The Limits of National Policy: Integrating Regional Development into the Federal Agenda

Endnotes

• W. A. Mackintosh, The Economic Background of Dominion-Provincial Relations: Appendix III of the Royal Commission Report on Dominion-Provincial Relations, ed. J. H. Dales (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series, 1964), p. 70. On the uneven effects of the National Policy in the Maritimes, see Judith Fingard, “The 1880s: Paradoxes of Progress,” in The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, ed. E. R. Forbes and D. A. Muise (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), pp. 83–86.
   Google Scholar
• See D. A. Muise, “The 1860s: Forging the Bonds of Union,” in The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, ed. E. R. Forbes and D. A. Muise (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), pp. 38–46; Ken Cruikshank, Close Ties: Railways, Government, and the Board of Railway Commissioners, 1851–1933 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1991), pp. 40–43, 160–178; Ernest R. Forbes, The Maritime Rights Movement, 1919–1927: A Study in Canadian Regionalism (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1979), pp. 158–181.
   Google Scholar
• Donald J. Savoie, Visiting Grandchildren: Economic Development in the Maritimes (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), pp. 317–318.
   Google Scholar
• See Garth Stevenson, Ex Uno Plures: Federal–Provincial Relations in Canada, 1867–1896 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), pp. 321–342.
   Google Scholar
• See Margaret R. Conrad and James K. Hiller, Atlantic Canada: A Region in the Making (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. chaps. 9 and 10.
   Google Scholar
• Margaret Conrad, “The 1950s: The Decade of Development,” in The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, ed. E. R. Forbes and D. A. Muise (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), pp. 401–402. On regional disparities and the accompanying growth of regional development initiatives, see, for example, David Alexander, Atlantic Canada and Confederation: Essays in Canadian Political Economy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983); David Jay Bercuson, ed., Canada and the Burden of Unity (Toronto: Gage Publishing, 1980); and the extensive body of work by Donald J. Savoie on the subject, most recently Visiting Grandchildren.
   Google Scholar
• Economic Council of Canada, Living Together: A Study of Regional Disparities (Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada, 1977); Thomas J. Courchene, “Avenues to Adjustment: The Transfer System and Regional Disparities,” in Canadian Confederation and the Crossroad, ed. Michael Walker (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1978). More recently, the two views have been expressed by provincial premiers, with Nova Scotia's John Hamm arguing for an increase in the manner of calculating equalization payments to the Maritime Provinces, and Ontario's Mike Harris strenuously objecting and proposing instead a complete reevaluation of the program: John Hamm, Speech to the Nova Scotia Chamber of Commerce, October 2000; John Ibbitson, Globe and Mail, 20 July 2001. For an older overview, see James Bickerton and Alain G. Gagnon, “Regional Policy in Historical Perspective: The Federal Role in Regional Economic Development,” American Review of Canadian Studies 14, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 72–92.
   Google Scholar
• On the Macdonald and Laurier cabinet strategies, see W. L. Morton, “The Cabinet of 1867,” and John T. Saywell, “The Cabinet of 1896,” both in Cabinet Formation and Bicultural Relations, ed. F. W. Gibson (Ottawa: Studies of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, 1970); Gordon T. Stewart, “Political Patronage under Macdonald and Laurier, 1878–1911,” American Review of Canadian Studies 10, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 3—21; David E. Smith, “Party Government, Representation and National Integration in Canada,” in Party Government and Regional Representation in Canada, vol. 36 of Research Studies of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), pp. 1–68; Herman Bakvis, Regional Ministers: Power and Influence in the Canadian Cabinet (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 16–38.
   Google Scholar
• Bakvis, Regional Ministers, pp. 59–64; P. E. Bryden, Planners and Politicians: Liberal Politics and Social Policy, 1957–1968 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1997), pp. 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• On Diefenbaker's campaign strategies and slogans, see J. Murray Beck, Pendulum of Power: Canada's Federal Elections (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp. 291–328.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J. Courchene, Equalization Payments: Past, Present and Future (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1984), pp. 35–40; Frank T. Walton, “Canada's Atlantic Region: Recent Policy for Economic Development,” Canadian Journal of Regional Science 1, no. 2 (1978): 44.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Aucoin and Herman Bakvis, “Organizational Differentiation and Integration: The Case of Regional Economic Development Policy in Canada,” Canadian Public Administration 27, no. 3 (Autumn 1984): 352.
   Google Scholar
• See Bryden, Planners and Politicians, chaps. 2 and 3.
   Google Scholar
• Quoted in Beck, Pendulum of Power, pp. 402–403.
   Google Scholar
• Tom Kent, A Public Purpose: An Experience of Liberal Opposition and Canadian Government (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988), p. 415.
   Google Scholar
• Stephen Clarkson and Christina McCall, Trudeau and Our Times, Volume 1: The Magnificent Obsession (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1990), pp. 116–117.
   Google Scholar
• See James Bickerton, Nova Scotia, Ottawa, and the Politics of Regional Development (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), pp. 207–208.
   Google Scholar
• See Kent, A Public Purpose, esp. pp. 3–6; 45–133; 358–361.
   Google Scholar
• Interview, Gordon Robertson, 18 December 1995; Interview, James Coutts, 16 December 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Queen's University Archives (QUA), Tom Kent Papers, volume 5, file: April-May 1968. Kent to Jean Marchand, 16 May 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, A Public Purpose, pp. 416–418; Donald J. Savoie, Federal-Provincial Collaboration: The Canada-New Brunswick General Development Agreement (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1981), pp. 15–16; for Marchand's version of events, which is largely in accord with Kent's, see Donald J. Savoie, Regional Economic Development: Canada's Search for Solutions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), pp. 34–37.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons, Debates, 27 February 1969, p. 6016.
   Google Scholar
• QUA, Kent Papers, volume 6, file: Oct.-Dec. 1968. Kent to Marchand, 15 October 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Archives of Ontario (AO), RG 3–26, box 395, file: Finance and Economics Jan.-June 1969. “Notes from a Meeting Held April 28, 1969, with Representatives of the Federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion.”
   Google Scholar
• Private collection, Tom Kent Papers, “Memorandum to the Cabinet: Philosophy and Policy of Regional Development,” 29 January 1969. This collection is currently in Mr. Kent's possession, although he anticipates making a donation of it to the Archives of University College of Cape Breton, where it will be more widely available to researchers.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.; the new department firmly embraced the idea of growth-poles. See Savoie, Regional Economic Development, pp. 6–7, and Bickerton, Politics of Regional Development, pp. 212–214.
   Google Scholar
• Private collection, Kent Papers, Memorandum to Cabinet, “Industrial Incentives for Regional Economic Expansion: Summary of Proposed New Program,” 24 March 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., “Memorandum to the Cabinet: Philosophy and Policy of Regional Development,” 29 January 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Quoted in Della Stanley, “The 1960s: The Illusions and Realities of Progress,” in The Atlantic Provinces in Confederation, ed. E.R. Forbes and D.A. Muise (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993), p. 422.
   Google Scholar
• AO, RG 6–14, UB 126–127. “Report of the Eighth Meeting of the Continuing Committee of Officials on the Constitution, Ottawa, September 30–October 1, 1969.”
   Google Scholar
• Interview, James Coutts, 16 December 1994; QUA, Kent Papers, vol. 6, file: Oct-Dec. 1968. Correspondence between Kent and Reisman, October 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., Kent to Marchand, 28 October 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Bickerton, pp. 215–216; Kent, A Public Purpose, pp. 425–427.
   Google Scholar
• See Donald J. Savoie, Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 334.
   Google Scholar
• Private collection, Kent Papers, Cabinet document no. 1263/70, “Industrial Incentives Legislation, with Particular Reference to the Quebec Situation,” 2 November 1970; Ibid., Department of Regional Economic Expansion—Special Area Proposal, 5 November 1970.
   Google Scholar
• AO, RG 50–33, Treasury Department, Fiscal Policy Planning Branch, box 23, file: Federal-Provincial Relations. Anthony Careless to W. L. Stowe, 3 November 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., box 35, file: 21—Federal White Paper. “Centralizing Pressures by Ottawa,” n.d.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony Careless, Initiative and Response: The Adaptation of Canadian Federalism to Regional Economic Development (Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1977), p. 169; not surprisingly, Kent takes exception to this depiction, arguing that “Careless's concept of regional development seems to be, basically, that the federal authority should leave the provinces with plenty of room to do their thing. Consequently, although he is sympathetic to lessening regional disparities as an objective, he is unsympathetic to most of the instruments by which the federal government and the weaker provinces can in fact make any concentrated attack on disparities”: Tom Kent, “The Brief Rise and Early Decline of Regional Development,” Acadiensis 9, no. 1 (Autumn 1979): 123. Careless, however, is not the only one who depicts the early years of DREE as uncomfortably centrist in structure. See also, for example, J. D. Love, “The Continuing Relevance of DREE Decentralization,” Canadian Public Administration 30, no. 3 (Fall 1987): 434–435.
   Google Scholar
• Private collection, Kent Papers, “Cape Breton Development Corporation: Memorandum on Second ‘Plan,”’ n.d.
   Google Scholar
• See Tom Kent, “Cape Breton Provides Pointers for the Adjustment Programs Required by the Decline of the Old Economy,” School of Policy Studies: Working Paper 14 (February 2001): 1–8; Allan Tupper, “Public Enterprise as Social Welfare: The Case of the Cape Breton Development Corporation,” Canadian Public Policy 4, no. 4 (Autumn 1978): 530–546.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., “Sydney Melding,” 11 January 1971.
   Google Scholar
• QUA, Kent Papers, vol. 6, file: Jan.-Feb. 1971. Jean Marchand to Gerald Regan, 11 February 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., file: Mar.-Apr. 1971. MacEachen to Marchand, 2 March 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Interview, Senator Allan MacEachen, 6 March 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Kent, A Public Purpose, pp. 432–33.
   Google Scholar
• Financial Times of Canada, 5 July 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Jennifer Smith, “Informal Constitutional Development: Change by Other Means,” in Canadian Federalism: Performance, Effectiveness, and Legitimacy, ed. Herman Bakvis and Grace Skogstad (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 46.
   Google Scholar
• Marchand alluded to this sort of role for Kent when he announced the decision: “Tom Kent came to Ottawa ten years ago to work for policies of economic and social development in which he believed. … [He] wishes now to confront the problems at closer quarters … and provide the necessary leadership for development in Cape Breton”: Private collection, Kent Papers, press release, 29 June 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Private collection, Kent Papers, “Cape Breton Development Corporation: Memorandum on Second ‘Plan,”’ n.d.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Ibid., “Memorandum to Cabinet: Cape Breton Development Corporation, Revised Plan,” 14 March 1971.
   Google Scholar
• Cape Breton Development Corporation, Seventh Annual Report Year Ending: December 31, 1973 p. 4.
   Google Scholar
• See R. Hartley McGee, Getting It Right: Regional Development in Canada (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992); Love, “The Continuing Relevance of DREE Decentralization”; Ian McAllister, “How to Re-Make DREE, Policy Options 1, no. 1 (March 1980).
   Google Scholar
• Donald J. Savoie, “The Toppling of DREE and Prospects for Regional Economic Development,” Canadian Public Policy 10, no. 3: 329–330.
   Google Scholar
• Library and Archives Canada, Don Snowdon Papers, MG 31 D163, vol. 9, file: Canadian Council on Rural Development Executive Committee—Pertinent Information re: Meetings. Jane Abramson, chair; CCRD to Marcel Lessard, Ministers of DREE, 19 October 1976.
   Google Scholar
• For an analysis of the origins of DEVCO as a reflection of the social policy orientation of the central government in the 1960s, see Allan Tupper, “Public Enterprise as Social Welfare: The Case of the Cape Breton Development Corporation,” Canadian Public Policy 4, no. 4 (Autumn 1978): 530–546.
   Google Scholar
• Report of the Special Committee of the Senate on the Cape Breton Development Corporation, December 1997: http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/devc-e/rep-e/finalreport-e.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Tom Kent, “Cape Breton Provides Pointers for the Adjustment Programs Required by the Decline of the Old Economy,” School of Policy Studies: Working Paper 14 (February 2001): 1.
   Google Scholar