Canada and the United States seem to have accepted the principle of unemployment insurance almost simultaneously and to have recognized that a successful scheme must be substantially national in scope. The differences in the official plans, now under consideration in each country, make it of interest to trace briefly the development of American opinion, to note the different methods selected to achieve national uniformity despite the constitutional limitations on the competence of the federal governments, and to comment on certain major provisions of the Canadian Bill in the light of current American opinion.

The American attitude to unemployment and unemployment insurance or relief has developed through a series of distinct stages, which may be briefly summarized. The first Unemployment Insurance Bill introduced into any American Legislature was the Huber Bill of 1921 in Wisconsin. It was patterned after the usual Workmen's Compensation Act and laid the foundation for a distinctively American belief that the primary purpose of unemployment insurance should be to promote the stabilization of employment by giving employers an incentive to avoid the small but known costs of unemployment compensation. The wide acceptance of this thesis has definitely conditioned American developments in this field. From 1923 to 1929 there developed a unanimous conviction, that there was no unemployment, and that there could be no unemployment because the United States had sloughed off the shackles of European political economy and had entered a new economic era, in which a serious recession of business was inconceivable and from which competent management would eliminate possible fluctuations in production and employment. To suggest otherwise was heresy. During this same period skilful propaganda succeeded in stigmatizing unemployment insurance as a demoralizing “dole”, destructive alike of individual character and national prosperity. So strong were the emotions associated with this belief that the discussion of unemployment insurance was hardly tolerated; it verged on sedition. After 1929 the undeniable growth in the volume of unemployment compelled the successive abandonment of three cherished principles with respect to unemployment relief: that relief was unnecessary because prosperity was just around the corner, that necessary relief should and could be provided by private charity, that necessary public relief should come from local authorities. And by 1933 the federal government was forced to assume the major burden of unemployment relief on an unprecedented scale. The propaganda of the dole came home to roost. With one-sixth of the total population on public relief, unemployment insurance again entered the realm of possible discussion. But it was necessary to effect a transition by persuading American citizens that it could, should, and would be provided voluntarily by private employers. This was faith—the testimony of things hoped for, evidenced by very, few seen experiments—and was intimately associated with the doctrine of stabilization.

It is a satisfaction that the unemployment insurance legislation now proposed in Canada contemplates a national insurance and placement system as against the federal-state machinery which would be established by the Social Security Bill before the United States Congress. Argument based on the evolution of unemployment insurance in other countries or on the nature of insurance must favour a national system. If the Bills being considered by the two countries are passed in substantially their present form, Canada will have outstripped the United States in unemployment insurance and placement legislation. Indeed, for some years Canada has been to the fore not only in this field but with respect to social insurance and its administration generally. The Canadian law providing for a federal-provincial employment service was passed in 1918, the corresponding Wagner-Peyser Act in the United States in 1933. Workmen's compensation, the one important form of social insurance in which the two countries have had any considerable experience, has provided a high degree of uniform protection in Canada and practically complete coverage although controlled and administered entirely by the provinces. In the United States in an experience extending over almost the same period four states still have no legislation and in the others the great differences in benefit scales, organization, and procedure result in highly dissimilar measures of protection for the citizens of the country. In both old age and mothers' allowances conditioned on a means test, a much larger proportion of the population is covered in Canada than in the United States, and with respect to the former, the government of Canada has been assisting the provinces for several years while in the United States the federal government is only now considering aid to the states.

In the interpretation of the British North America Act the question which seems of paramount importance to the lay mind—and sometimes to the legal one—is “what was the intention of the Fathers of Confederation when the sections under consideration were enacted?” If it were not apparent before, it should have become apparent as a result of the Aviation Case and the Radio Case that any such test must be entirely fallacious. The Fathers of Confederation could not have anticipated the development of the methods of communication which were under review in these cases. Still less could they have anticipated the problems of modern business. They could not have thought that the Dominion government would require the power to protect majorities engaged in business against the reckless acts of uncontrolled minorities. The thought was rather of the necessity for the protection of minorities against the oppressive combination of majorities, and the gradual concentration of business in the hands of the few. We have, then, in the questions which arise in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act, in a broad sense, a new constitutional question. With reference to the questions of aviation and radio new questions also arose, but the basic principles governing communications were the same as formerly. The personal and psychological factor which enters into the development of modern business was absent. The judgments in the Aviation and Radio Cases, indicating as they do some of the principles justifying the enactment of the Natural Products Marketing Act as Dominion legislation, demonstrate the difficulty which arises in suggesting any amendment to the constitution which would obviate possible contention on the question of jurisdiction. While our federal scheme exists and business affairs develop, that which to-day is a matter of provincial concern may to-morrow be a matter affecting the Dominion as a whole or affecting interprovincial relations.

Legislation in Great Britain and the United States. A few of the important differences between Canada's Natural Products Marketing Act and the British Marketing Act might be worthy of note. The Dominion Marketing Board cannot engage in marketing, fix prices, or control production and, of course, none of these powers can be delegated to Local Boards established under marketing schemes. However, as indicated in section 4, paragraph 1 (a), of the Act, a Local Board may designate a marketing agency or agencies, which will be the agency of the persons whose product is regulated, through which the product may be marketed, but the Local Board cannot engage in marketing. The British Act of 1931 provides that a Board created under its authority may engage in the marketing of a product. It may acquire facilities, take control of the product, and dispose of it and in so doing, may establish prices. The British Act also provides a definite percentage that must support a scheme before assent can be given to it.

That part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of the United States which deals with marketing agreements in some respects resembles the Natural Products Marketing Act but there are some marked differences. Under marketing agreements provision may be made for setting prices. The Control Committees which administer marketing agreements are not corporate bodies and enforcement of regulations rests with the Administration in Washington. There is no provision for the designation of a marketing agency under the United States legislation. In both the United States and British legislation provision is made for Consumers' Councils or Committees to investigate schemes and agreements from the consumers' standpoint; there is no such provision in the Canadian legislation but, as I have mentioned above, the Canadian Act aims at the protection of both producer and consumer by making it an offence for anyone to charge an excessive amount for the marketing, processing, or converting of a natural product.

Government attempts to raise the price of wheat have been so widespread during the past six years that some such action by the Canadian government was inevitable. The particular form of Canadian efforts was the result of circumstances. Participation in the London Wheat Agreement came because it was possible to make that Agreement, and probably no other international wheat agreement. The guarantee of operations conducted in the wheat futures market by Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited, the Central Selling Agency through which the western pools formerly sold their wheat, resulted from the special difficulties of that agency at a particular time. Considering the magnitude and importance of the operations, there has been comparatively little criticism, until recently, of government market intervention although lately there has been controversy with respect to the way in which it has been carried out. It is to be hoped that no difference of opinion as to the correctness of procedure at different times during recent years will obscure consideration of the future course of action.