¹ Hodgetta, J. E., “The Public Corporation in Canada,” in The Puhlic Corporation, ed. Friedmann, W. (Toronto, 1954), pp. 56–58 Google Scholar. Two of the second group of agencies are now being liquidated.

² Statutes of Canada, 15–16 Geo. VI, c. 12 (2nd sess., 1951). Part VIII applies to corporations. It should be noted that the operation of this part of the Act is limited by (1) the supremacy of other statutes in case of conflict; and (2) the exclusion of five corporations. Two of the excluded agencies are joint Dominion-provincial boards, and the other three (the Canadian Wheat Board, the Bank of Canada, and its subsidiary, the Industrial Development Bank) are excluded for reasons which pertain to their respective attributes.

³ Agricultural Prices Support Board, Atomic Energy Control Board, Canadian Maritime Commission, Director of Soldier Settlement, The Director, the Veterans' Land Act, Dominion Coal Board, Fisheries Prices Support Board, National Gallery of Canada, National Research Council, and Unemployment Insurance Commission.

⁴ Balls, H. R., “The Financial Control and Accountability of Canadian Crown Corporations,” Public Administration, Vol. 31, pp. 127–43, at p. 130 (Summer, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Proprietary corporations escape from the following provisions: “Each agency corporation shall annually submit to the appropriate Minister an operating budget … for the approval of the appropriate Minister and the Minister of Finance.” (Section 80 [1].) “The Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the conditions upon which an agency corporation may undertake contractual commitments.” (Section 83.) Proprietary as well as agency corporations are required to submit capital budgets for approval.

⁶ Frank A. Milligan, “Financing the Canadian Crown Corporations: General Financial Provisions,” Seminar Paper No. 67, Seminar on Organization and Administration of Public Enterprises in the Industrial Field, Rangoon, Burma, March, 1954 (mimeo), p. 5.

⁷ Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Canadian Patents & Development Limited, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Defence Construction (1951) Limited, Federal District Commission, National Battlefields Commission, National Harbors Board, and Park Steamship Company Limited.

⁸ Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Farm Loan Board, Canadian National Railways, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Eldorado Aviation Limited, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, Export Credits Insurance Corporation, Northern Transportation Company Limited, Northwest Territories Power Commission, Polymer Corporation Limited, St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, and Trans-Canada Air Lines.

⁹ Brady, Alexander, “The State and Economic Life,” in Canada, ed. Brown, George W. (Berkeley, 1950), p. 353 Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Lamontagne, Maurice, “The Role of Government,” in Canada's Tomorrow, ed. Gilmour, G. P. (Toronto, 1954), p. 122 Google Scholar.

¹¹ The term was popularized by MacDonald and the Conservatives in the campaign of 1878. Its meaning is generally restricted to the institution of the protective tariff, but cogent arguments have been made for subsuming the entire group of policies named above under the title. See Fowke, V. C., “The National Policy—Old and New,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 18, pp. 271–86 (Aug., 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Brady, , “The State and Economic Life,” in Canada, pp. 358–59Google Scholar.

¹² Brady, , “The State and Economic Life,” in Canada, p. 353 Google Scholar.

¹³ Debates, House of Commons, Canada (hereafter referred to as Debates), 1937, p. 2215 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁴ Debates, 1945, p. 1358 Google Scholar. A member of the Opposition responded with further words of praise “for what they [T.C.A.] have done in helping to develop the country” (p. 1359).

¹⁵ Debates, 1932, pp. 3035–36Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Debates, 1917, p. 4218 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁷ Debates, 1917, p. 4015 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁸ Debates, 1919, p. 1741 Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁹ Debates, 1919 (2nd sess.), p. 1054 Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁰ Debates, 1917, pp. 4275 and 4384 Google ScholarPubMed, and 1919 (2nd sess.), p. 1057.

²¹ Debates, 1917, p. 4015 Google ScholarPubMed. It is true that the M.P.s' awareness of public ownership sentiment produced an almost ludicrous jockeying to gain credit for public ownership measures while denying a doctrinaire bias toward the principle. (See pp. 1811 and 2115.) Furthermore, several prominent Conservatives seem to have expected public ownership to play an increasingly important role as the industrialization of Canada proceeded.

²² J. L. Ilsley, the Minister of Finance, argued as follows: “The house will appreciate, however, that unlike the industrial development bank, which will operate with a relatively few offices and a comparatively small but highly skilled staff, a similar agency to provide intermediate credit for agriculture could do its job effectively only with literally thousands of branches or offices throughout rural areas readily accessible to farmers. Some of the United States farm credit organizations were considered as possible models, but … the same objective could be attained more speedily and effectively and at a fraction of the cost by a comparatively simple extension of existing lending facilities. Moreover, a new set of institutions would have taken years to build up and to equip with competent and experienced staff.” Debates, 1944, p. 2558 Google ScholarPubMed.

²³ Debates, 1944, p. 2547 Google Scholar.

²⁴ Debates, 1944, p. 2718 Google Scholar.

²⁵ See the “White Paper” issued by C. D. Howe, the Minister of Reconstruction and Development in 1945 ( Employment and Income, with Special Reference to the Initial Period of Reconstruction, Ottawa, 1945 Google Scholar); an article by Howe, , “Industrial Development in Canada,” Public Affairs, Vol. 11, pp. 207–13 (Dec., 1948)Google Scholar, in which the author lists “four principles underlying our industrial development program”; and Firestone, O. J., “Investment and Economic Development in Canada,” The Statist (Canadian Supplement), May 31, 1952, pp. 18–20 Google Scholar. For an indication of the extent to which business regards itself as a partner of government, see Bryden, John T., “Government and Business,” in Canada: Nation on the March (Toronto, 1953), pp. 67–74 Google Scholar, and Gamble, Howard, “The Road to Tomorrow,” Canadian Business, Vol. 27, pp. 22–24, 50 ff. (Jan., 1954)Google Scholar. Gamble asserts: “There is in Canada probably a greater genuine liaison and rapport between government and business than in any other country” (p. 50).

²⁶ The Minister was authorized by statute to procure the incorporation of Crown companies under the federal Companies Act, 1934, or provincial companies acts—all statutes designed for the use of private corporations. Twenty-eight companies were created under the authority given the Minister. See Kennedy, J. de N., History of the Department of Munitions and Supply, 2 vols. (Ottawa, 1950)Google Scholar. A few Crown companies survived the war, and authorization to create others has been given to several agencies since the war. The word “Limited” in the title identifies this special type of public corporation (see notes 7 and 8).

²⁷ Debates, 1946, p. 2176 Google ScholarPubMed.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 1517.

²⁹ See Disposal and Peacetime Use of Crown Plant Buildings, Department of Reconstruction and Supply (Ottawa, 1948), p. 3 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Debates, 1944, p. 1573 Google ScholarPubMed.

³¹ Address by C. D. Howe, Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production, Los Angeles, California, October 8, 1954 (press release).

³² Cf. the instituting of competition between public corporations in the fuel industry by the British Conservative Government. Davies, Ernest, “Government Policy and the Public Corporation,” The Political Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 104–16 (April–June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Debates, 1917, p. 4217 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁴ Debates, 1919, p. 2110 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁵ The words were used in a speech broadcast to the nation from Winnipeg. Quoted in Debates, 1932–1933, p. 2800 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁶ Innis, Harold A., Political Economy in the Modern State (Toronto, 1946), pp. 159–60Google Scholar.

³⁷ Debates, 1919, p. 1018 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁸ For example, speaking of the successful government ventures in synthetic rubber production and uranium mining and refining, the Minister of Defence Production asserted: “… if they did not have monopolies they would be crown companies in a competitive field, which is contrary to government policy.” Debates, 1951, p. 2004 Google ScholarPubMed. See also Debates, 1946, p. 2176 Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁹ “The government has no intention of going into business unnecessarily. Occasions have arisen in the past where it was important and, I suggest, imperative, that the government go into business on a very large scale. Such occasions may occur again, and if they do I hope the government of that day will be bold enough to meet the situation.” Howe, C. D., Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, Debates, 1946, p. 1517 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ An illustration is found in a colloquy between C. D. Howe and a leading Conservative that occurred while Polymer Corporation was under discussion ( Debates, 1944, p. 1715 Google Scholar):

“Mr. Howe: ‘With what private industry does it compete?’

Mr. Diefenbaker: ‘It does not compete in the matter of manufacture, true enough, but it is actually the first move along the road to socialization.’

Mr. Howe: ‘It is a wholly non-competitive industry.’

Mr. Diefenbaker: ‘That is true.’”

⁴¹ For a recent statement of the Association's case, see the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Broadcasting, House of Commons, Canada, Seventh Session, Twenty-first Parliament, 1952–1953, pp. 252–92 and 311–17Google Scholar.

⁴² See Report, Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (Ottawa, 1951)Google ScholarPubMed. As recently as March 31, 1955, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent once more reaffirmed the government's policy with respect to the regulatory powers of the C.B.C. Debates, 1955, p. 2564 Google ScholarPubMed (daily edition). It should be noted, however, that in December, 1955, a Royal Commission on Television Broadcasting was appointed to consider inter alia “the licensing and control of private television and sound broadcasting stations in the public interest.”

⁴³ Brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (as it was then called), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Broadcasting, House, 1952–1953, p. 315 Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Currie, A. W., Economics of Canadian Transportation (Toronto, 1954), p. 544 Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ New York Times, March 20, 1955, p. E7 Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ “That C.P.A. Trans-Arctic Service” (editorial), Ottawa Journal, Jan. 24, 1955, p. 6 Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See, e.g., Debates, 1923, p. 1616 Google ScholarPubMed, and 1932–33, p. 2771; also Manion, R. J. (a former Minister of Railways and Canals), Life is an Adventure (Toronto, 1936), p. 295 Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ A fact already noted by ProfessorHodgetts, , “The Public Corporation in Canada,” in Friedmann, , The Public Corporation, p. 54 Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Debates, 1923, p. 3674 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁰ Debates, 1921, p. 1182 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵¹ A point amply demonstrated by the harassed Liberal Minister of Railways and Canals, when he said in the House: “Suppose Mr. Beatty's shareholders met and stayed in session four or five months every year; suppose every day a portion of his staff was compelled to be taken from their work to answer all kinds of questions; suppose that … among his shareholders there was a large number who made no bones about declaring him and his board of management incompetent; what would Mr. Beatty do? He would resign in five minutes.” Debates, 1924, pp. 2632–33Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵² Statutes of Canada, 1 Eliz. II, c. 29 (1952). The provision was an amendment to the Income Tax Act, Statutes of Canada (1948), 11–12 Google ScholarPubMed George VI, c. 52, which had provided in section 57 (1) (d) for exemption of “a corporation, commission, or association not less than 90% of the shares or capital of which was owned by His Majesty in right of Canada or a province or by a Canadian municipality.”

⁵³ See, for example, Debates, 1946, pp. 1517, 2129, and 2150Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁴ Debates, 1952, p. 1253 Google ScholarPubMed. The amounts paid by each eligible corporation can be ascertained quickly from their financial statements, which are published annually in Volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada.

⁵⁵ Debates, 1952, p. 2093 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁶ In November, 1949, Minister of Finance Douglas Abbott announced to the House that “in general the policy of the government will be to authorize its Crown corporations to work out fair and equitable agreements with the municipalities in which their properties are situated.” Debates, 1949 (2nd sess.), p. 1706 Google ScholarPubMed. In June, 1951, the Minister used stronger language to describe the situation, saying that the corporations had been “instructed” to negotiate agreements. Debates, 1951, p. 4217 Google Scholar. The reason given by the Minister for permitting each corporation to work out its own “fair and equitable” agreements was that “the character of the operations of these Crown corporations varies a good deal” (p. 4224).

⁵⁷ See Debates, 1945, p. 1424 Google ScholarPubMed and 1946, pp. 1517, 2129, 2148, and 2163. The cities have no legal recourse if a corporation refuses to conclude such an arrangement. There has not been complete satisfaction with the size of the payments. See, e.g., Debates, 1951, p. 4226 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁸ Debates, 1952, p. 2092 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁵⁹ Ibid., p. 1253. The relief granted “will take the form of a deduction from the tax otherwise payable of an amount sufficient to reduce to 43 per cent the tax payable under the Income Tax Act on that part of a corporation's taxable income that is derived from such distribution or generation.” At the 1952 corporate income tax rate of 50 per cent, the reduction amounted to 14 per cent.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 2645. Earlier, in response to complaints that provinces with privatelyowned public utility companies were being discriminated against because publicly-owned companies in other provinces paid no federal income taxes, the federal government had arranged to turn over to a province half of the income tax collected from such private companies within its borders. This step and the 1952 reduction were regarded as parallel moves.

⁶¹ Mackintosh, W. A., “The People and Their History,” in Canada: Nation on the March, p. 18 Google Scholar.

⁶² For example, in commenting on the loss of 28 million dollars suffered by the Canadian National Railways in 1954 under Liberal auspices, a Conservative newspaper pointed to the reduction of 32 million dollars in operating expenses as proof that the loss “was not helped by failure on the part of management to economize.” Falling revenues were blamed, and it was acknowledged that “it is not always possible to match falling revenues with cuts in costs.” The railroad's plans for meeting competition were noted. Editorial, Ottawa Journal, March 23, 1955, p. 6 Google ScholarPubMed. Earlier, in referring to the anticipated loss, the president of the C.N.R. was reported as viewing it as a “crushing disappointment,” particularly because making a profit is essential for a public corporation. “Exhortations from an executive officer are a poor substitute for the discipline of a profit and loss account.” Ottawa Journal, Nov. 4, 1954, p. 38 Google ScholarPubMed.

⁶³ Debates, 1945, p. 1397 Google ScholarPubMed. Behind this statement is another made by Howe on a different occasion: “We in Canada have always had to live by compromise ….” Address at Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, April 10, 1953 (press release).

⁶⁴ Debates, 1952–1953, p. 4764 Google Scholar.