¹ Corry, J. A., “Constitutional Trends and Federalism,” in Lower, A. R. M., Scott, F. R., et al., Evolving Canadian Federalism (Durham, NC, 1958), 96ff.Google Scholar The emphasis in Corry's essay is on the trend to centralization in both the Canadian and American federal systems. However, he carefully notes some of the differences between them, showing (p. 122) that certain American institutions (e.g., separation of powers and the Senate) make co-operative federalism in the United States more flexible and more effective. Although Corry does not argue the point, the present writer would maintain that the institutions mentioned together with the extensive use of conditional grants-in-aid have helped produce a federalism that is “centralized” as well as co-operative. Corry's essay has been invaluable in helping the writer pose the central question of this study, namely, the differential degrees of “national sentiment” shown in the two groups.

² McWhinney, Edward, Comparative Federalism, (Toronto, 1962), 16f.Google Scholar McWhinney contrasts this with “monistic federalism” of the US variety.

³ Mallory, J. R., “The Five Faces of Federalism,” in Crépeau, P. A. and Macpherson, C. B., eds., The Future of Canadian Federalism (Toronto, 1965), 11ff.Google Scholar

⁴ Riker, WilIiam H., Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston and Toronto, 1964) 5–7, 116–19.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 111. In the discussion that follows he asserts (p. 113) that Canadian nationalism is fragile, “composed chiefly of resentment and fear of Yankees and Yankee domination and without much enthusiasm for what the notion of Canada could itself mean in a positive sense.” The questions that produced Tables III and IV in this study are a partial test of the validity of that assertion. They do seem to show the fragility of Canadian nationalism; they do not show any significant degree of “resentment.”

⁶ “Constitutional Trends and Federalism,” 115.

⁷ Ibid., 109–15. He is referring to premiers and cabinets (except for Quebec), leaders of minority groups, members of national associations, and business élites.

⁸ Ibid., 114 f. He is careful to make clear the counter-trends. “There has not been any strong swelling of sentiment in favor of drastic centralizing amendments or of reducing the states and provinces to administrative instruments of national governments” (p. 100).

⁹ Corry singles out Ontario as having “loyalties that go beyond her boundaries and distract her from any crusade for a self centered provincial autonomy.” Although best able to go it alone, “[b]y 1951 Ontario had changed her mind, had acquiesced in the policy of centralized taxation, and had entered into a tax agreement” (pp. 105–6).

¹⁰ The interviews lasted one half hour on the average. The author had a structured series of questions which were posed with the same wording and in the same order to all the legislators. Brief notes were jotted down for the open-ended questions; the other responses were recorded by check marks in categories developed in trial interviews.

Especially kind and helpful in the arrangements for the Ontario interviews were Mr. John White, the Chief Government Whip, Miss Jeanne W. Dunleavy, Secretary to the Government Caucus, Mr. Stan Farquhar, Liberal Whip, and Mr. Robert F. Nixon, Liberal MPP.

¹¹ The districts now vary in size by miniscule amounts. In the House the smallest seat had (in 1960) a population of 66,154 and the largest 72,200. In the Senate, the range was from 205,067 to 207,094.

¹² Out of the fifty-five Legislatures that preceded this reapportionment, the Republicans controlled both houses on all but four occasions. In 1891–1892, 1933–1934, and 1937–1938 the Democrats controlled both houses. In 1959–1960, the Republicans controlled the Senate, but the House of Representatives was equally split between the two parties. In the period from 1919–1929 there were six Legislatures in which not a single Democrat sat in either house!

¹³ Michigan Manual, 1965–1966, 166.

¹⁴ Schindeler, Fred, “Ontario,” Canadian Annual Review for 1963 (Toronto, 1964), 94.Google Scholar The article discusses the elation of the opposition parties at the announced redistribution and the subsequent disappointment over the actual electoral results.

¹⁵ Canadian Parliamentary Guide, 1965 (Ottawa, 1965), 663–700.Google Scholar

¹⁶ All three said they were dissatisfied with federal-state relationships, but only one strongly blamed the federal government for the unsatisfactory nature of the relationship. One, the Republican minority leader, was primarily distressed by the lack of co-operation on the part of the southern states in the furtherance of civil rights—hardly a “states'-rights” sentiment! Two of them were satisfied with Michigan's share of federal revenues, and, like the other Republicans, they were split on the question of which level is doing the best job of meeting its responsibilities.

¹⁷ Only three of the twelve rural members said they were dissatisfied with the federal-provincial relationship, and one of these made it clear that he objected to the overly provincial concerns of people. Two of the members said they were willing to serve in Ottawa—the same proportion that was found in the entire Ontario group.

¹⁸ The exact wording was: “The first question is a very broad one. Speaking generally, what are the things you are most proud of as an American (Canadian)?” This is a variant of a question asked in the civic culture surveys of Almond, Gabriel and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton, NJ, 1963), 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ The greater preoccupation of Canadian officials with ethnic and family origins can be seen in the biographical sketches they have written for the Canadian Parliamentary Guide when compared with those of the senators in the Michigan Manual. All but 26 of the 108 Ontario biographies listed in 1965 Guide make some mention of the ethnic origin or background of the member or of his parents. On the other hand, only six of the 38 Michigan senators make reference to ethnic background in their sketches in the Manual. No doubt this whole question is complicated by Canada's Commonwealth connection, which might explain the hundred-odd references to English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh ancestry in the sketches as signs of belonging to the larger British community. But the desire to stress that belonging clearly qualifies or moderates any expression of “Canadian” nationalism.

²⁰ It should be noted that this second item of satisfaction stems mostly from Republican senators.

²¹ Whenever the adjective “British” was used, the item was grouped in this category. A further breakdown of the 16 per cent shows that 10 per cent pointed to British law, justice, or parliamentary procedure, and the remaining 6 per cent mentioned the royal family, the Commonwealth, or the British connection.

²² The precise wording was: “Again, speaking generally, what are the problems that Canada (America) has that most worry you?”

²³ This includes the large majority of items mentioned by both Conservatives and Liberals, but not by the NDP. The NDP members were most concerned with world problems.

²⁴ The party split is significant for a part of these Michigan responses. Six of the seven mentions of world problems are from Democrats. While an equal number of Democrats and Republicans worry about the achievement of civil rights, the expressions of worry about race riots, the breakdown of law, order, and morality all stem from Republicans. The concerns about centralization, federal encroachment and the like are from both Democrats and Republicans.

²⁵ The high rating given the province and the low rating given the state cannot be simply explained by the partisan composition of the two legislative bodies. The Conservatives fully control Ontario and this should make them proud of their accomplishments—but every party group in the sample concurred in the high rating given to the province. In Michigan, one party has controlled the governor's office and the other the legislature since 1948, producing intense (often ideological) conflicts and long periods of stalemate. See Stephen, and Sarasohn, Vera, Political Party Patterns in Michigan (Detroit, 1957)Google Scholar, and Fenton, John H., Midwest Politics (New York, 1966), chap. 2.Google Scholar Perhaps the difficulties of obtaining positive leadership under these circumstances cause both Democrats and Republicans to downgrade the state level, just as a similar set of leadership problems at the Canadian federal level in recent years might explain the low rating given to it by Ontario legislators of all parties.

²⁶ One of the ministers expressed the view that had the functions of his ministry been performed by the federal government from the start, the country would be better off today. The minister stands alone in the intensity of his national sentiment in the Ontario group. Three other ministers were interviewed. Two of them indicated that they would resist strongly any federal encroachments in their areas, and one was “provincial” in urging Ontario to opt out of tax-sharing agreements.

²⁷ Heavy majorities of both Conservatives and Liberals expressed satisfaction; the NDP distinguished itself by voting three to one that the relationship was bad. On the Michigan side, the Republicans were almost unanimous that it was bad, stressing the usurpation of state power by the federal government as the main reason for so stating, while the Democrats were divided equally between those expressing satisfaction and those expressing dissatisfaction.

²⁸ The question was worded: “Some provincial leaders welcome grants from the federal government as a good way of sharing in the wealth of Canada. Others argue that the provinces would have more real autonomy if they had more sources of revenues to themselves. With which side do you most agree?” The Michigan legislators divided along party lines with Democrats voting 8–3 for federal grants, and Republicans voting 6–2 for the states to raise more through their own revenues.

²⁹ Again, large majorities of Conservatives and Liberals were willing to go along with something like the present scheme. Three of the four NDP members solidly opposed the present scheme.

³⁰ See n. 9.

³¹ Remarks by the Hon. John Robarts at the Toronto Newspaper Seminar, Toronto, Oct. 8, 1965. Mimeographed release.

³² Ibid., 8.

³³ “We must keep an open mind on the question of opting out. Nevertheless, Ontario, with a third of Canada's population, approximately 50% of the national income, and contributing to Ottawa almost 50% of the direct taxes, cannot take positions that could potentially destroy Confederation itself. While we sympathize with the desire of other provinces to control their own sources of revenue, Ontario is disposed to take what we consider to be a longer view and consider not only our own needs but the impact of our decisions on the whole country.” Ibid., 9. To the American observer, this statement points up a fundamental distinction between the two federal systems. Ontario is so large a part of the federation (as is Quebec in different but significant ways) that its stance on federal problems is crucial to the future of confederation. The American Civil War showed that even a large group of states could not destroy the system; today no one state (not even New York or California) constitutes a large enough power factor to threaten the federal government or “veto” any of its major policies. In Canada, confederation is still very much a matter of bargaining among the provinces. The premier's speech was a gentle, but firm reminder to Quebec as the “bargaining” continued.

³⁴ The group is made up equally of Democrats and Republicans.