Canadian constitutional lore is full of the most amazing paradoxes. The Dominion has a written constitution; but, if the function of a written constitution is to introduce certainty and finality into a polity, this is precisely what Canada's written constitution fails to accomplish. Preposterous as it may seem, no one knows where the constitution begins or ends. The usual answer to a question about the “document” is that the constitution consists of the British North America Act of 1867 and its amendments. The superficiality of this answer is immediately revealed when one asks, Which amendments? The Rowell-Sirois Commission, which made elaborate studies of the background and functioning of the constitutional system, accepts and prints six amendments, the last one of which is dated 1916. Yet this is patently mistaken, for the Statute of Westminster, 1931, placed by the Commission immediately after its “last” amendment, definitely implies at least one later change by its citation of the “British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930.” There is little doubt, too, that the British North America Acts referred to in the Statute of Westminster did not include two of the amendments printed by the Commission (those of 1907 and 1916) and possibly even a third (that of 1875). After meditating on the apparent inaccuracy of the Royal Commission, no one should be surprised to recall that in 1930 the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Ferguson) advanced the view that the number of constitutional “modifications” at that date totalled thirty-three instead of the three about which there is evidently no doubt. Indeed, even the Mother of Parliaments has been misled by one of her Daughter-Parliaments into an erroneous citation of these Acts in her most solemn constitutional enactment, the Statute of Westminster. This is clearly revealed by the belated and surreptitious attempt made in the constitutional amendment of 1940 to tack on one of the earlier amendments omitted from the British North America Acts as defined in the Statute.

In contrast to the numerous expositions and commentaries concerning the origin, history, and nature of the doctrine of the separation of powers, early theories of parliamentary government have failed to attract the attention of historians of political thought. This negligence arises from two factors which must not be under-estimated. In the first place, it is generally asserted that Walter Bagehot was the first to appreciate the true nature of parliamentarism. Indeed, the penetration and lucidity of his famous essay on the English constitution overshadowed earlier attempts to grasp theoretically the mechanism of parliamentary government. In the second place, historians of political theory have been less prone to trace the roots of the theory of parliamentarism than those of the doctrine of the separation of powers because parliamentary government, although gradually introduced into a number of countries in the course of the nineteenth century, was not reduced to writing in any organic law prior to the World War. The development of the theory of parliamentary government is, therefore, one of the most neglected chapters in the history of constitutional ideas.

While the English to the end of the fifties of the last century looked upon and appraised their constitution through the eyes of Montesquieu, Blackstone, and De Lolme, continental theorists were busy in elaborating a new theory about the nature of the English constitution. The early history of parliamentary theory is determined, therefore, to no small extent by the way in which continental theorists observed and conceived the operation of English government. It was in France and Germany that the true nature of the English constitution was first discovered and a theory of parliamentarism formulated for the direct purpose of introducing the parliamentary system into those two countries.

The Dominion government's wheat policy for 1941-2 has been widely interpreted as marking the end of a great Canadian agricultural era. Historians, sporadically interested in Canadian agriculture, have emphasized the significance of events which occurred just over a decade ago, and have thought them sufficiently important to mark the end of the latest agricultural period. It is impossible yet to measure the relative importance for Canadian agriculture of war-created conditions as compared with those of the pre-war years. A decade more or less is of little consequence in relation to eras, and a lengthening of perspective forces us to recognize that the position of agriculture within the Canadian economy has changed markedly since 1920, and continues to change. Many factors such as drought and world depression, and possibly the far-reaching impact of the present war, have served to shrink the stature of the wheat economy; but, more particularly, the phenomenal rise since 1920 of the newer staples, minerals and newsprint, is placing the wheat economy and Canadian agriculture in general in a position of shrunken relative importance, despite record wheat acreage and production for the biennium 1939-40.

The main purposes of this paper develop in relation to the above considerations. Now is an obvious time to take stock in the field of Canadian agricultural history, and to note what research has been done. Since, however, bibliography requires some frame of reference, it is necessary to postulate something of the historical role of agriculture within the Canadian economic framework, and to use this hypothesis as a guide for the arrangement and evaluation of relevant materials. This approach is at once a method of analysis and a plea that agricultural history be not thought to consist solely in changing censuses of rural populations and farm stock, in acres cultivated and bushels produced. Detailed studies in agricultural history should be designed to integrate rather than to atomize the field.

The problem reviewed in this article is restricted to organized compulsory systems for ensuring the regular distribution of specified quantities of commodities or groups of commodities to consumers. Systems of rationing goods to producers or traders or of determining priorities or allocations to them are not considered, even though they result in shortages to consumers. Nor is attention directed to voluntary schemes of rationing introduced to meet shortages by retailers who may decide to sell the commodities concerned only to their regular customers or to allow each customer only a small amount of the commodity. Voluntary methods may be adequate for dealing with shortages of less essential goods or with temporary shortages of necessaries, but are not effective for meeting continuing shortages of necessaries. Such systems are distinct from that of consumer rationing, and would require separate review, which in dealing with Great Britain would be concerned with Limitation of Supplies Orders by which traders receive only a fraction of their peace-time supplies, and with the consequences of such Orders.

Consumer rationing has its greatest value where supplies of necessaries are short and are yet available in sufficient quantity to give each consumer a reasonable amount if supplies are equitably distributed. Until rationing is introduced shortages result in rush to buy supplies so that the shortage is aggravated. Some purchasers who have time and money go round from shop to shop buying such quantities as they can obtain to build up a private stock, and thus deprive others of their fair share of the limited supply. Queues are formed outside the shops and much annoyance and uneasiness results. These and other difficulties are avoided when rationing is introduced, and the psychology of the public towards the shortage is improved.