¹ For a rénumé of the nature of Canadian Confederation and developments since that time, see Report of the Cummission, Book I, Canada: 1867–1939.

² The original appointees to the Commission were the Honorable Newton W. Rowell, Chief Justice of Ontario, the Honorable T. Rinfret, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, John W. Dafoe, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, R. A. McKay, of Dalhousie University, and H. F. Angus, of the University of British Columbia. In November, 1937, Mr. Justice Rinfret resigned, owing to illness. Joseph Sitois, of Laval University, Quebec, was appointed to fill the vacancy, and in November, 1938, he was made chairman in the place of Mr. Rowell, who resigned because of ill health.

³ A Canadian comment was that “for the first time since Confederation our statesmen have allowed a body of experts to function without imposing on their efforts the dead hand of the legal profession.” Canadian Forum, June, 1940, p. 70 Google Scholar

⁴ Most of the briefs presented by the provincial governments ware of high quality; they are valuable sources of information on the government and the economy of the provinces.

⁵ Report of the Royal Committion on Dominion-Provinciol Relations (Ottawa: King's Printer, 3 v., 81)Google Scholar. The three-volume report and all the reaearch monographe, with the exception of certain detailed financial statistics, may be obtained from the same source for S10. The printed and mimeographed monographs are aa follows: D. G. Creighton, British North America at Confederation; W. A. Mackintoah, The Economic Backeround of Dominum-Provincirt Rilatiom; D. C. MacGregor and others, National Income; Eadras Minville. Labour Legisilation and Social Servie in the Province of Quabac; A. E. Grauer, Public Assistance and Social Insurance; J. A. Corry, Difficulties of Divided Jurisdiation; L. M. Gouin and Brooke Claxton, Legislative Expedients and Devices Adopted by Dominion and the Provinces; J. A. Corry, Growth of Government Activities sincs Confedration; A. E. Grauer, Labour Legislation; Public Health; Houring; Stewart Bates, Financial History of Canadian Governments; H. C. Goldenberg, Municipal Finance in Canada; Knox, F. A., Dominion Monstary Policy (1929–1934)Google Scholar; W. J. Welnes, Proiris Population Poaeibilites; S. A. Saunders, Economic History of the Maritims Provinces; W. Eggleston and C. T. Kraft, Dominion-Provincial Subsidies and Grants. The monographs are obtainable at 50, each. Other special studies, many dealing with constitutional and legal matters, were prepared for the Commission, and, not being published, were filed with the Commission's records.

⁶ For some time the Dominion government has been blocked in exerclaing authority in field, of social and economic legislation because the realdual power allocated to it by the British North America Act of 1867 has been narrowly limited by Judicial decision. At the same time, the powers of the provinces have been unduly inflated. Furthermore, under the financial arrangements of Confederation the provinces were reatricted to specific taxes, whereae the Dominion wes given extremely broad taxing authority. Under such a system, it waa unavoidable that spheres of authority and of fiscal resources should be thrown hopelessly out of gear. See Gettys, Luella, The Administration of Canadian Conditional Grants (Chicago: Public Administration Service, 1938), pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar

⁷ Since 1930, the provinces, constitutionally responsible for relief activities, have received liberal grants-in-aid from the Dominion to finance unemployment relief. For a diacussion of the administration of unemployment relief, see Gettya, op. cit., pp. 148 ff.

⁸ On July 10, 1940, the British North America Act was amended in the British Parliament to veet the Dominion with exclusive jurisdiction over “unemployment Insurance.” Prior to the presentation of this amendment to the British Parliament, the provinces had consented to such revision of the Act ( Labour Gazetts of Canada. July, 1940, p. 682 Google Scholar). In consequence of this amendment, the Dominion Parliament enacted an unemployment insurance act on August 7, 1940, providing for a national aystem of compulsory unemployment insurance and of public employment offices. Similar legislation had been passed in 1935 (Statuies of Canada, 1935, ch. 38), but it had been declared ultra vires by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on January 38, 1937.

⁹ The recommendations of the Commission have been sharply criticised in that they do not include proposals for a broad, all-embracing social Insurance and security scheme. Dominion responsibility for the employable unemployed is “all to the good, but in regard to the unemployables the Commission has ideas which are pure Tudor,” Steeves, Dorothy G., “A British Columbia View,” Canadian Forum, Nov., 1940, p. 239 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See Gettys, op. cit., pp. 19–20.

¹¹ Self-supporting provincial debt—utility investments, etc.—would continue to be serviced by the provinces through payments to the Dominion. Furthermore, in Quebec, where provincial debt is an unusually low proportion of combined provincial and municipal debt, the Dominion would assume 40 per cent of the net, or dead-weight, cost of combined provincial and municipal debt service.

¹² For a comprehensive analysis of Canadian subsidies, see Maxwell, J. A., Federal Subsidies to the Provincial Governments in Canada (Cambridge, 1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ See Gettye, op. cit.

¹⁴ It may well be doubted whether welfare services can be promoted and made uniform through this type of grant. Although the evils of the subsidy system, “with all its shabby backdoor begging and borrowing, will be avoided, one suspects that the national adjustment grant in the hands of a slick politician, may turn out to be the aame old devil after all, its cloven hoof and tail neatly wrapped up in a more civilised garment.” Steeves, op. cit., p. 239.

¹⁵ In the measurement of the level of provincial services, the performance of social services by the church rather than the state in Quebec presented a special problem. Considering public services alone, the Quebec level would be low in comparison with other provinces, and thereby increase the adjustment grant. The Commission concluded that “the notable work of the church in the fields of education and public welfare could neither be ignored nor measured in monetary terms.” It assumed, therefore, that the contribution of the church had brought standards in these functions in Quebec up to the national average.

¹⁶ Miscellaneous and special claims were presented to the Commission by certain provinces seeking compensation for adverse effects of federalism or other adjustments.

¹⁷ The Commission recommended that if the administration of a service or a tax should be transferred from one government to another it was desirable that “those wbo have administered the service or collected the tax in the past should do so in the future and that their skill and experience should not be lost to the nation or their personal expectation of continuous appointment be disappointed.”

¹⁸ If the conference should accept recommendations requiring amendment of the British North America Act, the method of adopting such amendment would have to be decided upon. The method of amendment of that Act has long been a contentious issue. (See Report of the Special Committee on the British North America Act, Ottawa, 1935.Google Scholar) The Act, a statute of the British Parliament, contains no provision for its amendment. It has customarily been amended by joint resolution of both houses of the Canadian Parliament addressed to the British Parliament. Some provinces, notably Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia, would like to have amendment without recourse to the British Parliament. The British Parliament would undoubtedly approve such a method, but the provinces have never agreed upon the features of an amending process. The Commission expressed the opinion that the question of method of amendment of the British North America Act was outside its terms of reference, and that the Dominion and the provinces were the appropriate agencies to work out the procedure for bringing about changes.

¹⁹ Toronto Globe and Mail, November 8, 1940, p. 8 Google Scholar. It is generally expected that there will be considerable opposition to the recommendations for national adjustment grants, particularly by Ontario.