Sectionalism in Canada

SECTIONALISM IN CANADA JoHN STEVENSON P ERSONS familiar with the pages of Caesar will recall that ancient Gaul was divided into three parts, but Canada, although a continuous geo- -graphical unit and equipped with a centralized political structure, shows five distinct sectional divisions-the Maritime Provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie Provinces , and British Columbia-and in each of these · there is visible a strong local particularism which continually jars upon the solidarity of Confederation. These particularisms have never reached the stage of open - fissures, but they are centrifugal elements in the political and economic fabric of the Dominion, and must be taken cognizance of by everybody who _ has a share in guiding its destinies or who is interested in the study of its history and future evolution. The conditions causing these sectionalisms differ in each case, but are to be found nnder the following heads: (1) geographical and economic limitations, (2) racialism, (3) national policies inimical to local interests, and (4) financial relations with the Dominion government. Each of them has a special significance in the life of Canada, and some appraisement ot them seriatim may be profitable. I The Maritime area of Canada constitutes a welldefined sectional unit, and, although it is unfortunately split into three separate_ provinces, as a co1nmunity it has a distinct personality of its own. · These three provinces are inhabited by as good a racial stockAnglo -Saxon and· French in the mai_ n-as any country in the world can boast of, and their present citizens are 72 SECTIONALISM IN CANADA largely the descendants of hardy pioneers who have 'shown a remarkable capacity for adapting themselves to their local environment and in the process have made themselves exceedingly competent in a variety of practical arts necessary for that successful -adaptation. Numbering in all about a million souls, they have, if they lack extensive stretches of fertile soil, at their comtpand ample arable land and a wide variety of other natural resources, which should be adequate to provide a high standard of well-being for the whole population. But the cold fact remains that they are, as a community, dissatisfied with their lot, and Maritime rights and grievances are constantly in the public eye. Their grievances are now an ancient story, and it should be remembered that Nova -Scotia was brought into Confederation by a political trick, in disregard of a popular vote for the preservation of its separate colonial status, and that both New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island manifested great reluctance to abandon theirs. Now these three provinces have made a splendid contribution to the common Canadian pool, notably through a long line of eminent politicians and distinguished educationists, but a majority of their inhabitants have always held the view that they have given to Confederation more than they gained. They have never been backward - about voicing their grievances, and have shown themselves adepts in extracting largesse in various forms, for their appeasement, from a succession of federal goyernments. In the years immediately after the War, their sense of dissatisfaction with Confederation suddenly became acute and took the form of a movement in favour of secession fro1n the Dominion, which secured considerable support. To cope with this threat of secession , the Liberal government appointed a roy'al COln73 THE UNIVERSI '"LY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY mission under the· chairmanship of Sir Andrew Duncan, a well-known British industrial expert, to inquire into~ and report upon, certain representations made by the·governments of the Maritime Provinces. The Duncan Commission found that many of the grievances felt by the Maritime Provinces had a just foundation, and proposed a variety of special concessions, in the shape of lower freight rates, .subsidies on coal> provision of additional harbour facilities, and an increase of provincial subsidies. One of the chief bones of contention concerned the provincial subsidies, and the Duncan report declared that the policy adopted in 1867 in regard to them was clearly too rigid and inelastic, when we bear in mind the development which has taken place in the intervening years in the conception of the machinery and functions of Government. As time and ideas developed Dominion income was expanding from those sources which the province yielded...