to the meeting and no reference at a l l was made concerning i t i n the House during the session i n 1919. Throughout the Conference, the firm, c o n t r o l l i n g Chand of the Dominion Government was very evident. I t was 27 the Federal representatives who dominated a l l the proceedings and i n i t i a t e d most of the discussions. Very few matters were introduced by the p r o v i n c i a l representatives. D e f i n i t e : r e s u l t s jw.e re_. f ew. In any case, i t i s doubtful i f the Dominion Cabinet Ministers would have agreed to any proposed action, which might have become binding to the Dominion Government, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the absence of the Prime M i n i s t e r ; Then, too, the jealousy between the provinces-was;; most apparent. No province, or group of provinces, was w i l l i n g to better the conditions i n another province or provinces, unless i t , too, shared i n the advantage; There was, i n a sense, a s p i r i t of giving--only i f i n return, some- taking was assured. Such oonditions could not produce p r o f i t a b l e r e s u l t s to the people of Canada; Nevertheless, i t must be admitted that the year 1918 marked an increase- i n cooperation between the provinces.and the Dominion, for i n t h i s year two conferences were held. Several other regional conferences were held. This displayed a tendency,- at l e a s t , toward cooperation and an i n d i c a t i o n that the various governments? were becoming a l i t t l e more disposed to act together. 6 Meetings i n 1918 included: February 19 - Conference of the Eastern Departments of Agriculture May 2 - Conference of Western Ministers of Education July - - Convention of the Western I r r i g a t i o n a l Association attended by Ministers of Saskatchewan,Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia 28 CHAPTER V THE CONFERENCE OF 1927 Despite the-encouraging- impression l e f t hy the Conference of 1918, i t was nine years l a t e r "before another Dominion-provincial Conference was c a l l e d . The Dominion Government and perhaps the Provinces, too, d i d not appear to think highly enough of the conferences to ^ l o a l l them r e g u l a r l y . An i n t e r - p r o v i n c i a l conference convened i n 1926 and was attended by eight of the-nine provinces. The Dominion Government made no attempt to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s conference, at which the- main discussions were taxation, insurance and r e l i e f . F i n a l l y i n 192£, Mr. McKenzie King, who would appear to favour the conference p r i n c i p l e , c a l l e d a formal Dominion-provincial conferencev I t was held at Ottawa 1 from November 3rd to November 10th, The formal agenda submitted by Mr. King to the delegates was as follows: -Agenda  CONSTITUTIONAL 1. Senate Reform 2. Procedure i n Amending the B r i t i s h North America Act. 1 See Appendix t for l i s t of delegates 29 3. P a r t i c i p a t i o n by Provinces i n International Labour Conferences. 4. Regulation of A i r c r a f t and F l y i n g Operations. -5. I n d u s t r i a l Disputes Investigation Act, 6. Incorporation and Operation of Companies, including Trust, Loan and Insurance companies. 7. Regulation of the Sale of Shares and Securities of Dominion Companies; 8. Representation of Nova Scotia i n the House of Commons; FINANCIAL 1. Federal Subsidies, including recommendations of Duncan Report thereon. 2. Other proposed Federal Aids: (a) f o r highway construction, (b) f o r technical education, (e) f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l education, (d) f o r unemployment r e l i e f , (e) f o r s t e e l industry. 3. P a r t i t i o n of Federal Lands.. 4. The Canadian Farm Loan Act, 1927. 5. Taxation: (a) Delimitation of F i e l d s of Taxation, (b) Taxation-of-the Canadian National Railways, (c) Comparative taxation, 30 (d) Income tax. Method of c o l l e c t i o n , (aa) P r i o r i t y i n matter of c o l l e c t i n g debts i. Reduction of Customs and Excise- Duties., Consideration of interests i n which the Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l Governments exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n : (a) Agriculture, (b) P o l i c i n g , (c) Health, (d) Construction, Maintenance and. Upkeep of Railways, (e) Establishment of National Research Laboratories and Co-operation i n Research, (f) Developing M arkets f o r Canadian Products SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC Immigration. Federal and P r o v i n c i a l Co-ordination, Fuel Problems, Old Age Pensions. S o c i a l Insurance, Water-Power Development. Fi s h e r i e s , C h i l d N u t r i t i o n and Transmission of Infection, Oriental Problem," Unemployment Insurance f o r Handicapped Veterans, 31 9. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Fines-, 10. Liquor Importation — Canadian Temperance Act, 11. Whipping Penalty f o r Narcotic:0ffences, 12* Canadian Nationality 1. Taxation of So l d i e r Settlement Lands, 2. Amendments to Canada Temperance- Act to p r o h i b i t 2 private importation of l i q u o r . This comprehensive and d e t a i l e d agenda was l a i d before the delegates. Problems were dealt with under It i s important to note that no formal resolutions were adopted, the meeting-being, i n the words-of the Prime Minister* "a Conference, not a Cabinet nor a Convention." which was presided over by the Rt. Hon. Mr. King, was the control of a i r c r a f t . The-Conference was of the opinion that the question of j u r i s d i c t i o n should be presented to the 3 Supreme Court. 2 Precis of Discussions. Dominion-Provincial Conference, November 3 - 10, 1927, King's P r i n t e r , 1928. 3 Speaking i n the House of Commons i n January 30, 1928, Mr. King-stated that Mr. Lapointe had by that time-made the reference to the Supreme Court. 1938 Hansard.! 38. three headings;: (a) . Constitutional (b) F i n a n c i a l (c) S o c i a l and Economic The f i r s t matter to be discussed by the Conference, 32 The Conference discussed the.problem of reform of the Senate at great length. Opposition to the e x i s t i n g Senate was widespread but no representative wished to abolish e n t i r e l y the second Chamber. Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick desired, t o have the constit u t i o n of the Senate remain as i t was. Western delegates advanced various proposals: f o r reform including participation:by the provinces i n Senate appointments, l i m i t e d term of office; holding,,and the practice of allowing any b i l l passed three times by the 4 Lower House to pass:regardless: of Senate disapproval. There waa, however, no unanimity of opinion as. to how reform might be brought about i n this-: regard. The discussion on t h i s matter was led-by Mr. Lapointe, the Federal Minister of Justice,, He l a i d before the Conference 5 a::summary of the proposals for reform. These were: 1. A b o l i t i o n of the Senate, 2. Adoption of the e l e c t i v e p r i n c i p l e , 3. A combination of both the Appointive and E l e c t i v e p r i n c i p l e s , 4. A f i x e d and lim i t e d term of o f f i c e , 5. An age l i m i t with possible super-annuation, 4 On March 9, 1925, the House of Commons passed a resolution to the e f f e c t that the matter of Senate reform should be placed before a Dominion-provincial Conference. 5 Pr e c i s , p. 10. 33 6. A~ bringing ©f relations between the Canadian Upper and Lower Chambers into accord with the relations between the House of Commons and-the House of Lords i n Great Britain--with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the powers of the Upper House i n vetoing or amending money or general public b i l l s . The delegates discussed each of these proposals amending the- B r i t i s h North America Act. Mr. Lapointe again l e d the discussion. The Minister submitted-that as Canada •power to amend her own c o n s t i t u t i o n and that she should request the Parliament of Great B r i t a i n to p a s s ? l e g i s l a t i o n (to that e f f e c t . As a safeguard, ordinary amendments should receive an• endorsement from a majority of the provinces- and 4 any amendments a f f e c t i n g p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s , minority rights? or rights a f f e c t i n g race, language or creed should receive 6 an unanimous endorsement from the provinces. There were wide differences of opinion on the matter. Again the old bugbear of Jealousy over l o c a l rights arose. Regardless of Mr. Lapointe's eloquent and f o r c e f u l defence of his proposal, the p r o v i n c i a l delegates would not agree to * i t . Thit provinces west of O n t a r i o held: f o r reform but the other provinces wished to maintain the e x i s t i n g system. Mr. Lapointe offered the-suggestion that the questions on 6 which unanimous approval should be -obtained from the provinces could be. d e t a i l e d under the B r i t i s h North America Act, Sections, 93, 133 and 92 xx. 12, 13, 14. but no concensus of opinion was obtained. The Conference next considered the procedure- i n 34 The Conference set up a committee to cooperate, with the Federal authorities on m a t t e r s o f incorporation of companies and company law. This committee later- presented i t s report to the Conference with the foilowing recommendationss 1. That the e x i s t i n g p o l i c y of the Secretary of State's Department to refuse incorporation to companies of a purely p r o v i n c i a l nature be continued, 2. Careful study should be conducted with regard to insurance, loan and trust companies, 3. The Domini on Government should pass 1egislat1on regulating the shares and s e c u r i t i e s of Dominion companies. Colonel P r i c e -of Ontario l e d an .attack on -the Dominion Government's exercising of supervision and regulatory powers over insurance- companies a f t e r a Privy Council decision s t a t i n g t h i s f i e l d to be under p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . Arguing f o r the Dominion.Government, the Hon. Lucien Cannon stressed- the- Dominion's "inalienable right to. Incorporate 7 companies." The P r o v i n c i a l governments did not give Colonel P r i c e complete support, and the matter was l e f t to a committee to investigate further. In response to complaints by delegates, the Dominion Government promised to reform stock sale regulations.., The period about and following 1927 saw the greatest a c t i v i t y 7 P r e c i s , p. 13. 35 i n stock transactions up to that time and hence more regulation was needed. A g r i c u l t u r a l problems came i n for a great deal of discussion, mainly under the leadership of the Hon. Mr. Motherwell, Minister of Ag r i c u l t u r e . The immigration question was also /-thoroughly examined. In t h i s l a t t e r matter, the.Minister of j Immigration addressed the Conference- explaining the Dominion's \ point of view; At thi s time the Dominion was seeking to \ encourage immigration to as great an extent as possible under ) a controlled scheme. Another committee was set up to inquire 8 L„further into the matter. Nova Scotia- l a i d her- claim f o r an addit i o n a l member in the Federal House before the Conference. The general opinion was i n favour of Nova Scotia's- claim i f she could prove that she was e n t i t l e d to i t under the Mathematical formulae l a i d -down~; under;-rthe-Confederationagreementsv Premier McLean of B r i t i s h Columbia- again put forward his province's claim to speclai treatment i n .regard to subsidies. The ten year extra subsidy of $100,000 had now ceased. Mr. McLean stated:that : the.demands of hi s province weres ( lT) That the Federal Government return the railway lands given, up by B r i t i s h -0olumbia. ,- 27' That .the-Federal -Government withdraw .-front: the Income Tax field-. 8 The press at this time was c r i t i c i s i n g the Conference by making accusations- of clashes. The Conference wished to i s c r e d i t t h i s opinion...the Conference was not open to he p u b l i c . iJ^J £hat the boundary l i n e s between Federal and P r o v i n c i a l government with respect to taxation be c l e a r l y defined. The recommendations of the.Duncan Commission made i t necessary f o r Mr. King to make-concessions to the Maritlmes. With Increasing revenues and domestic:: prosperity f a i r l y well f ' assured, Mr. King was also disposed to lis.ten.--v.ery favorably ' 9 to the claims of the Western Provinces. 10 The Duncan Commission Report which had been presented to the House of Commons, was discussed i n de-tail. The Report had been- generally favorable to the1 Maritimes. In the words of Premier- Baxter of New-Brunswick "the Maritlmes stood as an i n d i v i d u a l stands who had had a judgment rendered i n h i s favour." Each province was, of course* most anxious to obtain redress for any i n e q u a l i t i e s under which the Duncan Report may have suggested i t suffered.-• The Maritime Provinces were p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s i s t e n t upon obtaining better terms. The Western- Provinces were w i l l i n g to admit the need of the Maritlmes but they too wished to reoive t h e i r claims. The claims of the Western Provinces f o r t h e i r glands and the claims of the Maritlmes f o r better terms had 9 For a sketch of the background here.see- "Provincial Conferences and Better Terms, Maxwell, J . A;, p. 170 - 172. 10 The Duncan Commission was o f f i c i a l l y t i t l e d the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims.. For a study of the Report see Dominion-Provincial Subsidies and- Grants, Eggleston & Kraft, p. 51 - 55. 37 long been associated one with the other. In 1926, the Federal Government granted-the subsidy increases recommended for the Maritlmes i n the-Duncan Report f o r one year. Mr. King stated at t h a t time that a decision as to future p o l i c y was to be made at a Dominion-provincial conference:; Here then* at the Conference of 1927, Mr. King had the opportunity to bring together once-more the- claims of the Maritime and Western Provinces. The Premier of Manitoba, the -Hon; John Bracken, suggested that the Dominion Government should grant increased subsidies to the extent of 10$ of the-Customs and Excise 11 Revenues. His proposals were: 1. That p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r onerous: services of a national c h a r a c t e r are increasing without seeming ' p o s s i b i l i t y f o r a corresponding increase i n i t s source of revenue. (Pr o v i n c i a l revenues are i n e l a s t i c . ) 2. That the entry of the Dominion Government into the f i e l d of d i r e c t taxation increases; the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the Provinces. 3. That there i s urgent need f o r more c l e a r l y defining the powers of the Provinces to Impose 12 taxation and the taxes they can impose. 11 Canadian Annual Review, 1927-28, p. 33 12/ At t h i s time Income taxes were being l e v i e d by the \ Federal Government, by the Provinces of B r i t i s h Columbia, / Manitoba, and Prince. Edward Island and municipalities i n New Brunswick, Nova' Scotia, Saskatchewan-and Quebec. 38 4. That Section- 92? of the B r i t i s h North America Act should be amended I n order to assign s p e c i f i c a l l y to the Provinces c e r t a i n taxes whether d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t . 5. That the payment of increased subsidies should be provided for, or some percentage of the Dominion receipts from the Income Tax should be paid over to the Provinces—or'.the Province sn. should be allowed to levy "supplements" to the tax imposed by the Dominion—or the Dominion Government should f u l l y cooperate with those provinces which also levy the tax to the end that these may be a saving i n the expense occasioned by the duplication of s e rv ices- f o r c o l l e c t i o n . The Federal Government r e p l i e d to the demands of the Provinces i n addresses by three of i t s Ministers. The Hon. Mr. Dunning, then the Minister of Railways, discussed the railway s i t u a t i o n with p a r t i c u l a r reference to suggestions that the Canadian National Railway take over cer t a i n p r o v i n c i a l railways which had become l i a b i l i t i e s to the provinces concerned. He c r i t i c i z e d p r o v i n c i a l administration of railways. He held that further l i a b i l i t i e s should not be saddled on to the Canadian National Railway which even now could not meet i t s own i n t e r e s t costs. The whole problem would involve the taking over of twelve or more railroads and Mr. Dunning stated that the Government could not contemplate t h i s . 39 However, he would he w i l l i n g to meet personally with representatives of the Provinces and try to work out.mutually s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangements; i n i n d i v i d u a l cases-; Mr. Lapointe, the Minister of J u s t i c e addressed the- Conference-;on the c o n f l i c t between Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . He claimed these were i n e v i t a b l e but he advocated a s p i r i t of compromise. He held that Section 92 gave the Dominion the r i g h t to tax i n any d i r e c t i o n . While he deplored disagreement between the governments, the Mi n i s t e r made l t very c l e a r that the Dominion Government would act, regardless o f differences i n opinions, i f i t considered i t to be i t s duty to do so. The Hon; James Robb, Minister of Finance, addressed the Conference on t h e . f i n a n c i a l problems which had a r i s e n . He was d e f i n i t e l y c r i t i c a l of" the attitude adopted by the Maritime delegates.. He detailed to the delegates the tremendous cost of the War, and made a plea f o r economy i n the operation of the governments; He declined to commit the Dominion Government to any future p o l i c y with regard to finance. The matter of l i q u o r control l e g i s l a t i o n by the provinces and i t s possible implementation by Federal l e g i s l a t i o n occupied some time at the Conference. Mr. Lapointe 13 The Minister produced figures to show that ouf of the t o t a l Dominion Government expenditures since Confederation, 36$ was caused-by Great War Expenditures. P r e c i s , p. 28. 40 expressed a willingness to have the Federal Government pass any l e g i s l a t i o n which might he needed. Other Federal ministers were less- enthusiastic i n t h e i r proposals f o r cooperation with the provinces i n l i q u o r c o n t r o l . 14 Every province, except Quebec went on: record as favouring Federal assistance i n highway construction. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that at t h i s time with employment conditions steadily r i s i n g , no province except 15 Manitoba advocated Federal a i d f o r unemployment. - A:\progressive tendency i n thought may be seen i n the-discussion of the newly established National Research Council, which was designed to promote technical and s c i e n t i f i c research i n Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce asked the provinces to give every support possible to t h i s Council. The delegates were agreed, i n t h i s connection, that a Bureau of Standards should be set up as part of the work of the Gountil. The question of old age pensions was discussed with widely varying opinions being expressed by the P r o v i n c i a l representatives. At i t s l a s t session, the Dominion Parliament had passed an Old Age Pension-Act providing f o r payments of $120 a year from the Federal Treasury to persons over 70 providing the Provinces?' enacted s i m i l a r l e g i s l a t i o n . Certain Provinces, p r i n c i p a l l y the Maritlmes, expressed--a-•desire--that 15 The Manitoba delegate was influenced, i t would appear, primarily by the s i t u a t i o n In Winnipeg, where at times there was some temporary unemployment among the transients. Unemployment had not as yet become a serious national problem. #1 the Dominion Government should follow out the plan without p r o v i n c i a l cooperation; B r i t i s h Columbia, already with an Act, and Manitoba expressed agreement with the ex i s t i n g system as set up by the Federal Government. There- was-a good;deal of discussion over the matter of water-power r i g h t s . The Dominion and the Provinces c o n f l i c t e d as to authority. The general f e e l i n g was that the questions of J u r i s d i c t i o n should be submitted to the Supreme-Court. I t was f e l t that the Provinces and the Minister of Ju s t i c e should confer before submitting t h e i r respective claims to the Supreme Court. The Dominion Government defended i t s claim to j u r i s d i c t i o n on the grounds that, the only j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n question were on waters on which the Dominion Government had spent much money i n development to create a head of water and hence the Federal Government should r e t a i n control of these waters. Mr. Lapointe declared the matter to-be so important that he would have to 16 take i t up i n a Cabinet C o u n t l l . AS usual at Dominion-provincial conferences, the taxation question aroused.much controversy. Mr. Manso.n of B r i t i s h Columbia demanded a d e f i n i t i o n of " d i r e c t " taxation and a delimitation of taxation f i e l d s . Premier Baxter of New Brunswick stated that the Federal Government should continue i n the Income Tax f i e l d u n t i l the War debt was paid. Mr. Price of Ontario suggested that the Federal Government should keep the returns from corporation income taxes but 16 By Order-in-Council of January 18, 1928, the Federal Gov-ernment presented a series of questions regarding wafcer-power j u r i s d i c t i o n s to the. Supreme Court. A f t e r - f u r t h e r discussions with representatives from Quebec and Ontario the matter was ;referred.to, the.Sugreme Court under an Order-in-Council of A p r i l 14, 1926 42 return those from the: personal income taxes to the Provinces. Premier Bracken of Manitoba advocated that part, at l e a s t , of the income tax c o l l e c t e d hy the Federal Government should be-returned t o the Provinces and that duplication of c o l l e c t i o n costs should be eliminated. No delegate was s a t i s f i e d with the ex i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , but there was no unanimity of opinion as to what the proper solution to the d i f f i c u l t y was. A plea f o r a national p o l i c y with respect to the fuel and s t e e l industries was made- by a Nova Scotia delegate. The Premiers of Alberta and Ontario endorsed his plea. The Dominion Ministers, however, claimed that everything possible was being done to develop Canada*s f u e l and s t e e l Industries on a sound economic b a s i s . The Conference was undoubtedly the most thorough held up to that date. True, agreement was not achieved i n a l l matters, but many p o s i t i v e results-were achieved. That the Dominion Government was influenced by the Conference i s 17 apparent i n the Speech tfom the Throne on January 26, 1928: As a r e s u l t of the Dominion-provincial Conference, my advisers have decided, pending a complete r e v i s i o n of the f i n a n c i a l arrangements as con-templated by the Duncan Report, to recommend the continuance t o the Maritime provinces of the money grants made at the l a s t session. In the l i g h t of the discussions at the Conference, my Ministers.-< are continuing negotiations with the P r a i r i e provinces f o r the return of t h e i r natural resources land are giving consideration to the restoration \to the province of B r i t i s h Columbia of the lands pf the railway b e l t and the Peace River Block. /Consideration i s also being given to the railway (problems of the several provinces, as outlined v a t the Conference. 17 1928 Hansard I, p. 2. 43 The agreement to submit the water rights- question to the Courts was another i l l u s t r a t i o n of cooperative e f f o r t . Dr. McLean returned to B r i t i s h Columbia well oojitented^wi,th, the_ results.; In a speech at V i c t o r i a on. November 8, 1927, he l i s t e d the three best features of the- 6onf erence: : c_. 1. "It impressed the Federal Government with the Provinces needs and claims. 2. "There was a' f r i e n d l y attitude displayed, by the older provinces to the claims of the others; . 3..- There was- revealed-a reasonable attitude on the part of the Western Provinces. Indeed Dr. McLean r e f e r r e d to the_ Conference as "one of the most momentous.gatherings in: the h i s t o r y of our country." There was s t i l l , however, strong f e e l i n g between 18 the Provinces and the Dominion. Each province was s t i l l jealous of the others and each was f e a r f u l of the extension (of Federal power. This^ was well, and perhaps t y p i c a l l y , i l l u s t r a t e d i n the 1927 Ontario Speech from the Throne i n the section of that speech r e f e r r i n g to the Conference... "the compact of Confederation should be s t r i c t l y observed i n a l l respects and that the future of Canada can be best assured by maintaining the status of the Provinces as established by the B r i t i s h North America Act." This:, strong p r o v i n c i a l sentiment evidenced by this statement 18 Queen's Quarterly Vol XXXV, November 1927 e d i t o r i a l l y stated "That we have not yet solved a l l the problems of federalism was amply demonstrated by the Conference." 44, gives?more-than an i n d i c a t i o n as to why the Dominion-provincial conferences were not more productive.. 45 CHAPTER VI THE CONFERENCES OF 1931 and 1932 &--A. The Conference of 1931 On February 23rd; <l"93l?. the Rt. Hon.Mr.j 3ennett, Prime Miniater-issued ^an i n v i t a t i o n to the P r o v i n c i a l Governments to meet with Federal- representatives i n a Dominion-provincial Conference to consider the Report of the recommendation was made that the Colonial Laws V a l i d i t y Act should be repealed. Many of the- Canadian provinces- feared that t h i s procedure would probably res u l t i n loss o f rights ' t o the provinces. The Hon. G. H. Ferguson* Premier of Ontario, had submitted a formal memorandum to the-Dominion 2 Government on September 10, 1930, contending that i f the Colonia l Laws V a l i d i t y Act was- repealed without Inserting aaclause-protecting the- rights of the provinces, the ,Dominion Parliament would be taking upon-Itself the unrestricted 3 power to amend the Constitution. 1 The Conference on the Operation of Dominion L e g i s l a t i o n & Merchant Shipping L e g i s l a t i o n , Westminster, 1929 — a n outgrowth of the Imperial Conference of 1926. 2 See Toronto Globe, September 20, 1930 3 For a f u l l discussion see- The Compact Theory of Confederation by Norman McLeod Rogers, Proceedings of the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association,, Kingston, 1931, P. 205-ff. onf erence. of Westminister i n 1929• 1 In t h i s Report the 46 The meeting took place i n Ottawa on A p r i l 7th and 8th, 1931. The delegates -agpeed, without a dissenting — = — — 4 vote to recommend- that the following section should he " "' 5 " " •;' - • lnserted-ln^the Statute.of Westminster: Nothing i n this-Act s h a l l be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment, or a l t e r a t i o n of the B r i t i s h North America Acts of 1667 to 1930, or any order, rule- or regulation made thereunder. (^^»S> The powers conferred by t h i s Act upon the ~ " Parliament of Canada or upon the Legislatures of the Provinces-shall be r e s t r i c t e d t o the enactment of laws i n r e l a t i o n to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the Legislatures of the- Provinces: respectively. ""3* The provi s i o n of (the) section ( r e l a t i n g to the - y C o l o n i a l Laws V a l i d i t y Act) of t h i s Act s h a l l extend to the laws made by any of the Provinces .of Canada and to the powers of the Legislatures of such Provinces.. jCjicje^io^ - were attempting _ to safeguard the rightg__glven.ithem;under Confederation. Mr. Bennett promised the delegates that at a near future date he would summon a conference on co n s t i t u t i o n a l issues with the purpose of considering any further amendments to the B r i t i s h North America Act. Actually the f i n a l d r a f t was not approved for some two weeks u n t i l the delegates had conferred with the other members of t h e i r respective governments. This move was suggested by Premier Taschereau of Quebec. These clauses l a t e r became i n substance Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 George V, Ch. 4. In the Commons, Mr. Bennett l a t e r stated i n reply to a question as to Section 7: That section was not prepared i n England. I t was l e f t for us to prepare and a meeting of the representatives o f the provinces and the Dominion was c a l l e d f o r the purpose of drawing up such a clause...1931. H ansard I . 642 Vide: Canadian.Public.Opinion The msiatute T Tof Westminster By A.B.M. B e l l . Thetis, University of Queen's, September 1935. Library of Parliament Ottawa. 47 An informal conference was convened by the Minister of A g r i c u l t u r a l , the Hon. Robert Weir* at. Ottawa on November 17 and at Toronto on November 18th and 19th, 1931. I t was attended by the P r o v i n c i a l Ministers of Agriculture and various experts-. The matter f o r discussion was the a g r i c u l t u r a l problem, which, because of the world-wide depression of the time, was very acute. On November 20th another -informal conference«was held under Mr. Weir to discuss national club work f o r boys .6 and g i r l s . <rB. The 0 onf erence of 1932 On A p r i l 9th, 1932, while the House was i n session, representatives of the Provinces met i n Ottawa with Federal rep re s en tat 1 v e s t o disc us s matter s-Af~_unempl oy men t ^ r e j l i e f . *" „ 7 ^ The so-called "Great.Depression" was reaching i t s peak at / this time and unemployment conditions were very grave -throughout \ 8 (Canada. 6 From- t h i s conference there developed the National Council of Beys' and G i r l s ' Club Work. 7 Minor conferences on the matter were held between Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l representatives i n centres other than-Ottawa. 8Rep. of Royal Comm. on Dom-provincial Relations, 1940. V o l . I, p. 146 - 150, 162 - 172. Also Public Assistance & Soeial Insurance, A. E. Gruver, 1940, Royal Commission Studies. 48 ^ / The Conf erence considered i n p a r t i c u l a r the p l i g h t \of the municipalities which were i n general finding themselves 'hard pressed to meet t h e i r share of the r e l i e f costs. The Conferencedecided to adopt to a. greater degree ^ systems,of d i r e c t r e l i e f rather than the works-relief programs which had been i n e f f e c t . This system of d i r e c t r e l i e f was: to go into e f f e c t as soon as the e x i s t i n g Dominion-provincial Municipal agreements were completed. Where Provinces? could not meet t h e i r obligations?under the new agreements, the Dominion Government agreed to loan the moneys. Associated with t h i s scheme was the announcement of a new Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l Municipal land settlement plan. A l l i n a l l the results of the Conference showed that Canada, l i k e most of her s i s t e r nations, was seeking to ^ meet, in.some way, the increased burdens thrown on her governmental systems -by the world-wide depression. The problem of r e l i e f had become one of the most important problems i n Canada and, as i t affected a l l governments, i t was only natural that a conference should be held to discuss i t . I t i s worthy of note that these conferences, held as they were i n times of emergency, were short and to the point. They were not_charaeterized by the petty p o l i t i c a l bickerings that had ruined some of the-past, and were to r u i n some of the l a t e r conferences. The unanimity of the delegates at the conferences held i n these years may well be likened to the condition seen i n a s i m i l a r emergency faced by the delegates at the Conference of 1915. 9 SeeChapter III CHAPTER VII CONFERENCE OF 1933 1 The Conference of 195? was c a l l e d by the Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett and was held at Ottawa from January 17th to 19th. The. Premiers of Nova Scotia and B r i t i s h Columbia were unable_jbo,jj,t^end. Thls_conference, too, was short and directed to s p e c i f i c problems. '^SL^L ' : ' ~ ~~ " j The most important items on the agenda were unemployment and r e l i e f conditions. The Conference-agreed 1 that the e x i s t i n g arrangements, by which.the P r o v i n c i a l governments d i s t r i b u t e d d i r e c t r e l i e f and-the Federal Government gave the P r o v i n c i a l governments as much assistance as possible, should be continued. However, the Conference recommended that the 2 Federal Government should consider the following: (1) The percentage r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as between the Dominion and the Provinces, There are no complete reports of this conference a v a i l a b l e . Mr. Bennett explained t h i s s i t u a t i o n to the House on January 26, 1934..."There i s no report of that conference (1933) except such as i s contained i n the resolutions that were adopted and which w i l l be l a i d on the tabl e . It was understood at the l a s t three such conferences that no minutes:were to be kept and that the discussions were not "to be the subject matter of comment afterwards i n order that those who attended might express themselves with that- freedom which they might f e e l was denied them i f there was to be a report of what was sa i d . 1934 Hansard, I, 6. 2 Can. Annual. Review of Pub. Affairs., 1933, Toronto., Can Review Co. Ltd., 1934. 50 (2) Expenditure f o r medical services as part of direct" r e l i e f ^ (3) Limitation^ of per-capita per diem-expenditure, avoiding thereby the d i f f i c u l t question o f what items couldlor could not be included under the d e f i n i t i o n of d i r e c t r e l i e f . (4) Cost of a d d i t i o n a l investigation, (5) l o c a l administration of r e l i e f by committees: or commissions, (6) public works, (7) single homeless unemployed, (8) unemployed youths* Once again^the_ d i v i s i o n of taxing powers:-between the Dominion and the-Provlnees was discussed. I t was generally agreed that cooperation could lead to considerable administrative economies-. However,- as had:happened hefore, the matter was l e f t over to some future conference-and:no d e f i n i t e decision was reached. Prime Minister to c a l l together the necessary Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s and d r a f t a Companies B i l l which would make company law more uniform. There had been a great deal of discussion on the lack of uniformity between p r o v i n c i a l regulations on companies on the grounds that i t was a serious handicap to corporations i n Canada. Minor, resolutions included one that the Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l governments should seek to avoid duplications An important resolution was that requesting the 51 of services, that a questionnaire should be d i s t r i b u t e d with regard to regulation of truck -and-motor bus services, arid" that attempts, should be made, to unify s t a t i s t i c a l systems of the governments?; They^-'-irere- wide- differences on questions* o f unemployment insurance and insurance regulations. The Gazette, of Montreal reported i n i t s issue of January 20, 1933» Two s i g n i f i c a n t f a i l u r e s to agree were on the problems of unemployment insurance and on the insurance l e g i s l a t i o n passed by the Federal Parliament at the l a s t regular session. On both of these questions i t i s understood that some of the Provinces, notably Ontario and Quebec-, stood firmly on the ground of P r o v i n c i a l rights and r e s i s t e d any move towards a surrender of t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n on- insurance", • even though a large percentage of the insurance-business now conducted In Canada i s by Companies-with Federal Charters;; The- Province of Saskatchewan at the- Ottawa- Conf erence endorsed the p r i n c i p l e of unemployment insurance unde r a Federal scheme- and wa s prepared t© have - the B r i t i s h North America-Act amended, i f necessary, i n order that a Federal Unemployment -Insurance Scheme could be introduced...It i s obvious-that amendments w i l l have to be made and the Province of Saskatchewan i s not prepared-to stand in- the way of national development by any unreasonable assertion of; P r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s . The Alberta delegation was also evidently i n favour of a national scheme of unemployment insurance. The Speech from the Throne, opening the 1933 sesssion of the Alberta Legislature indicated that the government's representatives had offered cooperation with the Dominion Government i n any "reasonable" scheme of national Insurance. The p r o v i n c i a l delegates were a l l anxious to see f''a. d e f i n i t e plan f o r unemployment insurance before coming tetany f i n a l conclusion. Mr. Bennett was forced to reply 3 that he had not then drawn one-up. A l l the delegates-were anxious f o r some system of r e l i e f f o r the great, problem of unemployment. However, co n s t i t u t i o n a l - d i f f i c u l t i e s and, p r o v i n c i a l jealousies were-evidently too strong to allow the Conference t o pass any d e f i n i t e resolutions. This fact was c l e a r l y indicated when the Hon. W. A. Gordon, Min i s t e r of Labor, stated i n the House of Commons> on March 22, 1933: At the recent Dominion-provincial Conference the question of unemployment insurance c e r t a i n l y was: discussed; i t was discussed primarily to see whether the apparently insuperable b a r r i e r to a contributory system could be removed, namely the question of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . Because of the fact that the subject matter perhaps would become a matter of great controversy within each provinces-it was agreed among the- provinces that the attitude of each i n d i v i d u a l province would not be disclosed. Each p r o v i n c i a l representative recognized that that -banier must f i r s t be overcome i f contributory s o c i a l Insurance was to become a f a c t . That being the case, I can only go so f a r as to say that t h i s subject was seriously discussed from many angles and that the whole matter i s s t i l l under consideration by the Provinces and by t h i s Government. In December of 1933 a minor informal conferance convened to discuss the matter of highways and common car r i e r s a new and developing feature of the Canadian transportation organization. 3 Montreal Gazette, Jan. 27, 1933 53 CHAPTER VyIII  THE CONFERENCES OF 1934 On January 17th to 19th, 1934, Mr. Bennett held s t i l l another Dominion-provincial conference to discuss the matter of unemployment r e l i e f . The F^jler^aljGojre^nment was most desirous jto_£Ut_ down Its expenditures: f o r r e l i e f . At the opening meeting, Mr. Bennett emphasized the need for rig^d__e^onomie & ; The only formal resolution adopted by the Conference was with respect to r e l i e f and read as follows s 1. JThat u n t i l such time-as the large numbers of /unemployed throughout Canada have been substantially absorbed by improved I n d u s t r i a l employment- or by public works., Federal assistance to the Provinces should be continued on the basis of the Provinces dealing with present economic conditions by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i r e c t r e l i e f as provided i n the e x i s t i n g agreements;:between the Dominion.and the Provinces:. 2. ; That the Government of Canada should cooperate with such Provinces-as w i l l organize Commissions to administer r e l i e f funds, under such conditions as may be agreed upon. 3. That the„time'has-arrived when...a program of municipal and. public;jworks .  should., be- undertaken to absorb as large a proportion of the unemployed as.possible, and that any such works should be commenced early in. the spring i n order to be e f f e c t i v e i n l i m i t i n g , the demand "for'direct r e l i e f i n the,„following-winter. 4. That the various Provinces represented at the Conference have-no objection to the Federal s Government giving special consideration to Provinces::where conditions? warrant. 54 5. That the e x i s t i n g agreements-providing f o r land settlement be altered to permit of a further \ expenditure of not more than One Hundred ($100) Dollars, per family to provide f o r - a d d i t i o n a l subsistence during the t h i r d year.of settlement. fin respect to Recommendation No. 1 above, the Dominion Government and the P r o v i n c i a l ..representatives are united i n the hope that a t o t a l discontinuance of d i r e c t r e l i e f can take place at an early date. Other matters: discussed were the question of a g r i c u l t u r a l short*term c r e d i t s and the authorization" of 1 l o t t e r i e s f o r charitable purposes. On January 18th, the P r o v i n c i a l Law O f f i c e r s met together to discuss a proposed Companies Act presented by the Secretary of State,. , Each province was desirous;: of retaining the- type of incorporation device, whether Letters Patent or Memorandum of Association, currently i n use within each respective province; Nevertheless, - i t was?felt that the basics provisions of a general b i l l , suitable to a l l , might be agreed-upon.. However, upon consideration of the Secretary of State's drafts i t w§s recommended that each province should send-recommendations f o r changes to that o f f i c i a l by March 1st, 1934 and that he- should convene a general meeting of law officerss to discuss these, recommendations. The Hon. Mr. Cdhan, Secretary of State, speaking 2 i n the House on March 5th, 1934 stated that he had received no recommendations from the Provinces. He did r e f e r to an 1 The l o t t e r y question was brought up by Quebec and the Dominion Government agreed that i t might be discussed i n Parliament. 2 Hansard, 1934, I I , p. 1161 3 a r t i c l e appearing i n the press which .stated that the Attorney-General8 of Ontario and Quebec-had conferred and had*.>decided that they could not accept Mr. Cahan's d r a f t . Here*again, a f i e l d , f u l l of p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r cooperation was disregarded. In August 1934, Mr. Bennett c a l l e d a- Conference to deal with unemployment and farm r e l i e f problems, with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis being placed on the c u r t a i l i n g of Federal expenditures i A f t e r several general discussions, Mr. Bennett, together with his Ministers: of. Finance and: Labour met the P r o v i n c i a l delegations i n d i v i d u a l l y and ..succeeded i n a r r i v i n g at agreements f o r grants-in-aid to the Provinces 4 which reduced Federal Expenditure about 20$. Of t h i s Conference, as well as the other conferences c a l l e d by Mr. Bennett, there i s but scant record. Mr. Bennett did not, i t would appear, favour wide and open:discussion. Rather he wanted to d i r e c t the work of the meeting to his own desires. Such meetings-could hardly carry out the f u l l work of a conference. 3 Montreal Gazette. March 5, 1934 4 Desire of the Federal Government to cut this expenditure as much as possible was expressed by Mr. Rhodes i n his 1934 Budget address: In granting these loans the Dominion Government's p o l i c y has been i n the two previous years, to l i m i t t h i s form of assistance to the minimum. Each application-was considered having regard to the spe c i a l s i t u a t i o n p r e v a i l i n g , the p a r t i c u l a r purpose of the loan and the general budgetary p o s i t i o n of the borrower on the.ordinary services of government. 565 CHAPTER IX THE CONFERENCE OF 1935 During the elect ion of 1935 Mr; Maokenzde -King-had advocated i n his campaign platform that at the e a r l i e s t possible moment a Dominion-provincial conference should be held to discuss the questions of unemployment, a g r i c u l t u r a l r e l i e f , and f i n a n c i a l readjustment between the provinces 1 and the Dominion. Contrary to general public expectation, Mr. King c a l l e d such a conference s i x weeks a f t e r his new government took o f f i c e . The conference-was held i n the 2 (fity of Ottawa from Deeembej^9Jfo^^ The Conference I t s e l f consisted of two^plenary sessions, an opening .and. .a .closing session. In the intervening • period between the sessions, the Conference-membership was divided into sub-conferences or sub-committees. Each of these discussed a portion of the. agenda. The sub-conferences were attended by the Ministers concerned and the technical experts. At the cl o s i n g plenary session the reports of the sub-conferences were presented. The agenda submitted to the conference by Mr. King was as follows: 1 At Barrle, Ontario, i n October 1935, Mr. King announced he would c a l l a conference a f t e r the e l e c t i o n . He said i t would be aa"conference to end confusion and needless c o n f l i c t . " In.the same speech he c r i t i c i z e d the immediately proceeding conferencesby stating..."Mr. Bennett has c a l l e d a few p r o v i n c i a l conferences but they lasted only a few days and the proceedings consisted only i n a lecture" TBrom Mr. Bennett." Hansardll. 1937. p.1559 2 See Appendix I 57. Mining Development and taxation: Chairman:: Hon. T. A* Crerar, Miniaterfcof Mines, 1. Uniform tax-In each province; 2. Dominion mining tax; 3. Depletion allowances i n Dominion and provinces; 4. P o s s i b i l i t y of f i x e d rate of taxation for f i v e years; 5. C o l l e c t i o n of mining taxes; 6. Reduction of duties upon Implements and machinery used i n mineral production; 7. L e g i s l a t i o n respecting promotions. Unemployment and R e l i e f : Chairman: Hon. Norman McL. Rogers, Minister of Labour. The Minister of Finance. 1. General unemployment s i t u a t i o n ; 2. Question of r e l i e f camps; 3. Question of p r o v i n c i a l and municipal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4. D i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s o c i a l services; 5. Future p o l i c y . Constitutional Questions: Chairman: Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Minister of J u s t i c e . 1. Revision of the B r i t i s h North America Act; 2. Agreement on future- action with respect to s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . Agriculture and Marketing: Chairman: Hon. J . G. Gardiner, Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e . 1; Duplication of administration a f f e c t i n g agriculture; 2. " General a g r i c u l t u r a l problem; 3. P o s s i b i l i t y of developing marketing operations im the provinces. F i n a n c i a l Questions: (Ebairman: Hon. C. A. Dunning, Minister of Finance 1. Refunding; 2. National Finance Council; 3. Duplication i n taxation; 4. Interest rates; 5. I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l and federal cooperation. 5 8 Tourist T r a f f i c Chairman: Hon. C D . Howe, Minister of Railways and Canals. 1. National parks; 2. National highways and regulation of t r a f f i c ; 3 . Cooperation f o r t o u r i s t t r a f f i c development. Mr. King opened the Conference o f f i c i a l l y by welcoming the delegates and s t r e s s i n g the Importance of the gathering. 3 In t h i s regard he said; Never before have so many and so i n t r i c a t e problems presented themselves - at one and the same* time. Unemployment, taxation, s o c i a l services, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l questions, and other of our problems, are a l l formidable i n themselves. Involving as each of them does, questions of j u r i s d i c t i o n between the Dominion and the provinces, they are a l l the more b a f f l i n g and1 d i f f i c u l t of solution; but upon t h e i r solution.depends, i n large measure, the recovery and happiness- of. the Canadian people, Mr. King set f o r t h the basic problem as being that of the proper relationship between the Dominion and the provinces:; 4 Thisiproblem he stated i n two propositions: F i r s t , to mark the boundary of the f i e l d where, having regard to the change i n conditions which has come since the B r i t i s h North America Act w as enacted, p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should begin and federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should cease, and, that having been done, to leave the f i e l d to whichever government may be responsibile. Second, where, fo r various reasons, cl e a r demarcation i s not possible, to reach with respect to each problem, a formula f o r cooperation between the Dominion and the provinces. The Prime Minister emphasized thatDominion-provincial conference® t. |must continue i f Canadian government wasc to develop to the highest degree. 3 Dominion-provincial Conference, 1 9 3 5 . Record of Proceedings, p. 8 . 4 i b i d . p. 9. 59 Following Mr. King's address of welcome, each of the p r o v i n c i a l premiers addressed the conference-. Premier M i t c h e l l F. Hepburn of Ontario stated that the two problems which Interested Ontario most were that of r e l i e f and that of the overlapping between feddral and p r o v i n c i a l services. Premier L. A. Taschereau of Quebec- held that the three main problems were the amendments to the B r i t i s h North America Act, unemployment, and the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of the Dominion and the provinces^ Premier John Bracken of Manitoba-presented the three point program of his delegations (1) unemployment, and relief:, (2) realignment-of the sources of public revenue, (3) making the constitution of more service to the people. He- c a l l e d for the establishment-of a means to amend the constitu t i o n i n Canada. • In addition, he asked f o r consideration of matters not on the prepared agenda—such as, a review of the Dominion program of pensions f o r the blinddand a review 5 of the Farmers'Creditors Arrangement Act and action to make i t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Premier T. D. P a t t u l l o of B r i t i s h Columbia emphasized the burden placed on his province by the unemployment s i t u a t i o n . He advocated an extensive program of public undertakings. 5 re Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, (1937) A.C. 391 6© Premier W. M. Lea of Prince Edward Island outlined c e r t a i n of the grievances f e l t by his province such as the fact that grants and loans to the: province^ had been among the lowest i n Canada on a par capita b a s i s . He asked that tbs si t u a t i o n should be investigated and some adjustment made. Premier W. J . Patterson of Saskatchewan described the extra burden placed on the r e l i e f load i n his province by the adverse climatic conditions of the drought. He recommended an expanded program of public works. The biggest problem was i n the r u r a l d i s t r i c t s where between 1929 and 1935, $85,000,000 had been spent i n r e l i e f of drought conditions, alone, — The opening addresses of the -premiers were on the whole merely expressions of g r a t i f i c a t i o n at the c a l l i n g of the conference and of Intention to cooperate to the greatest possible extent, together with statements of the various B: i n d i v i d u a l proovinces' desiresB, The conference decided not to hear any delegates- from organizations which might seek to appear before the meeting. It was agreed, however, that the. Prime Minister, together with the p r o v i n i c a l premiers and a representation from the federal cabinet, should meet with a delegation sent by the mayors of certain;danadian c i t i e s . The opening proceedings of the conference occupied the morning of December 9th. In the afternoon of that day and on the succeeding days of the conference, the s i x 6 I t Is of in t e r e s t to note various signs of p o l i t i c a l by-jfrlay i n the opening addresses such as Mr. Hepburn's threat to take up residence i n Alberta should the Conference f a i l and Mr. Aberhart's reference-to a sign i n a Montreal railway stations -Do not tal k to anybody, even though you know his language,' 61 subcommittees met and c a r r i e d on t h e i r discussions. As these were held i n private, no record i s available of the actual meetings. On the afternoon of December 13th, the second and closing pelnary session was held at which the reports of the subconferences were presented by the respective chairman. Report of the Committee on Tourist T r a f f i c and Transportation 1. Tourist t r a f f i c and national parks; The committee recommended a stock-taking of Canada's actual and p o t e n t i a l t o u r i s t attractions and the establishment of a cooperative p o l i c y to preserve them. I t also recommended that a permanent committee be set up representing a l l o f f i c i a l t o u r i s t bureaus-to coordinate-services; I t suggested that any province not possessing a national park should be given the-: opportunity to have such a park established, A minor recommendation was that the highways-should be made dust free to the greatest possible -extent. 2, ' National Highwayss: L^Uu^M^^-^-/ The committee recommended the bui l d i n g of the Trans-i Canada Highway with expenditures shared equally between the provinces and the Dominion. The standards of the construction were to be agreed upon by the federal government and the p r o v i n c i a l government concerned. The committee shught a b o l i t i o n of a l l l e v e l highway-railway crossings at the e a r l i e s t possible moment, 62 7 3. Regulation of T r a f f i c ; The- committee agreed that the Minister of Transport should ascertain a l l public c a r r i e r rates i n order (to a i d the provinces i n establishing uniform rates, (for highway transportation of passengers and f r e i g h t . The p r i n c i p l e of f u l l insurance coverage f o r passengers and f r e i g h t was endorsed. I t was suggested that the provinces should l i m i t the hours: of labour f o r drivers of commercial vehicles andi that the vehicles should be kept up to a/.proper standard by inspections. I t was suggested that drivers should be required to pass medical t e s t s . Any proposed .service, should obtain a writ of public service and necessity. Wage standards should be p r o v i n c l a l l y regulated. The-committee advocated the s e t t i n g up of a coordinating committee bf p r o v i n c i a l representatives with a permanent o f f i c e under the Department of Transport to c o l l e c t data:.: on the subject. It was also recommended that the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s should e s t a b l i s h some national scheme of road transport s t a t i s t i c s , 8 Report of the Committee on Mining Development and Taxation: 1, Uniform Tax i n each of the-Provinces: /The committee f e l t that the Canadian Federal system was too complextto allow any uniform method of: /taxation. 7 This, did not include t a x i and delivery service v e h i c l e s , 8 This study was confined to metal mining only. 63 2. Dominion Mining Tax; Some members of the committee f e l t that the Qominion y Government was receiving too much of the ^ x a t i o n from 9 mines. Ontario advanced an alte r n a t i v e proposal and the federal cabinet minister agreed to follow t h i s suggestion up. 3. Depletion allowance i n Dominion and Province: The committee could reach no^^reement on uniform practice or equitable rates i n t h i s matter. The Dominion was.to consider increasing the depletion allowance from 33-1/3$ to 50$. 4. P o s s i b i l i t y of fixed rate- of taxation for f i v e years.: The committee f e l t that s t a b i l i t y i n taxation would do much to strengthen the p o s i t i o n of the industry, 5. C o l l e c t i o n of mining taxes: /the committee - upheld the e x i s t i n g system- whereby each government c o i 1 ected i t s resp e c t i ve ta-z. A proposal was made that-the Dominion authorities should col-lecE a l l the taxes but thi s idea.was rejected. 6. Reduction of duties on implementsrand machinery used i n mineral production: This p o l i c y was endorsed and the committee expressed approval of the lowering of costs through the rec i p r o c a l trade agreement with the United States, 7. Legislation-respecting promotions: The committee recommended a conference of the 9 For d e t a i l s see Report of Proceedings, p. 32. 64 Dominion and the provinces to draft a new form of Companies Act that might be applied uniformly across Canada. I t was f e l t that such action would-be advantageous to the p u b l i c . Yet the 1934 attempt 10 had met with no response. The Committee recommended extension of Dominion geological surveys. A committee was set up composed of the Federal Minister of Mines'and representatives- of the governments of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and B r i t i s h Columbia to' act as a continuing: committee to get action on the 11 recommendations. Repo-rt of the- Committee on Agriculture and Marketing 1. Duplication of administration affe-ctlng w-agrl cultures The-committee was g r a t i f i e d at the cooperative e f f o r t s of the Dominion and- the provinces to eliminate.duplication and expressed hope for the continuance of such p o l i c i e s . 12 2. General a g r i c u l t u r a l problems: The committee recommended that the Dominion Department of Agriculture should help a g r i c u l t u r a l education by restoring the grant-in-aids of 13 agriculture of $1,000,000 for ten years. Such See Chapter VIII These were the only provinces much interested i n metal mining. Man!toba-and Alberta-were not represented at several of the s i t t i n g s of this committee and hence several problems pe c u l i a r to the West such as rust, s o i l s h i f t i n g and drought, were not discussed. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Instruction Act, June 1913, had provided the d i s t r i b u t i o n of $10,000,000 over a period of ten years. 10 11 12 13 6 5 grants could be administered j o i n t l y . The Committee favoured extension of the exi s t i n g scheme of a g r i c u l t u r a l s t a t i s t i c s through conferences of p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c e r s and the -Dominion s t a t i s t i c i a n s . The committee advocated the continuance of Dominion farm loans at a rate of four per cent, per annum. Loans of too great size should be avoided. The fact that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was before the Supreme Court made discussion of the farm debt problem d i f f i c u l t . However, the-committee f e l t that the provinces should adminster l e g i s l a t i o n on this matter- c h i e f l y because of the regional differences i n Canada. 3 . The p o s s i b i l i t y of developing market- operations i n the provinces; /-The committee urged the Dominion Government to make / every e f f o r t to es t a b l i s h markets f o r l o c a l crops vjproduced i n more than one province. The committee s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned the market f o r potatoes but made clea r i t s intention to Include other products. The: committee -also stated i t s desire to have a conference of the Dominion and p r o v i n c i a l ministers of agriculture to consider the marketing problem as soon as the Supreme Court should make a decision on 1 4 the Natural Products Marketing Act. 14 Such a meeting d i d take place i n December 1 9 3 6 under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mr. Gardtoer, Minister of Agr i c u l t u r e . Resolutions passed concerned such matters as grading of farm products i n i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l and international trade, enforcement of Dominion government regulations i n processing plants and transport and d i s t r i b u t i o n agencies. 66 Report of the Committee on Constitutional Questions; 1. Revision of the B r i t i s h North America Act i ./The committee decided i n favor of r e v i s i o n of the \ B r i t i s h North America Act to give the Canadian (Government power to amend the Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n . The Minister of J u s t i c e was to convene, a meeting .of 16 "appropriate o f f i c i a l s " to devise a scheme sati s f a c t o r y 17 to the Dominion and p r o v i n c i a l governments and once such a scheme had heen developed to c a l l a conference 18 to consider the-proposal. The Committee-did not act on the matter of s o c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n as the Acts respecting this passed- under the Bennett Government were at that time before the Supreme Court. The committee recommended that steps be taken to unify the various company laws throughout Canada, The only dissenting vote to th i s resolution was by the Hon. J . B. McNalr of New Brunswick. In a speech at Fredericton on December 16, 1935, he declared the amendments would "permit extension of the Dominion's f i e l d of l e g i s l a t i o n at.the expense of the P r o v i n c i a l Legislatures." See Report of Proceedings, p, 38, Mr, Major of Manitoba did provide such a draft proposal but no record of i t was published. Mr, Lapointe announced his intention of sending out i n v i t a t i o n s to the aonference on the very day he presented the report under discussion. The committee was set up and worked with Mr. Lapointe i n Ottawa i n 1936. The committee f a i l e d to a r r i v e at any general agreement. 15 16 17 18 67 Report of the Committee on Unemployment and R e l i e f 19 1. Registration of the- unemployed on r e l i e f : The committee suggested a method of r e g i s t r a t i o n . 20 The following classes were to be considered: (1) unemployed persons (2) unemployables (3) farm and other r e l i e f not due to unemployment 21 The committee also defined i t s terms: unemployed person - any person 16 years of age and over, p h y s i c a l l y and mentally capable of work and available for g a i n f u l occupation. unemployable person-any person 16 years of age and over, avai l a b l e f o r gainful occupation, but ph y s i c a l l y ar mentally incapable of g a i n f u l employment. The r e g i s t r a t i o n was to s t a r t on January 31st, 1936. 22 Three schedules (A, AI, B) were presented providing for f u l l information on persons receiving-relief:. The agencies conducting the r e g i s t r a t i o n were to 19 For a detailed report on the problem-see Unemployment and So c i a l Insurance, A. E. Grader, Royal Commission Studies. 1939. 20 Report of Proceedings, p. 39 21 Ibid. p. 39 22 "333 was for farm r e l i e f . For Schedules see i b i d . p. 40 -42. 68 be those municipal and p r o v i n c i a l agencies already operating i n the r e l i e f f i e l d . The R e l i e f Administr-a t i o n Branch of the Federal Department of Labour was to coordinate the surveys. It was the intention of the committee that the r e g i s t r a t i o n should be kept up by the Provinces monthly In a rough fashion and once annually i n an accurate fashion. I t was hoped that through the medium of t h i s r e g i s t r a t i o n , a 23 basis fo'r government p o l i c y would be established. 2, Future p o l i c y on unemployment r e l i e f i n Canadai The committee f e l t that the Federal government should confine i t s r e l i e f s e r v i c e s - i n the future-to p rovision f o r unemployables and t h e i r dependents. The provinces were to help i n t h i s regard*. The Old Age Pension Fund would take care of such people when they reached the proper age. The municipality and province were to look a f t e r a l l others on unemployment r e l i e f but Incapable of self-supporting labor. -The committee suggested the establishment of a Dominion During the 1936 Session of the Commons, the Hon. Norman Mcl. Rogers reported that i n l i n e with the Conference's recommendations forms had been drafted by the Department of Labour and d i s t r i b u t e d to the provinces and municipalities i n January 1936. Response was quite good. On March 30, 1936» Mr. Rogers presented the f i r s t s t a t i s t i c a l tabulations from these forms. Hansard I I , 1936. p. 1574 69 commission on employment and r e l i e f . This, commission would carry out a national r e g i s t r a t i o n of unemployed workers, determine the. standards.a province must meet i n order to p a r t i c i p a t e i n Dominion funds, coordinate public works with a long range view, and supervise the d i s t r i b u t i o n of any Dominion funds for r e l i e f . An attempt w as to be made by the commission to eliminate seasonal fluctuations by obtaining the coordinated cooperation of business Interests. Also, the Government should i n s t i t u t e a programtof t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g f o r youth. In conclusion, the committee advised the Dominion Government to increase i t s 24 r e l i e f grants to the provinces and to cooperate clo s e l y with the junior governments i n the c o l l e c t i o n of unemployment s t a t i s t i e s . Report of the. Committee on F i n a n c i a l Questsions 1. F i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of the provinces: This committee studied-the f i n a n c i a l positions of ihe p r o v i n c e s / In each, debt was steadily increasing and much current revenue had to go to debt s e r v i c e . The Dominion's f i n a n c i a l a i d had become the sole salvation of the c r e d i t of the four Western Provinces. The committee recommended that strong stands should 24 Mr. King announced at the conference that his Government planned to give further f i n a n c i a l aid.to the provinces. D i r e c t l y as a r e s u l t of the Conference were the Increased Federal grants-in-aid apportioned to permit the provinces to r e l i e v e the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . From December 1935 to March 1936, these grants from the Federal Treasury were Increased from $1,750,250 a month to $3,066,219 a month. 70 be taken to balance the budgets. The poor f i n a n c i a l conditions of the-provinces l e d to several reeommendatins to the committee that the Dominion government should guarantee the refunding of some of the p r o v i n c i a l debts. These?representations were considered but not acted upon; 2. A national loan council; The committee investigated t h i s suggestion but again came to no _de_clsion. The model used f o r discussion 25 was the Austr a l i a n Loan Council. 3. Duplication of taxation and possible r e a l l o c a t i o n  of tax sources as between the Dominion and the Provinces; The committee discussed four p o s s i b i l i t i e s under t h i s heading: (1) that income taxation be l e f t to the provinces, (2) that the proceeds of the Dominion sales tax should go a l l or i n part to the provinces f o r unemployment r e l i e f . (3) that the Dominion should, i f requested, 26 c o l l e c t p r o v i n c i a l income taxes. (4) that c o l l e c t i o n of succession duties should be u n i f i e d under the Dominion. The Dominion could give the revenue to the provinces or keep i t and give the provinces a substitute revenue. 25 See Appendix III 26 An arrangement.to do t h i s was l a t e r signed between Ontario and the- Dominion. The- Qepartment of Jflational 0Revenue-became the C o l l e c t i n g Agency. Hansard I. 1937. p. 980. 71 The committee could reach no agreement' on these matters. I t did recommend that t h e - B r i t i s h North America Act should he amended to set out d e f i n i t e l y what the p r o v i n c i a l powers of taxation were. A continuing committee of the Dominion Minister of Finance and- the treasurers of each province was set up to carry on further discussion. The committee emphasized the need f o r an increase i n the national income. The continuing committee met i n January and March of 1936 and came to some conclusions on p o l i c y . The Dominion Government agreed to attempt to amend the B r i t i s h North America Act to allow the provinces 'to levy a tax on r e t a i l sales and to permit the 1 /Dominion to guarantee p r o v i n c i a l debts i n return for \ security from the provinces i n the form of pledges of the Dominion subsidies. Further, a National Finance Loan Council and P r o v i n c i a l Loan Councils were-to be 27 set up. The Government did introduce such l e g i s l a t i o n but i t was rejected by the Senate. Nevertheless the Finance Committee, as set up by the Conference of 1935, had, i n Mr. Dunning*s view at le a s t accomplished much valuable work. He promised to continue his assistance to the provinces pending the enactment of 28 the loan council proposals. 27 Alberta would not agree to these proposals, claiming they would v i o l a t e p r o v i n c i a l autonomy. Mr. P a t t u l l o of B. C./ was also known to be-, opposed. 28 On January 15, 1935, the Dominion Governemt came to the a i d of Alberta when a §2,000,000 bond issue could not be met. 72 /.- In December 1936, the H&tional Finance Committee met with'representatives from a l l governments to discuss ^ f i n a n c i a l questions. 29 The above reports were adopted by the Conference. It was agreed that the reports should be printed and c i r c u l a t e d among the provinces. The Conference was then addressed by representatives of the various provinces; 30 Speaking for Ontario, Mr. Roebuck expressed p a r t i c u l a r g r a t i f i c a t i o n at the Dominion government's proposal to pay h a l f the cost of the Trans-Canada Highway. He c r i t i c i z e d the report of the- Committee on Unemployment and R e l i e f as not suggesting-any means f o r increasing employment. He stressed Mr. Hepburn's desire to have 31 p r o v i n c i a l and mnnicipal debts refunded at a f i x e d rate and to have the Bank of Canada nationalized. 29 The motion was moved by Mr. Roebuck of Ontario and seconded by Mr. Taschereau of Quebec. 30 Because of i l l n e s s , Mr. Hepburn was absent during the clos i n g plenary session. 31 Mr. Hepburn's proposal f o r debt refunding caused considerable furore at the time. The Toronto Dally Star of December 11, 1935 printed: Premier Hepburn created consternation i n f i n a n c i a l and p o l i t i c a l ranks today as reports of Ontario's plea f o r compulsory refunding of a l l governmental and municipal bond issues at a nation-wide i n t e r e s t rate of 3 per cent, seeped out of the Dominion-provincial Conference here. The Montreal Gazette of December 19,- 1935 stated: The attitude of the Ontario Government seems to J u s t i f y the assumption that compulsion would follow i f persuasion^failed. B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta evidently supported Mr. Hepburn. 73 In conclusion he strongly backed up the proposal to allow the B r i t i s h North.America-Act to be amended i n Canada, Mr, Taschereau* of Quebec endorsed, h e a r t i l y the plan 32 to have- the B r i t i s h North America Act amended i n Canada, -He demanded a solution for the unemployment problem. In t h i s regard he advocated Dominion loans to the provinces- to stimulate housing. He ended his address by imploring the various governments to maintain the good cr e d i t of t h e i r county by keeping t h e i r respective financial-houses i n order, Mr, Macdonald of Nova Scotia pressed f o r continuation of the work of the conference after.the delegates had returned home; Too often the delegates had f a i l e d to carry out t h e i r obligations at the close of conferences. 32 Mr, Taschereau here reversed h i s previous stand on th i s matter. In doing so he defended himself-as follows: So f a r as the B r i t i s h North America Act i s concerned some of the members of t h i s Conference who attended the previous Conference might perhaps believe that I have somewhat changed my mind, and that i s true; '. but i f to some extent I changed my mind and was /' instrumental i n proposing the resolution which has been p r a c t i c a l l y adopted by t h i s conference* i t was when I saw the good s p i r i t that prevailed (bn the part of representatives of a l l the provinces — a s p i r i t of cooperation, a s p i r i t of to l e r a t i o n : towards m i n o r i t i e s . Every prime minister and,every minister whom I met here-assured me that they had but one desire, and that was to maintain] throughout Canada that goodwill, that c o r d i a l i t y and s p i r i t of tolerance that has existed i n the past among a l l Canadians, to whatever race they belong and whatever r e l i g i o u s f a i t h they may hold. Record of Proceedings, p. 51* • 74 Mr, Dysart of New Brunswick stressed the importance of a^orks^program ^forwrelief. He warned that Ganadian governments must soon face the problem of refunding. Mr. Bracken of Manitoba lauded the report of the Committee on A g r i c u l t u r a l Problems.. He suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y of decreasing the taxation on mining i n Manitoba i n order to allow the industry to develop into a means of l i v e l i h o o d f o r many of the unemployed. He t o l d of Manitoba's f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s but was optimistic about t h e i r s o l u t i o n . Mr. P a t t u l l o of B r i t i s h Columbia vigorously backed up the motion to amend the . B r i t i s h North America Act i n C anada. He - strongly advocated an .expanded, works program. Again^ he advanced B r i t i ah Columbia 1S claim_for ^'better terms';" And once more^he^asked the Canadian National_ PAi_lway^ to absorb the B r i t i s h Columblan government-la__"white elephant,. .The ' " 33- - ——-T&oltlc_J*r?.s&J!&§&9im Railway. Mr. Lea of Prince- Edward Island recommended that the Dominion government should take over the complete c o l l e c t i o n of the income-tax i n his province. Mr. Patterson of Saskatchewan promised the complete cooperation of his government. He complimented Mr. King upon the recent completion of the trade agreement with the United States and forecast that l t would greatly a i d Canadian producers. 33 /On his return to B. C. Mr, P a t t u l l o declared himself well "v ( s a t i s f i e d with the Conference. However, he once more ) V r e i t e r a t e d his b e l i e f i n p r o v i n c i a l autonomy# 75 Mr. Aberhart of Alberta recommended that the methods of d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l i e f should be altered to some more equitable method. He requested a i d f o r Alberta i n the refunding of her debt. He expressed his appreciation that he, the -only non-L i b e r a l premier at the Conference, had been treated so well by the delegates. In his concluding summary Mr. King emphasized the need fo r readjustment of finances. He said; ...we- must return, as regards our revenues and expenditures, as i n a l l esle, to responsible government i n the f u l l e s t meaning of that term whereby the governments that spend public moneys must be the governments which, through the agency of taxation, raise what i s to be spent. This problem was the fundamental one i n his estimation. He emphasized his determination to e s t a b l i s h a national commission on unemployment. This he had advocated for the past f i v e years as leader of the opposition i n the House of Commons. He promised extension of Federal Government a i d towards expanding trade, a v i t a l element i n the Canadians economy. The Prime Minister stressed one p o i n t — t h a t the conference was merely a body of enquiry. He stated:: May I say how much I appreciate the attitude of the members i n endorsing so wholeheartedly the idea of keeping the conference e s s e n t i a l l y a conference. I am sure by so doing, we have successfully paved the way f o r more successful gatherings of the kind>-ln the future. A mistake has too frequently existed i n the past, when conferences have been held between members of the p r o v i n c i a l governments and of the Dominion government, has been the: b e l i e f that, unless many matters were d e f i n i t e l y a n d , f i n a l l y s e t t l e d at the time of the conference, the conference i t s e l f had not been a s u c c e s s . ^ 3 4 Record of Proceedings, o. 6 2 3 5 i b i d . p. 6 3 . 76 In this statement Mr. King, struck the fundamental note of the conference system--that the meeting should a f f o r d a plan f o r free, open, and thorough discussion of mutual problems with a view toward suggesting future courses of a c t i o n . Even when d e f i n i t e decision i s reached under the system, there i s no way of enforcing that decision beyond the voluntary cooperation of the deciding p a r t i e s . The Prime:Minister concluded by stressing the birtues of cooperation:. Only by acting together could the provinces and the Dominion achieve the best r e s u l t s . Following Mr. King's concluding remarks, the Conference adjourned. In form, i n substance* and i n findings, the 1935\ Conference was the most important held up to that time. _ J It i s necessary to point out that the findings adopted served i n many cases as the bases f o r government p o l i c y . And i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note the following developments that o^cjarre^d in, the_five years following- the Conferences (1) increased attention to the use of t o u r i s t t r a f f i c as a means of augmenting the national income. (2) Completion to a large extent of the Trans-Canada ^ Highway under a scheme of j o i n t Dominion-provincial finance. (3) Income tax exemptions f o r c e r t a i n periods f o r new mines coming into production. (4) Readjusted taxation arrangements f o r established mining properties:. 7 7 IS) Building of mining roads by the Dominion government. Jj6) Sea 1 i n g j i o wn of rates„;ou„farm_lp.ans_ 1 n_Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B r i t i s h Columbia.under the Farmers' Creditor Arrangement Act. Various reciprocal...trade ..agreement s. ^(8) Increased federal subsidies -to the provinces. ^t9) Establishment of a national bank. x(10) P a r t i a l r e g i s t r a t i o n of the unemployed. jC-11) Amendment of the- B r i t i s h North America Act to - provide for unemployment insurance under the Dominion government and the passage of the relevant b i l l . (12) The Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l Relations. No estimate can be made-vof how many of these developments were d i r e c t l y or p a r t i a l l y due to the e f f o r t s of the Conference of 1935. Although not as much weight was given to the recommendations as might have been given, i t i s safe to say that the findings of the Conference have had an important influence on the actions of. the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments since 1935 and thus f u l f i l l e d part of the major requirements o f a Conference. Nevertheless many important recommendations, such as that to have the B r i t i s h North America Act amended i n Canada, were not then implemented. As might be expected the Conference met with mixed reception from the country's p o l i t i c a l leaders. Mi*. Bennett, himself leader of so many Dominion-provincial Conferences-, 78 attacked the 1935 Report; <y I t i s a statement of speeches of goodwill, of l o y a l 36 devotion to one another and to the cause"of l i b e r a l i s m that would be amazing i f i t were not amusing....I w i l l say t h i s about the Ottawa Conference. The Ottawa Conference;..was a great conference and hereafter Ottawa w i l l always be remembered as the greatest health resort known i n h i s t o r y , f o r while the f i r s t minister was bewailing the i l l n e s s of the f i r s t minister from Ontario, the minister from Queen's Park was c e r t a i n l y enjoying himself i n other parts of the country...It i s an amusing-story, but what have they accomplished? Share Is a p r i n t i n g b i l l charged to the House of Commons. In defending the Conference, Mr. King stated; He (Mrw Bennett) stated that he had never read a document so f u l l of goodwill, so f u l l of praise- from one end to the other. May I t e l l my right honorable /.friend that good.will i s the basis of good work. The \ trouble with his administration i n i t s r e l a t i o n with (the provinces was that there was never a basis of /goodwill. Good w i l l i s the thing above a l l others /we have been seeking. We have i t at l a s t i n t h i s country as between the-provinces and the dominion. Instead of i l l w i l l we have- good w i l l , i n the e f f o r t to see what can be done to advance the common interests of our country.' 8 At any rate there-was much gain i n the cooperation and f r i e n d l y f e e l i n g between the provinces-and the Dominion government. Such cooperation was a l l important i f the various governments were to function i n the most e f f i c i e n t possible manner. At the end of t h i s 1935 Conference one r imight well have held the view that the provinces and the fDominion.were on the way toward cl o s e r harmony i n governmental /' 1/functions. 36 The use- of the- word " l i b e r a l i s m " was perhaps intended as to have a double meaning because nine out of the ten governments involved were L i b e r a l i n party a f f i l i a t i o n s . 37 Hansard I . 1936 p. 53 38 Hansard I . 1936. p. 85. 79 CHAPTER X THE CONFERENCE OF 1941 With-the marked success of the 1935 Conference apparent and with Mr. King, an outstanding advocate and p r a c t i t i o n e r of the conference system, s t i l l i n power, i t would have heen expected that another Dominion-provincial conference would soon be held. Such was not the ease-, however, for f i v e years passed before another conference was c a l l e d . In t h i s period, 1 however, the Dominion government had set up a Rpyal Commission on Dominion-provincial Retlations to inquire into the f i n a n c i a l powers and obligations of the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l governments. On May 16, 1940 the Dominion Government received .the Report, of ..this Commission. The Report was widely heralded as the most complete and comprehensive survey ever-made-of Canada's economic and s o c i a l conditions. The Report also set out suggestions of the Commissioners f o r change i n Canada's f i n a n c i a l and economic \ organization. /• A f t e r considering the Report for some time, Mr. King decided to c a l l a Conf erence; of Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s to discuss i t . Accordingly on November 2, 1940 he issued a l e t t e r of i n v i t a t i o n to each of the P r o v i n c i a l Premiers. His l e t t e r was a long one, but c e r t a i n extracts from i t w i l l indicate the viewpoint held by the Prime Minister 80 1 concerning the Conference-. In part the l e t t e r read* The report commends i t s e l f strongly to our Judgment. We believe- that no time should be l o s t i n arranging for a conference with the Provinces, i n order to secure, i f possible, the adoption of the Commission's recommendations. You w i l l r e c a l l the circumstances which, i n 1937 l e d to the creation of the Rowell-Sirois Commission. I t /was appointed because of general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n I respect to Dominion-provincial relations and arrangements ^ ....a d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n which reached a c r i t i c a l stage during the -depression.. The i n a b i l i t y of l o c a l and Pr o v i n c i a l Governments to deal with mass unemployment /''and a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r e s s , and the r e s u l t i n g f i n a n c i a l \ d i f f i e u l t i d s and controversy i n regard to po l i c y and / administration r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , constituted admitted ^ e v i l s and a serious s t r a i n on national unity. The • necessity, under exi s t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l authority of maintaining l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r - r e l i e f , precluded the development of p o l i c i e s on a national scale, and produced a si t u a t i o n which seriously /affected the morale of the unemployed and destroyed the f i n a n c i a l independence of many l o c a l governments:. In the emergency the Dominion made large contributions for r e l i e f purposes but could not assume f u l l or permanent r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for unemployment nor can i t do so, unless measures such as those contemplated by the Commission are-agreed-upon. /- Mr. King hastened to assure the - provinces that t h e i r autonomy would not be affected... I t was the Commission's task to determine how Canada's unique Federal structure, as set up i n 1867, could be made to function smoothly and yet re t a i n the d i s t i n c t -iveness of i t s component parts. The Government's instructions i n t h i s regard were e x p l i c i t . In my statement to the House on February 16, 1937, r e f e r r i n g to the appointment of the Commission, I said that the Commission was to make recommendations, "to enable a l l Governments to function more e f f e c t i v e l y — a n d , I may add, more independently—within the spheres of t h e i r respective j u r i s d i c t i o n s . " The Commission not only c a r r i e d out these inst r u c t i o n s , but emphasized through-out i t s report that i t s r . recommendations would lead to a r e a l and desirable P r o v i n c i a l autonomy, by assuring true f i n a n c i a l independence. 1 As reprinted i n the Toronto Blobe and Mail, November 8, 1940 81 From September 1939, Canada was at War with Germany and Mr, King set before the Premiers the proposition that , adoption of the Commission's recommendations would tee a great .aid to Canada's War e f f o r t . The war has i n t e n s i f i e d the problem and emphasized the urgency of i t s sol u t i o n . While the cost of unemployment ^ r e l i e f has been reduced, the war has cast a d d i t i o n a l ^burdens on Governments and taxpayers a l i k e . I t has ine v i t a b l y increased the competition between Governments to secure revenues, and has aggravated the overlapping, " cumbersome and discriminatory character of much of our tax structure. Sometimes the competitive e f f o r t to secure revenues has resulted in/:struggles between the Dominion and the Provinces; sometimes, i n c o n f l i c t s between the Provinces themselves. I f this s i t u a t i o n continues, the war e f f o r t i t s e l f w i l l inevitably be hampered.". .It is- the view of the Government that adoption ©f the Commission's recommendations i s necessary S to put our country i n a p o s i t i o n to pursue a p o l i c y \ which w i l l achieve the maximum war e f f o r t and, at the ' same time, to lay a sound foundation for post war re-construction. For these reasons we should l i k e to a v a i l ourselves of the earliest.opportunity to place our views before the Provinces* and to discuss with them the recommendations-of the Commission. The Report to be considered by the proposed Conference-was a very lengthy one. However, Mr. King made i t c l e a r that he- intended the '6 onf erence to discuss only Plan I as suggested by the Commission. This Plan I was summarized by the Commission i t s e l f as follows: (1)? R e l i e f to Provinces:. The Dominion would relieve^ the provinces (and the c municipalities) of the whole burden of r e l i e f f o r the employable unemployed and t h e i r dependents. The Dominion would assume the whole of the provinces (but not the municipal) debts and would i n e f f e c t , bear the deadweight cost of t h i s debt, as i t would c o l l e c t from the provinces no more than the return which they receive today from t h e i r revenue producing assets. The provinces would thus have no further provisions to make for sinking funds, 2 Rowell-Slr©/Is Report, Book II p. 86. The summary i s given i n f u l l to give an unbiased and complete picture of the-plan. 85 In the case of Quebec, where the p r o v i n c i a l debt i s an unusually low proportion of the combined p r o v i n c i a l and municipal debt, the ' Dominion would assume 40$ of the net, or deadweight, cost of combined p r o v i n c i a l and municipal debt s e r v i c e . (2) Withdrawal of the Provinces from c e r t a i n tax f i e l d s The proyAjaces? would- cease: .to- use-1fae following fojms^oj^faxation; -The personal i nc ome tax; tax es, on corporatione or_-cprpprate income which would..not,.be imposed, on.individuals or partnerships; and_succession duties. (3) Surrender of subsidies^ /The provnces would surrender a l l e x i s t i n g ^-subsidies. (4) Remaining; .provinc I a l agvenue sources /The Dominion, while re t a i n i n g i t s unlimited f taxing powers, would recognize an obligation; \ to respect the remaining revenue sources of the Jprovinces. In addition, the Dominion-would pay annually to each province, a sum equal to the tax which that province would have received had „ i t c o l l e c t e d from mining and o i l producing companies 10 per cent of the net income which was derived from mining, smelting and.refining of ores and o i l s produced i n the province. (5) New p r o v i n c i a l revenue sources 'The Dominion would pay annually a National ^-Adjustment Grant to c e r t a i n provinces. The amount of the grant would be such as to enable each province (including i t s municipalities) without resort to heavier taxation than the " Canadian average, to provide adequate s o c i a l , educational and development services. The - weight of taxation i s estimated by comparing the p r o v i n c i a l and municipal taxation with the t o t a l income iBf the province. The t e s t of adequacy of s o c i a l and educational sdrvices his found In the Canadian average f o r these services. The adequacy of developmental services i s tested by what theprovince i t s e l f has done i n years which may be considered normal.^ The o r i g i n a l adjustment grants would be i r r e d u c i b l e . Increases would be granted (on the advice of the proposed Finance Commission) at appropriate i n t e r v a l s i f they were needed, i n order to enable a province to perform i t s functions adequately without exceptionally heavy taxation. ,£n addition to the National Adjustment Grants payable to some provinces, the Dominion would pay an Emergency Grant to a province i n which abnormally bad conditions prevailed. Such a 'grant would be made f o r a year at a time, reduced as soon as possible, and eliminated as soon as p o s s i b l e . 3 The Commission estimated the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of the provinces under the scheme as follows: Base Period Prince Edward Island av, 1936-39 Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta B r i t i s h Columbia av. 1936-39 av. 1936-39 1938-39 av. 1936-39 av. 1936-39 1939 (Emergency Grant) av. 1936-39 a*. 1936 -39 Monthly Review, Bank of Nova Scotia, And Rowell-Slrois Report, Chapter II Revenues Grant fOOO's 680 750 6,900 800 5.100 1,500 39 t800 8,000 57.300 No grant 8,200 2,100 12.500 1,750 13.100 No grant 20.000 No Grant Toronto, December 1940 , Vol. I I . Expends. Surplus $00O's 1,110 260 6,900 §00 4,350 2,250 46,800 1,000 52,600 4,700 9.000 1,300 131300 2,950 10.900 2,200 19,100 900 (6) Future Borrowing /Future p r o v i n c i a l and municipal "borrowing would C have to be i n lawful money of Oanada. Future p r o v i n c i a l borrowing might be either: (a) as today on the sole c r e d i t of the province, i n which case the debt charges would not be counted as part of the financial-need of the province i f l t applied f o r a National Adjust-ment Grant, ( i f i t were not receiving one) or f o r an increase i n i t s grants; of (b) on the c r e d i t of Oanada, i f the.proposed Finance Commission i s asked to approve i t , and a f t e r reviewing a l l the circumstances, does so. (7) Freedoir of Provinces .,No control of p r o v i n c i a l expenditures i s contemplated. iEvery province would be quite free to improve i t s /services by s p e c i a l l y heavy taxation, or to have /specially l i g h t taxation by reducing its- services, or to develop some services i n excess of the ^Canadian average at the expense of others-which "would remain: below i t . Mr. King's decision to treat the Commission's plan; as a Warjmeasure was generally unexpected. Immediately a storm of controversy,.-for and against the proposal swept across Canada,, From the f i r s t i t was conceded that Ontario, B r i t i s h Columbia and Alberta would be i n opposition. The Hon. Mr. P a t t u l l o of B r i t i s h Columbia, on receipt of the Prime Minister's i l w i t a t i o n , made a statement i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Legislature c r i t i c i z i n g the Rowell-31rois Report. the Conference on January 14th, 1941 at Ottawa than had attended any other Dominion-provincial Conference i n h i s t o r y . discussions of the Report, which i n the words of the Press, Probably more p u b l i c i t y attended the opening of A l l Canada awaited with mixed feelings the outcome of the 85 4 proposed a "Re-confederation of Canada." Mr. King presided at the Conference and there were fifteen-Dominion Cabinet Ministers-, nine P r o v i n c i a l Premiers, and f o r t y - s i x P r o v i n c i a l Ministers as well as.-. 5 a great number of expert advisers. Mr. King opened the Conference with a lengthy address. He welcomed the delegates and admitted the fact that there were differences of opinion. He stated that the technical procedure which had been l a i d down fo r the- Conference was open to any a l t e r a t i o n which the delegates should decide upon. Mr. King stoutly denied that the c a l l i n g of the /'Conference during War time would i n t e r f e r e i n any way - with l . ^Canada's war e f f o r t . In response to c r i t i c i s m of the ! Conference as being l i k e l y to threaten national unity, \Mr. King stated: The Toronto Globe and Mall on Jan. 14, 1941 printed t h i s ; 4 One of the most far-reaching and.significant conferences i n a l l of Canada's history since 1867 w i l l openi i n the House of Commons.Chamber tomorrow morning when Prime Mi n i s t e r Mackenzie King w i l l be the target i n what Is now expected to be a stormy p o l i t i c a l meeting. Sectionalism w i l l be r i f e . The ancient cry of P r o v i n c i a l Rights w i l l be thundered from the P a c i f i c to A t l a n t i c . 5 See Appendix I 8 6 Moreover, the assumption that a Dominion-provincial (conference would endanger the national unity of Oanada, so e s s e n t i a l to our war e f f o r t , would be a grave / r e f l e c t i o n upon the patriotism of a l l governments (represented there. There are* of course, bound to be differences of opinion whenever a conference i s held. Government i t s e l f , i n a democratic state, i s large l y concerned with over-coming and re c o n c i l i n g differences. In fa c t , i f no 5 differences existed, no conference would be necessary. Mr. King emphasized that the added burdens imposed by the war made even greater the problems of both the Dominion and P r o v i n c i a l Governments. , We know that the problems of Dominion-provincial \relations- are being i n t e n s i f i e d by the war, and /that the d i f f i c u l t i e s of t h e i r solution w i l l increase, (the longer the attempt to meet them i s delayed. We / a l l know that the war e f f o r t i t s e l f w i l l be prejudiced vif the-growing stresses andgstrains i n inter-governmental ^r e l a t i o n s are not re l i e v e d . Mr. King contended that world conditions_were rapidly changing and that Oanada must change to meet these conditions. He made cle a r the approach of the Dominion Government to the Oonference ; Let me repeat: While the recommendations of the report have commended themselves to our Judgment, we do not approach the conference' with our minds closed. We do not say " a l l or nothing;" or feverything at once." We readily recognize that the recommendations on a l l subjects may not be immediately acceptable. They must be considered on t h e i r merits i n r e l a t i o n to the obligations of the provinces as well as to those of the Dominion. I f we- do not approach the conference with our minds closed, much l e s s has the federal government any thought of tryi n g to impose the recommendations of the report upon the provinces. 8 And again,. What we seek i s the largest possible measure of common agreement to enable the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments so to cooperate as to make our Ganadian: system work with less f r i c t i o n and greater e f f i c i e n c y f o r the benefit of the people of Canada- i n a l l the provinces, 5 ,6,7, 8 Text as reprinted i n Toronto Daily Star. Jan. 14, 19!$1 87 Mr. King held that the crux of the'problem facing the delegates lay i n the readjustment of the f i n a n c i a l arrangements between the Dominion and the provinces. The War had further i n t e n s i f i e d these d i f f i c u l t i e s . The Prime Minister made i t cl e a r to the delegates The Constitution gave Parliament the right to raise money ("by any mode or system of taxation" and i f need be the war He maintained, however* that he would much prefer that some amicable arrangement would aris e from the conference. Mr. King absolutely denied that the Plan was an An exaggarated^notion has a r i s e n that we are proposing to rewrite the constitution, or to reb u i l d the structure of Confederation. The recommendations involve- no such grandiose design. The structure of Confederation houses a.nation which i s today stronger and more united than ever before-. The weight of the structure i s , however, not so evenly d i s t r i b u t e d as i t was; o r i g i n a l l y . I t has been s h i f t e d i n places by the v i c i s s i t u d e s of time and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , by the storms of recent years. It rests today more heavily on some parts of the foundation than on others. The problem facing us at present i s to d i s t r i b u t e the t o t a l burden more evenly, and to strengthen the parts of the foundation which must bear the increased And again, he countered the charges that p r o v i n c i a l autonomy could be financed under these powers. attempt at "re-confederation." and increasing burdens.9 9 Toronto Daily Star. January 14, 1941 88 would be threatened by claiming that "the best way to preserve i / p r o v i n c i a l autonomy i s to maintain p r o v i n c i a l c r e d i t , " and this could best be done by adopting the Plan as proposed ^ b y the Commission. The Prime Mi n i s t e r concluded with a strong appeal fo r a s p i r i t ; l o f tolerance and of union. His f i n a l words were: /We meet, not i n opposition one to the other, but as partners i n the great enterprise of furthering the co|Qfiip^i^nj^j^sl, of our country, and preserving i t s national unity. The optimistic and hopeful attitude.adopted by Mr. King was completely shattered by the next speaker to 10 address the conference. The aggressive Premier of Ontario, the Hon. M i t c h e l l F. Hepburn f l a t l y refused to give the approval of his government to the Plan. He bluntly condemned 11 the discussion of the plan i n war time. His speech, a 12 t y p i c a l example-of h i s flaming oratory burst l i k e a bomb on the conference. He was absolutely uncompromising i n his opposition to discuss the plan, putting the interests of his province before any other consideration; 10 The P r o v i n c i a l Premiers addressed the meeting i n the order of entry of t h e i r respective provinces into Con-federation; 11 "I have-your l e t t e r of November 2 regarding the S i r o i s Commission report. I was hopeful that a discussion • of t h i s problem would be delayed u n t i l a f t e r the war, so that-there could be no p o s s i b i l i t y of any controversial issue arising, which might Impair national.unity and the e f f e c t i v e prosecution of the war.'1 12 Mr. Hepburn termed the- delegates as " f i d d l i n g at Ottawa while London burned." 89 Premier Adelard Godbout of Quebec followed the Ontario Premier with a more c o n c i l i a t o r y attitude-. He stated that he and his colleagues-had come with open minds, prepared to l i s t e n and to lea r n . In part he said, We come here as Canadians. .-.If there i s something i n the national l i f e of Canada which should be improved* we are ready to study with our fellow-Canadians any proposed means fo r improving it...On our part we do not take a s e l f i s h view of our own province only. Premier A. S. MacMillan of Nova Scotia gave the impression that his province would cooperate. He agreed to discussing general p r i n c i p l e s and to allowing d e t a i l s to be worked out at a l a t e r period. Premier MeNair of New Brunswick stated his province had come to lea r n . He thought i t too early to express a d e f i n i t e opinion on the f i n a n c i a l plan. Premier Thaie Campbell of Prince Edward Island indicated his support of the Report. Premier John Bracken, i n his opening speech and throughout the Conference, was firmly behind the implementing of the plan. He f e l t that the governmental machinery as set up seven^r years ago- had become obsolete. Premier T. D. P a t t u l l o of B r i t i s h Columbia, however, I was i n d e f i n i t e opposition to the Prime Minister's proposals./ In his reply to Mr. King's i n v i t a t i o n , Mr. P a t t u l l o included/ a copy of his statement made i n the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly of B r i t i s h Columbia on the 7th of November, 1940. In part,,he had said: \^  "I look upon the report of the Rowell-Sirols Commission \ as of most valuable character, but this government i s not I 90 prepared to accept the recommendations of this report i n toto as suitably applicable to B. G. I do not agree with a l l i t s conclusions and the very basis upon which those conclusions were ar r i v e d at by the Commission, have i n t h i s already short space of time considerably a l t e r e d , and have changed the--picture. I_sjabmit_that—there -are -f i ve- -economic - and.social. ,uni t s in-Canada—the Mari time s y Quebec, - Ontario,... the.. P r a i r i e Provinces-and British-Columbia, and while I think i t i s desirable that as f a r as possible the same yardstick s h a l l apply to a l l , the_J!'acA-As_^haj^In_a^ far-flung.as .Canada, i t is..not possible that a singie meaj.uj?je^would meet -the circumstances .of e a d h j u i d ^ i d u a l Province. The re-must be -a degree -of-.elasticity. — I t i s r t h l s lack of e l a s t i c i t y that has .-brought! about the pre sent -s-itua t ioir. 1 know that the people of t h i s .Province are .prepa-red to malce"~any jxeces'sary^sacriflee i n winning this war and that ^that objec't Is beyond",a"ll~ "elgaY'but "this Government wiJJ.~not-e©3^ur^^ of- p e rma7ne.n.t^ ch%^ c t e r which may, and i n considerable prop^ability w i l l be Inapplicable to. condit ioTis^;wh^ -and out;of—the war. ^  He claimed that i f tha^plan were adopted B r i t i s h Columbia would be a great l o s e r . 13 Dominion-provincial Conference, jan,. 1.4:,,15 , 1941 Revised E d i t i o n , King's P r i n t e r . Ottawa, 1941. 14 The Hon. J . S. Hart, B r i t i s h Columbia's Minister of Finance, on his return from Ottawa issued a formal statement of the main reasons f o r the opposition of the B. C. Government. In part, i t reads A f t e r c a r e f u l study of the Rowell-Slrois Report ( p a r t i c u l a r l y Plan 3L) i t was evident that i t s adoption by the province would c u r t a i l greatly. the ajutaaomy which has been enjoyed since Confederation, and further, would c e n t r a l i z e f i n a n c i a l jcontrpjl^t_ Ottawa undejr_a„finanee- commission from whose decision there -would-be -no-appeal. Under Plan I the Proj^incial Government would be obliged to get the approval, of thaJb~^ommiaslb-n^or-a^-'--l©a'ns r e j^^d^f.gr-capital.. expenditures^iii" ^cf6"nne-e_t_iG«~with ^ r ^ ^ f c _ ^ ^ l d i n g s , or 0the republic worksf'our"budget wou^ d^ -be-- subject services much below the "exi^sting one...Furthermore, no provision i s made "for assistance to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . r Vancouver'Daily Province. January 25, I94i.- N" 9* Premier Patterson of Saskatchewan gave the support of his delegation to the plan, but Premier William Abjerhart of Alberta vigorously opposed i t . Mr. Aberhart's objections R were la r g e l y agj^nsj^a^y„JFu^ . At the conclusion of the addresses of the Premiers, i t was already obvious that the Conference had reached a stalemate. On the morning of January 15, the Hon. Mr. Lapointe and the Hon. Mr. McQuestern met with the Premiers as a steering committee to attempt to get some basis on which the Conference could continue. Mr. P a t t u l l o , Mr. Aberhart and Mr. Hepburn; remained adamant, however, and no agreement was-reached. When the Conference had once more assembled the Hon. J . L. I l s l e y , M i n i s t e r of Finance, gave-an address, vigorously supporting the report. In pointing out the government's need f o r added revenues f o r war purposes, he actually threatenejd_the_p.ro vine es ... /Unless Plan 1 of the Rowell-Slrois Report or a better / a l t e r n a t i v e i s adopted, I fear the Dominion w i l l be ( forced to take measures that may a f f e c t p r o v i n c i a l ^—-revenues .15 Following the statement of the Minister of Finance there ensued a verbal dog-fight^between the delegates. The three dissenting provinces-would not compromise- and further demanded, against the wishes of the Dominion Government, that any sessions, held should be open to the p u b l i c . 15 Vancouver Dally Province, January 15, 1941. t h i s prophecy was l a t e r to be f u l f i l l e d as, f o r example, when the Federal Government i n 1941 stepped into the succession duties and amusement tax f i e l d s . . b o t h formerly l e f t to the provinces. Such invasions were J u s t i f i e d as being part of the war financing plan. 92 The f u l l weight of the Dominion representatives -was thrown into the Conference i n an e f f o r t to save i t . The Hon. Mr. Crerar stated; l i f the period between 1930 and 1940 exposed our (Confederation to stresses and strains i t had never before experienced, what i t w i l l have to meet a f t e r jthe- war w i l l be -far'greater. As an ordinary business:: proposition, Is i t not the sensible thing to recognize that f a c t , and to s i t down and see i f by any means we can f o r t i f y and strengthen our p o s i t i o n to meet that condition when i t arises--as i t c e r t a i n l y w i l l arise...What harm can come-from s i t t i n g down, examining and discussing the.whole s i t u a t i o n ? 1 0 The Hon, Mr. McKinnon; and the Hon. Mr. McKenzie, Federal Ministers from Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia respectively, challenged the statements made by Mr, Aberhartfc and Mr, P a t t u l l o , The Hon-, Mr, Lapointe, .wound up the Dominion Government's case with a moving address imploring the delegates not to cast the report aside. But the Conference- could not continue. Refusing^-.. even to consider the Report, Premiers P a t t u l l o , Aberhart and , Hepburn withdrew t h e i r delegates l a t e on the afternoon of JanuaryiaSth. Before leaving, Mr, Hepburn attacked "Ottawa bureaucracy" and declared b i t t e r l y : The only thing f o r us to do i s to withdraw and leave 1 7 to you wreckers of Confederation your nefarious work. 16 Toronto Globe and M a i l . January 16, 1941 17 On January 2 8 , 1941, Premier Hepburn's attitude was defended i n a f u l l page advertisement i n the- Toronto Dally Star, and Toronto Evening Telegram, The ads contained i n f u l l the statements at the conference of Mr. Hepburn and selected statements from other delegates. At the foot of the advertisement appeared the words "Published by Authority of the Government of the Province of Ontario." 93 Although the rest of the P r o v i n c i a l Premiers desired to continue the Conference, Mr. King refused; The object of the Conference had been to consider the Commission's plan and since t h i s could not be done without the cooperation of a l l the Provinces, the Conference was asjourned. Thus ended the much awaited war-time Conference 18 of 1941. Probably at no time i n Canada's history has so much i n t e r e s t been aroused i n economic and f i n a n c i a l reform. With the Rowell-Slrois Report as a foundation, much had been expected to come out of the Conference. ^ — Yet with so many results anticipated, probably none of the series of Conferences produced less p o s i t i v e -results than did the Conference of 1941, The Conference served only to fan the flame„Qf jealousy between the provinces and the Dominion; , - 19 Dr. Herbert L. Stewart writing i n the Quarterly Review of Commerce-; V o l . VIII, No. 2, 1941 said: We cannot, at such a time as t h i s , a f f o r d another abortive attempt. What made the l a s t attempt abortive? Members of the Conference would not even exchange vlews^^orTir^Rep^ with great-labour, by highly~cbmpetent : investigators,, on matters of v i t a l CanadiW^concern. Why Jtha.refusal? In^ great part, at "least, because they thought they saw an attempt to—exploit war-time emergency f o r a hurried c o r T ^ i t u t i o h a l change^on which, whether good or bad, i t would be impracticable to go baek--for 18 Labor Ministers and o f f i c i a l s from the provinces met on January 16 with the Hon. Norman McLarty, Federal Labor Minister, They discussed Labor's rela t i o n s h i p to Canada's "war e f f o r t . " Also plans were l a i d f o r frequent r e p e t i t i o n of these conferences of Labor M i n i s t e r s . 19 E d i t o r i n Bhief of the Dalhousie Review and.Professor of Philosophy i n Dalhousie University, a noted Canadian news analyst. 94 perhaps .another 70-year period. I express no opinion here on the Justice or i n j u s t i c e of t h i s resentment: enough that the complaint was sharply made, even by so moderate a "cross-bench" delegate as the Premier *of Quebec; But why, through such anger, discard the (^fruits of a l l this work? Let Dominion and Provinces derive suggestions from* the Report for measures of avowedly temporary character by which the present war-time emergency may be met, reserving—without p r e j u d i c e — t h e proposals of permanent c o n s t i t u t i o n a l change f o r adequate consideration a f t e r the- War. Someone w i l l object "But i t i s not just a war-time emergency," ...be careful how you say that. I t was such a suggestion that wrecked the conference. Nothing but appeal to war-time necessities w i l l have the least e f f e c t towards securing any inanimity. ^ Undoubtedly the 1941 Conference was wrecked by the strong stand of non-oooperation taken by the three-provinces ^—Ontario, Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia. These provinces were s t i l l unwilling to submerge t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l differences and work i n a common cause. Sectionalism had once more " 20 prevented united action f o r the best interests of Canada. 20 The f a i l u r e of the Conference met with great waves of public f e e l i n g . Typical of e d i t o r i a l comment acsross-Canada were the following, i l l u s t r a t i n g c l e a r l y the extremes to which these feelings were c a r r i e d , H a l i fax Herald. January 16, 1941 The i l l - s t a r r e d conference venture could not succeed; i t was doomed to f a i l u r e . No Government representative at the S i r o i s conference, Federal or P r o v i n c i a l , had a mandate to bring about re-confederation of t h i s ' Dominion, involving as i t would have Involved, sweeping changes i n the B r i t i s h North America Act. Halifax Chronicle, January 16, 1941 The Prime Minister made the only possible decision. When the three Premiers firmly refused to go on with the proceedings, and when the Ontario delegation « quit the conference, i t was apparent that further procedure was useless. 95 Dally Gleaner, Frederickton, January 15, 1941 It cannot be denied that many good suggestions are embodied i n the Commission's report, but i t also must be accepted as a fact that the time i s not ripe to consider the report, which to meet views at a l l , must be seriously amended and changed, Ottawa Journal, January 16, 1941 <^If one man£ placed by accidental circumstance into a p o s i t i o n )of power, has been able to torpedo t h i s Conference, we s t i l l (know that the unity of Canada remains; that to reckon with {this man—MITCHELL HEPBURN—stand* i f we are not mistaken, the /serried ranks of our Canadian people, one i n heart f o r Canada ^and one i n heart above a l l , f o r a war v i c t o r y . The C i t i z e n , Ottawa, January 16, 1941 ^.The collapse of Prime Minister Mackenzie King's ponderous conference i s a healthy sign. Complacency in-Ganadian p o l i t i c s i s on the way out. The Gazette, Montreal, January 17, 1941 The Federal-Provincial Conference- has f a i l e d to do a wrong thing. I t i s apparent now that the more fort h r i g h t opposition of some of the provinces was d e f i n i t e l y r e f l e c t e d i n the * attitude of the Quebec delegation. Premier Godbout's declaration,of Wednesday having been much less: equivocal i n this regard than were-his e a r l i e r utterances. Dally Star, Montreal, January 16, 1941 As a r e s u l t of f a n a t i c a l action by three P r o v i n c i a l Premiers, the S l r o i s Report, the most important document submitted f o r the consideration of representatives of the people of Canada since Confederation, was shelved i n d e f i n i t e l y yesterday, and the Provincial-Dominion Conference which had been c a l l e d to consider the recommendations of that Report was dissolved at the end of two days of speech-making. Globe and M a l l , Toronto, January 16, 1941 -.By and large, however, the conference which was c a l l e d to f weld d i f f e r e n t parts of this nation more closely together I was sabotaged by minds unable to r i s e above the cyn i c a l ^pJLane upon which the game of p o l i t i c s i s played. Evening Telegram, Toronto, January 16, 1941 There w i l l not be wanting c r i t i c s who w i l l charge Premier Hepburn with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r breaking up the S i r o i s conference instead of placing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y where It belongs--on the terms of a report that no premier of Ontario 96 i n his sane-mind could accept...Yet Mr. Hepburn i s e n t i t l e d to the thanks of Ontario and of Oanada for his appreciation of the meaning of the report and his refusal to be a party td) Implementing l t . Dally Star. Toronto, January 16-, 1941 The dominion-provincial conference has ended i n disagreement. The S i r o i s report which was presented as a means of achieving unity has promoted di s u n i t y . I t s f i n a n c i a l provisions were unacceptable i n whole or i n part to most of the provinces} r e a l l y warmly espoused by only Manitoba and Saskatchewan1. Winnipeg Tribune. January 16, 1941 /It was not the Dominion government that was defeated at .this conferences i t was-Canada i t s e l f . The p r i c e of i t s f a i l u r e w i l l be paid, not by Mr. King but by the Canadian taxpayer. Mr. Hepburn's t h e a t r i c a l s of evasion did not, a f t e r a l l , constitute an e f f e c t i v e p o l i t i c a l manoeuvre even i n the cheapest sense of the phrase--and when a l l i s said and done, the people are Canadians. Winnipeg Free Press. January 16, 1941 The fact that Premiers Hepburn, P a t t u l l o and Aberh art made the gesture of coming to the Ottawa conference w i l l not s h i e l d them from the charge than can be j u s t l y i a i d against them that they cas^-themselves i n the role of wreckers. They l e f t home with the intention of wrecking the conference and they w i l l gain no public acclaim because they made the Journey. They had closed t h e i r minds before they reached Ottawa and speeches they made there bore no mark of reasoned argume nt. Leader Post, Regina, January 16, 1941 It was not a natural death which the Dominion-Provincial Conference died Wednesday. I t was sheer murder. Vancouver Sun, January 15, 1941 \ The spectacle of the i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l conference i n Ottawa i s almost beyond b e l i e f . I t w i l l amaze, disappoint and disgust every thinking Canadian. Were i t not that the Canadian people themselves are showing everywhere a s p i r i t of cooperation and unity, u t t e r l y d i f f e r e n t from the s p i r i t of the conference, Canada might well despair of i t s future. Vancouver Daily Province, January 15, 1941 Canada's three saboteurs are P a t t u l l o , Aberhart and Hepbulm. 97 CHAPTER XI — — 1/ THE FUTURE OF THE DQMINION^PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE As has been previously stated, a federal system of: government required a high degree of cooperation between 1 the governmental units involved. Federalism i n i t s very essence denotes a mechanical separation of powers. The ;Dominion-provincial conference-, by providing an instrument )for cooperation, can a i d i n eliminating the r i g i d i t i e s set )up by that separation; The Rowell-Slrois- Report states i n parts I But cooperation between autonomous governments i s d i f f i c u l t to achiever. Administrative- authorities responsible to d i f f e r e n t l e g i s l a t u r e s - a r e not always interested i n cooperation; indeed, non-cooperation Imay on occasion better serve t h e i r immediate interests;. Autonomous governments may thus tend to become r i v a l centres of power rather than:agencies for the cooperative pursuit of the public::welfare; This has too often been the case i n the Canadian as i n the other Federal systems. - I t i s imperative that means be found f o r ^overcoming, t h i s tendency and for promoting cooperation /between the- provinces and between the Dominion and the (provinces: which i s so esse n t i a l to e f f i c i e n c y and _ (economy i n administration under modern conditions. and, The need- f o r such regular conferences to promote cooperation between Dominion and p r o v i n c i a l governments i s obvious. The complexities of our s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and commercial organization have now reached a point where the e a r l i e r view, once widely held, that a l l 1 For a thorough discussion of both the need fo r and the d i f f i c u l t i e s of such cooperation see " D i f f i c u l t i e s - of Divided J u r i s d i c t i o n " by J . A, Corry. Rowell-Slrois Commission Studies. Ottawa. 1939. 2 Rowell-Slrois Report. 1939. Vol H p 68. 98 Dominion-provincial d i f f i c u l t i e s arising-from disputes over j u r i s d i c t i o n could be s e t t l e d by a s t r i c t demarcation of powers;and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s must be f i n a l l y abandoned'. A c l e a r demarcation of l e g a l power* / i s s t i l l t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible, but the functions of ("government i n the modern state cannot be divided sharply between central and l o c a l authorities- as can; l e g i s l a t i v e powers Many functions inherently unitary i n character are i n fact divided between-the Dominion and the provinces by the present d i v i s i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e power. Public health,- the regulation of marketing, the ^ c o n t r o l of business are conspicuous examples. In such matters there w i l l i n evitably be gaps and i n e f f i c i e n c y i n governmental control without at lea s t a measure of cooperation and uniformity of method between d i f f e r e n t governments. This intermeshing of duties, powers and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between the Dominion and the provinces demands sympathetic, constant and e f f i c i e n t cooperation between these governments The provision of an opportunity f o r a more united /'effort i s , i n the opinion of the writer, the re a l function I of the conf erence-system-. The ten governments concerned! f i n d many points of f r i c t i o n and i t i s at these points that the Dominion-provincial conference becomes Important Unfortunately, i t would appear that t h i s basic function has not been c l e a r l y v i s u a l i z e d by the aut h o r i t i e s responsible for the c a l l i n g of the conferences. The meetings have been c a l l e d f o r many reasons--for the obtaining of information, f o r influencing public opinion, and, perhaps : too frequently, f o r purposes of coercion. Seldom have the delegates met with the unanimous desire to work together on common problems and d i f f i c u l t i e s : with a view to settlement advantageous to a l l . Indeed:the Hon. Hugh Guthrie, one-time Mi n i s t e r of J u s t i c e , made the .following statement i n 3 Idem p. 70. 99 1934s My experience, and I nave had some i n regard to i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l conferences, has heen that the Dominion and the provinces-have never yet been able to agree unanimously on a single important proposal l a i d before a conference for agreement, 4 The federal system of government i s not by any means the most wieldy of p o l i t i c a l forms. Surely with a system whose basic awkwardness i s apparent, advantage should be taken of any reasonable means to f a c i l i t a t e t h e functioning of the governmental machinery. Here then i s the criticism-=.-a means of r e l i e f i s present and-it i s not being used-properly, I f t h i s means of r e l i e f i s r e a l l y a v a i l a b l e , what can and should be done to put i t into f u l l operation"; The f i r s t - a n d most obvious step i s to give more importance to Dominion-provincial conferences--themselves--both i n the minds of the governments concerned and i n the minds of the Ganadian people as a whole. In the past, the conferences have been held haphazardly. The whim of a Prime Minister or the p o l i t i c a l expediency of a moment .has determined- whether- a:vconf erence would_be_called.or not* This s i t u a t i o n has been present regardless of the fact that throughout the reports of the conferences there have-been recommendations that the-meetings; should be held annually or at some regular i n t e r v a l , Indeed the government of Nova Scotia made the following;recommendation to the Rowell-Siipeia Commission} 4 Hansard 1934, I. 257 (Mr, Guthrie was using " i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l " to include Dominion-provincial conferences,)-100 That provision ought to be made, by way of amendment to-the B r i t i s h North America Act or otherwise, f o r annual conferences to be held at a f i x e d time between representatives of the provinces and representatives of the Dominion.5 It i s submitted here that the most important method of giving due importance to the Domlnion*provincial / Conferences would be--to make them annual i n t h e i r occurence or should such meetings be found, upon t r i a l , to be too frequent, to hold them at eighteen month i n t e r v a l s . By making-the conferences -regular, they could becoms i n themselves,.institutions within Canadian government. "Th ey could act as an organized-clearing house for a l l Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l transactions. With d e f i n i t e opportunity e x i s t i n g f o r discussion of Dominion-provincial r e l a t i o n s , there would be l i t t l e need fo r the now ex i s t i n g sporadic-wrangling , between the Dominion-and the i n d i v i d u a l provinces. The next important step would be to follow the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Commission and set up I some form of permanent sec r e t a r i a t or department to deal \ with the conferences. In t h i s regard the Commission stated; The Commission..is of the opinion that Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l conferences a t regular i n t e r v a l s with a permanent s e c r e t a r i a t , as suggested, would conduce to the more e f f i c i e n t working of the federal .system.....the cost of providing the sec r e t a r i a t should be borne by the Dominion Government and provision should be made for an adequate s t a f f to c o l l e c t information on Dominion-p r o v i n c i a l r e l a t i o n s and make i t available to a l l governments..Under the supervision of such a 5 Idwell-Sirois Report, Vol. I I , p. 69. 101' se c r e t a r i a t f u l l records of Dominion-provincial conferences could be kept. A technique of procedure at such conferences could be evolved to a f f o r d opportunity f o r f u l l consideration of matters which might otherwise produce f r i c t i o n - o r lack of harmony eit h e r between the Dominion or one or more provinces, or between two provinces,- as well as to promote cooperation on matters of a l l governments concerned, provided i t was c l e a r l y understood that no great delay should intervene between-conferences, a ce r t a i n l a t i t u d e could be allowed i n arranging- the time when a conference should be h e l d . 0 The advantages of a permanent secretariat would be many. The-prestige and: importance of the meetings would be greatly enhanced*; •-• .Continuity .and uniformity could be developed. Possibly most important of a l l — t h e work of the actual conf erences -would:be continued throughout the i n t e r -vening periods by a permanent, and expert organization rather than being l e f t haphazardly to some continuing committee which might or might net-do a proper job; There are s p e c i a l government departments and bureaus, both federal and p r o v i n c i a l to deal with a great many matters. Surely the harmonious i n t e r n a l workings of the ten major governments i n Canada could and should be e n t i t l e d to the same-consideration. It i s submitted that such a secretariat should be established preferably under the supervision and at the expense of the Dominion Government. The cost could, i f necessary, be apportioned among the ten governments but the Dominion would probably be well able to handle i t . Whether the se c r e t a r i a t should become, as some have suggested, a d e f i n i t e government department, or a separate bureau or commission. 6 Rowell-Sirois 'Report, p. 71 102 based generally on c i v i l service l i n e s i s a matter f o r discussion. However, a f t e r considering the p o l i t i c a l nature of the governments involved, i t would appear that as complete a divorcement as possible from p o l i t i c s would be preferable. Hence the- second a l t e r n a t i v e would probably bring about the better r e s u l t s . If the conferences are given regularity and permanenc©y. much w i l l have been-accomplished toward making them the important factor, which i n the opinion of the writer, they must become i n Canada's federal system. I f the way Is made c l e a r f o r the forces of cooperation, a strong blow w i l l have been struck at that very serious enemy to Canadian national development -- sectionalism, Canada has long been a country where geographical units tend to p u l l against one another rather than i n the same-direction. Premier P a t t u l l o of B r i t i s h Columbia referred to the s i t u a t i o n i n the B r i t i s h Columbia l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1940 by stating., that 7 i n Canada he saw f i v e separate economic and s o c i a l - u n i t s . Whether or not one can agree with Mr, P a t t u l l o , the fact remains that there are several geographical areas i n : Canada, each of which places, the.interest of Canada second ( 8 to i t s own. Yet there have been, and are many i n Canada who 7 See Chapter X 8 Rowell-Slrois Report, Vol I, p. 186 - 201. See also. Maritime Provinces and the National P o l i c y : Comments upon Economic Regionalism i n Canada: Saunders * S. A,, Dalhousie Review, V o l . XVI, No. 1, 1936, p. 87. 103 have a broad outlook and seek to mitigate the effects of this sectional f e e l i n g . Foi? example, an independent tax and finance research i n s t i t u t e issued the following i n 1941s The recent Dominion-provincial Conference re the report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-provincial / Relations i l l u s t r a t e s j ust how f a r sectionalism has { poisoned the p o l i t i c a l l i f e of Canada and suggests ) how f a r l t may go In c r i p p l i n g the war e f f o r t of the , country. The two chief arguments against discussion \ of the Report seem to have been (1) that some .provinces were not treated f a i r l y i n the recommendations /of the report and (2) that suoh a report should not /b e discussed~in wartime as i t would arouse too many ( animosities and as cle a r thought would be impossible Nunder war conditions. The f i r s t i s not a v a l i d argument against discussing a report, no matter how d i s t a s t e f u l i t s recommendations. Compatriots, p a r t i c u l a r l y when i n the same boat threatened with destruction, should be able at lea s t to discuss proposals. F a i l u r e to do so might arouse and in t e n s i f y animosities. A conference between friends can never do any harm except to common enemies, A r e f u s a l , however, p o l i t e , to discuss the report could make pleasant news for our enemies. The second reason rests on a t a c i t assumption that members of the Canadian governments, and Canadians i n general, are not s u f f i c i e n t l y p a t r i o t i c to take a dispassionate view of the report and i t s recommendations. I f so, some changes In present personnel would seem to be indicated. In any event the breaking up of the conference without / any r e a l discussion of national and cooperative problems, \ with or without reference- to the Report of the Royal { Commission, might be regarded as a major disas t e r i f i t \ were not f o r the sound sense and determination of the j Canadian people and t h e i r a b i l i t y to take a r e a l i s t i c ; jand objective view of present requirements. It i s to be hoped that a f t e r the war, arrangements w i l l be effected which w i l l make such a fiasco impossible. Many people who l i v e i n Canada, and we hope the majority of them are i n t h e i r hearts Canadians f i r s t , want public §.ffairs conducted on t h i s basis.9 9 Yearbook of the C i t i z e n s ' Research Inst i t u t e of Canada* 1941. p. 6. 104 Iff sectionalism can be, and i s , a harmful force i n our government, what i s to be done toward eliminating I t . J There would appear- to be two a l t e r n a t i v e s — t h e one to give more and more control to the federal government and less" and ^ less to the provinces* the other to discover some-means'of ( making, our present federalism- overcome the d i f f i c u l t i e s . o f ) sectionalism. There-are c o n f l i c t i n g views held i n Canada as to whether or not the federal government should gradually be given more and more power. This work i s not a study of the pros and cons of that argument. Suffice i t to say-that i n general, public opinion i n Canada would appear to be opposed to such a move. Even the celebrated Report of the Rowell-Siirois Commission was based-upon the premise that the present federal system should continue. Hence the second-alternative—that of f i n d i n g some means within the present system to a l l e v i a t e the effects of sectionalism—would appear* to be prejf^rable. The means by which that sectionalism can be overcome under the second a l t e r n a t i v e l i e i n cooperation between the ten major governments. To date the-most hopeful sign of this; -cooperation has been the system of Dominion-provincial conferences. Hence i t i s v i t a l that these conferences meet the need for which they have been developed. Such a s i t u a t i o n can take place only when both p o l i t i c a l leaders and the general public a l i k e come to regard the i n f e r e n c e s i n the l i g h t of t h e i r true Importance to Canadian development. 105 Once the suggestions set out above have been adopted and the conferences-begin to become more and more: important, a program of public education w i l l do much to make the conferences a greater factor i n Ganadian government. But there must be a d e f i n i t e change of attitude on the part of the p o l i t i c a l leaders toward the conferences. The Dominion government must drop i t s a l l too prevalent » tendency to control the whole of each conference, - There should be no occasion for the condemnation of the attitude of the Senior government voiced by the Hon. Ian MacKenzie, 10 himself a Federal Minister, i n 1935: There was never a conference held by t h i s government 1 1 with any Province since 1930 but the government met the Provinces with loaded guns. There was never a conference held between the administration and the Provinces but an ultimatum was submitted to the Provinces as soon as t h e i r representatives ar r i v e d here. Nor should the p r o v i n c i a l delegates come to the conferences leach d i s t r u s t i n g the other. The Hon. Norman McLeod Rogers 12 stated i n 1937: I do not think i t would be unfair or i n any way unreasonable to suggest that sometimes these conferences have f a i l e d because they have .. 1 met i n an atmosphere of suspicion and excessive caution. The Conference of 1941 i s more than an adequate example of the d i s t r u s t , perhaps indeed, even enmity, among the d i f f e r e n t governments involved. 10 Hansard 1935 II p. 2061, March 25, 1935 11 Mr. Bennett's Conservative Administration 1930 - 35 12 Hansard. 1937. I p. 447 - 448. There are f a u l t s among a l l the governments but perhplps i t i s not too much to hope that Canadian men of public a f f a i r s may one day develop ar.truly national consciousness coupled with enough statesmanlike q u a l i t i e s to make that consciousness e f f e c t i v e . I f Canadian federal government Is to continue i n i t s present general form—and i t would' seem that most Canadians are so d e s i r o u s — t h e Dominion-provincial conference can and should prove an important and useful instrument i n the futheranee of that government. The Conference system has had at least a s t a r t i n Canada. Much of our c o n s t i t u t i o n a l progress i s made through the system jpf t r l a l - a n d - e r r o r . I t i s to be hoped that the t r i a l period for Dominion-provincial conferences i s approaching an -end and that lessons w i l l be taken from the errors made. Givej^regula^ity., recogjiitlon and a new and more^favorable attitude on the part of both statesman and c i t i z e n s , the Dominion-pro-vincial Conference should become an invaluable addition to Canada's federal system of government. 107 APPENDIX I L i s t of Delegates" to the Dominion-Provincial Conferences  Conference of 1906  From Ontario Hon. J . P. Whitney, Premier Hon. J . J . Foy, K.C., Attorney-General Hon. A. J . Matheson, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer From Quebec Hon. Lomer Gouin, K.C., Premier and Attorney-General Hon. W. A. Weir, Minister of Public Works Hon. Adelard Turgeon, Minister of Lands and Forests From New Brunswick Hon. L. J . Tweedie, Premier and P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hon. Wm. Pugsley, K.C., Attorney-General From Prince Edward Island Hon. Arthur Peters, K.C., Premiea? and Attorney-General Hon. G. E. Hughes From Manitoba Hon. R. P. Roblin, Premier, Minister of Railways and Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e . Hon. C. H. Campbell, K.C., Attorney-General From B r i t i s h Columbia ^Hon. Richard McBride, Premier and Minister of Mines From Nova Scotia Hon. G. H. Murray, Prime Minister and P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hon. Arthur Drysdale, Attorney-General From Saskatchewan Hon. Walter Scott, Premier Hon. J . A. Calder, Commissioner of Education From Alberta Hon. A. C; Rutherford, Premier Hon. C. W. Cross, K. C , Attorney-General 108 On Behalf of the Dominion Government: Rt. Hon. S i r Wilfred Laurier, G.C.M.G., F i r s t Minister Hon. W. S. F i e l d i n g , Minister of Finance Hon. A. B. Aylesworth, K. C., Minister of Justice Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, K. C., Postmaster General « # * « « Obnference of 1915 Hon. W. H. Hearst, Premier of Ontario ^ Hon. George J . Clarke., Premier of New Brunswick Hon. T # C:; Norrls, Premier of Manitoba Hon. J . A. Mathieson, Premier of Prince Edward Island Hon. W. Scott, Premier of Saskatchewan Hon. E. H. Armstrong, Commission of Works and Mines, Nova Scotia Hon. J . L. Decarie, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary, Quebec Hon. Ferguson, Acting Minister of Education, Ontario Hon. Di*. Thornton, Mi n i s t e r of Education, Manitoba Hon. J . A. Calder, Minister of Railways and Highways, Saskatchewan. Hon. F. A. Turgeon, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary, Saskatchewan Hon. Gi R. M i t c h e l l , P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer, Alberta Prof. F. H. Sexton, Director of Technical Education, Nova Scotia * * * * * * Conference of!9l8  From Ontario Hon. S i r Wm. Hearst, K.C.M.G., Premier Hon. Howard Ferguson, Minister of Lands, Forests & Mines Hon. T. W. McGarry, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Hon. G. S. Henry, Minister of Agriculture From Quebec Hon. S i r Lomer Gouin, K.C.M.G., Premier and Attorney-General Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Minister of Public.Works and Labor Hon. J . E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture Hon. Walter M i t c h e l l , P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer and Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s From Nova Scotia Hon. G. H. Murray, Premier Hon. 0. T. Daniels, Attorney-General Hon. Wm. Chisholm, Minister without P o r t f o l i o Hon. R. M. MacGregor, Minister without P o r t f o l i o Hon. R. E. Finn, Minister without P o r t f o l i o 109 From New Brunswick Hon. W. E. Foster, Premier Hon. J . F. Tweeddale, Min i s t e r of Agriculture Hon. P. J . Venoit, M i n i s t e r of Public Works Hon. C. W. Robinson, Minister without P o r t f o l i o From Manitoba Hon. T. C. Norris, Premier Hon. T. H. Johnson, Attorney-General Hon. Edward Brown, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer From B r i t i s h Columbia. Gion. John<gl^e^, Premier. '(Hon. T. D. P a t t u l l o , M i n i s t e r of Lands From Prince Edward Island Hon. A; E. Arsenault, Premier Hon. Murdock McKinnon, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Minister of Agriculture From Saskatchewan: Hon. W. M. M a r t i n , Premier Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture Hon. W. E. Knowles, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hon. £; A. Dunning, Provincial treasurer From Alberta Hon. Ohas. Stewart, Premier Hon. C. R. M i t c h e l l , P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Hon. J . R. Boyle, Attorney-General On Behalf of the Dominion Government Hon. S i r Thomas White, K.C7.M"»G., Minister of Finance and Acting Prime Minister Hon. S i r James Lougheed, K.O.M.G., Minister of Soldiers C i v i l Re-establishment Hon. P. E. Blondin, Postmaster-General Hon. Arthur Meighen, K.C., Minister of I n t e r i o r Hon. J . A. Calder, Minister of Immigration and Co l o n i z a t i o n Hon. N. W. Rowell, K. C"., President of the Privy Council Major-General, the Hon. S. C. Newburn, C.M.G., Minister of M i l i t i a and Defence Hon. F. B* Cawell, Minister of. Public Works Hon. G. D. Robertson, Minister of Labour. 110 Conference of 1927  From.Ontario The Hon. G. H. Ferguson, K. C., Premier of Ontario Lieu t . - C o l . The Hon. W. H. P r i c e , K.C., Attorney-General The Hon. J . D. Monteith, M.C., P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer From Quebec The Hon. L. A. Taschereau, K.C;, Premier of Quebec From Nova Scotia The Hon. E. N. Rhodes, K.C., Premier of Nova Scotia 061. the Hon. G. S. Harrington, Minister of Public Works & Mines The Hon. W. L. H a l l , K.C., Attorney-General From New Brunswick The Hon. J . B. M. Baxter, E. C. Premier of New Brunswick The Hon. C. D. Richards, Minister of Lands & Mines The Hon. L. P. D. T i l l e y , K. C., President of Executive Council From Manitoba The Hon. John Bracken, Br. S . A., Premier of Manitoba She Hon. W.' J . Major, K. C:;, Attorney-General The Hon. R. A. Hoey, Minister of Agriculture From B r i t i s h Columbia #The Hon. J . D. Macleany M. D., Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia The Hon. A. M. Mausjon,_K^C^ Attorney-General From Prince Edward Island The Hon. Albert C. Saunders, K. C , Premier of Prince Edward Island The Hon. George S. Inman, K. C., Member of Executive Council From Saskatchewan: The Hon. J . G. Gardiner, Premier of Saskatchewan Col. the' Hon. J . A. Cross, D. S. 0., K. 0., Attorney-General The Hon. T. C. Davis, K.C.", P r o v i n c i a l Secretary From Alberta The Hon. J . E. Brownlee, K.C., Premier of Alberta The Hon.' George Hoadley, Minister of Agriculture The Hon.' R. G. Reid, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer I l l On Behalf of the Dominion Government The Rt. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C:. M.G., Prime Minister The Hon. Senator Raoul Dandurand, K. C., Minister of State The Hon. Ernest Lapointe, K. C , Minister of J u s t i c e The Hon. James A. Robb, Minister of Finance The Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the I n t e r i o r The Hon. W.. R.. Motherwell, Minister of Agriculture The Hon. J . H. King, M.D., Minister of Health and Minister of S o l d i e r s ' C i v i l Re-establishment The Hon. P. J . A. Cardin, Minister of Marine and Fisheries The Hon. Charles A. Dunning, Minister of Railways and Canals The Hon. J . Cr. E l l i o t t , K. G\, Ministeroof Public Works The-Hon. Lucien Gannon, K. G i t S o l i c i t o r General The Hon. Peter J . Venoit, Postmaster-General The Hon. W. D. Euler, Minister of National Revenue The Hon. Fernand Ri n f r e t , Secretary of State The Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade & Commerce The Hon. Robert Forke, Minister of Immigration The Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour The Hon. J . L. Ralston, K. C., G. M.G., D. S.O., M i n i s t e r of National Defence In addition to the above delegates the following P r o v i n c i a l Ministers were present at l a t e r s i t t i n g s of the conference From Quebec The Hon. Honore Mercier, LL.B., Minister of Lands and Forests The Hon. Jacob J i c o l , K.C"., LL.M., P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer From New Brunswick The Hon. A. Leger, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Treasurer The Hon. D. A. Stewart, Mi n i s t e r of Public Works The Hon. Lewis Smith, Minister of Agriculture The delegation from the Provinces included the following o f f i c i a l s and advisors: From Ontario Mr. Edward Bayly, K.C;, Deputy Attorney-General Mr. R. Leighton Foster, Superintendent of Insurance Mr. W. J . Smelt, Secretary, Insurance Department Mr. T. J . White, K. G., C o n t r o l l e r of Revenue Mr. George Grant, Private Secretary to the Premier From Quebec Mr. R. A. Benoifc, Private Secretary to the Premier From Nova Scotia Mr. A. S. Barnstead, Deputy P r o v i n c i a l Secretary From Mew Brunswick Mr. Harvey M i t c h e l l , Deputy Minister of Agriculture Mr. W. A. Loudon, Auditor General Mr. W. K. Tibert, Director of Vocational Education Professor W. C. Keirstead, Advisor From Manitoba Mr. John A l l e n , Deputy Attorney-General Mr. R. M. Pearson, Deputy P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer From B r i t i s h Columbia Mr.'E. D. Johnson, Deputy Minister of Finance From Prince Edward Island Mr. J . 0. C. Campbell, Private Secretary tothe Premier From Saskatchewan Mr. A. P. Taylor, .Deputy P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Mr. Donald A l l a n , Private Secretary to the Premier From Alberta Mr. R. English, Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs Mr. J . C:; Thompson, P r o v i n c i a l Auditor Messrs. H. E. M. Chisholm and Gustave Lanctot were the O f f i c i a l Recorders and Mr. L. C. Moyer, the Conference Secretary * * * * * * * The Conference of 1935  From Ontario The Hon. M i t c h e l l F. Hepburn, Premier 5 P r o v i n c i a l Cabinet Ministers 10 Representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l C i v i l Service From Quebec The Hon. L. A. Taxchereau, Premier 5 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet ministers 6 representativesiof the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service From Nova Scotia The Hon. A. L. Macdonald, Premier 2 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet ministers 3 representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service From New Brunswick The Hon. A i A l l i s o n Dysart, K.07., Premier 5 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet ministers 8 representatives of the-provincial a i v i l service From Manitoba The Hon. John Bracken, Premier. 3 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet ministers. 3 representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service From B r i t i s h Columbia The . H o n ^ £ j X ^ a J J ^ l o ^ Premier '4oprovincial cabinet ministers 4 representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service Prom Prinoe Edward Island The Hon. W. M. Lea, Premier 1 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet minister 1 representative from: the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service From Alberta The Hon. William Aberhart, Premier 4 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet ministers.: 3 representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service From Saskatchewan The Hon. W. J . Patterson, Premier 1 p r o v i n c i a l cabinet minister 2 representatives of the p r o v i n c i a l c i v i l service On behalf of the Dominion Government Rt. Hon. William L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister Hon. T, A. Cr rar, M i n i s t e r of Mines Hon. E. Lapointe, K.C;, Minister of Justice Hon. P. J . Cardin, K. C , Minister of Public Works Hon. C; A. Dunning, Minister of Finance Hon. J . C. E l l i o t t , K. C , Postmaster-General Hon. W. D. Euler, M i n i s t e r of Trade & Commerce Hon. F. R l n f r e t . Secretary of State f o r Canada Hon. I. Mackenzie, Mi n i s t e r of National Defence Hon. C* G, Power, K. G., Minister of Pensions Hon. J . L. I l s l e y , M inister of National Revenue Hon. N. McL. Rogers, Mi n i s t e r of Fisheries: Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Railways Hon. J . G. Gardiner, Mi n i s t e r of Agriculture Hon. J . E. Michaud, Minister of Fisheries 114 The Conference of 1941 A Conference Directory issued by the Dominion Government l i s t e d a proposed four Committees with the following represent-ation from the Federal Government: Finance Chairman, Finance Minister I l s l e y Secretary, R. Bryce, f i n a n c i a l investigator, Finance Dept. Dominion Rep re s entat1ve a Revenue Minister Gibson Public Works Minister Cardin Mines Minister Crerar Navy Minister Macdonald A i r M i n i s t e r Power Labour and unemployment Chairman, Labor Minister McLarty Secretary, A. MacNamara, Associate Deputy Labor Minister Dominion Representatives Pensions Mi n i s t e r MacKenzie Hon. P. F. Casgrain, Secretary of State Munitions Minister Howe (absent on:war work.) Special Problems Chairman, Agriculture Minister Gardiner Secretary, J . F. MacNeill, Department of J u s t i c e Dominion Representatives Trade Mi n i s t e r MacKinnon Fishe r i e s M i n i s t e r Michaud Post Master-General Mulook Constitutional Chairman, Justice Minister Lapointe Secretary, Brooke Claxton, L i b e r a l Member of Parliament f o r Montreal-St. Lawrence-St. George Dominion Representat&ve s Defence Minister Ralston-(absent on war work) Alternate, Navy Min i s t e r Macdonald. Press l i a i s o n o f f i c e r s f o r the conference were G. H. Lash, Director of Public Information and Adjutor Savard of Ottawa^ executive assistant to Alex Skelton, conference secretary. From B r i t i s h Columbia Premier T ._p_.„Patt"1^9 Hon. Jo^r^r.t,,.™Minister~o.f.Finance Hon. G. *S~. Wismer, K. C , Attorny-General Hon. G. M". Weir, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary and Minister of Education Hon. G. S. Pearson; Minister of Labor Hon. K. C. MacDonald, Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e . 116 From Alberta Premier William: Aberhart Hon, Solon Low, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Hon. Lucien Maynard, Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s ; Hon. Dr. W. W. Cross, M i n i s t e r of Health and R e l i e f Hon. W. A. Fallow, Minister of Public Works, Railways and Telephones Hon, N.-E. Tanner, Minister of Lands and Mines. From .Manitoba Premier John Bracken Hon. W. J . Major, K, C I , Attorney-General Hon. S, S, Garson, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Hon. E r i c : F . W i l l i s , M i nister of Public Works Hon, S. J , Farmer, Mi n i s t e r of Labor Hon. Sauveur Marcoux* Min i s t e r without P o r t f o l i o From: New Brunswick Premier J . Bv McNair Hon. J . J . Hayes Doone, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary-Treasurer Hon. W. S. Anderson, Minister of Public Works: Hon. F. W. P i r i e , M i n i s t e r of Lands and Mines? Hon. A. CC Taylor, Minister of Agriculture Hon. J , Andre Doucet, Minister of Health and Labour Hon. C:; H. Blakeny, Minister of Education and of Federal and Municipal A f f a i r s Hon. J . G. Boucher, Minister without P o r t f o l i o and Chairman of N. B i E l e c t r i c Power Commission; From Nova Scotia Premier A. S. MacMillan: Hon. J . H. MoQuarrie, Attorney-General Hon. L. P, Gurrie, Minister of Mines and Labour Hon, F, R. Davis, Minister of Public Health From Ontario  Premier M i t c h e l l F. Hepburn Hon. Harry Nixon, P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hon. T. B. McQuestern, Mi n i s t e r of Highways and Municipal A f f a i r s Hon. Gordon Conant, Attorney-General Hon. Norman Hipel, Minister of Labor and Welfare Hon. Robert Laurier, Minister of Mines Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Lands and Forests:; From: Prince Edward Island Premier Thane A:. Campbell Hon. James P. Mclntyre, Minister of Public Works Hon. Mark R. McGuigan, Minister of Education and Public Welfare From Quebec Premier Adelard Godbout Hon. T. D. Bouchard, Mi n i s t e r of Roads and Public Works Hon. Arthur Mathewson, P r o v i n c i a l Treasurer Hon. W i l f r i d GIrouard, Attorney-General Hon. P. E. Cdte, Minister of Lands and Forests; Hon. Oscar Drouin, Minister of Trade and Commerce Hon. Edgar,Rochette, Minister of Labor and Mines Hon. F. P. Brai s , M i n i s t e r without p o r t f o l i o Hon. Hector F a r r i e r , P r o v i n c i a l Secretary From Saskatchewan Premier W. J . Patterson Hon. J.W. Estey, Attorney-General Hon. R. J . M. Parker, Minister of Municipal A f f a i r s Hon. E. M. C u l l i t o n , P r o v i n c i a l Secretary Hon.. J . G. Taggert, Minister of A g r i c u l t u r e . 119 APPENDIX _II STATE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCES IN AUSTRALIA A u s t r a l i a i s governed under a federal system with a r i g i d c o n s t i t u t i o n . There are somewhat s i m i l a r points of c o n f l i c t between the states and the federal government In A u s t r a l i a as between the provinces and the Dominion i n Canada. In both countries there have been attempts at cooperation through conferences:of the various governments concerned. The following extracts indicate the general tendencies followed by the conferences i n A u s t r a l i a . An Introduction to Some Problems of Australian Federalism, a study of the relationship between the A u s t r a l i a n States and the Commonwealth with special reference to Finance, by Kenneth 0. Warner, University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1933. Conferences between m i n i s t e r i a l heads of the respective Au s t r a l i a n governments, as well as between departmental o f f i c e r s have been frequently employed, although there i s no l e g a l sanction behind the dictates of these conferences, t h e i r resolutions frequently influence subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n and e f f e c t agreements both i n t e r s t a t e , and state-Oommonwealth. Exemplifying inter-departmental conferences are: Meetings of heads of f i s h e r i e s departments to secure uniformity In regulations; conferences between heads of naglvation departments i n the Commonwealth and States designed to prevent overlapping while preserving the separate existence of Commonwealth and State departments; and conferences of forestry o f f i c e r s to consider matters of mutual i n t e r e s t . At the conference of commonwealth and state ministers held i n May, 1929, consideration was given the question ofuniform mining laws and r e l i e f i n the d i r e c t i o n of taxation. The same conference urged a meeting of state authorities to deal with unemployment, to draft a uniform plan for labor bureaus and to propose uniform methods of administration. A complete l i s t of conferences between representatives of states and commonwealth would be lengthy and treat of p r a c t i c a l l y a l l important functions of government. From the examples c i t e d i t may be suggested that the 'conference' occupies a keystone p o s i t i o n i n arching together the states-and commonwealth into a p r a c t i c a l and workable constitution which functions i n a 120 manner the designers hardly anticipated. Premiers' conferences as a means of tempering any r i g i d i t y appearing in,the consti t u t i o n have been of inestimable value... Early in:the career of the newly organized commonwealth, there appeared an expedient which e f f e c t i v e l y tempered the r i g i d i t y of the inadequate c o n s t i t u t i o n . This expedient—extra-c o n s t i t u t i o n a l conferences and agreements between governments and departments of both p o l i t i e s — h a s undoubtedly ameliorated the embarassing s i t u a t i o n . , Whether problems discussed i n previous pages inev i t a b l y flow from federalism; whether they must always be met by agreements between ce n t r a l and l o c a l governmental e n t i t i e s , with a tendency toward concentrating power i n the federal authority; or whether the only solution of the co n s t i t u t i o n a l enigma resolves I t s e l f into a unitary government—are matters to be pondered. In l i e u of a r e a l l o c a t i o n of authority and functions, i t i s submitted that the inter-departmental and inter-governmental (state and commonwealth) agreement opens the way to a satisfactory- modus operandi. A tentative solution of duplication, overlapping c o n f l i c t s , etc, of state and: commonwealth i n s t i t u t i o n a l machinery might be effected, i f i n addition to the l e g a l i z e d practice of inter-governmental conferences and agreements, there were created a Co-ordinating Bureau representing a l l p o l i t i e s . This Bureau might be invested with power to d e l i v e r , a f t e r consultation, binding recommendations; r e l a t i v e to p o l i c i e s and practices of states and commonwealth i n a l l spheres of governmental action:. In June 1927 a Loan Council was established under the commonwealth to prevent unrestricted and unchecked borrowing by the states. The same work referee to th i s Council as follows; The Loan Council consists of ministers representing states and commonwealth; each having a representative on the council appointed by the prime minister of the commonwealth and state premiers, respectively. Members hold o f f i c e during the pleasure of the appointing o f f i c e r . Greater authority over the Council's business i s vested i n the commonwealth representative than i n -state representatives. For example, a meeting of the council may be convened at any time by the commonwealth member, whereas i t requires three state members to convene the body. Furthermore on every question f o r decision by the council, the commonwealth member has two votes and a casting vote; state members have one vote. To t h i s council the commonwealth and each state, as occasion demands, submit a program setting f o r t h the amount i t desire® to raise by loans f o r each f i n a n c i a l year f o r purposes other than conversion, renewal, or redemption of ex i s t i n g loans or temporary purposes. Similar programs are submitted f o r ex i s t i n g loans. Each program states the estimated t o t a l 121 amount of the loan expenditures f o r the year, and the estimated amount of repayments available towards meeting the expenditure. The program also includes revenue d e f i c i t s to be funded, which amounts are set out separately. A f t e r submission of state and commonwealth loan programs to the council, that body decides whether the t o t a l amount can be borrowed at reasonable rates under reasonable conditions, and determines what amounts should be borrowed. Allotment of amounts between commonwealth and states i s effected by unanimous decision of the c o u n c i l . In l i e u of aiunanimous decision, provision i s made f o r settlement of d i s t r i b u t i o n . The B r i t i s h Empire, A Report on i t s Structure and Problems, b j a study group of Members of the Royal I n s t i t u t e of International A f f a i r s , Oxford University Press, New York, 1937. The 0ommon-wealth of A u s t r a l i a , "Growing Power of the Commonwealth," "The loan Council i s the p r i n c i p a l i n s t i t u t i o n that has been devised to co-ordinate State and Federal p o l i c i e s ; conferences between the premiers of the States and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth are also held from time to t i m e — u s u a l l y upon the occasion of Loan Council meetings—to examine common problems i n matterss other than f i n a n c i a l . " The Commonwealth of A u s t r a l i a , Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution together with appendixes and index. H. J , Green, Government P r i n t e r , Canberra, 1929. Section XVIII. Cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states. "The Premiers' Conference. Conferences between the Premiers of the di f f e r e n t - s t a t e s have been held I n almost every year since the establishment of the Commonwealth. At most of the conferences a Commonwealth Minister has been present, and i n recent years the Prime Minister has opened the Conference. In 1908 the government off' New fou th Wales undertook to provide a secretariat which would act as a l i n k between successive conferences. I t was suggested i n evidence before the Commission that the Premiers' Conference would be much better q u a l i f i e d to bring about uniformity i n the laws of the d i f f e r e n t States l f experts were appointed to advise the conference, and to carry on a work s i m i l a r to that which i s car r i e d on:in the United States. Witnesses who had attended one or more conferences on behalf, of t h e i r respective States said that the value of these conferences could not be judged from the presence of the same item on successive agenda papers. The conferences may not be successful as instruments for having proposals passed'into law, but they 122 have considered or formulated agreements between one or more States which have been or are being c a r r i e d into e f f e c t . In a great number of instances recommendations or resolutions of a conference have not-been car r i e d out, but i n many instances suggestions have been made which have brought about l e g i s l a t i o n on the part of the Commonwealth or one or more of the States, The conferences have- paid most attention to two topics--the f i n a n c i a l r e l a t i o n s of the States and the Commonwealth, and the problems of i n d s t r l a l r e l a t i o n s . The problem of f i n a n c i a l r e l ations has been p a r t i c u l a r l y prominent i n the oonferences immediately preceding the year i n which a re-adjustment was to be made, that i s , i n the conferences immediately preceding the termination of the f i r s t ten years of the Commonwealth, and i n those immediately before and a f t e r the termination of the ten year period prescribed by the Surplus Revenue Act, 1910. The problem of i n d u s t r i a l relations was most prominent i n i n d u s t r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n , and shortly a f t e r the.decision of the High Court i n 1920 In the Engineers' case, i n which i t was held that the Federal A r b i t r a t i o n Court could regulate the wages and hours of labour of employees i n State i n d u s t r i a l under-takings. Other important subjects considered at conferences were those of a uniform railway gauge, health and a v i a t i o n . Other conferences have been held between State and Federal Minister, of which one of the most noteworthy-was the Treasurers* Conference of May 1914, for the purpose of considering resolutions designed to prevent competition f i r loans among the States. At the Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held at Canberra i n May 1929, i t was resolved that the meeting of the Prime Minister and the State Premiers be held annually at some date i n May, and that the agenda paper and any accompanying memoranda should be furnished to the states at least one month before the holding of the conference. On several occasions agreements have been made, p r i n c i p a l l y at Premiers' Conferences, to submit to the State Parliaments proposals to r e f e r subjects of l e g i s l a t i o n to the Commonwealth Parliament, with the object of bringing about uniformity. In 1906 a proposal was made at the Premiers 1 Conference that l e g i s l a t i o n on the subject of hall-marking should be referred to the Commonwealth by the States. At the Premiers' Conference i n 1909 i t was agreed between the •Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States that the Premiers would bring forward i n t h e i r respective Parliaments l e g i s l a t i o n f o r r e f e r r i n g to the Commonwealth Parliament the power of l e g i s l a t i n g on i n d u s t r i a l conditions, so as to- bring about uniformity j&hrough the Inter-State Commission. In 1912 a b i l l was prepared f o r the purpose of vesting i n the Commonwealth Parliament wider i n d u s t r i a l powers, 123 but nothing further was done. In 1915, a f t e r the writs had been issued f o r a referendum, the Premiers agreed to submit to the State Parliaments proposals to confer on the Commonwealth Parliament c e r t a i n i n d u s t r i a l powers f o r the period of the war and one year thereafter. On the withdrawal of the writs only the State of New South Wales passed the necessary act, though blllsrwere introduced i n the other States:; A proposal was at one time made to the State governments that they should introduce l e g i s l a t i o n giving the Commonwealth Parliament power to l e g i s l a t e with repect to intr a - s t a t e shipping and navigation, but thi s proposal was not acted on by any of the States. At the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held In May 1829, the Prime Minister referred to the proposal for the transfer by the States to the Commonwealth of power to l e g i s l a t e with respect to the production, d i s t r i b u t i o n , and exhibition of cinematograph fUms i n A u s t r a l i a on the l i n e s recommended by the Federal Royal Commission on Films, ...At the Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held i n May 1929, i t was agreed that the Commonwealth should draft a b i l l to be submitted to the governments of the States tran s f e r r i n g to the Commonwealth Parliament f u l l power, to l e g i s l a t e with respect to a v i a t i o n and matters i n c i d e n t a l to aviation, and the State Governments undertook to consider whether they would submit the b i l l to t h e i r respective Parliaments at an early date. The Round Table, A Quarterly Review of the P o l i t i c s of the B r i t i s h Commonwealth, Vol.XXIV. p. 639, "Australia, Problems of Federalism, I. The Constitutional Conference," "Judged merely by the decisions taken, the fortnight spent i n Melbourne i n February by the leaders of the seven governments of A u s t r a l i a i n reviewing the working of the constitu t i o n was largel y a waste of time. No agreement was found possible except on a few minor points, which could have been, and^in f a c t were, disposed of i n less than hal f a day. Nevertheless t h i s was the f i r s t opportunity, since the Royal Commission on the Constittotion presented i t s report i n 1929, f o r a comprehensive review of the working of Australian federalism; most of the governments had made thorough preparations for the discussions, and there emerged one clea r l i n e of controversy of which more w i l l be heard i n A u s t r a l i a i n the next ten years. Some fundamental issues were c l e a r l y stated. The conference grew out of a promise by the Prime Minister, made In the hope of averting a secessionist vote at the referendum i n Western A u s t r a l i a l a s t year, to support the holding of a convention to discuss the whole federal problem. This p a r t i c u l a r proposal d i d not commend i t s e l f e i t h e r to the Western Australian electors or to a Premiers' Conference held l a t e r i n the year. Instead, i t was agreed that Commonwealth and State Ministersc should themselves discuss the subject of co n s t i t u t i o n a l r e v i s i o n . A premier's conference could not indeed actually i n i t i a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments, any more than a convention could. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i n i t i a t i n g amendments rests with the Commonwealth Parliament alone. The f i n a n c i a l r e l a t i o n s of Commonwealth and States occupied most of the time and thought of the Conf erence.. .In view of the other States, the co n s t i t u t i o n a l problem of finance, properly so-ca l l e d , i s the growing f i n a n c i a l dominance of the Commonwealth. This controversy disclosed the ultimate issue i n Aust r a l i a n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l development: are we to have a federal system, based on the continued existence of strong States? Except Queenssland, a l l theGovernments represented at the Conference answered this question unhesitatingly i n the affirmative." The Round Table, V o l . XXV., p. 339, "The Working of Federalism i n A u s t r a l i a , " " i n the c r i s i s of the depression the means for concerted action were found i n the Loan Council and i n conferences of the State and Federal Governments. The Constitution did not provide -the means of obtaining unity of command, which had been found i n the defence power during the war. When conferences of Govern-ments had agreed on a plan i t was necessary that the plan should be c a r r i e d out by the separate action of the States and the Commonwealth, subject to party c r i t i c i s m and the p o s s i b i l i t y of a change of government. Here was demonstrated the weakness- of the confederate or cooperative system. Its success depends on agreement on a common p o l i c y , or, i f this be wanting, on acceptance of decisions once made. In the Australian c r i s i s both of these essentials were lacking. The attitude of the most powerful of the States, where party f e e l i n g was most embittered, hampered and delayed the national p o l i c y , and, had the Commonwealth not acquired by the Fi n a n c i a l Agreement Act, of 1928, a reserve power of coercion, might have frustrated i t altogether." I t would appear from the extracts above that A u s t r a l i a has made- considerable use of the conference as an instrument of cooperation, perhaps more so than Canada. The Conferences are* more frequent than i n Canada and a Secretariat has been established. There would seem to be a better public attitude towards the Conferences i n A u s t r a l i a than i n Canada. The frequent meetings between heads of s i m i l a r departments in: d i f f e r e n t governments would Indicate that p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r cooperation are great. 125 For a f u l l study of the Austr a l i a n Conference System, the following bibliography may be consulted: BIBLIOGRAPHY Encyclopaedia Britannica, volume 2, p. 721, AUSTRALIA, Constitutional Questions. A u s t r a l i a , Commonwealth of, Conference of Commonwealth and State Minister, Proceedings and decisions of conference held in Adelaide, August 26-28, 1936. Johnston, Commonwealth Government P r i n t e r , Canberra, A u s t r a l i a , 1936. Aus t r a l - A s i a t i c B u l l e t i n , August-September 1940, "The Changing Structure of Federal Government i n A u s t r a l i a , " by G. L. Wood (deals primarily with new war powers) Au s t r a l - A s i a t i c Bulletin,, December- January, 1940 - 41, "Australia and the T e r r i t o r i e s , " F. W. Eggleston Bland, F. A. Government i n A u s t r a l i a , Tennant, Sydney, 1939 (very valuable bibliography, p a r t i c u l a r l y of government documents.) Brennan, T. C. Interpreting the constitution; a p o l i t i c o - l e g a l essay, Oxford, 1935. Canaway, A. P. The F a i l u r e of Federalism i n A u s t r a l i a , Oxford, London, 1930. Foreign A f f a i r s , October 1931, "Stalemant and Reconstruction i n A u s t r a l i a , " E. Shaw Forelgh A f f a i r s , January 1935, "Problems of Federation i n A u s t r a l i a , " F. R. Beasley. L i v i n g Age, May 1, 1930, "Centralization or more States." P o l i t i c a l Science Quarterly, September 1940,"Bland 1s Government i n A u s t r a l i a , " C. Hartley Grattan Royal Commission on the Constitution, Report, Appendices and Index, Canberra, 1929 Royal I n s t i t u t e of International A f f a i r s , The B r i t i s h Empire, A report on i t s structure and Problems, Oxford University Press, New York, 1937. Round Table, A Q u a r t e r l y Revfew of the P o l i t i c s of the B r i t i s h Commonwealth, Vol . XXIV "Australia, Problem of Federalism." B o l . XXV. "The Working of Federalism i n A u s t r a l i a . " Survey Graphic, August 1938, "Dominion Down Under." 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Canadian Public Opinion & the Statute of Westminster, A.BiM, B e l l , Thesis, University of Queen's, Sept. 1935. Library of Parliament, Ottawa The Law of the Canadian Constitution, W. H. Clement, Carswell CO. Toronto, 1913. Constitutional Issues i n Canada, 1900-1931. E. R. MCG. Dawson, Oxford University Press, London; 1933. The Constitution of Canada, W. D. M. Kennedy. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press:. London 1938. Canada's Federal System, Lefroy, A.H.F., Carswell Co., Toronto 1916 -GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Sessional Paper 68, Session Papers, 1903, Vol XXXVII, No. 13 Sessional Papers, Vol. XLI, No. 12, 1906-07, No. 29A Sessional Paper 86, 1916, Library of Parliament (unpublished) Proceedings of the Conference Between the Government of Canada and the Provincial Governments at Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , Nov. 1918 Precis of Discussions, Dominion-Provincial Conference, Nov. 3-19s 1927, King's P r i n t e r , Ottawa. 1928. Report of the Dominion-provincial Conference. 1934, King's P r i n t e r Ottawa» Dominion-Provincial Conference, 1935. Record of Proceedings, ^Ottawa 1936, King's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, Dominion-Provincial Conference 1941, Ottawa 1941, King's P r i n t e r . House of Commons Debates; REPORTS Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, 1940. Vol I - I I I . Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r . , D i f f i c u l t i e s of Divided J u r i s d i c t i o n , J . A. Cbrry. 1940. Royal Commission.on Dominion-provincial Relations Studies. Ottawa King's P r i n t e r . Dominion-provincial Subsidies & Grants. Royal Commission.on Dominion-provincial Relations Studies: 1940. W. Eggleston & C.T, Kraf t , ©ttawa, King's Printer.. 127 PublicvASsistance & S o c i a l Insurance, A. S. G-rauer. 1940. Royal Commission on Dominion-provincial Relations Studies. King's P r i n t e r , Ottawa. REVIEWS Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1906 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1918 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1927-28 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1930-31 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 19321 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1933 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1934 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1935-36 Canadian Annual Review, Toronto, Canada, 1940 Yearbook of the Citizens Research I n s t i t u t e of Canada, Toronto, 1941. Monthly Review; Bank of Nova Scotia, Toronto. December 1940 ARTICLES Proceedings of the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association. Kingston. 1931. The Compact: Theory of Confederation, Norman McL. Rogers. % Proceedings of the Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association, Kingston, 1934. P r o v i n c i a l Conferences and Better ferms, J . A. Maxwell. * Canadian Journal of Economic & P o l i t i c a l Sciencej V o l . 2 P. 374-389. February-November 1936. The Adjustment of Federal-Provincial Relations. J . A. Maxwell. Queen's Quarterly. Vol. XXXV, November 1927 American P o l i t i c a l Science Review. Vol 31. 91-96, February 1937 Dominion Disallowance of P r o v i n c i a l Legislatiaain Canada, H. Heneman. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098668/manifest

Comment

Related Items