Document generated on 09/26/2021 5:01 p.m. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association Revue de la Société historique du Canada Intergovernmental Relations Trumps Social Policy Change: Trudeau, Constitutionalism, and Family Allowances Raymond Blake Volume 18, Number 1, 2007 Article abstract Family allowances were one of the few programs shared by all Canadian URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/018260ar families from 1945 to 1992, and one of the few means of building social DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/018260ar cohesion across Canada. Family allowances became embroiled in the minefield of Canadian intergovernmental relations and the political crisis created by the See table of contents growing demands from Quebec for greater autonomy from the federal government in the early 1970s. Ottawa initially dismissed Quebec’s demands for control over social programs generally and family allowance in particular. Publisher(s) However, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau offered family allowance reforms as a means of enticing Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa to amend the British The Canadian Historical Association/La Société historique du Canada North America Act. The government’s priority was constitutional reform, and it used social policy as a bargaining chip to achieve its policy objectives in that ISSN area. This study shows that public policy decisions made with regard to the family allowance program were not motivated by the pressing desire to make 0847-4478 (print) more effective policies for children and families. 1712-6274 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Blake, R. (2007). Intergovernmental Relations Trumps Social Policy Change: Trudeau, Constitutionalism, and Family Allowances. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada, 18(1), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.7202/018260ar Tous droits réservés © The Canadian Historical Association/La Société This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit historique du Canada, 2008 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ Intergovernmental Relations Trumps Social Policy Change: Trudeau, Constitutionalism, and Family Allowances RAYMOND BLAKE Abstract Family allowances were one of the few programs shared by all Canadian fam - ilies from 1945 to 1992, and one of the few means of building social cohesion across Canada. Family allowances became embroiled in the minefield of Canadian intergovernmental relations and the political crisis created by the growing demands from Quebec for greater autonomy from the federal govern - ment in the early 1970s. Ottawa initially dismissed Quebec’s demands for control over social programs generally and family allowance in particular. However, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau offered family allowance reforms as a means of enticing Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa to amend the British North America Act. The government’s priority was constitutional reform, and it used social policy as a bargaining chip to achieve its policy objectives in that area. This study shows that public policy decisions made with regard to the family allowance program were not motivated by the pressing desire to make more effective policies for children and families. Résumé Les allocations familiales représentent l’un des programmes partagés par toutes les familles canadiennes entre 1945 et 1992 et un instrument de cohésion sociale à travers le pays. Au début des années 1970, le programme s’est retrouvé dans le champ de mines des relations intergouvernementales canadiennes où les demandes du Québec pour une plus grande autonomie à l’égard du gouverne - ment fédéral se multipliaient. Dans un premier temps, Ottawa a rejeté les demandes du Québec relatives au contrôle des programmes sociaux en général et de celui des allocations familiales en particulier. Toutefois, le premier ministre Pierre Trudeau a fini par offrir une réforme des allocations familiales comme A version of this paper appeared in the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy’s Public Policy Paper Series in December 2007. The author wishes to acknowledge the generous financial assistance of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada that made the research for this paper possible. JOURNAL OF THE CHA 2007 REVUE DE LA SHC New Series, Vol. 18, no. 1/Nouvelle série, vol. 18, n o 1 207 JOURNAL OF THE CHA 2007 REVUE DE LA S.H.C. moyen d’inciter le premier ministre du Québec Robert Bourassa à modifier l’Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britannique. La priorité du gouvernement était la réforme constitutionnelle, et Trudeau s’est ainsi servi de la politique sociale comme mon - naie d’échange pour atteindre ses objectifs en ce domaine. Cette étude démontre que les décisions gouvernementales prises à l’égard du programme des alloca - tions familiales n’étaient pas motivées principalement par le désir d’élaborer des politiques plus efficaces à l’égard des enfants et des familles. Introduction he constitutional and jurisdictional question has been an important part of Tthe debate about family allowances in Canada since the idea of paying fam - ilies an allowance to support the raising of children was first raised. In 1929, when the Select Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations of the House of Commons studied family allowances, it paid particular attention to the issue of jurisdiction: were family allowances a federal or a provincial mat - ter? Although the Committee was not prepared to recommend family allowances at that time, it advised that the government consider the whole jurisdictional question which proved to be a perpetual challenge to social policy development in Canada. Ernest Lapointe, the Minister of Justice, subsequently asked his Deputy, W. Stuart Edwards, for a legal opinion on the matter, who concluded that family allowances were within Ottawa’s jurisdiction because the federal government could raise money and spend it as it wished. However, Prime Minister Mackenzie King was not yet committed to a program of social security for Canada that included family allowances. 1 That commitment would come near the end of the World War II. At that time, both Quebec and Ontario argued that Ottawa had exceeded its constitutional reach with the program; King dis - agreed, using Edwards’ decision as support for his position. Moreover, with a strong central government clearly in the ascendancy, King dismissed those who challenged Ottawa’s constitutional right to make payments to individual Canadians. The Exchequer Court later confirmed Ottawa’s jurisdiction, when it ruled in Anger vs. the Minister of National Revenue in 1957 that the 1945 Family Allowances Act was within Parliament’s purview to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. That ruling did not settle the matter for long. 2 1 Library and Archives Canada (hereafter LAC), Department of National Health and Welfare (hereafter DNHW), Accession 85-86/343, Box 12, file 3201-3-3 pt. 3, “Family Allowances — Jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada,” 24 December 1979. 2 Canada Law Reports , Exchequer Court of Canada, 1957 (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada, 1958), 83-7. After his claim for the $300 exemption for his children was denied by the Income Tax Board, François –Albert Anger, a Quebec taxpayer, took the matter to court, claiming that the Board’s decision constituted “an attack upon the legislative attributes of the Province in the 208 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS TRUMPS SOCIAL POLICY CHANGE: TRUDEAU, CONSTITUTIONALISM, AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES By the 1960s support for the centralizing tendencies of the immediate post- war period had waned as a new province-building era began. 3 Quebec led the charge for major changes in the operation of the federation, as it challenged Ottawa’s right — as well as its effectiveness — in the delivery of many federal programs, particularly those in the area of social policy. When Canada estab - lished its contributory pension plan in 1966, for instance, Quebec opted for its own plan and, not surprisingly, some of the more well-established social pro - grams, notably family allowances, came to play an important role in the Canadian minefield of federal-provincial relations throughout this period. When that happened, the issue of jurisdiction, that is, which level of govern - ment should control the family allowance program, became more important than the social policy embedded in the program. In the months leading to the Victoria Constitutional Conference in 1971, Quebec demanded a constitutional amendment that would have effectively transferred to the provinces both control over family allowances and the funds that Ottawa expended on the programs. 4 While Quebec often spoke of the need for an integrated approach to social policy that would rationalize and stream - line all social policy spending within the province, what it really wanted was to extend to family allowances and other exclusive federal social programs the principle of shared jurisdiction with the proviso that the provinces would pre - vail in any instance where there was a conflict between the two levels of government. Constitutional scholars have long been aware of the key role that social policy played in Quebec’s ultimate rejection of the Victoria Charter, but they have ignored how federal negotiators attempted to use social policy to achieve their constitutional goals. Peter Russell, Kenneth McRoberts, and oth - ers have argued that Quebec’s social policy proposals did not fit with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s view of Canada as his government insisted on the importance of national programs. 5 What this analysis ignores is that the Trudeau government used social policy — as had the Bourassa government — as a key strategy in the constitutional negotiations in the early 1970s.