Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The unemployment Assistance Act (1956) : its implications for social security and public welfare administration… Fowler, Douglas Weatherbee 1958

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1958_A5 F6 U6.pdf [ 4.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106098.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106098-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106098-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106098-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106098-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106098-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106098-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106098-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106098.ris

Full Text

THE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT ( 1956 ) I t s Implications for S o c i a l Security and Public Welfare Administration i n Canada* by DOUGLAS WEATHERBEE FOWLER Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i n the School of So c i a l Work. Accepted as conforming to the standard required f o r the degree of Master of S o c i a l Work School of S o c i a l Work 1958 The University of B r i t i s h Columbia i v ABSTRACT The passage of the Unemployment Assistance Act i n J u l y , 1956 represented a s i g n i f i c a n t break with the t r a d i t i o n a l approach to public assistance i n Canada for i t brought Dominion government pa r t i c i p a t i o n into a f i e l d always regarded as the exclusive r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the provinces. This study has been undertaken to consider i t s implications'for S o c i a l Security i n Canada, including the e f f e c t s of the Act on existing p r o v i n c i a l programs. The method of study has been both h i s t o r i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l . In order to i d e n t i f y the p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l factors which lead to t h i s r a d i c a l change i n attitude on the part of the Dominion, Parliamentary debates have been reviewed and the proceedings of Dominion-Provincial conferences studied. In addition, such reports as that of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, the National Employment Commission and the various publications of the Canadian Welfare Council were useful sources of information. A study of the l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f was e s s e n t i a l to analyze i t s effects on p r o v i n c i a l programs and t h i s was done i n conjunction with a review of p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n pertinent to the subject. A d e f i n i t i v e evaluation of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s l i m i t e d by the fact that i t i s of such recent o r i g i n that there has been l i t t l e time to study i t s t o t a l e f f e c t . Furthermore, an amendment to the Act which took effect on January 1, 1958 broadened the terms of the l e g i s l a t i o n to extend the degree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the Dominion. S i g n i f i c a n t points which do emerge however, are? (a) Those provinces which have developed high standards i n t h e i r public assistance programs are the p r i n c i p a l b e n e f i c i a r i e s under the l e g i s l a t i o n , (b) Those provinces which have r e l i e d heavily on Mothers' Allowances to meet the needs of a large segment of dependent persons are at a serious f i n a n c i a l disadvantage, (c) The application of the Act i s uneven among the provinces because of the wide var i a t i o n s i n services offered. An important element i n the l e g i s l a t i o n i s the a b o l i t i o n of residence regulations between the p a r t i c i p a t i n g provinces, a step which may bring an end to one of the most vexing problems i n public welfare administration. In presenting t h i s t h e s i s 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 an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . I t i s under-stood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8 , Canada. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I * The Background of Unemployment Assistance. 1921-19A5. Pag The new act and i t s passage. Economic and s o c i a l change. F i r s t unemployment c r i s i s (1921). The depression. Government action to meet unemployment* Dominion-Provincial conferences. Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial r e l a t i o n s , Po st-war planning 1 Chapter I I , A New Dominion P o l i c y on Unemployment Assistance 194? - 19ft. Post-war unemployment. New Dominion policy on unemployment assistance. The Unemployment Assistance Act* P r o v i n c i a l reaction to l e g i s l a t i o n . Commons debate on removal of "threshold clause". Passage of the amendment*. 26 Chapter I I I , The Application and Administration of the Act The provisions of the Act* - inclusions and exclusions. P r o v i n c i a l programs of unemployment assistance, The question of Mothers' Allowance. Payments to the provinces. Standards of assistance i n Canada, . . A3 Chapter IV* The Unemployment Assistance Act; Provisional  Assessment Major features of the l e g i s l a t i o n * Solution of the residence problem* Limitations of the l e g i s l a t i o n , . Future r o l e of Federal aid i n s o c i a l welfare 62 Appendices: A, The operation of the f i n a n c i a l formula used by Government of Canada to determine deductions from reimbursement claim because of reduction i n Mothers Allowance caseload. B, Bibliography* i i i TABLES I N THE TEXT Page Table I , Payments t o P r o v i n c e s under the Unemployment A s s i s t a n c e A c t , 1955—1957 59 « Table I I . Average payments t o i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v i n g unemployment a s s i s t a n c e , s i x Canadian p r o v i n c e s 1955 - 1956 ....... 60* ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following persons i n the preparation of t h i s study. To Professor W»Gft Dixon, Director of the School of S o c i a l Work and Professor Leonard C, Marsh of the Faculty f o r t h e i r counsel and assistance from the time of i t s inception u n t i l the f i n a l d r a ft emerged; to my wife for her patience and encouragement over a long period, and to Miss Joan Ross f o r the typing of the study«, THE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT ( 1956 ) CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.  1921-19A5. On July 1, 1955, the l a t e s t addition to Canada's s o c i a l security program came into e f f e c t with an announcement of the Federal government. The proposal was simple, but epoch making - that the Dominion would share with the provinces and municipalities the cost of unemployment r e l i e f . This was a r a d i c a l departure from poli c y regarded as established f o r two decadesj under Canada's c o n s t i t u t i o n , r e l i e f costs, except i n times of national emergency, had been considered to be a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the provinces and l o c a l governments. What was a "national emergency" was the subject of active debate i n the early t h i r t i e s ; and there are other important elements i n the background which i t i s the purpose of t h i s thesis to review. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the new l e g i s l a t i o n was the f a c t that i t did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the unemployed employable and the so-called unemployed unemployablej both groups were now considered simply as unemployed persons and as such are covered under the provisions of the l e g i s l a t i o n . The new program was announced i n the House of Commons on June 21, 1955. The Prime M i n i s t e r , the Rt. Hon. Louis S t . Laurent, stated that the Dominion would share with the provinces half of the cost of the unemployment r e l i e f benefits when the number of persons i n the population of the province i n receipt of such benefits exceeded 0.A5 per cent of the population. At the 1956 session of Parliament, Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, introduced the Unemployment Assistance A c t , " which was designed to validate agreements reached with six provinces following the announcement of the Dominion's new po l i cy , and to provide for the remaining four provinces to enter the plan i f they so desired. While th is i s apparently not yet a complete program, and there has been one amendment of importance since the act f i r s t came into e f fec t , the implications of th is change in attitude on the part of the Federal government are so far-reaching that the present thesis has been undertaken to present the main facts and to consider the consequences for future soc ia l security pol icy in Canada* The economic and soc ia l changes which have marked Canadian l i f e in the twentieth century were never anticipated by the group of 2 men who drafted the B r i t i s h North America A c t - i n 1867. When the d iv is ion of powers between the Dominion and the provinces was set out in th is statute there was no expectation of the problems which would beset governments at a l l l e v e l s , part icular ly those resul t ing from unemployment, modern industry and business depressions* "The fathers of Confederation c lear ly thought they were assigning the provinces the unimportant and inexpensive functions of government, among which education, hospi ta ls , char i t i es , and municipal inst i tut ions were then 1 Canada* 4 - 5 Elizabeth II, c.26. 2 Great B r i t a i n . 30 V i c t o r i a , c . 3 . m ^ *• J reasonably numbered©"^ At the time of Confederation Canada was a front ier society and unemployment was v i r tua l l y unknown. The community took care of i t s sick and aged and the able-bodied unemployed men moved, usually Westward, where there were new opportunities and plenty of work. This vast hinterland could easi ly absorb those who could not make their way in the towns and v i l l a g e s . As the front ier disappeared c i t i e s grew and industries massed around the great transporation centres. There was unemployment and signs of economic dislocation in 1913 but history has passed th is over. The economic pressure of World War I stepped up the nat ion's industr ia l output, and Canada amassed a huge labour force in munitions in addition to thousands serving in the armed forces. In 1919 the economy was not geared to continue war-workers in their jobs nor to absorb the thousands of men discharged from the armed forces , A recession after World War I created large scale industr ia l unemployment and th is was the f i r s t instance of unemployment discussed as an issue in government pol icy* THE FIRST RECESSION (1921) Because many of the unemployed i n 1921 were former members of the armed forces , the Federal government accepted a moral responsibi l i ty for a i d . In addition to extended Service Men's provis ions, the Dominion instituted a policy of grants-in-aid to the provinces and the municipalit ies to assist them i n meeting the problem. In making these grants the government was careful to state that: 3 Wallace, E l izabeth , The Origin of the Socia l Welfare State in  Canada 1867 - 1900. Canadian Journal of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, v o l , 16, p, 3&U» "Unemployment r e l i e f has always been, and must necessarily continue to be , primarily a municipal responsib i l i ty , and in the second A instance the responsibi l i ty of the province," These words were destined to be frequently quoted within the succeeding t h i r t i e s . The Dominion government based i t s position on Section 92 of the Br i t i sh North America A c t , where the responsib i l i t ies of the provinces are enumerated in terms which were also frequently quoted at the time of the Rowell-Sirois Commission, "In each province the legislature may make laws in re lat ion to . . . The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospi ta ls , Asylums, Char i t ies , and 5 Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Prov ince .T This appeared to relegate the provision of unemployment r e l i e f to provincial authorit ies although th is i s not spec i f i ca l ly stated. The Dominion took the posit ion that in granting assistance i t was performing a function which was the exclusive responsibi l i ty of the provinces. The provinces, in turn , had in many cases passed the responsibi l i ty on to the munbipalities in keeping with the ancient Br i t i sh tradi t ion of loca l responsibi l i ty for the care of 6 the poor and indigent, established by the Elizabethan Poor Law,"" and s t i l l prevalent in Br i ta in in 1867, It i s often forgotten that when the Br i t i sh North America Act was drawn up Br i ta in had made very l i t t l e progress in reconstructing i t s antique form of municipal government* A Grauer, A , E . , Public Assistance and Socia l Insurance, a study  prepared for the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial  Relat ions. Ottawa, King's Pr in ter , 1939, p , 17. i Great B r i t a i n , 30 V i c t o r i a , c , 3 , Section 92, 6 Great B r i t a i n , A3 El izabeth I, c . 2 , The"f irst" c r i s i s in 1921 was met by the appropriation of 2 12,000,000 to provide grants-in-aid to the provinces and to the municipal i t ies. Economic conditions improved enough for no farther claims to be made and the concept of "emergency only" remained undisturbed for a decade. It was not u n t i l the mass unemployment of the 1930's that provincial and l o c a l governments again approached the Dominion for aid and the issue became a major national one, CRISIS OF THE WINTER OF 1929 - 1930 In October 1929 the era of prosperity that had featured the late 1920*3 ended abruptly. The f i r s t signs of what proved to be the worst economic depression in North American history were indicated by a dramatic drop in values of stocks on the New York Stock Exchange* These declines were quickly ref lected in Canada and the economic recession which followed the break was also f e l t i n th is country* At th is time there was l i t t l e recognition of the fact that the recession would be of such far reaching proportions, Canada's prosperity had been bu i l t upon heavy import-export business and i t was part icular ly vulnerable to the dislocation of international trade. The Canadian West, with i t s r i c h wheat y ie ld of the prair ie provinces and the primary industries of B r i t i sh Columbia, was immediately af fected. Early in 1930 a meeting of Provincial and Municipal o f f i c i a l s from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alber ta and Br i t i sh Columbia was held in Winnipeg, A delegation was appointed to interview Federal authorit ies and to present a series of resolutions which had been passed. The resolutions cal led for 2 Grauer, Public Assistance and Socia l Insurance, p, 17 f inanc ia l assistance to deal with unemploymentj curtailment of the government's colonization programj assumption by the Dominion for f inanc ia l assistance to veteransj appointment of an economic commission to deal with the f inanc ia l problems of the nation; and a 8 scheme of unemployment insurance," The reception the delegates received from the senior government was somewhat less than c o r d i a l . Prime Minister MacKenzie 9 King spoke on behalf of the government, Addressing the meeting on February 26, 1930, he said that i t was important to have a true perspective in the discussion of such serious matters rather than be influenced by one part icular set of condit ions. He said that a heavy winter load of unemployment was normal in ma-y parts of the country*, In Mr, K ing 1 8 opinion the delegates, instead of seeking help for the unemployed, were seeking help for provincial and municipal governments* He suggested that the munic ipal i t ies , who were affected by the high rate of unemployment, should seek aid from the provincial government and i f the lat ter encountered f inanc ia l problems they could in turn seek aid from the Federal government. He considered i t extraordinary that municipalit ies should f i r s t come to the Federal government* Summed up, the answer was a firm refusal to ass is t * A GH&.NGE OF GOVERNMENT Unemployment continued to be a problem during 1930* An elect ion in the summer of that year unseated Mr, King and his 8 labour Gazette, v o l , 30, no, 3, (March 1930^ Ottawa, Kingls1 Pr in ter , p . 283* 2 IMd. government and on August 7 , 1930 a Conservative government headed by the R t , Hon, R«B, Bennett assumed o f f i c e . The elect ion had been fought on the issue of the deteriorating economic conditions and the new Prime Minister implemented his election promises by ca l l ing a special session of Parliament on September 8 , 1930, The Speech from the Throne read on th is date stated: "The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resultant unemployment has induced me to summon you at an ear l ier date than would otherwise be necessary,? 2Q At th is Session of Parliament the Rel ief Act was passed but i t was made very clear that the Dominion was not permanently assuming what, i n i t s opinion, was not i t s a f f a i r . The preamble to the Act stated: "Whereas unemployment, which i s primarily a municipal and provincia l responsibi l i ty has become so general throughout Canada as to constitute -a matter of national concern . . . " 11 and the Prime Minister i n the debate recal led the precedent established in 1921 when Federal aid had been granted. He said that: "It i s not proposed that th is Dominion Government would in any sense deal with these problems d i r e c t l y . These are primarily problems of provinces and municipali t ies and apart from national undertakings* But a problem l o c a l and provincial i n i t s nature may become a national one. That i s the posit ion " 22 NEW PROGRAMS ON UNEMPLOYMENT: EMERGENCY POWERS; PUBLIC WORKS. The 1930 Act provided $20,000,000 to be devoted mostly to public works. The Federal Government would pay twenty-five per cent IQ Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 8 September, 1930, p. A , 11 Canada, 20 George V , c , 1, 12 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 8 September, 1930, pp, 64-65, of the cost of these works, an additional twenty-five per cent would be paid by the P r o v i n c i a l governments and the balance of f i f t y per cent by the l o c a l area i n which the works were performed. Provision was also made for the use of some of the money for d i r e c t r e l i e f , the cost of which was to be shared equally by the three l e v e l s of government. In unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s of the provinces where no l o c a l government existed the cost would be divided evenly between the Dominion and the province concerned. When Parliament reassembled i n the early part of 1931 the subject of unemployment was s t i l l high on i t s l i s t of unsolved problems. The situ a t i o n was acute and became worse d a i l y , . The government presented for consideration of Parliament the Unemployment and Farm R e l i e f Act and sought authority from Parliament to supplement the r e l i e f measures of the provinces and other bodies i n such ways as the Governor i n Council may deem expedient, and for that purpose should vest i n the Governor i n Council the powers necessary to ensure the speedy and unhampered prosecution of a l l r e l i e f measures and the maintenance of peace, order and good government i n Canada ...,.". 12 Provision was made i n the l e g i s l a t i o n for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund "such money as the Governor i n Council i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n may deem expedient to expend for r e l i e v i n g d i s t r e s s , providing employment and maintaining within the competence of U Parliament peace, order and good government throughout Canada." The unemployment c r i s i s was now being handled as a national 13. Canada, 21 George V, c, 58, U I b i d . emergency with the government invoking the general powers granted i t in Section 91 of the B r i t i s h North America Act to legis late for the "peace, order and good government of Canada," The Unemployment and Farm Rel ief Act vested with the Governor in Council authority to spend money without reference to Parliament, The passage of th is Act was sturdi ly debated in Commons, Mr, King, leader of the Opposition, was c r i t i c a l of the government for the wide powers which i t was seeking and likened them to those granted in 1914 after the outbreak of World War I * He said that the existing laws on the statute books would appear to be suf f ic ient to ensure preservation of "peace, order and good government", but i f the government sought further authority i t should be the subject of separate leg is la t ion and separated from i t s request for emergency 16 powers to deal with the f inanc ia l aspects of unemployment r e l i e f . The Conservative government pressed the A c t , however, and i t was the fore-<runner of a series of similar pieces of leg is la t ion which provided assistance to lower levels of government to meet their f inanc ia l respons ib i l i t i es . The Federal government s t i l l adhered to the principle that unemployment r e l i e f was a responsib i l i ty of the provinces and Prime Minister Bennett, speaking i n Winnipeg in October 1933, said that i t was constitut ionally impossible for the Dominion government to set up a national r e l i e f organization. He said that the jur isd ic t ion rested with the provinces and i t was for that reason the pol icy of assisting with money grants had been adopted JL5 Great B r i t a i n , 30 V i c t o r i a , c , 3» 16 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates, July 29, 1931, p. 4285. 22 labour Gazette, v o l , 33. no, 10 (October 1933), p . 972. - 10 -As the unemployment c r i s i s continued the program of assist ing with public works broke down in many areas due to the inab i l i ty of loca l governments to maintain their share of the costs . This resulted in more and more of the money being diverted to direct r e l i e f . The expenditures by a l l governments on direct r e l i e f to unemployables rose from #10,461,000 in 1930 to #110,777,000 in 1936, The corresponding expenditure for r e l i e f works rose from #3,605,000 1 8 in 1930 to #12,252,000 in 1936,— The question as to where ultimate responsibi l i ty for the care of the unemployed rested was of l i t t l e importance to the vict im of the depression. It d i d , however, pose a problem for u n o f f i c i a l interpreters of the Consti tut ion, One constitutional expert and well known p o l i t i c a l sc ient ist F,R. Scott , in a discussion of the matter wrote: "Consider the present unemployment situation Unemployment i s national in scope; i t has produced a situation so serious that Mr, Bennett considers i t worthy of a new adjective "emergent", l e t both p o l i t i c a l parties agree that labour questions are purely a provincia l matter and must be l e f t to the provinces to handle. A l l that Ottawa does i s to vote money for the provinces to spend; the unemployed have to wait u n t i l the same matter that was thrashed out in Ottawa gets thrashed out anew in the provincial legislature and put into the form of provincial statute. The present d iv is ion of powers in regard to labour and socia l problems i s part icular ly s i l l y since t a r i f f s , trade t rea t ies , immigration, labour problems, unemployment and trade and commerce are so intimately connected that they can not be divided up among the legislatures without the certainty of delay, mismanagement and confusion. Interpretations of the Jud ic ia l Committee of the Privy Council have relegated the residuary powers of the . . . 18 Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relat ions ? Book III, Ottawa, King«s Pr in ter , 1940, p , 89 - Table 31. -11 -Dominion Parliament to the posit ion of a reserve power for use only in national emergencies.1 1 22 The writer took the stand that the d iv is ion of powers set out in the B r i t i s h North America A c t , part icular ly those re lat ing to public welfare, were obsolete and i l l -equipped to meet the current c r i s i s * He was c r i t i c a l of the Privy Council in i t s narrow interpretation of the Act and of the unmistakeable trend of Increasing provincial powers at the expense of the Dominion* THE BENNETT "NEW DEAL" This problem of narrowing Federal jur isdict ion was encountered by Mr. Bennett in h is "New Deal" leg is la t ion which he announced in a radio address in January 1935* His announcement which indicated that he intended to embark on a pol icy of intervention and control in the business of the country,took not only Party members, but also his Parliamentary associates,by surpr ise . For Mr. Bennett the surprise announcement was in character i f i t s contents were not , Mr. Bennett was not a "team man" and h is relationships with his Cabinet members were frequently strained because of h is tendency to announce government pol icy without previous consultation. The measures introduced by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons on January 29, 1935 included the Employment and Socia l Insurance A c t , the Minimum Wage A c t , Weekly Day of Rest in Industrial Undertakings Ac t , and the Limitations of Hours of Work A c t , Constitutional experts, both inside and outside the House, attacked the consti tut ional i ty of the l e g i s l a t i o n . Of the lat ter three Acts i t 19 Proceedings. Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association 1931* Kingston, Ontario, The Jackson Press, 1931, pp* 243»244* - 12 -was argued that the pr inciple of provincial control of labour matters 20 had been settled by the Privy Council in a decision in 1925, Mr, Bennett, however, argued that th is legis lat ion was enacted pursuant to obligations assumed by the Dominion under the conventions of the International Labour Organization and were thus in substance fu l f i l lments of treaty obligations of Canada, Of the Employment and Socia l Insurance Act Mr, Bennett argued that the unemployment c r i s i s just i f ied national action under the "peace, order and good government" clause of Section 91 of the Br i t i sh North America A c t , The new pol ic ies announced by Mr, Bennett were in anticipation of an election which was cal led in June 1935, His "New Deal" l e g i s l a t i o n , which had been passed earl ier in the year, had not been implemented and the Canadian people, weary with f ive years of unemployment and hardship, turned back to the Liberals and the R t , Hon, W.L. MacKenzie King and h i s government again assumed o f f i c e . On November 5, 1935 the "New Deal" legis lat ion was referred by Order-in-Council to the Supreme Court of Canada for a dec is ion . The legis lat ion had been opposed in the House of Commons by the Liberals who questioned i t s constitut ional v a l i d i t y . The Supreme Court of Canada was divided equally on the decision and a r e f e r r a l , therefore, was made to the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Privy Counci l , The Jud ic ia l Committee of the Privy Council held th is leg is la t ion to be unconstitutional. It did not agree with Mr. Bennett's contention that the Dominion could use i t s treaty making powers to impose responsib i l i t ies or to remove jur isdict ion on any matters 20 Toronto E lect r ic Commissioners v. Snider (1925) A»C, 396, - 13 -spec i f ica l ly la id down in Section 92 of the B r i t i s h North America Act 21 which contains the specif ic areas of provincial ju r isd ic t ion* Of the Employment and Socia l Insurance A c t , the Jud ic ia l Committee held that , as i t affected property and c i v i l r ights and dealt with a contract of employment and insurance, i t was a matter for provincial concern. It further l imited the interpretation of the "peace, order and good government" clause by holding that such clause conferred on the Dominion only an emergency power* The Jud ic ia l Committee pointed out that the leg is la t ion could not be considered emergency leg is la t ion since i t was intended to be permanent* Unemployment Insurance, however, continued to be an active issue in Canadian public a f fa i rs with both the Dominion and the provinces frustrated by the decision of the Jud ic ia l Committee* The solution to the problem was found in an amendment to the B r i t i s h North America A c t , which was sought by jo int address to the B r i t i s h House of Commons, and the Act was amended with effect July 10, 1940* The Amendment added the words "unemployment insurance" to that clause of Section 91 which gives the Dominion jur isdict ion over "the regulation of trade and commerce," 21 The Attorney General for Canada v . Attorney General for Ontario (1937), A , C * 326. 22. The Attorney General for Canada v . Attorney General for Ontario (1937), A , C * 355. 22 Great B r i t a i n . 3 - A George V I , c , 36* m L4 -THE DOMINION-PROVINCIAl CONFERENCE OF 1935 Mr, MacKenzie King previous to the election had promised further co-operation with the provinces in meeting their problems and in keeping with th is a Dominion-Provincial Conference was summoned in December 1935. Mr, King's attitude was quite different from that revealed at the meeting with Western leaders in 1930 and when he spoke i t was in a more concil iatory tone. He said that the conference was assembling at a c r i t i c a l time in the history of the country with serious problems of unemployment, taxation, socia l services, constitutional issues and other matters. Pointing out that there was no clear cut l ine of jur isd ic t ion over many of the matters to be discussed, Mr, King said that i f the c i t izens were to be adequately served by the government which they had elected a formula for co-operation between the provinces and the Dominion would have to be worked out. He hoped that machinery would be set up to study problems U solutions for which could not be reached at the present t ime. The conference was organized into committees to consider the various matters before i t with instructions to report back to a general session which would end the meeting. The committee on unemployment returned with a series of recommendations which can be summarized as follows: 1, The Dominion government should l imi t i t s assistance to the Provinces and municipalit ies to the unemployed employables and to the aged through the Old Age Pension, Other persons, usually unemployables, in need of f inanc ia l assistance should be the responsibi l i ty of the provinces and the municipal i t ies. 2A Dominion-Provincial Conference 1935, Record of Proceedings. Ottawa, King's Pr in ter , 1936, pp, 8-9. - 15 -2 , A Dominion Commission of Unemployment should be created and a nation wide registrat ion of unemployed should be conducted. This registrat ion would provide the commission with useful information and permit long term planning, 3, The co-operation of industry should be sought to in i t ia te a program of youth training and an apprenticeship system, A» Commerce and industry should be asked to assist in devising plans to make year round provision for their essent ia l quota of employees, 25. The Hon, C«A# Dunning, Chairman of the Sub-Conference Committee on Finance, reported to the Conference that the f inanc ia l posit ion of each province had been studied along with the problem of decline in revenues and increased r e l i e f cos ts . Suggestions advanced by the Provinces were: 1 , The transfer to the Provinces of certain sources of revenue belonging to or being used by the Federal Government, 2, The assumption of the larger portion of the cost of r e l i e f by the Federal Government, 3 , Reduction in interest charges by refunding outstanding provincia l and municipal debt, 26 In the discussion of the Report on Unemployment the Hon. A.W, Roebuck, speaking on behalf of the Ontario government, complained that there was nothing in i t referr ing to the provision of employment. He recal led that in the election campaign of the previous summer the Prime Minister had said that unemployment and i t s cure was the supreme issue in Canada today 0 Other provincial premiers echoed his concern about 25. Dominion-Provincial Conference 1935, Record of Proceedings* p,43. 26 I b i d . , p, U . - 16 -the situation but at th is point nothing more positive was forthcoming 22 from the Dominion l e v e l . The problem was s t i l l being dealt with in ' terms of a satisfactory formula of financing between the various levels of government« NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION As a resul t of the recommendation of the committee on unemployment at the Conference a National Employment Commission,under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur B. Purv is , was appointed on May 13, 1936. The Commission's f i r s t act was to inst i tute a scheme of national registrat ion and c lass i f ica t ion of a l l persons on r e l i e f to whom the Dominion contributed. This was the f i r s t national survey of th is type which had been attempted and i t was designed to provide the Commission with an adequate s t a t i s t i c a l background before proceeding with i t s work. The Commission had been instructed to carry out th is survey in order to determine the nature and extent of the problem and also to formulate recommendations regarding pract ica l measures to increase employment, to ensure eff ic iency and economy in the administration of f inanc ia l a i d , to set up administrative machinery, to carry out po l ic ies approved by the government, and to propose long range plans of national development 28 to ameliorate the effects of future depressions. The f i n a l report of the Commission recommended a comprehensive housing p o l i c y , which would include a home improvement plan and assistance to low rental housing; modernization and extension of the 22 Dominion-Provincial Conference 1935. Record of Proceedings, p. 49. 28 National Employment Commission. Interim Report. Ottawa, King's Pr in ter , 1937, p . 5. - 17 -National Employment Service to increase placements In industry} and a revision of the policy on grants-in-aid for r e l i e f designed to ensure that the money was not being spent haphazardly but directed to remedying the effects arising from varying degrees of distress. In addition the Commission recommended a nation-wide Dominion-Provincial training program for persons in the younger age group who had not had work experience and for persons in the middle-age group to restore their 29 s k i l l , physique and morale. The Commission noted that, at the time of i t s Report (1937) there was an improvement i n the employment situation and i t also recommended that expenditures on public works initia t e d to provide employment should be curtailed and the funds diverted to more effective and fundamental attacks on unemployment• Cf these recommendations the government had already embarked on a home improvement plan and on a Dominion-Provincial program of training youths and other workers affected by prolonged unemployment. Improvements were also made in the National Employment Service, which was later to become a basic part of the unemployment insurance organization* THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS Financial relationships between the Dominion and the provinces were becoming increasingly involved because of the heavy expenditures on unemployment r e l i e f and the various programs of r e l i e f work* To find some solution to the problem the Royal Commission on 22 National Employment Commission* Final Report. Ottawa, King's Printer, 1938, p* 6. 20 Ibid.. m 18 -Dominion-Provincial Relat ions, (frequently referred to as the Rowell-S i ro is Commission), was established on August L4, 1937, In the terms of reference setting out the tasks of the Commission i t was asked to do a complete survey of a l l responsib i l i t ies to be assumed by various levels of government. The Commission was asked to review Dominion-Provincial f inanc ia l re lat ionships, al locat ion of tax sources, public expenditures and public debt, and the system of cash subsidies to the provinces. It was also asked to make recommendations regarding these matters and to express an opinion, subject to the distr ibut ion of leg is la t ive powers essential to the proper carrying out of the federal system, how to best effect a balanced relat ionship between the f inanc ia l powers and the i i obligations of each governing body. The Commission's report was completed in 1940 after the outbreak of World War II , It had carried out i t s instructions to the let ter and despite problems due to changes in personnel because of death or i l l n e s s , produced a document which i s a milestone in Canadian government h is tory . I ts recommendations covered various aspects of inter-governmental relationships in Canada but here we are concerned primarily with those related to unemployment r e l i e f . The Commission pointed out that mass unemployment in Canada i s largely the resul t of economic changes abroad which affect Canada because of th is country's dependence on foreign trade. The inter*, re lat ion of the factors in the Canadian economy take the problem of 21 Report of the Royal Commission, Book I., p , 10, - 19 * unemployment out of the l o c a l area and place r e s p o n s i b i l i t y at the national l e v e l , "The Dominion i s the only government which can meet, i n an equitable and e f f i c i e n t manner, the large f l u c t u a t i n g expenditures due to unemployment. I t s unlimited powers of taxation give i t access to a l l the incomes which are produced on a national b a s i s , regardless of where they may happen to appear, and i t can obtain the needed revenues therefrom i n a manner which i s the least harmful to welfare and productive enterprises." 32 The Commission was also concerned with the economic waste of manpower and resources i n a depression and, while i t acknowledged that the Dominion lacked any control of the external forces involved i n a depression, i t f e l t that the effects could be minimized by the planning of public works and developmental expenditures, and an i n t e l l i g e n t and co-ordinated use of c r e d i t . I t pointed out that foreign exchange, trade, transportation and taxation p o l i c i e s are powerful instruments to combat unemployment and reduce fluctuations i n income and that the 21 Dominion i s the only government which can use these e f f e c t i v e l y . One of the more important recommendations of the Commission suggested a complete break from the t r a d i t i o n of cash subsidies to tbe provinces to be replaced by the payment of national adjustment grants. Having drawn attention to the discrepancies i n s o c i a l services i n the various provinces the Commission pointed out that the grants would "••••make i t possible f o r every province to provide f o r i t s people services of average Canadian standards and they w i l l thus a l l e v i a t e d i s t r e s s and shameful conditions which now weaken national unity and handicap many Canadians, They are the concrete expression of the Commission's conception ... 32 Report of the Royal Commission. Book I I , p, 24, 23. I b i d . „ - 20 -of a federal system which w i l l both preserve a healthy j £ loca l autonomy and build a stronger and more united nation." Establishment of these grants would, however, be contingent upon the provinces withdrawing entirely from various f i e l d s of taxat ion, and the cancellation of existing subsidies. The Dominion would also 35 assume certain debt obligations of the provinces. The Commission made i t clear that any plans for soc ia l insurance, part icular ly unemployment insurance and r e l i e f for the able-bodied unemployed, should be a to ta l Dominion responsibi l i ty but a l l other socia l services should remain the exclusive responsibi l i ty of .36 the provinces. Summarizing the unemployment situation the Commission stated: "The experience of the past decade i s conclusive evidence that unemployment re l i e f should be a Dominion funct ion. By unemployment r e l i e f we mean r e l i e f or aid for unemployed employables as d is t inct from unemployables. Provincial responsibi l i ty for other welfare services should continue, and the provinces should be enabled f inancia l ly to perform these services adequately. Provincial responsibi l i ty for socia l welfare should be deemed basic and general; Dominion respons ib i l i t y , cm the other hand, should be deemed an exception to the general r u l e , and as such should be s t r i c t l y defined. But the Dominion should be given adequate jur isdict ion to perform e f f ic ient ly whatever responsib i l i t ies are entrusted to i t , " ,22 Prior to the publication of the Report, Parliament, with the approval of a l l the provinces, requested an amendment to the B r i t i s h 2k Report of the Royal Commission. Book I I , p , 125, 25 J b M „ p. 83. 2k Ibid., p . 25. XL I b i d . , p. 24 •» 21 « North America Act which would permit the Dominion to embark on a national plan of unemployment insurance. The B r i t i s h Government consented to the amendment and the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed on August 7 , 1940. I t came into e f f e c t on July 1, 1941. DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE - 1941. In November the Prime M i n i s t e r , Mr. King, c a l l e d a conference of p r o v i n c i a l premiers to be held i n January 1941. In h i s l e t t e r of i n v i t a t i o n Mr. King stated i n part "....the Rowell-Sirois Commission...was appointed because of the general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n respect of Dominion-P r o v i n c i a l r e l a t i o n s 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 p r 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 re s u l t i n g f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s and controversy i n regard to po l i c y and administrative 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 u n i t y . The necessity, under e x i 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 f o r 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 f o r unemployment, nor can i t do so unless measures such as those contemplated by the Commission are agreed upon. I t i s the view of the government that adoption of the Commission's recommendations i s necessary.^ 38 The p r o v i n c i a l premiers met with the Dominion government on January 14, 1941. As noted i n Mr. King's l e t t e r to them the Dominion recommended that the Report of the Royal Commission be implemented. The recommendations regarding unemployment r e l i e f , however, were contingent on other adjustments i n the f i n a n c i a l relationships between ^8 Dominion P r o v i n c i a l Conference. 1941. Record of Proceedings, p . 3 . - 22 -two l e v e l s of government and these were not acceptable to the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and B r i t i s h Columbia, I t was argued that permanent changes should not be made i n the e x i s t i n g f i n a n c i a l structure when the country was engaged i n a f u l l scale war. I t soon became apparent that there was l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r any agreement and the Conference terminated on the second day without any action being taken on the 39 Report or the Dominion's recommendations regarding i t . A n t i c i p a t i n g the problems which would inevitably arise i n the post-war era the Prime Minister i n January 1943 appointed an Advisory Committee on Reconstruction, headed by Dr, F, C y r i l James, President of MeGill Un i v e r s i t y , One of the products of the work of t h i s Committee was the Report on So c i a l Security f o r Canada prepared by Dr, Leonard C. Marsh, Research Advisor to the Committee, Dr, Marsh's recommendations involved protection against unemployment, sickness, d i s a b i l i t y , old age and retirement, death of bread-winner, family needs, and expenses involved with b i r t h and death. He recommended that these contingencies be met by: (1) extension of Canada's present system of unemployment insurance; an unemployment assistance program for those not covered (2) a national system of health insurance to provide medical - dental « ho s p i t a l care - sickness insurance or a separate plan, (3) d i s a b i l i t y benefits (4) r e v i s i o n of Old Age Pensions by retirement contributory pension (5) provision f o r widows and orphans 39 Dominion-Provincial Conference, 1941. Record of Proceedings« - 23 -(6) childrens 1 allowances. DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE - 1945 During the war years unemployment r e l i e f ceased to be an issue and the problem lay dormant u n t i l 1945 when Mr* King again summoned the p r o v i n c i a l premiers to a Dominion-Provincial Conference oh Reconstruction* On August 6, 1945 when the Conference assembled at Ottawa the war with Japan had not been concluded but the Federal government, apparently fearing an economic recession such as that which occurred after World War I , sought discussions with the provinces regarding the future. The whole tone of the meeting was concern that unemployment would again become a national problem* The Prime Minister i n h i s opening address to the Conference said that fear of unemployment i s next to the fear of war i n men's hearts* "There are men and women who almost dread the coming of v i c t o r y because they fear that depression and unemployment might come i n vi c t o r y ' s t r a i n * " Al The Dominion offered the provinces a system of unemployment assistance under which i t would pay benefits equal to eighty-five per cent of Unemployment Insurance benefits which had been established i n 1941* These benefits would be payable to unemployed persons able and w i l l i n g to work who were not e n t i t l e d to or had ceased to be e n t i t l e d to Unemployment Insurance b e n e f i t s . This p o l i c y , however, was never 4Cf Marsh, Leonard C., Report on S o c i a l Security f o r Canada* Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1943. Al Dominion-Provincial Conference* 1945. Record of Proceedings, p.6. A2 I b i d . , p* 387. •» 2A — implemented as again i t was part of a larger plan to a l t e r e x i s t i n g f i n a n c i a l arrangements on which there was no unanimous agreement* SUMM&RX As the expected depression did not materialize and the Unemployment Insurance program was now available to meet the needs of many unemployed, the problem of f i n a n c i a l assistance to those who were not covered by insurance or who were not insurable was l e s s pressing* Certain gains had been achieved from the hard and laborious years of the t h i r t i e s * As a r e s u l t of the depression experience and the involvement of the Federal government i n dealing with mass unemployment precedents of far-reaching implication had been established* Unemployment insurance as an exclusively Federal measure was i n effect as a r e s u l t of an amendment to the B r i t i s h North America Act and a National Employment Service had been established* By i m p l i c a t i o n , therefore, the Dominion had the major share of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the event of mass unemployment* Despite the disagreements i n Dominion-Provincial Conferences over d i v i s i o n of tax resources the provinces had always maintained that the unemployment problem rested with the Dominion i n making provision for employable persons not covered by Unemployment Insurance* At these conferences i t was apparent that the picture of public finance i n Canada had been altered by the heavy obligations assumed by the Dominion during the Depression and l a t e r during World War I I * I t was w e l l summed up by McGregor Dawson and many others would have agreed, that: "The new factor i n the s i t u a t i o n which the depression and the war experience had brought into prominence was the ... - 25 » enormous significance of national finance and a l l i ed pol ic ies as the instruments of economic and soc ia l welfare." Al A dif ferent Canada was to emerge at the end of th is war period* The nation was becoming more industr ia l ized: i t s population was growing and i t s c i t i e s were expanding: and with th is growth came inevitably economic and socia l problems. A3 Dawson, Robert M,, Government of Canada. University of Toronto Press, 5th impression, 1952, p , 130, CHA.PTBR I I A NEff DOMINION POLICY ON UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 1945-1956 The emerging pattern of Dominion r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the welfare of unemployed persons has now become c l e a r . The passage i n 1940 of the Unemployment Insurance Act was recognition of the national scope of the problem. The f i n a l step i n the Dominion's acknowledgement of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r those who f e l l outside the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act was the offer to the provinces at the Dominion-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction i n 1945. A c t u a l l y Canada's somewhat unforeseen post-war boom diverted attention from the subject, f o r unemployment stayed at a low point and unemployment insurance, which came into e f f e c t i n 1941, took up the slack i n t r a n s i t i o n periods. Those persons not covered by unemployment insurance were largely the unemployable persons whose needs were met by the provinces and the l o c a l governments i n accordance with t h e i r statutory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . This picture of unparalleled progress i n Canadian employment l e v e l s was offset somewhat by seasonal unemployment which i s always present i n the Canadian economy. According to National Employment Service s t a t i s t i c s employment h i t s i t s lowest l e v e l on March 1st each year, and then climbs gradually through the summer to September when i t reaches i t s maximum peak. Seasonal unemployment i s p a r t i c u l a r l y indigenous to Canada because the nation i s a producer of primary - 27 -products with heavy emphasis on agr icul ture, lumbering, mining and f i s h i n g . By the very nature of these industries they can not be operated on a twelve-month basis and in some months they either c u r t a i l their ac t iv i t ies or shut them down altogether. In any case the pattern of unemployment which emerged after 1945 indicated low levels u n t i l the winter of 1949-1950, There was an improvement in 1951; t u t , following t h i s , the National Employment Service indicates a problem of increasing severity u n t i l the winter of 1954-1955, when the to ta l climbed to 401,000 persons without jobs 1 and seeking work on March 1, 1955," These figures include only persons known to the National Employment Service and make no reference to any other persons seeking work. In the years of f luctuating unemployment, the provinces made representations to Ottawa asking that the Federal government implement i t s offer of 1945 to assume responsibi l i ty for unemployed persons, who were not e l ig ib le for unemployment insurance for a variety of reasons. These representations were without e f fec t , however, and the Dominion government presumably remained committed to the view that the seasonal nature of the situation was such that i t could be handled by the provinces. Furthermore there had been no uniform agreements reached between the Dominion and the provinces on f inancia l arrangements; and the Dominion held to the stand that agreement on these other matters was an essential part of the settlement of future responsibi l i ty for unemployment r e l i e f , 1 S t a t i s t i c a l sources unless otherwise stated, are a l l Canada Year  Book, of appropriate date. \ - 2 8 -THE CRISIS OF 1954-1955 The crisis of the winter of 1954-1955 made i t necessary for the Dominion to take a new approach to the problem. In only a handful of the provinces was any provision made for the able-bodied unemployed in need of financial assistance. There are no accurate statistics on the extent of the problem but in many parts of the country public welfare administrators, both provincial and municipal, were compelled to retreat from their traditional attitude of refusing help to the unemployed employable. This type of assistance was normally limited to the barest minimum: sometimes the allowance was even less than that paid to unemployable persons on the general assistance r o l l s . The 1954-1955 crisis had repercussions in Parliament, with the Opposition urging some type of government action to meet the problem. DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE 1955 A Dominion-Provincial Conference was held at Ottawa in April 1955, at which time the Dominion made an offer to the provinces to assist them and the municipalities in meeting the current unemployment problem. The meetings were held in private but certain proposals were made, which were referred for study to a Committee of 2 officials attending the meeting." The official approach to policy was expressed in the House of Commons on April 29th by the Prime Minister when he stated: "The Dominion's attitude is that i t would like to see a system established and administered by local authorities which would avoid the situation which has existed of saying this is one's responsibility and that is another's responsibility! to try to remove the inconvenience to the ... g Labour Gazette, vol. 55, no. 5, (May 1955), Ottawa, Queen's Printer, P. 505. - 29 -. . . i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t i n g from d i v e r g i n g v i e w s about the q u e s t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and have a c o n c r e t e f o r m u l a t h a t when there was a r e a l need h e l p would be e x t e n d e d , and t h a t i t would not be the concern of the a p p l i c a n t as t o who was going t o p r o v i d e u l t i m a t e l y what was p a i d t o h e l p him o r i n what p r o p o r t i o n . " J The Conference resumed i t s s e s s i o n i n June 1955, f o l l o w i n g which the Prime M i n i s t e r r e p o r t e d t o the House o f Commons on the s o l u t i o n which had been r e a c h e d . M r . S t . L a u r e n t s a i d : "The p r o v i n c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have d e c i d e d t o c o n s i d e r w i t h t h e i r governments the m o d i f i e d p r o p o s a l made t o them t h a t the f e d e r a l government accept o n e - h a l f of the c o s t of r e l i e f f o r the number o f those i n need i n each p r o v i n c e i n excess of 0.45 per cent o f the p o p u l a t i o n o f the p r o v i n c e . T h i s 0.45 per cent of the p o p u l a t i o n proposed as the s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r f e d e r a l s h a r i n g i s t a k e n as a measure of the b a s i c l o a d of those i n need because t h e y are unemployable , and would make i t unnecessary f o r the f e d e r a l government t o make any d i s t i n c t i o n between payments t o persons who are employable and those who are not e m p l o y a b l e . S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n t o the problem a r i s i n g i n any p r o v i n c e where the l o a d o f unemployable persons r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e has n o r m a l l y been below t h i s l e v e l of 0.45 per c e n t . " A The Prime M i n i s t e r ' s s t a t e m e n t , which i n d i c a t e d t h a t the F e d e r a l government, i n making i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the c o s t o f unemployment r e l i e f , d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h between employables and unemployables , was h i s t o r y - m a k i n g i n i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s . D u r i n g the d e p r e s s i o n y e a r s as the p r e v i o u s chapter documented, t h e r e was c o n t i n u e d i n s i s t e n c e t h a t the whole problem r e s t e d w i t h the lower l e v e l s of government under the terms of the B r i t i s h N o r t h A m e r i c a A c t . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the p r o v i n c e s and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r the care o f unemployables had never been d i s p u t e d by the p r o v i n c e s ; and i n t h i s r e g a r d each p r o v i n c e had some t y p e o f p l a n t o p r o v i d e f o r t h i s g r o u p . 2 Canada, P a r l i a m e n t . House o f Commons. O f f i c i a l R e p o r t o f D e b a t e s . 29 A p r i l , 1955, p . 3289. A JbM., 21 J u n e , 1955, p . 5070. I t i s to be noted, however, that there was no ind i c a t i o n given by the Prime Minister of the effe c t the new plan would have on the various provinces. Six provinces, ( B r i t i s h Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland), entered into agreements with the Dominion to take advantage of the Federal government's o f f e r , and the plan went into e f f e c t on July 1, 1955, On June 27, 1956 the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, introduced a b i l l "..,,to provide f o r contributions by Canada to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund i n respect of i unemployment assistance costs to the provinces". He said that since the Prime Minister had made h i s announcement i n the House the previous summer, d e t a i l s had been worked out at a number of conferences with the provinces. The b i l l which he proposed would validate e x i s t i n g agreements with the s i x provinces already named and would make provision f o r the other provinces to come into the plan at a l a t e r date. The only difference between the b i l l suggested by Mr. Martin and the plan announced i n July 1955 by the Prime Minister was one applicable to the province of Nova S c o t i a , I t was decided that the figure used f o r determining the st a r t i n g point f o r f e d e r a l sharing was to be set at 0.30 per cent because of the depressed economic conditions faced by t h i s province, *Mr. Martin t o l d the House that the provisions of the b i l l would be found to go much further than the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Commission and further than the proposals made at the ^ O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 27 June, 1956, p, 5447, - 31 -194-5-1946 Dominion-Provincial Conference. He said that these proposals had not included the unemployables, as did the current l eg is la t ion ; nor did they cover special cases and l o c a l situations as was contemplated in th is b i l l . He added that: "Under the arrangement which th is resolution and the b i l l to be based upon i t envisage . . . . I think I can say we w i l l be able to write • f i n i s 1 to the deadlock which has existed in th is country for a decade or more on the subject of the responsibi l i ty of the several government jur isdict ions for what we c a l l residual assistance, and that henceforth there w i l l be an assurance of organized assistance to persons in need in any part of Canada who can not qualify for help under any of the exist ing soc ia l welfare measures such as unemployment insurance and supplementary benef i ts , Disabled Person's Allowances and so on." 6 Mrs. E l len Fairclough (Hamilton West) was c r i t i c a l of the A c t , pointing out that only six of the ten provinces had entered into the scheme and those s t i l l outside of i t were the two largest , Quebec and Ontario. She questioned whether i t could be regarded as a national program in th is si tuat ion; and also argued that the proposals of the Rowell-Sirois Report, in which a clear l ine would be drawn between the employable and the unemployable with the Dominion taking to ta l responsibi l i ty for employable persons in need, should be followed. She pointed out that in the provinces where agreements had not been signed, municipalit ies were forced to carry a heavy part of the load. Mrs. Fairclough, accordingly, maintained that in i t s present form the leg is la t ion did not assure equality of treatment for 2 persons across Canada. 6 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 27 June, 1 9 5 6 , p. 5 4 4 8 . 1 I b i d . , pp. 5 4 4 8 - 5 4 4 9 . - 32 -The f i n a n c i a l problems of the Maritimes were referred to by Clare G i l l i s (Cape Breton South), who pointed out that i t was d i f f i c u l t to maintain present s o c i a l services without increasing the load. Higher p r o v i n c i a l expenditures would be required i f Nova Scotia implemented the government's program, p a r t i c u l a r l y since at that date no p r o v i n c i a l program f o r either employables or unemployables 8 existed, Mr. G i l l i s was also concerned about the f a c t that the l e g i s l a t i o n was administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare and said that there could be "....the danger i n t h i s ' l e g i s l a t i o n that those who administer the Unemployment Insurance Act w i l l tighten up t h e i r administration so much that they w i l l drop a load of unemployed into the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare,"^ An o v e r - a l l s o c i a l security plan on a national l e v e l was urged as s t i l l necessary by Harold Winch (Vancouver E a s t ) , He said: "The b i l l i s a great advance by t h i s Federal government compared with the Federal L i b e r a l government's attitude back i n the hungry t h i r t i e s . Despite a l l the s i n c e r i t y and i n t e g r i t y of the Minister and despite the b i l l which he i s now introducing .... I am convinced that he i s not going to be able to solve t h i s problem of assistance to the unemployed who are not covered by any other Acts unless there 10 i s an o v e r - a l l security plan on a Federal basis." 8 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 27 June, 1956, p. 5451, 5 I b i d . , P. 5459. 10 Ibid.., p. 5463. - 33 In the discussion on the b i l l Mr. Martin r e p l i e d to questions regarding the figure of 0.4-5 per cent i n the formula f o r Federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n . He said that: "....the figure of .45 was arrived at because i t represented the figure at which i t would be possible to provide f o r federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l the provinces but one. At f i r s t we had i n mind and had discussed with the provinces the figure of one per cent. My Honourable frie n d w i l l r e c a l l that the Premier of B r i t i s h Columbia, who was among those who proposed some measure of federal assistance i n the past year, along with others, had suggested that he was prepared to accept t h i s as a possible b a s i s . When we came to examine the figure of one per cent as the star t i n g point fo r federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t became clear that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Ontario would not benefit i n any substantial way. As a r e s u l t of discussion vdth the provinces i t was agreed that we would for nine of them arrive at the figure of .45 per cent which enabled us to cover Ontario. Nova Scotia was recognized by a l l of the provinces as having a special si t u a t i o n . " 11 Regarding the pa r t i c i p a t i o n of the four provinces which had not signed the b i l l he said that the Province of Alberta had objected to the lack of residence q u a l i f i c a t i o n s : Ontario would l i k e l y come into the program i n the near future: the attitudes of Nova Scotia and Quebec 12 were not known. The b i l l passed and was assented to on July 11, 1956. U n t i l December 13, 1957 i t operated on the basis of the 0.45 per cent formula. Ontario did not come into the plan as anticipated by the Minister and the other three provinces also remained a l o o f , A Federal election i n June 1957 resulted i n the defeat of the L i b e r a l regime and i t was replaced by a Conservative government headed by John Diefenbaker. An important issue i n the campaign had 11 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 27 June, 1956, p. 5463. 12 I b i d . , p. 5481. 1£ Canada. 4 - 5 Elizabeth I I , c. 26. - 34 -been the problem of Dominion-Provincial f i s c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , always a contentious issue i n Canadian p o l i t i c s . The successful leader promised that he would c a l l a Dominion-Provincial conference to discuss the f i n a n c i a l relationships between the two l e v e l s of government, and t h i s meeting was held i n Ottawa on November 25th and 26th, 1957. A NEW PROPOSAL At the outset the Prime Minister made an announcement to the gathering which represented a remarkable change i n p o l i c y . One of the concessions the Dominion would make, he proposed, was the removal altogether of the 0.45 per cent "threshold clause" i n the agreement under the Unemployment Assistance Act. I t s removal, he declared, "....would have the r e s u l t that the Dominion treasury would share the costs of a l l e l i g i b l e cases upon the r e l i e f r o l l s - whether employable or unemployable - and not just the numbers i n excess of .45 per cent of the p r o v i n c i a l population. We should then be avoiding e n t i r e l y t h i s invidious d i s t i n c t i o n between employable and unemployable persons and sharing the costs of providing aid to a l l those i n need, apart from the normal statutory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the provinces i n respect of Mothers' Allowances. I am t o l d that a change of t h i s nature would make i t much easier f o r some suitable arrangements to be made to a s s i s t t h e i r municipalities which have been carrying most of t h i s burden of assistance to those i n need, apart of course from the bulk of the cost being carried by unemployment insurance. The benefits of removing t h i s "threshold" would be f a i r l y equitably divided among a l l the provinces that would be p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n agreements 1 under t h i s a c t , and we see no serious obstacle to meeting your wishes i n t h i s regard." I t would be interesting to know more of the reactions of the 2A Canada. Dominion P r o v i n c i a l Conference. Record of Proceedings. Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957, p. C-3. - 35 -premiers to the new proposals of the Prime Minis t e r , but t h i s i s not r e a d i l y available as these discussions on s p e c i f i c matters were held " i n camera" and only a b r i e f communique on the day's proceedings was issued. The communique stated that, during i t s session, the Committee discussed: "....matters concerning the financing of h o s p i t a l insurance, the sharing of costs of assistance to persons i n need, special f i s c a l assistance to the governments of the A t l a n t i c Provinces and f i s c a l matters. Many delegates declared i t would be desirable to remove the "threshold clause" i n the Unemployment Assistance Act i n order that the Federal government would a s s i s t provinces i n meeting the costs to persons i n need whether they were employable or unemployable." 15 The opening declaration by the Prime Minister perhaps took some of the delegates by surprise, f o r i n the opening sessions of the meeting the Hon. Douglas Campbell, Premier of Manitoba, and the Hon. L e s l i e F r o s t , Premier of Ontario, read previously prepared statements, which contained the attitude of t h e i r respective governments to the Act as i t was i n i t s o r i g i n a l form. In the opinion of the Premier of Manitoba, the agreement under the Act was unnecessarily complicated and expensive to administer. In h i s province the working out of the formula and the preparation of reimbursement claims produced administrative problems of the most d i f f i c u l t order. Maintaining that "the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Report should have been carried out", he conceded that the government i n the Unemployment Assistance Act had acknowledged i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to a l i m i t e d extent. He objected to t h i s 0 . A 5 per cent formula; and as a substitute submitted the proposal from 15 Canada. Dominion P r o v i n c i a l Conference. Record of Proceedings. Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957, p. 1 0 A , - 36 -Manitoba that the Federal government should immediately abolish a l l exclusions i n the present unemployment assistance agreement (other than those cases i n which the Federal government i s already sharing i n costs under other agreements) and contribute towards the costs when the case-load exceeds one per cent of the population, an amount approaching one hundred per cent of those costs. Premier Campbell pointed out that, by excluding Mothers' Allowance payments from the provisions of the A c t , Manitoba was at a disadvantage compared to other provinces. He said that some cases may be included i n the claims of some provinces as r e l i e f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and be e l i g i b l e under the Unemployment Assistance Act. In other provinces, including h i s own, they may be assisted under a Mothers' Allowance program f o r which there i s no Federal reimbursement." The Manitoba Premier appealed f o r two objectives i n the f i e l d of public welfare programs under j o i n t Federal and p r o v i n c i a l auspices. These were: ; a) a greater integration and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of welfare services, and b) a recognition of the differences i n the f i s c a l a b i l i t i e s and needs of the provinces. 22. Premier Frost stated that h i s government refused to enter into the agreements because i t believed that a precedent had been established by the Dominion f o r the acceptance of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the unemployed employable, by i t s action i n ass i s t i n g the provinces i n the 1930's and by seeking a co n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment to enable i t 16 Record of Proceedings., p. 52. - 37 -t o i n a u g u r a t e unemployment i n s u r a n c e . He harked back t o the 1955 conference and s a i d : " I t was w i t h dismay t h a t we were presented w i t h the t a k e - i t - o r - l e a v e - i t p r o p o s a l o f 1955, t h a t t h e p r o v i n c e s should c o n t i n u e t o care f o r t h e i r own burden and assume h a l f o f the F e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t ' s , namely the care of the unemployed employables a f t e r the e x p i r y of unemployment i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s . We d i d not c o n s i d e r i t f a i r and e q u i t a b l e at the t i m e , nor do we now." 18 The s u g g e s t i o n t h a t the F e d e r a l government should extend the Unemployment A s s i s t a n c e agreements t o i n c l u d e s h a r i n g by Canada o f supplementary payments t o aged and handicapped persons was put f o r w a r d by Premier W . A . C , Bennett o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . He made no 23 comment on the p r e s e n t o p e r a t i o n of the A c t , THE "THRESHOLD" CLAUSE REMOVED Implementing the Prime M i n i s t e r ' s promise t o the Conference the H o n , J . W , M o n t e i t h , the new M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l H e a l t h and W e l f a r e , i n t r o d u c e d an amendment t o the Unemployment A s s i s t a n c e A c t on December 18, 1957 which would d e l e t e the s o - c a l l e d " t h r e s h o l d c l a u s e " . I n the ensuing debate b o t h L i b e r a l and C . C , F , members approved g e n e r a l l y the broadening of the measure proposed b y the C o n s e r v a t i v e s , Some of the L i b e r a l members, however, h e l d t h a t the C o n s e r v a t i v e s were moving i n t o a f i e l d o f p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n b y s h a r i n g w i t h the p r o v i n c e s the c o s t of a l l r e l i e f r a t h e r t h a n a percentage o f the c a s e - l o a d . Some o f the members s t a t e d t h a t they were not aware of any g r e a t p r e s s u r e on the p a r t o f the p r o v i n c e s - e i t h e r those i n the scheme o r those o u t s i d e of 18 Record of P r o c e e d i n g s . , p , 19, 22 IfcM«> P» 6 6 t i t - f o r t h i s amendment. Members of the C.C.F, party welcomed the f extension of the program but took the view that i t did not go f a r enough and maintained that the Federal government should commit i t s e l f to a national s o c i a l security program to benefit a l l Canadians i n time of need. The sponsor of the o r i g i n a l A c t , the Hon, Paul Martin, opened the debate on the amendment and reviewed the moves made by the Liberals i n the past to meet d i s t r e s s caused by unemployment. He stressed the burden on the municipalities of r e l i e f costs and went on to point out the philosophy of h i s government i n framing the l e g i s l a t i o n . Mr. Martin said that many of the provinces had taken an a r b i t r a r y stand i n connection with the provision of assistance to able-bodied unemployed, refusing to help the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , who were attempting to meet the need; and r e j e c t i n g the offer of the Federal government by refusing to become party to agreements under the A c t , He was c r i t i c a l of the government, pointing out that when he had f i r s t introduced the measure, while the Conservatives were i n opposition, he had been c r i t i c i z e d f o r proposing a public assistance measure rather than a plan to solve the problem of unemployment. He then referred to the growing problem of unemployment and hoped that the government would produce a program which would provide jobs rather than an expansion of public assistance, Mr, Colin Cameron (Nanaimo) urged the government to implement the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Report and assume the t o t a l cost of assistance to the unemployed employable, Mr« 20 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates, (unrevised), 18 December, 1957, PP» 2565-2563; - 39 -Cameron was pessimistic about the economic outlook and argued that the government should make Immediate plans to follow h i s proposal. He underlined the point that one of the primary recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois Commission i n regard to s o c i a l services was that the Dominion should assume the t o t a l cost of r e l i e f to the able-bodied unemployed and leave with the provinces t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 21 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r unemployables. Support for the amendment was expressed by Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) because i t would provide help f o r the provinces i n meeting the costs of unemployment r e l i e f . He urged that the government give consideration to assis t i n g the provinces i n the costs of administration of public assistance as 22 w e l l as medical and ho s p i t a l care. THE QUEBEC VIEWPOINT k d i f f e r e n t view of the pr i n c i p l e s involved i n the removal of the "threshold" clause was voiced by the Hon. L i o n e l Chevrier, who regarded i t as an intrusion of p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s . His objection was based on the premise t h a t , as the provinces and the municipalities were the l e v e l s of government best equipped to deal with the unemployed employable, t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should be l e f t with them and that i t was for t h i s reason the p r o v i n c i a l governments had settled on the 0,45 per cent formula. Mr. Chevrier said that i n proposing to drop the "threshold" clause the present Federal 21 Official Report of Debates, (unrevised), 18 December 1957, p. 2571. 22 I b i d . , p. 2598. —' 4 0 — government was a s s e r t i n g t h a t i t had a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y e q u a l t o t h a t of the p r o v i n c e s i n the f i e l d of a s s i s t a n c e t o the unemployed unemployables , or more p r e c i s e l y i n the f i e l d of g e n e r a l p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e , which has always been c o n s i d e r e d t o b e l o n g e x c l u s i v e l y t o the p r o v i n c e s and the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . He expressed amazement a t the a t t i t u d e of the P r e m i e r o f Quebec who was r e p o r t e d as s a y i n g t h a t the l e g i s l a t i o n d i d not go f a r enough s i n c e he regarded the whole matter o f a s s i s t a n c e t o a b l e - b o d i e d unemployed as a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the D o m i n i o n , M r . C h e v r i e r added t h a t t h i s was an u n u s u a l a t t i t u d e t o be expressed b y M r , D u p l e s s i s , who defended p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s even when such a defence i n v o l v e d f i n a n c i a l d isadvantage t o 22 h i s p r o v i n c e . The H o n , J , W , P i c k e r s g i l l ( B o n a v i s t a - T w i l l i n g a t e ) pre faced h i s c r i t i c i s m o f the b i l l w i t h the statement: "•«•«speaking as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a p r o v i n c e w h i c h v e r y b a d l y needs t h i s m o n e y , . . , , I have no choice b u t t o support the measure. B u t I would p o i n t o u t . . . , t h a t I am s u p p o r t i n g i t w i t h o u t e n t h u s i a s m , because i t i s such an inadequate s u b s t i t u t e f o r what the members of t h i s House and the people of Canada g e n e r a l l y were l e d t o expect they would get from t h i s government i n i t s r e l a t i o n s w i t h the p r o v i n c i a l governments b e f o r e June 1 0 , and even a f t e r , " 2A M r . P i c k e r s g i l l went on to say t h a t , d e s p i t e the statement of the Pr ime M i n i s t e r to the D o m i n i o n - P r o v i n c i a l Conference , the " t h r e s h o l d c l a u s e " was b e i n g removed at the r e q u e s t of some p r o v i n c e s , he was unable t o f i n d any r e c o r d s o r statements from p r o v i n c i a l governments 22 O f f i c i a l R e p o r t o f D e b a t e s . ( u n r e v i s e d ) , 18 December, 1 9 5 7 , p p . 2 5 7 2 - 2 5 7 3 , 2k I b i d . . 19 December, 1 9 5 7 , p , 2 5 9 3 . to indicate that they were seriously concerned about the .4-5 per cent 25 clause. He supported Mr. Chevrier's contention that the amendment represented an invasion of p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s and a i e p towards ce n t r a l i z a t i o n of government control "against which the Conservatives 26 have preached". The statement of the Opposition that the B i l l represented an intrusion of p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s was denied by Mr. Monteith. The only ef f e c t of the proposal i n h i s view was to deal more generously with the provinces. He remarked that the b i l l had been introduced under the auspices of the previous L i b e r a l administration and said that there was l i t t l e doubt that the intention was to a s s i s t the provinces and municipalities i n meeting r e l i e f costs f o r both 27 employables and unemployables. He added that the amendment under discussion was acceptable to the provinces, and compared i t with the Disabled Persons Act under which the Dominion and the provinces share i n the cost of a program for a s p e c i f i c group. Mr, Monteith said i t was quite clear that ever since i t s passage the Unemployment Assistance Act intended to provide f o r "needy employables and needy unemployables" with no d i s t i n c t i o n being made between these two groups. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , therefore, the Minister considered that there was no more intrusion on p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s as the r e s u l t of t h i s amendment than there had been i n the 25. O f f i c i a l Report of Debates, (unrevised) , 19 December, 1957, P. 2593. 26 Ibid,., p. 2594. 22 I b M . , p. 2603. - 42 -28 or ig ina l l e g i s l a t i o n . SUMMARY During the decade, 1945 - 1955, there was a complete reversal of attitude on the part of the Dominion in regard to the problem of the unemployed. The senior government had turned i t s back on the old principle that th is was an exclusive responsibi l i ty of the provinces and moved towards a more r e a l i s t i c appraisal of the si tuat ion. The new program, introduced by the Liberals and extended by the Conservatives, had the support of a l l parties in Parliament, If there was any disagreement with the l e g i s l a t i o n , i t was to the effect that the Federal government had not gone far enough in th is aid to the provinces in the matter of unemployment r e l i e f . 28 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates, (unrevised), 19 December, 1957, P. 2603, CHAPTER I I I THE APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT The primary purpose of the Unemployment Assistance Act i s to ensure that a l l unemployed persons i n Canada are provided f o r i n time of need. The Act provides f i n a n c i a l help to the provinces to implement t h i s purpose? i t does not establish a new national program. Unlike the l e g i s l a t i o n passed during the depression era, which emphasized p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the area of f i n a n c i a l assistance to needy persons, and which indicated that Dominion action was being taken because of the emergency nature of the s i t u a t i o n , t h i s Act contains no such reference. When the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, spoke on the Unemployment Assistance Act on June 27, 1956, he said that the l e g i s l a t i o n would be an assurance of organized assistance to persons i n need, i n any part of Canada, who could not qu a l i f y f o r 1 f i n a n c i a l help under e x i s t i n g s o c i a l welfare measures. Under the terms of the l e g i s l a t i o n , however, the r e a l i z a t i o n of these hopes r e s t s with the provinces and the manner i n which they u t i l i z e the assistance provided. There i s nothing i n the Act which states s p e c i f i c a l l y the type of program which must be provided, the conditions of e l i g i b i l i t y , or the scale of ben e f i t s . The provinces r e t a i n complete control over the administration of t h e i r respective 1 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 27 June, 1956, p. 5448. programs, and t h e D o m i n i o n ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s l i m i t e d , as f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the terms of the l e g i s l a t i o n w i l l i n d i c a t e . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s imposed on the p r o v i n c e s under the agreement which t h e y s i g n are g e n e r a l i n t h e i r n a t u r e . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of the s e c t i o n on r e s i d e n c e , the p r o v i n c e s are not r e q u i r e d t o f u l f i l l any r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which t h e y were not d i s c h a r g i n g b e f o r e e n t e r i n g the agreement. A s se t out i n the agreement, the p r o v i n c e I s r e q u i r e d t o "make a l l the necessary arrangements f o r the r e c e i p t , by i t s e l f o r by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a s s i s t a n c e from unemployed persons i n the p r o v i n c e " and t o v e r i f y the c o r r e c t n e s s o f such i n f o r m a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n the p r o v i n c e must p r o v i d e the Dominion w i t h a statement of c o n d i t i o n s under which a s s i s t a n c e i s 1 granted and the r a t e s o f a s s i s t a n c e p a y a b l e . A n o t h e r t s e c t i o n o f the Schedule s t a t e s t h a t the p r o v i n c e s h a l l d e l i v e r t o the M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l H e a l t h and Welfare a monthly s t a t e m e n t , known as a reimbursement c l a i m , which i n d i c a t e s : "(a) the t o t a l number of persons who are unemployed and i n need i n the p r o v i n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e i r d e p e n d e n t s , who have r e c e i v e d a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g the month t o which the reimbursement c l a i m r e l a t e s , and (b) the t o t a l amounts p a i d t o o r on b e h a l f o f such persons d u r i n g the month t o which the reimbursement c l a i m r e l a t e s . " £ 2 Canada, A - 5 E l i z a b e t h I I , c , 26 (amended), S c h e d u l e , S e c t i o n 2 ( a & b ) . 2 I b i d . . S c h e d u l e , S e c t i o n 3 (a & b ) , A I b i d . . S c h e d u l e , S e c t i o n 5 ( a & b ) . - 45 -PROVINCIAL RESIDENCE IMPLICATIONS The part of the l e g i s l a t i o n which has the most s i g n i f i c a n t implication f o r the future of public assistance i n Canada i s that r e l a t i n g to residence. This i s the only part of the l e g i s l a t i o n i n which the Dominion makes any attempt to influence standards. The act states that length of residence shall"not be a condition f o r receipt of assistance i f : "(a) the applicant has come from a province whose government has entered into an agreement similar to t h i s respecting unemployment assistance, and (b) such agreement includes a l i k e clause as herein contained i n respect of length of residence not being a condition f o r receipt of assistance," % This forecasts a welcome change i n philosophy i n public assistance policy by movement away from r e s t r i c t i v e residence and settlement laws. The problem of residence laws between the provinces i s one which could only be solved by Federal action but, i n order that such action be taken at t h i s l e v e l of government, i t would have to be involved i n the f i n a n c i a l aspects of the program, Canada's rapid economic expansion and the resultant mobility of population has created s o c i a l problems, many of them involving f i n a n c i a l need, E.S.L. Govan i n her study of Canadian residence laws points out that: "The laws assume that people have permanent roots i n one community, while our i n d u s t r i a l system demands mobility i n the labour f o r c e . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n regard to seasonal work, but i t i s also true because of the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of industry," 6 jj 4 - 5 Elizabeth I I , c, 26 (amended), Schedule, Section 4 (a & b ) , 6 Govan, E.S.L,, Residence and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n s o c i a l welfare f Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1 9 5 2 , p. 3o - 46 -Dr. Goran points out that with the increased use of machinery operated by semi-skil led workers and with changing technology i n many industries the selection of jobs i s broadened* When one industry i s slack workers may move to another, which may be in a different part of the country* Workers normally move around the country to obtain employment and do 7 not anticipate the need for public assistance in any form* Taking cognizance of the fact that a section of the Canadian population i s a mobile one, and that persons away from their permanent homes may frequently encounter f inanc ia l adversities beyond their contro l , the Dominion has, in addition to abolishing residence regulat ions, agreed to share in the expense of returning such persons and their dependents to their normal place of residence. Before such steps can be taken, however, i t i s required that approval of the municipality or government of the province, where the recipient 8 normally res ides , be obtained," In addition the Dominion w i l l share in the cost of transporting a rec ip ient , or dependent members of his family, to obtain assured employment on the production of a cer t i f ica te 9 from the National Employment Service, Transportation costs are also shared when a recipient or dependent member of h is family must t ravel to obtain needed medical, hospital or nursing home care which can not 10 be provided at h is usual abode, 2 Govan, Residence and responsib i l i ty , p, 3 , 8 4 - 5 El izabeth II , e , 26 (amended), Schedule, Section 9 (c ) ( i ) , 2 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 9 ( c ) ( i i ) , 2Q I b i d . . Schedule, Section 9 ( c ) ( i i i ) . - 47 -The Dominion has no power, however, to require a province to grant assistance to a person whose l e g a l residence i s within one of the two non-participating provinces. At the tine of the introduction of the Act, the Minis t e r , Mr. Martin, made t h i s clear i n reply to a question i n the House of Commons, when he said that the Dominion could not impose on the province the requirement that a l l persons applying for assistance, regardless of residence, should be granted help, EXCLUDED AND INCLUDED CATEGORIES Under the terms of the agreement, the provinces submit a monthly claim for reimbursement f o r monies paid f o r unemployment 22 assistance. I t i s here that the groups, to whom Unemployment Assistance Act payments are not applicable, are set out s p e c i f i c a l l y , , They are as follows: (1) The Unemployment Insurance A c t , (2) Old Age Security Act, (3) Old Age Assistance Act, (4) Blind Persons A c t , (5) Disabled Persons A c t , (6) A supplemental allowance or "cost of l i v i n g bonus" provided under the law of the province to recipients of benefits under any of the aforementioned ac t s . 22 On the other hand i t i s recognized that payments made under the afore-mentioned programs may be i n s u f f i c i e n t to meet the r e c i p i e n t ' s needs or r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Payments under the programs, to which we 1 1 O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 28 June, 1956, p. 5487. 12 4 - 5 Elizabeth I I , c. 26, (amended), Schedule, Section 5. 22 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 7 (b). - A8 -have refer r e d , are set by statute and take no account of i n d i v i d u a l need. The Unemployment Insurance Act allows up to #23.00 per week for a single person with no dependents and up to $30.00 per week for a person with dependents, regardless of the number i n the family. The range i s from $6.00 to $23.00 f o r a single person without a dependent; and $8.00 to $30,00 f o r a person with a dependent. The amount of the benefit i s determined by the insured person 1s average weekly contribution* The other programs make no provision f o r any dependents which the r e c i p i e n t may have nor do they make any provision f o r the payment of special care which may be required. The l a t t e r i s often an important consideration with these groups. For the above reasons the Act makes provision f o r inclusion i n the reimbursement claim extra payments made to persons i n these categories U when the need f o r such payments has been established. Another group s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded are re c i p i e n t s of 15 Mothers 1 Allowance and special precautions are provided i n the Act to prevent provinces from transferring such cases to the unemployment assistance category. The provinces are required to report to the Dominion the average number of Mothers' Allowance cases i n the province f o r each month i n a ten year period prior to the date of th e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the program. I f there appears to be a disproportionate reduction i n the number of Mothers' Allowance cases i n recent years an adjustment i s required to be made. This adjustment would r e s u l t i n a reduction of the amount of the reimbursement 3A U " 5 Elizabeth I I , c, 26, (amended), Schedule, Section 8 15 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 7 ( c ) . claim proportional to the reduction i n the percentage of the Mothers' 2k Allowance cases to the general population of the province. A descriptive table which indicates the manner i n which t h i s formula affects B r i t i s h Columbia appears i n the Appendix. I t i s noted that the number of Mothers' Allowance cases i n B r i t i s h Columbia has declined r a p i d l y i n recent years from a t o t a l of 3,032 persons receiving benefits i n the year ending June 30, 1946 to 973 i n the year ending June 30, 1947. This was due to the fa c t that many persons i n t h i s province who would normally receive Mothers' Allowance are given assistance under the So c i a l Assistance Act. An important feature of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s the agreement of the Dominion to participate i n part of the cost of persons who are 17 maintained i n "homes for special care". These are defined as "nursing homes, hostels f o r indigent t r a n s i e n t s , homes for the aged, poor houses, almshouses, and hostel f a c i l i t i e s provided f o r the aged 18 within housing projects constructed under the National Housing A c t . S p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from the claims are payments made t o , or on behalf o f , inmates of general, acute, chronic or convalescent ho s p i t a l s , tuberculosis sanatoria, mental i n s t i t u t i o n s , i n s t i t u t i o n s 22 f o r incurables, orphanages or c h i l d welfare i n s t i t u t i o n s . No provision i s made for any type of medical care, o p t i c a l care or dental work, drugs or funeral expenses. Costs of these 16 4 - 5 Elizabeth I I , c. 26, (amended), Schedule, Section 12. 21 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 7 ( a ) . 2& I b i d . . Schedule, Section 1 (e). 22 I b i d . , Schedule, Section 7 (a)(iv)» - 50 -services remain the exclusive responsibi l i ty of the provinces or of 20 the municipal i t ies. In addition the f u l l cost of administration of the programs within the provinces i s borne by the provinces and the 21 municipal i t ies. The calculation of the reimbursement claim has been greatly simplif ied by the amendment to the Act which wiped out the "threshold clause". It has been noted that certain precautions are taken to ensure that recipients of Mothers' Allowance are not transferred to 22 the category of unemployment assistance. Apart from the reservation in th is regard the to ta l reimbursement claim i s submitted to Ottawa 2A and the province i s repaid one half of th is amount. Agreements between the Dominion and the provinces run for 25 f ive years but may be cancelled during this interval on one year 's 26 notice by either s ide. New agreements with provinces presently outside the scheme may be retroactive for one year from date of 22 signature, 20 A - 5 Elizabeth I I , c , 26, (amended), Schedule, Section 9 (a & b ) , 21 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 9 (d). 22 See p, A& of th is thes is , 22 A - 5 Elizabeth II, c , 26, (amended), Schedule, Sections 10, 11 & 12, 2& I b i d . . Schedule, Section 14. 25 I b i d . . Schedule, Section A, 26 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 16. 22 I b i d . . Schedule, Section 5. - 5 1 -To evaluate the expressed purpose of the Act as a means of meeting the needs of unem]4)yed persons i n Canada i t i s imperative to examine the current programs within the provinces. This i s beset with a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, for two basic reasons. F i r s t , these programs vary greatly i n many e s s e n t i a l d e t a i l s including e l i g i b i l i t y requirements and scales of benefits so that a standard comparison, province by province, i s v i r t u a l l y impossible. Secondly, 28 comparative s t a t i s t i c s are unavailable, The problem of the lack of uniform s t a t i s t i c s was high-lighted at a three-day conference on So c i a l Security, i n Ottawa i n January 1958. The meeting, which was held under the auspices of the Canadian Welfare Council, was attended by public welfare o f f i c i a l s from a l l l e v e l s of government and a number of interested lay persons. I t was designed to consider future planning f o r public welfare services i n Canada, One of the problems of the conference was t h i s lack of uniform information to assist i n i t s deliberations. On t h i s subject Miss Marjorie King stated that: "We obviously need more research i n s o c i a l welfare, and i n many areas much better s t a t i s t i c s . I t i s impossible, for instance, to compare figures on certain p r o v i n c i a l services; because reports by one agency or department of government may not cover the same kinds of facts as reports from another. I t was a frequently expressed opinion at the Conference that much more attention should be given by both government and voluntary organizations to the c o l l e c t i o n and c o l l a t i o n of facts about s o c i a l needs and s o c i a l welfare," 29. The attempt, therefore, to make a comparison must be li m i t e d by these 28 S t a t i s t i c s are received annually on Mothers' Allowances, but t h i s i s the only program which i s reported i n the Canada Year Book, 29 King, Marjorie, Conference on S o c i a l Security. Canadian Welfare, February 1, 1958, v o l , XXXIII, No. 6, pp, 251-253, p« 251, - 52' -considerations. The discussion of program within the provinces i n the present text i s l i m i t e d , perforce, to broad o u t l i n e s , ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WITHIN THE PROVINCES The p r o v i n c i a l programs of aid to the unemployed show a wide v a r i a t i o n . In some provinces a l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s delegated to l o c a l governments, with the province taking no active part. The type of service provided varies from narrow programs, which exclude unemployed employable persons, to broader ones which encompass a l l persons i n need. Most provinces pay assistance i n cash to a l l categories while a few offer i n s t i t u t i o n a l care only to certain categories. The following b r i e f review indicates the p r i n c i p a l k elements of the programs i n the ten provinces, Newfoundland, This province has a new S o c i a l Assistance Act which came into effect on A p r i l 1, 1955, I t was designed to replace both the Dependent's Allowance Act, the Mothers* Allowance Act and to include a l l p r o v i n c i a l f i n a n c i a l assistance programs under a single piece of l e g i s l a t i o n . The program i s designed to provide for a l l needy persons not covered under other s o c i a l security programs and, on A p r i l 1, 1956, i t s coverage was broadened to include a l l unemployed employable persons. This province has been a participant i n the benefits of the Unemployment Assistance Act since July 1, 1955, when these f i r s t became a v a i l a b l e , k The information on p r o v i n c i a l programs contained i n t h i s summary was obtained from the Canada Year Book and the l a t e s t available annual reports pertaining to the public assistance programs of the provinces, - 53 -Prince Edward Island. In t h i s , Canada's smallest province, ha l f the cost of f i n a n c i a l assistance i s shared by the province with l o c a l governments but the government pays the t o t a l cost where persons l i v e i n unorganized territory» Provision i s made for a l l persons i n need, either employable or unemployable. Nova Sc o t i a . This province has a new Soc i a l Assistance A c t , which came into effect on A p r i l 1, 1956. I t i s contemplating changes i n i t s Poor R e l i e f Act which w i l l permit the province to participate i n the cost of l o c a l r e l i e f . This i t has not done since the depression years. The province signed an agreement under the Unemployment Assistance Act with the Federal government on January 1, 1958 to take advantage of grants-in-aid to assist i n these new programs. The new S o c i a l Assistance Act appears to be somewhat narrow i n i t s terms since i t provides only for a fringe group not e l i g i b l e under Mothers' Allowance l e g i s l a t i o n . Just 317 cases were handled i n the f i r s t year of the Act's operation and these were confined to deserted wives, wives of persons serving prison terms, common law widows, and abandoned c h i l d r e n . New Brunswick. In t h i s province poor r e l i e f i s e n t i r e l y a l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i t i s frequently provided through i n s t i t u t i o n a l care. While New Brunswick was one of the f i r s t s i x provinces to take advantage of the terms of the Unemployment Assistance Act i t has not i n s t i t u t e d a p r o v i n c i a l program but has submitted accounts f o r benefits under the act on behalf of l o c a l governments, who have disbursed assistance. - 54 -Quebec. Public assistance i n Quebec i s disbursed through private voluntary agencies, which are subsidized by the province. This arrangement the government finds preferable to the establishment of public agencies. This province has shown no interest i n a v a i l i n g i t s e l f of the benefits of the Unemployment Assistance Act, Ontario, The Unemployment R e l i e f A c t , a p r o v i n c i a l statute, provides f o r a sharing of costs of r e l i e f between the province and the l o c a l governments, with the province accepting t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n unorganized t e r r i t o r y . The costs of the program were shared on an equal basis u n t i l the province signed an agreement under the Unemployment Assistance Act, Since then the r a t i o of sharing has been on an eighty-twenty b a s i s , with the province taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r eighty per cent of the share, Ontario has usually provided a winter time program for the unemployed employable, also on a share basis with l o c a l government agencies, Manitoba, In t h i s province f i n a n c i a l assistance to the needy i s administered i n organized areas by l o c a l governments, and i n unorganized t e r r i t o r y by the province. In the past l o c a l governments have been subsidized by a refund of a portion of the assistance granted from a fund established by the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e . This fund i s a fixed sum annually and i s distributed on a pro r a t a b a s i s . The province i s contemplating more generous grants to the l o c a l governments since these have been made possible through the Unemployment Assistance Act, Saskatchewan. This province has had f o r a number of years a program of s o c i a l aid f o r a l l persons i n need. I t has shared on a - 55 -f i f t y - f i f t y basis costs of benefits with l o c a l governments and pays the t o t a l cost of assistance i n unorganized t e r r i t o r y . With the signing of the agreement under the Unemployment Assistance A c t , i t has increased i t s contributions to l o c a l governments towards the cost of assistance which they issue. This province has always included unemployed employables, who have no other means, i n the benefits of s o c i a l a i d . A l b e r t a. This province, l i k e Quebec, has not signed an agreement under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Provision i s made for a l l needy persons, including unemployed employables under the Public Welfare Assistance Act, and, i n a d d i t i o n , Alberta has a program not to be found i n any other Canadian province, the Widows Pension Act. This l a t t e r provides a pension on a means test basis f o r widows between the ages of sixty and s i x t y - f i v e . Upon attaining s i x t y - f i v e years of age they are e l i g i b l e for Old Age Assistance, Costs of s o c i a l assistance are shared between the province and the l o c a l governments except i n unorganized t e r r i t o r y . Here the t o t a l cost i s borne by the province. B r i t i s h Columbia. The Soc i a l Assistance Act, which has been i n effect i n t h i s province since 1942, provides assistance f o r a l l persons i n need. While the unemployed employables are not s p e c i f i c a l l y excluded from benefits under the act, they have only been granted help when acute d i s t r e s s was apparent. Since the province signed the Unemployment Assistance Act agreements i n 1955, provision has been made for t h i s group on the same basis as other cases, except that grants have been limited to periods of seasonal unemployment, - 56 -usually the winter months. Costs of assistance are shared, as of A p r i l 1, 1958, on an e i g h t y - f i v e — f i f t e e n per cent r a t i o , with the province paying the largest share. The province also meets the cost of assistance to transients and to residents of unorganized t e r r i t o r y . THE ISSUE OF MOTHERS' ALLOWANCE In addition to the foregoing, a l l provinces, except Newfoundland, have a Mothers' Allowance Act which provides f o r one category of persons i n need* Mothers' Allowances, as o r i g i n a l l y conceived, envisaged a program which would provide aid to widows and t h e i r children so that the mother could remain i n her home and give adequate supervision to her young family. The philosophy was based on the statement of the f i r s t White House Conference on care of dependent children where the pri n c i p l e was enunciated that children should not be removed from t h e i r homes, or family relationships destroyed, because of economic need alone. Women's organizations and other groups made representations to P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s and, i n 1916, Manitoba passed Canada's f i r s t Mothers' Allowance Act. Between 1917 - 1920 Mothers' Allowance l e g i s l a t i o n was passed i n Saskatchewan, Alb e r t a , B r i t i s h Columbia and Ontario. In 1930 Nova Scotia passed a similar statute, followed i n 1938 by Quebec, i n 1943 by New Brunswick and i n 1949 by Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Since i t s inception Mothers' Allowance l e g i s l a t i o n has been broadened to a considerable degree by including i n i t s b e n e f i t s , i n addition to widows, a wide variety of dependent mothers deprived of a bread-winner. Various provinces have extended t h e i r l e g i s l a t i o n to include wives who are divorced, deserted or separated, or whose husbands are disabled because of mental or physical i l l n e s s , or who are serving - 57 -prison terms. To i l l u s t r a t e the current v a r i e t y of e l i g i b i l i t y requirements f i v e provinces make an allowance to divorced womenj three to those separated from t h e i r husbandsj and nine to deserted wives. Within these groups there are variat i o n s as to the length of time elapsing between the date of the divorce, separation or desertion, varying from one to four years. Four provinces provide for payment to unmarried mothers and three to a father i f the mother i s dead or disabled. Nine provinces require evidence of good character and six require that the applicant be a B r i t i s h subject. Residence q u a l i f i c a t i o n s vary from one to f i v e years. The upper age l i m i t at which children w i l l be e n t i t l e d to an allowance varies from f i f t e e n to eighteen years with provision i n some provinces f o r extensions while the c h i l d i s attending school or college. In a l l j u r i s d i c t i o n s , however, payment ceases on the chil d ' s twenty-first birthday. The category of Mothers' Allowances has always enjoyed a preferred status i n the f i e l d of public assistance. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y marked i n the Depression era when unemployment r e l i e f as i t i s understood today had i t s beginnings, when i n many of the provinces Mothers' Allowances was a more generous grant and was regarded as a special type of public assistance, as indeed i t was. When the Dominion government stopped i t s grants to a s s i s t the provinces i n t h e i r unemployment r e l i e f programs on March 31, 1941 some of the provinces allowed t h e i r s o c i a l welfare programs to revert to the pre-Depression status. Others sought to bu i l d upon the Depression experience to provide f o r the re s i d u a l group which t h i s era l e f t i n i t s wake. These provinces, i n co-operation with - 58 -t h e i r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s * developed effe c t i v e programs within t h e i r boundaries and a new series of s o c i a l assistance programs emerged0 Many of these were regarded as comparable i n q u a l i t y to Mothers' Allowance. This was the case p a r t i c u l a r l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia where s o c i a l allowance rates and medical benefits were the same for both programs. There i s also a changing attitude i n some provinces towards Mothers' Allowances and a tendency to include t h i s group i n the general assistance category which i s usually provided f o r i n some type of s o c i a l assistance l e g i s l a t i o n . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n Newfoundland where the Mothers' Allowance program had v i r t u a l l y disappeared and i n B r i t i s h Columbia where the t o t a l i s steadily d e c l i n i n g , while s o c i a l assistance i s on the increase. The l i n e of demarcation between Mothers' Allowance and s o c i a l assistance or other forms of f i n a n c i a l help to persons i n need i s becoming increasingly blurred i n many provinces. For t h i s reason, the exclusion of Mothers' Allowance payments from the reimbursement claim has become a controversial issue. The percentage of Mothers' Allowance cases to the general population i n Canada i n 1955 ranged from .030 i n B r i t i s h Columbia to .AA3 i n the province of Quebec, indicating the wide range i n the use of t h i s program across Canada. This indicates the differences between the provinces i n the use of t h i s program to meet the needs of a p a r t i c u l a r category of persons. I t also points up the f a c t that a case c l a s s i f i e d i n one province as a Mothers' Allowance may be c l a s s i f i e d i n another province as general assistance or s o c i a l assistance, both of which are shareable under the Unemployment Assistance Act regulations. While the Dominion has devised a formula - 59 -which would discourage provinces from transferring cases from Mothers' Allowance to general assistance t h i s does not e n t i r e l y eradicate the disadvantage to those provinces which, over the years, have maintained t h e i r Mothers' Allowance programs. The uneven application of the Unemployment Assistance Act i s graphically displayed i n the following table which indicates payments to the provinces between July 1, 1955 and March 31, 1957. These payments were made to the s i x provinces which participated i n the o r i g i n a l plan when the Dominion paid only half of the cost of assistance i n excess of 0,45 per cent of the population. Table I . Payments to Provinces under the Unemployment Assistance A c t , 1955—1957, Province 1955-6 (a) 1956-7 (b) British Columbia Newfoundland Manitoba Saskatchewan Prince Edward Island New Brunswick # 1,721,339.28 1,174,734,83 484,130.67 369,519,12 55,033,37 18,854,00 I 2,299,894.48 1,562,058,32 650,000.00 it 512,678.33 54,035.89 32,886.96 k Estimated, (a) July 1st to March 31stj (b) April 1st to March 31st. Source: Report to House of Commons by Hon. Waldo. Monteith, Minister of National Health and Welfare, December 19, 1957. This table indicates that the provinces, which have received the greatest benefit under the new l e g i s l a t i o n , are B r i t i s h Columbia and Newfoundland. I t i s notable t h a t , i n the case of these two provinces, one has eliminated the Mothers' Allowanoe program and the other has had a consistently declining number of cases i n t h i s category over a period of years. These findings would lend authority to Premier Campbell's contention that the Unemployment Assistance Act i s discriminatory i n r e l a t i o n to those provinces which have maintained m 60 •» a strong Mothers' Allowance program. It would appear, therefore, that the application of the new act would be more equitable towards a l l provinces i f Mothers' Allowance payments were subject to reimbursement. One important aspect of the problem, which would appear to demand the attention of the Dominion, i s that of the wide discrepancy in rates of assistance provided by programs within the provinces. The following table indicates the leve l of payments made in the six provinces, which f i r s t entered into an agreement with the Dominion, These figures represent the average payment per ind iv idua l . Table II Average payments to individuals receiving unemployment assistance,  six Canadian provinces 1955 - 1956, N.B. NFLD, P .E . I , SM3K, MAN. 2£i $ 8.00 9,00 -13,00 11.00- 16,00 15,00- 23.00 19.00-2A.00 30.00 - 32.00 Source: Report to House of Commons by Hon. J.W, Monteith December 19, 1957. While i t i s expected that there would be some variat ion in the amounts pa id , one would question whether th is wide range i s consistent with the economic and socia l unity of the country. The three At lant ic provinces have the lowest range of payments and this situation can be attributed to their poorer economic s i tuat ion. The f inanc ia l pl ight of these i s recognized in other areas of Dominion-Provincial relat ions and-^if the nation i s to enjoy an adequate l eve l of public welfare service, consideration w i l l have to be given to th is particular part of the problem. - 61 ~ SUMMARY I f the Unemployment Assistance Act i s to f u l f i l l i t s avowed purpose of providing f o r a l l persons i n need i n Canada, there must be a high degree of co-operation at a l l l e v e l s of government, f o r a l l are involved i n the administration of t h i s v i t a l l e g i s l a t i o n . In the review of p r o v i n c i a l programs, the widespread v a r i a t i o n s among the provinces are apparent. This r e s u l t s i n unequal application of the Act with great differences i n payments to the provinces as indicated i n Table I , Those provinces with the most advanced programs receive the greater share of federal funds which are available under the A c t . This indicates the need to devise a means of assis t i n g the poorer provinces, p a r t i c u l a r l y the Maritimes, i n order that they may bring public welfare services up to a pa r i t y with the remainder of the country* Because the new l e g i s l a t i o n i s an i n t e g r a l part of the t o t a l public assistance program i n a l l the provinces, which have subscribed to i t , i t w i l l be necessary to scrutinize thoroughly other types of services available i n order to assess i t s true r e l a t i o n s h i p to them. CHAPTER IV  THE UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT: PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT The Unemployment A s s i s t a n c e A c t (1955) r e p r e s e n t s a new approach i n the p r o v i s i o n of f i n a n c i a l a i d f o r the r e s i d u a l group i n the p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e c a s e l o a d , namely , unemployed persons not e l i g i b l e f o r a i d under any o f the c a t e g o r i c a l programs. I t has t a k e n many y e a r s t o achieve t h i s new p h i l o s o p h y , which i s the c u l m i n a t i o n of the e f f o r t s of such o r g a n i z a t i o n s as the Canadian Wel fare C o u n c i l , the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l W o r k e r s , innumerable p r i v a t e and p u b l i c w e l f a r e agenc ies and f o r w a r d l o o k i n g p u b l i c w e l f a r e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Canadian communities h a v e , by and l a r g e , s e r i o u s l y n e g l e c t e d t h i s segment o f dependent persons and p r o v i s i o n f o r them has v a r i e d g r e a t l y a c r o s s the n a t i o n . T h e i r p l i g h t , f a r from a r o u s i n g any d i s p l a y of p u b l i c sympathy, has m e t , f o r the most p a r t , w i t h apathy and even h o s t i l i t y . T h i s has been p a r t i c u l a r l y marked i n the case of the a b l e - b o d i e d unemployed, f o r the r e a l i t y o f modern economic and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s has been s low t o r e p l a c e the " p i o n e e r " a t t i t u d e which c h a r a c t e r i z e s the Canadian c u l t u r e . I t i s of i n t e r e s t , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the government's p o l i c y of a i d t o unemployed persons i n 1 9 5 5 , and i t s subsequent v a l i d a t i o n i n J u l y 1 9 5 6 , have met w i t h no d i s s e n t . Indeed the most f r e q u e n t o b j e c t i o n s were t h a t the Dominion had not gone f a r enough i n i t s a i d t o the p r o v i n c e s ; and i t i s noteworthy - 63 -that when the Government removed the "threshold clause" in January 1958, two more provinces, Nova Scotia and Ontario, came into the program* The Unemployment Assistance Act f i l l s a broad gap in the nation's social security program since its terms make financial assistance available to a l l persons in need in Canada. While the Act was originally designed to provide for the residual group, close examination of its terms indicates that i t goes much farther than this for i t lends its support to many provincial programs of social assistance which were in existence when i t came into effect. Since its benefits are available to many persons whose financial problem is not necessarily the result of unemployment, this might be more properly described as "social assistance" legislation instead of unemployment assistance legislation. The broad coverage provided by the Act is its most significant feature for i t enables the provinces to give financial help to any persons in need within their boundaries. This legislation is a movement away from the categorical forms of public assistance because i t considers the fact of need rather than the kinds of persons who f i t into certain categories. Unemployability is a difficult term to define and the Act does not attempt to do this. In addition to providing broad coverage the Act avoids the invidious distinction between employable and unemployable persons. While the Dominion was encouraged in the Rowell-Sirois Report to maintain the line of distinction between the employable and unemployable groups, with the Dominion taking total responsibility for the former, the Canadian Welfare Council has consistently opposed this division. In its report on Dominion-- 6A -P r o v i n c i a l Relations and S o c i a l Security published i n 1946 i t summarizes i t s objections as follows: " I t involves the segregation, f o r administrative purposes of "employable" and unemployable" persons* Such d i s t i n c t i o n i s a matter of degree rather than of ki n d , for scarcely anybody i s t o t a l l y "unemployable" at a l l timesj while i n periods of acute depression large numbers of healthy and reasonably competent persons are not "employable" enough to be chosen for the few job vacancies av a i l a b l e . The administrative problems i m p l i c i t i n the attempt at segregation are serious." 2 The broad scope of the Act i s due to the f l e x i b i l i t y of the l e g i s l a t i o n , and, i n i t s present form, i t i s l i m i t e d only by the concept of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y held by the p r o v i n c i a l governments f o r those i n need. The implications of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n for Canadians are far-reaching and i n t h i s concluding chapter the issues involved w i l l be discussed, MAJOR FEATURES OF THE LEGISLATION In the absence of any provisions f o r a means test the new l e g i s l a t i o n reveals i t s f l e x i b l e nature* While i t i s implied that the benefits of the l e g i s l a t i o n are available to persons i n f i n a n c i a l need, the provinces have t o t a l d i s c r e t i o n i n setting t h e i r own interpretation of need. Advances have been made i n relaxing the formerly s t r i c t d e f i n i t i o n of need which was adhered to so r i g i d l y i n the unemployment c r i s i s of the 1930*s* In t h i s respect the province of B r i t i s h Columbia has been one of the more progressive provinces f o r i t states i n i t s Social Assistance Act that the possession of personal property, (cash, stocks, bonds, insurance,, e t c , ) , not i n excess of f250,00 f o r single persons and #500,00 f o r 2 Dominion-Provincial Relations and S o c i a l Security„ 1946, Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, p, 6 a - 65 -a person with dependents, s h a l l not be a bar to any one receiving 2 benefits «~ The means te s t has always been a controversial issue i n the f i e l d of public assistance but i t w i l l probably remain an element of these programs. I t i s usually regarded by those subjected to i t as a humiliating experience and an intrusion on t h e i r privacy. There are elements of t h i s i n i t s application but i t s e f f e c t s w i l l be modified i f the regulations surrounding i t s use are framed l e s s r i g i d l y . Modification of i t s e f f e c t w i l l also occur when the means test i s administered by professionally trained persons, who bring good s o c i a l work p r i n c i p l e s to the s i t u a t i o n . Elimination of the means test can be looked for only i f there i s an expansion of programs of s o c i a l insurance and s o c i a l endowment. Another part of the program i n which a wide degree of l a t i t u d e i s l e f t to the provinces concerns the amount of assistance paid to a recipient i n which the Dominion shares. In the categorical programs of Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons Allowance and Disabled Persons Allowance, the maximum amounts which the Dominion w i l l share are stated s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the l e g i s l a t i o n and the provinces are free to supplement t h i s payment i f they wish. No such r e s t r i c t i o n of shareable maximums appears i n t h i s Act, The provinces are free to set t h e i r own standards of assistance and the Dominion w i l l share equally the cost of these benefits. The absence of a maximum standard of assistance provides administrators of the program with an opportunity to bring to t h e i r 2 B r i t i s h Columbia. S o c i a l Assistance A c t . c , 6 2 , Regulations, Section 5 ( a ) f 1 9 4 5 , — 66 — administration creative e f f o r t , which could r e s u l t i n a more effec t i v e use of the benefits of the legislation© As one example t h i s could be implemented by a more r e a l i s t i c method of calculating grants on the basis of i n d i v i d u a l need instead of the f l a t rate basis now i n use i n many public welfare agencies. With the requirement that l e g a l residence s h a l l not be a condition for the granting of assistance within the provinces, the new l e g i s l a t i o n takes a r e a l i s t i c view of a s i t u a t i o n which has always plagued the administration of public welfare. The existence of residence regulations i n public assistance programs i s an anachronism i n a r a p i d l y expanding economy so dependent on a mobile labour f o r c e . This mobility of population has h i s t o r i c a l l y been an important element i n a country where the f r o n t i e r has been both a challenge and a resource. The f r o n t i e r has disappeared but the mobile labour force continues to be an e s s e n t i a l component of the Canadian economy which i s marked by an annual harvest, seasonal industry, and large scale construction projects. A l l these require a labour force free to move when work i s available but they offer no assurance to the worker of long term employment. In such a mobile labour force w i l l be found a number of s o c i a l problems, many involving f i n a n c i a l need, and public welfare administrators have often been hampered by r e s t r i c t i v e residence regulations which bar transients from the benefits of public assistance programs despite t h e i r need. This s i t u a t i o n may r e s u l t i n acute distress to individuals and f a m i l i e s * The residence problem has continued to be an important issue i n public assistance i n both Canada and the United States. I t i s - 67 -discussed i n considerable d e t a i l by Lloyd Graham i n an a r t i c l e i n Canadian Welfare, Mr, Graham emphasizes the important contribution of the migrant worker and states that public welfare agencies i n Canada have li m i t e d resources to meet th e i r needs. He draws attention to three groups which constitute the migrant population i n Canada and elsewhere: the employable, willing-to-work migrantj the unemployable migrant (the sick and the handicapped); and the employable but work-shy migrant. For the f i r s t two groups Mr. Graham recommends services, including f i n a n c i a l a i d , on the same basis as any other person i n the community. For the t h i r d group he asks for deeper understanding and recognition of vagrancy as a form of human behaviour. He points to the work being done i n B r i t a i n under the National Assistance Act designed to help the "work-shy" and "alcoholic" migrant. The often expressed view that people move about the country i n search of higher s o c i a l welfare benefits i s not borne out i n actual p r a c t i s e . New York State was one of the f i r s t i n the United States to abolish residence requirements within i t s boundaries; according to Peter Kasius, Deputy Commissioner for New York C i t y A f f a i r s i n the (N.Y.) State Department of .Social Welfare, the experience i s that t h i s action has simplified administration and improved service for persons i n need. L i t t l e evidence has been adduced that persons moved within the state or into the state because s o c i a l welfare benefits were higher than i n other areas. I t was the opinion of Mr. Kasius that residence r e s t r i c t i o n s interfere with the 3. Graham, Lloyd, Canada's Migrant Population, Canadian Welfare, v o l . XXIII, no. A, (November 1957), p. 163. - 68 -free flow of labour; deny the r i g h t of freedom of movement; and work unnecessary and often c r u e l hardships on people, whose only f a u l t i s a willingness to take a chance to improve t h e i r economic well-being i n terms of employment. Mr. Kasius was speaking at a symposium, held under the auspices of the National Travelers Aid Association i n 1956 i n New 5 York C i t y , to discuss the problems created f o r the migrant worker by residence laws. The seven participants a l l argued that the migrant worker was an i n t e g r a l part of modern economic l i f e , and that h i s needs i n time of d i s t r e s s should be met on the same basis as thoseof anyone else i n the community. These considerations regarding residence have now been acknowledged i n the Dominion by the inclusion i n the Unemployment Assistance Act of the requirement that the provinces s h a l l not make residence within their boundaries a condition of receiving assistance. Whether t h i s beginning w i l l eventually r e s u l t i n a t o t a l elimination of residence requirements can not be foretold at t h i s time. A great deal w i l l depend on the interpretation of the regulation by i n d i v i d u a l provinces, and p a r t i c u l a r l y on that section of the Act which provides reimbursement f o r the cost of r e p a t r i a t i o n to a recipient's place of l e g a l residence. This type of regulation can be interpreted i n many ways and at t h i s time there i s no information available regarding i t s manner of inte r p r e t a t i o n . But the way i s clear f o r the provinces, at least those which have entered into A Kasius, Peter, What Happens i n a State without Residence Requirements f i n Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare. a symposium. National Travelers A i d Association, New York, 1956. i> Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare f a symposium. - 69 -Unemployment Assistance Act agreements, to r i d themselves of these r e s t r i c t i v e regulations a I t i s of interest t h a t , p r i o r to the passage of the Unemployment Assistance Act and i t s a b o l i t i o n of residence q u a l i f i c a t i o n s within the pa r t i c i p a t i n g provinces, there was some movement towards modification of ex i s t i n g regulations inasmuch as the provinces of B r i t i s h Columbia and Saskatchewan have had a reci p r o c a l agreement by which they provided for each other's applicants on the same basis as they would t h e i r own* Since the Unemployment Assistance Act has been passed the B r i t i s h Columbia government i s studying the p o s s i b i l i t y of eliminating residence requirements within the province. This new approach to the residence problem represents an important advance i n s o c i a l thinking f o r i t removes the vexing and binding r e s t r i c t i o n s of outmoded regulations. I t recognizes the ri g h t of any Canadian i n any part of Canada to receive f i n a n c i a l help i n accordance with h i s needs, LIMITATIONS OF THE LEGISLATION To ensure a f a i r share of the benefits of the Act to a l l Canadians i n need there should be a recognition of the dilemma of the poorer provinces, who may encounter f i n a n c i a l problems i n providing the type of program envisaged by the sponsors of the Unemployment Assistance Act, The f a i l u r e of the Dominion to provide a f i n a n c i a l formula of dealing with these poorer provinces and i t s f a i l u r e to set any minimum standard of assistance are two of the serious l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n . - 70 -Encountered here i s the t r a d i t i o n a l unwillingness of the Dominion to define standards, develop equalization formulas i n public assistance and share i n administrative costs. On these three areas the Canadian assumption i s one of respect f o r p r o v i n c i a l autonomy. The Rowell-Sirois Report has drawn attention to the threat to national unity which can ensue from wide varia t i o n s i n s o c i a l services among the provinces. This concern for a national minimum standard has also been expressed by the Canadian Welfare Council. In i t s recommendations i n 1953 the Canadian Welfare Council urged that standards should be set by the Dominion to help the provinces perform 6 t h e i r work sa t i s f a c t o r i l y . " " The major l i m i t a t i o n of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s the f a i l u r e to share i n many p r o v i n c i a l programs of public assistance, notably Mothers' Allowance and, i n certain provinces, supplementary payments to beneficiaries under the Dominion-Provincial programs of Old Age Assistance, Disabled Persons Allowances and Blind Persons Allowances. Programs for Mothers' Allowances have always been exclusively a p r o v i n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s maintained by the present l e g i s l a t i o n . These programs, however, provide f o r a large number of persons i n f i n a n c i a l need and as such would appear to have a claim f o r recognition i n the l e g i s l a t i o n under review. There would seem to be as good an argument for Dominion p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Mothers' Allowances programs as there i s i n the sharing of Old Age Assistance. Mr. F.R. MacKinnon, Director of Child Welfare i n Nova S c o t i a , points out that: "In terms of national welfare children are equally as 6 Public Assistance and the Unemployed. Canadian Welfare Council, 1953, Ottawa* - 71 -important as older people and yet Mothers' Allowances have always 7 "been a p r o v i n c i a l responsibility8 i r" Supplementary benefits payable to recipients of Old Age Assistance, Blind Persons Allowance and Disabled Persons Allowance, are available i n the provinces of B r i t i s h Columbia, Al b e r t a , Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Yukon T e r r i t o r y , These payments are excluded from the reimbursement claim although r e l i e f payments made i n addition to these i n special cases may be included. This f a i l u r e r e s u l t s i n further discrepancies i n the l e v e l s of assistance between the provinces for persons e l i g i b l e f o r these categories. Other suggestions which have been made to the Federal government regarding the extent of t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a national program of general assistance include provision f o r health services and an expansion of current programs f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . This l a t t e r point i s stressed by the Canadian Welfare Council i n i t s statement 8 of 1953," In summary i t would appear necessary that the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Act should be kept under constant review by both Federal and p r o v i n c i a l authorities to determine the success of i t s operation and to eliminate the inevitable d i f f i c u l t i e s which w i l l arise i n i t s administrationa From these observations w i l l come the e s s e n t i a l information upon which both modifications and extensions of the Act can, be developed, 2 Workbook for Conference on Certain Issues i n S o c i a l S e c u r i t y B Canadian Welfare Council, 1958, Ottawa, Section 17, p«2» 8 Public Assistance and the Unemployeda. p. 13« - 72 -TEE FUTURE ROLE OF FEDERAL AID IN SOCIAL WELFARE Whether Canada moves towards an extension of s o c i a l insurance or Improved public assistance to meet i t s s o c i a l security needs, the Unemployment Assistance Act w i l l play an important r o l e . Even i n countries l i k e B r i t a i n , equipped now with a wide range of s o c i a l insurances, a National Assistance Act has been a necessary and important element i n order to provide f o r a r e s i d u a l group, who, f o r a variety of reasons are not covered by e x i s t i n g programs. Furthermore, insurance programs do not i n d i v i d u a l i z e need, but usually pay benefits related to contributions. These benefits may not always be s u f f i c i e n t i n some cases and means must be found to supplement such payments. I t Is here that l e g i s l a t i o n similar to the Unemployment Assistance Act f i l l s the gap 8 One of the notable omissions i n Canadds s o c i a l security program has been the absence of sickness insurance. A national health insurance plan w i l l soon be available f o r Canadians but there i s s t i l l no provision for loss of income because of i l l n e s s or other types of temporary d i s a b i l i t y . U n t i l such time as t h i s type of benefit becomes available i n insurance form, the Unemployment Assistance Act could provide for t h i s group on the basis of need. In the passage of the Unemployment Assistance Act a new p r i n c i p l e i s established for future developments i n s o c i a l welfare i n Canada, The break with t r a d i t i o n , whereby the Dominion has entered a f i e l d formerly regarded as the exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n of the provinces could be the commencement of a new trend which would take the Dominion into other areas of s o c i a l welfare. Two of these areas of expansion could be i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare and corrections. Canada lacks any national standards for c h i l d care although these should be part of the s o c i a l welfare program of a national government. I f children are to be regarded as national assets they should receive the same consideration extended to other groups i n the population. In the f i e l d of corrections divided j u r i s d i c t i o n i n many 2 areas i s a recurrent problem. The authors of the Fauteux Report advocate a high degree of integration between a l l parts of the correctional system, of every l e v e l of government, to ensure that persons i n any part of Canada receive f a i r and equal treatment. The role of the Federal government i n t h i s f i e l d i s one of leadership for i t has the greater authority to implement the many recommendations included i n t h i s report. SUMMATION Canada i s a nation i n i t s own r i g h t and while i t may b u i l d on the experiences of others i t must evolve a program of i t s own best suited to i t s needs. Wilbur J . Cohen, Professor of Public Welfare Administration, School of S o c i a l Work, University of Michigan, and formerly Director of the Division of Research and S t a t i s t i c s , United States S o c i a l Security Administration, i n giving his impressions at the Canadian Welfare Council Conference i n January 1958, said: 2 Canada. Parliament. Report of a Committee Appointed to Inquire  into the P r i n c i p l e s and Procedures Followed i n the Remission  Service of the Department of Justice ct Canada B 1956, Ottawa, Queen's P r i n t e r . » 74. -"The most important thing i n a s o c i a l security system i s not whether we a l l follow the same pattern, nor whether we a l l dp the same thing, but whether we bu i l d into that program a preservation of the creative genius of our people. So I would say to you i n Canada, bui l d your own genius into the system. Don't t r y to make i t so r a t i o n a l that the genius i s l e f t out. Don't t r y to make i t so a r b i t r a r y , so consistent, that something you treasure of an elusive psychological value i s omitted. I t i s just as Important i n a system of s o c i a l security ...» to buil d i n values that you cannot always define, that you cannot always make objective, as i t i s to have a neat system that i s n ' t a patchwork." 10 The next few years should see interesting developments i n Canada's s o c i a l security program. The nation i s i n the throes of economic, s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l change and i n the Federal election of March 1958 the Conservative government was returned to o f f i c e with an overwhelming majority. S o c i a l welfare issues loomed large i n the campaign and i t was apparent that the Canadian people are v i t a l l y concerned with them. This interest of the Canadian people i n public welfare w i l l determine i t s future d i r e c t i o n . 10 Cohen, Wilbur J , , quoted i n Conference on S o c i a l Security, by Marjorie King, Canadian Welfare, February 1, 1958, V o l , XXXIII, no. 6 , pp. 252-253, ~ 75 -APPENDICES » 76 -APPENDIX A . A table indicating the operation of the f i n a n c i a l formula used by the Government of Canada to determine deductions from the reimbursement claims submitted by the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, because of reduction over a period of years i n the Mothers 1 Allowance caseload* Year ending Average monthly number of persons receiving M«A»-benefits Population Percentage on MpA.. Difference from highest percentage Percentage allowed by Fed. Govt* 1 Percentage used i n compiling deduction June 3 0 , 1946 3,032 1,003,000 .30 June 3 0 , 1947 2 , 902 1,044,000 *28 June 3 0 , 1948 2,584 1 ,082 ,000 .24 June 3 0 , 1949 2,260 1 ,113 ,000 .20 June 3 0 , 1950 2 , 139 1 ,137 ,000 ,19 June 3 0 , 1951 1,902 1,165,210 .16 June 3 0 , 1952 1 , 671 1 ,198 ,000 .14 June 3 0 , 1953 1,574 1,230,000 . 1 3 June 3 0 , 1954 1,462 1 ,266 ,000 .12 June 3 0 , 1955 1,335 1,305,000 .10 ,20 .10 .10 June 3 0 , 1956 1,122 1,353,000 . 0 8 .22 •10 .12 June 3 0 , 1957 973 1,487,000 . 0 7 . 2 3 .10 . 1 3 Source: Figures supplied by accounting d i v i s i o n , S o c i a l Welfare Branch, Department of Health and Welfare, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 The percentage figure i n t h i s column i s multiplied by the population of the province and the figure derived i s then multiplied by the average cost of assistance per person i n the par t i c u l a r month, to determine the deduction from the reimbursement claim* - 77 -APPENDIX B. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Cassidy, Harry M. Unemployment and R e l i e f i n Ontario* J.M. Dent and Sons L t d . , Toronto, 1932. Dawson, R. MacGregor, The Government of Canada* University of Toronto Press, F i f t h P r i n t i n g , 1952. Gettys, L u e l l a , The Administration of Canadian Conditional Grants* Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1938. Richter, L. ( e d i t o r ) , Canada's Unemployment Problem. The Macmillan Company of Canada Ltd., Toronto, 1939. Workbook on Certain Issues i n S o c i a l Security. Canadian Welfare Council 1958, Ottawa. ARTICLES and PAMPHLETS Falk, Myron, Settlement Laws, American Association of S o c i a l Workers 1948, New York. Gov an, E.S.L., Residence and Responsibility i n S o c i a l Welfare. Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1952, Graham, Lloyd, Canada's Migrant Population, Canadian Welfare. V o l . XXXIII, (November, 1957), pp. 163-171 King, Marjorie, Conference on Soc i a l Security, Canadian Welfare* V o l . XXXIII, (February, 1958), pp. 251-253. Scott, F.R., The Development of Canadian Federalism,Proceedings, Canadian P o l i t i c a l Science Association* (1931), V o l I I I , pp. 231-247. Wallace, Elizabeth, The Origin of the S o c i a l Welfare State i n Canada 1867-1900, Canadian Journal of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, V o l . XVI, August, 1950, pp. 383-393, - 78 -APPENDIX B. (Continued) Mothers' Allowance Le g i s l a t i o n i n Qanadaf Research D i v i s i o n , Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, 1955, Canadian Welfare Council, Dominion-Provincial Relations and S o c i a l  Security f Ottawa, 194.6. Canadian Welfare Council, Public Assistance and the Unemployed. Ottawa, 1953. National Travelers Aid Association, Residence Laws: Road Block to Human Welfare. New York, 1956. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS STATUTES: B r i t i s h Columbia, S o c i a l Assistance Acty (1945), c. 62. Canada, 4 - 5 Elizabeth I I , c. 26. 21 George V, c. 28. Great B r i t a i n , 30 V i c t o r i a , c. 3. Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, O f f i c i a l Report of Debates. 1930, Volume I . 1955, Volume I I I . Volume V. 1956, Volume V. 1957, Volume 101, No, 50, December 18, (unrevised). No. 51, December 19, (unrevised), Canada Year Book. Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1955 and 1956, Labour Gazette. V o l , 33, No. 10, (October, 1933). V o l . 55, No. 5, (May, 1955). Report of a Committee to Inquire into the Pr i n c i p l e s and Procedures  followed i n the Remissions Service of the Department of Justice  of Canada. Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1956. Reports of Proceedings of Dominion-Provincial Conferences. Ottawa, King's Printer for the years 1935, 1941, 1945 and 1957, Report of the National Employment Commission. Interim Report. 1937, F i n a l Report. 1938, King's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1938, Report of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations. Books I , I I , I I I , Ottawa, King's P r i n t e r , 1939, Marsh, Leonard C,, Report op Social Security for Canada. King's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1943, - 79 -APPENDIX B. (Continued) Alberta, Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare f o r the  year ending March 31. 1957. Edmonton, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. B r i t i s h Columbia, Annual Report of the S o c i a l Welfare Branch of the  Department of Health and Welfare for the year ending fl&roh 31, 1957. V i c t o r i a , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1958, Manitoba, Annual Report of the Department of Health and Public Welfare  for the year ending March 31. 1957. Winnipeg, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Newfoundland, Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare f o r the year ending March 31 T 1957. St.John's, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Nova Scotia, Annual Report of Department of Public Welfare f o r the  year ending March 31. 1957. Ha l i f a x , Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Ontario, Annual Report of the Department of Public Welfare, for the  year ending March 31. 1957, Toronto, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Prince Edward Island, Annual Report of the Department of Health and Welfare f o r the year ending March 31. 1957. Charlottetown, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. Saskatchewan. Annual Report of the Department of Social Welfare and  Reha b i l i t a t i o n . Regina, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1957. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS McKinnon, F.R., Director of Child Welfare, Province of Nova Sco t i a , l e t t e r to the w r i t e r , 21 March, 1958, Rickinson, E.R., Deputy Minister of Welfare, Department of Health and Welfare, Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, l e t t e r to the w r i t e r , 28 A p r i l , 1958. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106098/manifest

Comment

Related Items