The Rhetoric of Dominion Income Taxation and the Modern Political Imaginary in Canada, 1910-1945

The Rhetoric of Dominion Income Taxation and the Modern Political Imaginary in Canada, 1910-1945 by David Tough A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History with a Specialization in Political Economy Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2013, David Tough Abstract This thesis uses Quentin Skinner’s study of rhetoric to interrogate the origins of the modern political imaginary in Canada between 1910 and 1945. The Dominion taxing power was the object of a sustained rhetorical critique in the early 20th century, in which the Liberal and Conservative party identities, built around the protective tariff in the post- Confederation era, were slowly weakened and supplemented with a new representation of difference: the left-right spectrum. Beginning in 1910 with the Grain Growers’ Guide, the nationalist resonances of the Dominion tariff were cast as duplicitous distractions from exploitation and fiscal inefficiency. During the First World War, this characterization of the tariff and the political differences it produced became tied to demands for ‘conscription of wealth,’ as the basis of a fairer and more democratic political culture. A species of what Ian McKay calls a “people’s enlightenment,” this critique resulted in the first Dominion income tax, the Income War Tax of 1917. A Dominion income tax introduced the new possibility of transferring income that had been taxed progressively from one region to another. The catastrophic economic depression of the 1930s exposed the weakness of the tariff as a fiscal instrument; a more powerful Dominion income tax was cast as the necessary solution to the crisis, and was duly introduced in 1941 and 1942. With these changes, income taxation became a universal burden and the possible basis for large-scale Dominion social programs like the Family Allowances – a combination that Shirley Tillotson calls “the citizenship of contribution.” In recognition of this new possibility, party programs for the redistribution of income were aligned on a left-right spectrum. The displacement of the old party system and the establishment of the new spectrum were both examples of what is here termed political ii modernism, creating a new and modern political imaginary for a democratic politics of redistribution. iii Acknowledgements This dissertation is the product of what feels like quite a long journey from the initial idea. I have accumulated a number of personal and intellectual debts along the way which I am very glad to acknowledge here. My supervisor Dominique Marshall has been equal parts enthusiastic and skeptical about the project from the beginning, and I have benefitted from her suggestions and critiques many times. That the final project differs so much from what I originally intended owes quite a bit to her guidance and example. Professors Opp, Hillmer and McKillop each contributed in their own way, Opp through his thoughtful and erudite critiques, Hillmer through the reciprocal sharing of his own research, and McKillop through the example of his own scholarship. Beyond my committee, John Walsh was instrumental in getting me to choose Carleton over Queen’s University, and was helpfully critical of my initial ‘great man’ theory of taxation; he advised me to broaden my cast, which I did much later. Duncan MacDowell supported me in a number of ways, including advising me to read up on Norman McLeod Rogers, which I did much later. David Dean introduced me to the study of Parliament in Early Modern England, which was influential in my taking parliamentary speeches more seriously than others have. I began talking about studying the effect of income taxation shortly after finishing my Master’s thesis at Trent University, and I drew on the experience and knowledge of a lot of people there. Jim Struthers, who had been on my Master’s committee and had taught the Honours seminar on the welfare state, was the first person I spoke to about studying effects of income taxation on the language of political difference. He talked me iv through the idea and gave me a preliminary reading list, and also advised me strongly to study the period before 1950, when my lack of technical knowledge would be less of a handicap. It is probable that if Jim had not been there to guide me early on I would have quickly abandoned the idea of studying income taxation, even if it had occurred to me. Other Trent faculty who assisted me early on included Miriam Smith, who advised me to read J. R. Mallory, which I did much later; Jim Conley, who alerted me to the existence of the New Fiscal Sociology; and Dimitry Anastakis, who gave me excellent general advice during this period, as he continues to do. My colleagues in the graduate program at Carleton helped me formulate elements or work out problems in my work. David Banoub and I regularly engaged in discussions of our respective projects, their overlaps, and the future of political history in Canada more generally. Specifically, he introduced me to the work of Quentin Skinner, which instantly transformed the direction the dissertation. Other colleagues who read or heard parts of the research and gave thoughtful critiques include Jess Dunkin, Sara Spike, Natalie Napier, Brian Foster, Jessica Squires, Tom Rorke, Susan Joudrey, Mary-Ann Schantz, and Valerie Minnett. I was fortunate also to be encouraged in my work by the interest of other scholars in what I was doing. I am thankful to Shirley Tillotson, Elsbeth Heaman, Jean-François Constant, Bryan Palmer, Adam Chapnick, and Tim Cook for reminding me that what I was doing was interesting and important. Much of the material in this dissertation was presented at conferences where I benefited from questions and commentaries. Chapter 2 was presented to my colleagues in the history department at the Underhill Graduate Colloquium in 2010, and the part of v Chapter 4 dealing with ‘fiscal need’ was presented at a conference at McGill University in 2008. Chapter 3 has had a very long pre-dissertation journey, having been presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Historical Association at Carleton University in 2009, rejected (with extensive comments from peer reviewers) by Labour/Le travail in 2009, and finally published in the Canadian Historical Review in 2012. Although the focus of the argumentation changed significantly through all these stages, I benefited immensely from feedback received along the way. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to archivists and librarians – in particular, ones at Library and Archives Canada who are sadly anonymous to me. Beyond this, I had helpful assistance from Richard Virr at McGill University’s Rare Book Room and Heather Home at the Queen’s University Archives, as well as from library and information technology staff at Trent University’s Thomas J. Bata Library as I was finishing up. I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for granting me a large amount of taxpayers’ money to live on during the research and writing, and to Carleton University and the estate of the great intellectual historian S. F. Wise for additional financial support. The greatest debt I owe is to my family. My sister hosted me on numerous occasions when I was visiting Ottawa after I relocated to Peterborough. My parents not only offered emotional and financial support when it was needed, but also provided logistical support on too many occasions to count. They have both already read the dissertation in draft form, but I hope they recognize the final version as being worthy of their generous investment. vi Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 A History of Possibility ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The People’s Enlightenment, Citizenship of Contribution, and Political Modernism .......... 8 1.3 Political History, Intellectual History of Politics, and Tax Scholarship .............................. 15 1.4 Post-structuralism, Rhetoric, and the Imaginary ................................................................. 21 1.5 Periodicals, the Parliamentary Record, and Other Primary Sources ................................... 29 1.6 Structure and Narrative ........................................................................................................ 33 2. The Rhetoric of the Tariff and Dominion Political Differences in 1911 ................ 43 2.1 The Appeal to the Flag ........................................................................................................ 43 2.2 The Tariff and Political Differences Before 1911 ............................................................... 51 2.3 The Farmers’ Critique of the Tariff ..................................................................................... 60 2.4 Writers on the Parties Before

Load more