THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL-ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATION

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY AND ITS

IMPLICATION JURISDICTIONAL-ADMINISTRATIVE

Morris Miller

1. The N e w Awareness

There has arisen a new awareness of the problem of co-ordinating many interrelated policies . . . (and of) the interdependence of policies concerning credit, taxation, and investment; policies centering in the quality of population and its distribution by space and age; and policies centering in the use of our physical environment.

So wrote Professor J. M. Gaus over fifteen years ago in appraising the state of research in the United States with respect to public administra- ti0n.l That observation seems particularly apt as applied to Canada where the problem of coordination is a long-standing one. Only lately, however, have we shown an awareness of the urgent need to do something about it. Though not pinpointed in any moment of time, the speed and sweep of this awareness is almost like a rude awakening from the self-satisfied stupor of the post-war decade. We have begun to give voice to the thought that we may be paying too high a price for the luxury of continuing jurisdictional and administrative sloppiness in our institutional arrangements and in devising policies for economic growth.

“Ad hocery,” once an apt description of our approach to development policy, was long rationalized on the basis of our diversity of regions and of our constitutional separation of powers. But it is giving way to a search for an acceptable framework of policies that add up to a national development policy while still respecting provincial and federal constitutional prerogatives as an integral part of our way of seeing things and of doing things. We had seemed to do remarkably well (in relative terms, relative to other countries but not necessarily to our potentialities ) by making adjustments under the pressure of external developments largely beyond our control, that is, by a policy which can be described essentially as drifting on the currents of international trade and capital movements provided by the export of our natural resources

1W. Anderson and J. M. Gaus, Research in Public Adminktruth, Public Adminis- tration Service, Chicago, 1945, p. 120.

133

134 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

and of the titles and rights to their exploitation. But apparently, the wind and tides of economic fortune are no longer to be relied on to keep us going and off the reefs of serious economic misfortune.

One Canadian writing on economic affairs recently observed rather tritely but wisely apropos Britain’s impending entry into the European common market that “the facts of life may not always be palatable but it is folly to ignore them” and went on to assert what, of late, has become a recurring theme: “the whole structure and balance of Canadian economic life requires a drastic overhaul.”Z This, in a nutshell, underlay the Coyne-Fleming controversy, which came to a climax in the summer of 1!36L5 Stripped of its personality and narrow political aspects, it was in substance a dramatic eruption of a long-simmering disquietude about the speed, direction and “balance” of the Canadian e~onomy.~

Despite differences of view as to appropriate policies there is a fairly general consensus that the country is beset with deep-seated problems. For the economy as a whole, the rate of growth moves only slowly, spasmodically and unevenly. In terms of some major regions, it is a

ZH. I MacDonald, The Canadian Forum, Nov. 1981, in the lead editorial, “Canada, Britain and the Commonwealth,” pp. 169-70. He adds, apropos the realities of life in the realm of international trade, “if we incur some immediate dislocation from Britain’s entry into the Common Market, we must simply devise a new economic policy to tackle this problem as well as the tasks we already face. If in the process, we find more of our resources should be shifted . . . we can (thereby) achieve a net gain rather than a net loss.” He is, of course, minimizing the problems of adjustment involved in shifting resources both in economic and social terms but these may have to be faced sooner or later, with open e es or blindly pushed.

The Flnandal Post in an editorial orOct. 22, 1960, puts a question which reflects the prevailin mood: “How can Canada best re-shape its economy to be prosperous in the terribi competitive world of the 198O’sT” After noting some ideas by J. J. Deutsch and H. L. Keenleyside they state: “The probing of fresh ideas is the necessary prelimina

3The attempt by x e Minister of Finance to force the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada developed into an open debate on the role of monetary polic and on the responsibilities of a ubIic servant. The issues and background are we8 elaborated in an article by Proi%sor H. Scott Gordon, “The Bank of Canada in a System of Responsible Government,” The Canadian Journal of Economics G Political Science, vol. 27, no. 1, February, 1961.

4James Coyne, while Governor of the Bank of Canada, put forward the view that the policies permitting or fostering too heavy a reliance (investment) in physical plant for resource development lay at the root of the economy’s structural weakness thereby largely absolving monetary olicy-makers of blame for the troubles. See his speeches and especially the Bank o?Canada Annual Re ort of the Governor to the Minister of Finance for the ear 1960, passim, es ecialry pp. 5-17. He states that “the underlying factors are orlong standing” ( 57; “there are structural distortions and inadequacies in the Canadian economy wgich have been developing for many years” (p. 16) such as “excessive concentration on physical plant (particular1 in resource development)” (p. 12). The debate centred on the prescriptions offerei, or more accurately, the lack of them, rather than on the description of the economy’s condition about which there seems to be a more general consensus. The debate, however, failed to focus clearly on the objectives of government policy among which the concept of “balance” was left rather vague.

to learning to survive in the decade facing us.”

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOVRCE POLICY 135 questionable matter whether it goes ahead at all with unemployment persisting and cumulatively worsening over the years. In terms of the infrastructure of the economy there are major sectors which have problems taking on the appearance of an organic disease, and there is an evident lack of “balance,” by any debition of the term, in our pattern of growth. To maintain even the present levels of economic activity under prevailing conditions and policies, there is a heavy reliance placed on continuing heavy capital inflows which takes on the nature of a “vicious circle” as escape from the ever-accelerating rate of foreign ownership and control of the resources and related industries becomes increasingly di5cult. This poses political and philosophical problems of a fundamental nature about the very existence of a politically independent and culturally distinctive nationhood.

It is this situation which has aroused Canadians to the realization that things cannot go on as they have in the past, and to the realization that, as a very first step, the attenuation or resolution of these problems could be tackled only by a national approach, that is, by all governments working together in a consistent coordinated manner. I t has become apparent that in an advanced interdependent economy, a regional and sectoral approach can suffice only when, by coincidence or deliberate coordination, it accords with the approach of other regions and sectors. This calls for an integrated “functional attack” (as Professor Gaus terms it) whereby there is a unified relationship of the many programs at all of the relevant levels of government in different regions which have varying but overlapping responsibilities for the problem.

2. Some Obstacles to Coordination In one sense Canada has only one Government, divided into separate jurisdictions.6 To focus our attention on problems pertaining to resources and re-

source industry as such we have to see these problems in relation to the dynamic of the economy as a whole. This, in turn, would take us into the examination of the interrelationship of resources to growth and into consideration of the problems of coordination of policies.

There have been, however, two great di5culties in relating resource policy to development. First, in universal terms, for all countries in all stages of development and with all socio-political systems, the relationship of natural resources to growth is complex and by no means clear. If we look for the key variables affecting growth we could easily draw up an impressive list, but in trying to isolate for operational policy- guiding purposes those which are major determinants of development

EA, R. M. Lower, Evolving Canadian Federalimn, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1958, p. 48.

136 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATTON

under various realistic conditions, we search for a will-o’-the-wisp.6 But we can, from such a search, on both analytic and empirical grounds, deduce that natural resources become less decisive as growth-facilitating or growth-limiting factors and play a more passive role in setting the pace and pattern of economic development as the economy grows in size and complexity.‘ This trend adversely affects the “value” of the contents of the package labelled “B.N.A. Act, Section 92, Sub-section 5” (Natural Resource Jurisdiction) and underlines the fact that the problems in relation to agriculture, forestry, and other resource fields are too closely related to be treated in either analysis or prescription one at a time or out of context with the broad range of policies influencing the rate and pattern of national development. A separate “resource policy” is conceptually elusive and operationally delusive.8

*For some illuminating discussion demonstrating this point see the papers and discussions in National Resources and Economic Growth, Resources for the Future and Social Science Research Council, editor J. J. Spengler, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1961; also The Comparatiue Study of Economic Growth & Structure: Suggestions on Research Objectives 6. Organization, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1959, 41.

7In a review article which criticaty appraises the work of the Royal Com- mission on Canada’s Economic Prospects, Professor Simon Kuznets makes the observation, apropos the role of resources: “in rich developed countries, like Canada , . . the economic problems raised by consideration of growth prospects in terms of su ply of factors . . . are relatively minor (and) . . , the Commission’s enquiry . . . refect (this) as being the true situation.” “Canada’s Economic Prespects: A Review Article,” American Economic Rmiew, June, 1959, p. 381.

The views of Professor. T. Schultz in his background paper to the Conference on Natural Resources and Economic Growth, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April, 1960, are pertinent. “Schultz reports that moving from low-to high-income countries or from an earlier to a later state of development of a given country, the ratio of natural resources to all resources em loyed in income roduction falls from a high (say 20!&25%) to a low (say 5% or Yess).” Items, SociaQScience Research Council, Vol. 14, No. 2, June, 1960, p. 1. At the Conference on Natural Resources and Economic Growth, Professor J. H. Dales takes issue with the inference that natural resources as such are, on this account, less decisive factors in influencing the pace or pattern of

owth. Apart from the semantic aspect as to the “importance” of any set of growth Ectors, it is not denied that the constraints which natural resources have imposed on the type and location of industry development are becomin less severe due to the

advanced technology in all aspects of production, communications and marketing. This subject is treated in an article by the author “The Scope and Content of Resource Policy in Relation to Economic Development,” Land Economics, Vol. XXXVII, No. 4, Nov. 1961, p . 291410, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

*In his essay “Can We StilfAfEord a Se arate Resources Policy?” Professm C. M. Hardin answers this question with an empgatic “No.” He puts the case for the U.S. in terms which apply equally well to Canada (Perspectiues on Consemation: Essays on Amrica’s Natural Resources, Resources for the Future Inc., Johns Ho kins Press, Baltimore, 1959, pp. 227-232). He writes: “We need some governmentar means for taking the whole field of natural resources as a policy area and subjecting it to vigorous comparative evaluation with other large areas of national policy.” It is easier said than done.

substitution and structural possibilities in a dynamic in B ustrial society with its

‘IWE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCX POLICY 137 Secondly, for federated nations such as Canada, there exists a jurisdic-

tionally divided and administratively fragmented approach to an organi- cally integrated complex of problems. It is difficult for any of these governments, from the vantage of its jurisdictional constraints, even to conceive of the over-all structure of the economy and of its goals in national terms. This applies even to a federal government. A national goal expressed as a rate of development for the whole economy can be influenced in large degree by general measures of fiscal and monetary, transport, tarif€, and other policies which are in the hands of a central government but this rate of growth, as an operational goal, must also be specified in many other respects and especially in terms of its infrastructure and its regional pattern. The national developmental goals call for a set of mutually consistent objectives and policies on the part of all sub-national governments. Without cooperation for consistency, each government, even with seemingly common general objectives, likely will indulge in activities which are self-defeating for themselves and for the nation. This arises from what we might call “external economies and diseconomies” which apply with special force to the dynamic situation of a growing and changing economy.O

This national approach is vital at both the conceptual and implementa- tional phases. In terms of conceiving our national goals, the awareness has only just become acute enough to prompt debate and proposals. The tenor of debate in public media reflects the extreme pressure of events though the eruption of the discussion in a dramatic and painful manner, as in the “Coyne Controversy,” may have been largely accidental. It is important to recognize that the underlying issue in this “debate” (in both specific and general terms) was the question of the desired nature of Canadian development as an objective of our set of policies designed to influence growth. This raises questions of Canadian versus foreign

OThe concept of “externality” is meant to suggest that there are benefits (economies) or disadvantages (diseconomies) which accrue to a society or a part of society from the actions of individuals or agencies who, at the same time, gain or suffer little or no profit or loss from the effects of their decisions. That is, the effects are “external” to their calculations but not necessaril external from the wider viewpoint of

the “effects of investment in one sector on the progability of investment in another sector, via increased demand or reduced costs, has been called by Scitovsky a ‘dynamic external economy”’ (in his article ‘Two Concepts of External Economies,’ Journal of Political Economy, April, 1954). This quote from H. B. Chenery’s article “Comparative Advantage and Development Policy,” American Economic Redew, March, 1961, p. 21, touches on a concept which he considers of great significance to our understanding of the process of economic development. Scitovsky emphasizes the particular application of this “externality” conce t to natural resources as a factor in economic growth. Professor E. S. Mason devePops this point in his essay on “The Political Economy of Resource Policy,” Perspectives on Conseruatlon: Essays on America’s Natural Resources, op. cit., pp. 171-177.

society. For exam le, in relation to deveopment, Y


ownership, primary versus secondary industry, non-selective monetary- fiscal policy versus a specific regional resource-industrial development policy, and the like.

Usually these questions are kept in sight by various governments but rarely touched upon directly since it is usually beyond the purview of any single government, including the federal. Important as these issues are, only indirectly have the national goals been touched on in the spate of Royal Commissions since the late 1950s which have tackled such matters as energy, transport, employment, financial institutions and federal government organizations.1° However, these issues of national goals are fundamental to all of them. Commissioned by either the federal government or a provincial government, almost all such studies are severely constrained by limited terms of reference dictated by a rigid interpretation of the constitutional division of powers as set down by the British North America Act of almost a century ago.ll Few commis- sioners have dared to deal with this issue directly.12 The best that can be hoped for under these circumstances is that the federal government couch its policy objectives in general terms as achieving a percentage figure of growth rate for the nation (averaged out but not for its regional parts) and, so far as its regional aspects are concerned, the avoidance

1oThe terms of reference of these various commissions are proscribed as a rule not on1 by the jurisdictional constraints but by the idea of being ractical.” The scope

€or the analysis and recommendations. In tEe case of the Royal Commission on Canada’s Economic Prospects, for example, these assumptions were of a nature that led to what Professor Kuznets felt was “an impression of problemlessness.” In his review (op . cit.) he notes that the Commission’s Final Report “gives the impression that no serious problems exist . , . (nor is there) a systematic com arison of

The Commission’s study on “Canadian-American Economic Relations” illustrates well how the fundamental roblems can be avoided when the restrictive assumptions as to possible national ogjectives and feasible federal measures are allowed to dominate the analysis and the recommendations.

IlCanadians are more constrained than Americans who have, for example, the Congressional Commission on Inter-governmental Relations, which organized study committees and the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Gouernment whose Task Force reports on “Water Resources and Power” are a mine of information, and a source of some valuable insights. But these also skirt the question of how to arrive at national development goals in terms of the structural aspects of the economy. See The Commission on lntergouernmental Relations, A Report to the President for Transmittal to Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1955. Fifteen other publications were issued by the Commission.

12The Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations ( Ottawa, 1940) exemplified the broad approach. In his essay, “Theories of Canadian Federalism -Yesterday and Today,” Professor A. R. M. Lower refers to it as “one of those grand inquests into the state of the nation which have become so common and so useful (in providing) wide opportunities for national discussion on im ortant topics affecting the federal structure and this no doubt has been one of tteir major objectives, Evolving Canadian Federalism, op. cit., p. 48.

andr relevance turns, however, on the assum tions which can ‘% e made as a basis

supply with the needs of growth and with what growth is supposed to serve R (p. 382).

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 139 of “distressing” unemployment levels as a percentage figure of the labour force.

But the times and their problems and promise exert relentless pressure. The most recent “breakthrough” for Canada in terms of facing the problems on a national basis within a developmental context was evident in the spirit and organization of the “Resources for Tomorrow” Con- ference.l8 Never before had the ten provinces and the federal government jointly sponsored and directed (through an eleven-member Minis- terial Steering Committee) a project of such an intergovernmental nature. In effect, it might be said that the Conference was itself a reflection of how seriously these problems of national development are now being taken, and how much weight may be given not only to the pace but also the regional pattern and structure of deve10prnent.l~ It augurs well for a greater degree of coordination for analysis and action either on a national intergovernmental level or on a regional intergovernmental level as benefits the problems and the goals. It indicates an awareness that the intergovernmental administrative structure and processes need strengthening and, above all, need a framework of national policies within which to function consistently and effectively for realizing the potentialities for development.

3. The Wide Ramifications of Resource Policy The times call for a much more s stematic cross-evaluation of natural resource policies both internally andy also in their relationship to other policies.16 To draw some implications with respect to administrative change for

integrating resource policy with other elements of development policy, it is helpful if we can see the outlines of the elements of “resource policy” and of “development policy” and recognize that they are not synonymous or are necessarily running along parallel paths. Canadian history has been one of remarkable and fortuitous coincidence between the vicissitudes of our resource development and our broader economic develpment, but the present stage of development calls for a reappraisal. Development policy has as its objective the increased income of the country which calls for the increase of its income-generating capabilities for future growth in income and welfare. Does it necessarily follow that this income-generating capability is enhanced by investing labour and capital in maintaining or increasing the supply of resources?

13Held in Montreal, October 23-28, 1961, a Secretariat worked on its preparation for over two years. For its background papers, see “Resources for Tomorrow” Vols. I and 11, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1961.

Wince this was written a decision has been taken dissolving the secretariat but does not alter this assessment of its significance.

15C. M. Hardin, Perspectives on Consmuation: Essays on America’s Natural Re- sources, op. &., p. 231.


Traditionally, resource policy has been concerned with maintaining the resource base of the economy.16 It has sought to “foster a quantita- tively, compositionally, and temporally optimal pattern of resource use” by regulation of resource use to eliminate sub-optimal processes of extraction and utilization, and by promotion of discovery and regenera- tion by subsidies, incentive measures and public investment to augment the supply of resources.17 In the various resource sectors the appropriate governmental agencies responsible for each type of resource have traditionally stated their objectives in terms of promoting resource development or, at least, resource maintenance in terms of physical supply (which is an elusive concept at best). What is to be their objective where resource policy is considered to be more appropriately focussed on exploring and fostering ways to lessen our society’s depen- dence upon natural resources and to change the nature of that de- pendency? What is to be their scope where resource policy looks in two directions, towards the supply of resources and the use to which they are put? These are the two faces to the resource “coin” in terms of economic development and there are more dimensions if we consider the socio- cultural aspects that pertain to the way as well as level of living and the demographic-locational problems of a regional character.

The case of agricultural departments in relation to the sector of agriculture and agricultural land is a vivid illustration of the problem. The relationship of land to the value and type of output and its eventual use has been changing rapidly and profoundly because of swift and far-reaching technological-institutional changes. Those agencies concerned with agricultural land and the income and welfare of farmers have, perforce, become increasingly less concerned, in relative terms at least, with the resources of land in terms of acreage and its physical productivity, and have become more concerned with trying to resolve the social problems associated with the implications of these changes in the capital-labour-land relationships. Their concern has, of necessity, been to shift to problems of rural unemployment and underemployment, to the problems stemming from the demographic shifts from country to city and the attendant problems of declining rural community, to the

16We may refer to this as traditional in the sense that insofar as resource policy as such has come to the fore as a special aspect of development policy, it dates on this continent from the turn of the century and the writings and work of the “conservationists” as Pinchot et al. Their approach is well characterized by one author as “an engineering approach to resources,” N. Wengert, Natural Resources G the Political Struggle, Short Studies in Political Science, Doubleday & Co., N.Y., 1955, p. 21.

17In his paper for the Conference on Natural Resources and Economic Growth, ( o p . cit. ), “Resource Policies in Relation to Economic Growth,” Professor J. S. Bain describes resource polic in this manner. He adds that “policies n2w in effect and in immediate prospect & not notably foster (this) pattern of use. He refers, of course, to the United States experience.

TIIE DEVELOPMENTAL F~RAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 141 problems of the marketing-production reorganization process with its integration pattern (vertically and horizontally) in larger private, cooperative and governmental forms, and so forth.

Which levels of government and which departments are to be responsible for these various facets of resource policy: (a ) the use to which resources are put and not simply their supply (in either physical or economic terms), ( b ) the processes by which these resource inputs are converted to valuable products, and (c ) the direct s o d implications where communities are highly dependent and indirectly affected by the use or lack of use to which these resources are put?’* In effect, these various aspects fall between the figurative stools of the federal and the provincial responsibilities.

Except at a narrow technical level, the sector-by-sector, province-by- province division of administration has scarcely been able to grapple with these several aspects of resource development problems without the neglect of one or more of them though on occasion some coordinating arrangements are made through continuing or ad hoc committees. Which governments and which departments are concerned, for example, with the urbanizing trend of our development and the prevention of the wasteful leap-frogging form of land-sterilization and its sprawl effect with all the attendant social losses that are seldom counted but are no less real for all that?l9 And whose concern is the existence of monopolistic or monop- sonistic practices which prevail in the economic structure and which introduces an element of “irrationality” in our pattern of resource extract- ing, converting and marketingTZ0 And which government or agency

1sThese aspects are differentiated from the supply aspect of resource policy which are the obvious direct concern of resource agencies. Where the criteria for policy are set by concern for the resources as such in terms of its supply maintenance, the socio-economic implications for the people and capital investment involved are often overlooked. For exam Ie, Professor H. S. Gordon has caustically remarked, apropos of olicies in the fisleries field, that the policies seem desi ned to promote the welfare of the fish. It would not be adequate to design &cies to promote the welfare even of the fishermen if this were not in accorrwith broader welfare objectives. (“Obstacles to Agreement on Control in the Fishing Industry,” The Ecommlcs of Fkihedes, FAO, Rome, 1957, p. 68.)

19The loss of farm land is an element of the cost of this process. Several studies have looked at this aspect, espcially in the Niagara re ion of southern Ontario. A study of the “shadow zone or sterilized land arouncf urban centres has been undertaken, See the study by L. 0. Gertler and Joan Hind-Smith made in conjunction with the “Resources for Tomo~~.ow” Conference and the Ontario Consematton Council which takes four communities as case studies. “The Impact of Urban Growth on Agricultural Land-A Pilot Study,” Ontario Conservation Council, Toronto, 1961.

of Growth, Monthly Review Press,

economic activity. He writes: “The continuous existence and proliferation of small, inefficient, and redundant firms-not merely in industry but in particular in agriculture, distribution, and service trades-result in an amount of waste of human and material resources the

%Paul A. Baran in The Political Econom New York, 1957 points out the great soda Y loss entailed in this aspect of our

142 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRAXTON

thereof is concerned with the rate and manner of application of technological substitution for resources so as to minimize the social dislocation that it might causeT2’ And which government and agencies are concerned with creating conditions for less painful adjustment to declining resource- dependent regions and communities by measures within the framework of a full employment policy?22

To suggest that all these are relevant to resource policy is not to make them necessarily of direct concern to any one agency or of any or all

magnitude of which can hardly be fully assessed. The multi lication of facilities and of enter rises have

their counte art in the waste on the part of monopolistic giants who, s ielded by their monop3stic positions, need not bother with minimizing costs or with maximiz- ing efficiency.”

nistic conditions where, for example, one or a few large meat packing f i r r rti livestock from farmers, one or a few large pulp and paper mils buy pul wood from farmers, one or a few fish dealers buy fish from isolated inland lake fis ermen. The bar aining process has, however, to be extremely one-sided and the abuse flagrant tefore there is a clear perception on the part of the resource administrators as to its relevance to resaurce management. There is often a temptation to wonder whether the “welfare” of the resource was the first main concern of resource departments.

“Professor A. D. Hirschman in an article entitled “Primary Products and Sub- stitutes” ( K klos, Vol. XII, Facs. 3, 1959) asks:

some fashion the process of technological innovation in spite of the fact that its, reperclussions can be truly calamitous? , . , Some questions might (be) raised about the correctness of a policy that is only allowed to repair the damage WIOU ht by some fashion the process of technological innovation in spite of the fact g a t its technological innovation, but never to revent it” (p. 359, 360). It is questionable how far any nation has “control” of tIese matters in terms of their discovery but there is some measure of control over technological innovations possible with respect to the rate of introduction through taxation and research policies which may be of some a

22Fuyf employment is a necessary condition for the mobility of labour and resource factors and for society to make a net gain by displacement of these land and labour factors by capital inputs. This alone involves a national ap roach with federal-provincial coordination. Apropos of this, Professors W. C. H o o t and A. D. Scott, in “Output, Labour & Capital in The Canadian Economy”, Royal Com- mission on Canada’s Economic Prospects, Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1957, write: “A question that poses itself is whether the natural capital with which a country has been endowed will be converted by the economic system into ca ital goods which will equip workers in the same region, or whethex the succeed?ng capital goods will be installed elsewhere. If the latter takes place, workers may have to emigrate to avoid a declining level of income or employment.”

For an excellent illustration of this aspect of the problem for a region see The Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agriculture and Rural Ltfe, (Queen’s Printer, Regina, 1958). The studies seveal the rocess, its consequences and some of the possible remedial measures which call for a multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional approach.

See my article, “An Economi;t Looks at Community Development from the Vantage of Canadian Experience, Community Deoelopment Reodew, Vol. 4 , No. 3, Se tember, 1959, where the rationale and evaluation of this aspect of resource potcy is elaborated in relation to our frontier region.

K the squandering of resources called forth by irrational smalness P

Resource departments see this aspect as within their realm with respect to mono

“Is it rea r ly necessary to be so horror-struck at the mere thought of policing in

reciable importance in some sectors of the economy.

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 143

governments in terms of responsibility for policy. It would be manifestly too sweeping to draw this inference in administrative terms. I t does, however, suggest the implication that resource policy, and each resource sector within it, is necessarily concerned with these related aspects, that is, the breadth of their interests takes in a concern for the relationship of people to natural resources and goes beyond a preoccupation with the resources as such. It implies a breakdown of the clear-cut divisions of responsibilities between resource policy and the over-all series of measures which comprise an avowed or an implied development policy.

If the borderlines between resource policy and fiscal-monetary, trade, transport and other policies are becoming obscure, we need not search for the frontiers of each. It only matters that all of them be integrally related to achieve the desired socio-economic goals of the nation, that is, of all the various governments which share this responsibility. To continue to focus on the resource supply and demand and on its technological-economic aspect without reference to the national and regional implications of a broader nature would render less effective the single sectoral resource approach by any one jurisdiction or even of several jurisdictions working in concert. The elements of resource policy are too inter-related and too far-reaching for a narrow approach to be effective in a significant way and over the long run. Without the national and sectoral objectives and an understanding of its dimensions and processes, there is lacking any frame of reference for development programming by any and all governments within the nation and it applies with special force to a nation such as ours which is constitutionally divided into so many overlapping jurisdictions.

4. S m Jurisdictional Implications To a far greater degree than in the past . . . our economists and our political scientists are tending to become political economists, with an interest in public administration.28 This observation was possibly a mixture of a little fact and a great deal

of wishful thinking when it was ventured over fifteen years ago. But there is no question of the trend as policy-advising has become a more prevalent occupation or pastime of the social scientist. Accordingly, he is drawn into the problems of administration at every level of decision- making or program-implementing at every level of government. Any enquiry seeking to arrive at a rationalization of these governmental arrangements and processes in terms of promoting the objectives of development must naturally lead into a study and discussion of both constitutional and administrative matters. The greatest apparent difficulty in viewing these aspects-and which may, in part, account for the

28Quoted from a letter in W. Anderson and J. M. Gaus, op. cit., p. 287.


reluctance to tackle the issues directly-stems from the very complexity of the modern economic world which has, at the same time, made it more urgent to see the jurisdictional-administrative issues clearly and to tackle them e~pl ic i t ly .~~

The administrative structure and processes are established over time by legislation within a jurisdictional framework which is only slowly and laboriously adapted to meet existing or anticipated problems. In a federated state where the jurisdictional division of responsibility and the capability to carry it are not likely to be in correspondence to begin with (for constitutions or judicial decisions are seldom written on clean slates with clear and agreed objectives and full comprehension of the dynamic of the existing state of affairs), the problem of adjustment to meet changing conditions and needs is greatly complicated. It is likely to be even further aggravated by a lack of the judiciary’s awareness or interest in the substantive matter at issue in constitution-moulding cases. The difficulties in achieving a closer correspondence between responsibilities and capabilities is not helped either by the understandable reaction of provincial politicians to the slow but relentless erosion of their governmental powers. They have sought to check this widening gap by reliance on the courts and by ad hoc conferences but, without reference to the underlying national and international socio-economic forces which are at work, these are doomed to be vain efforts. If this piece-meal heel-digging tactic is not succeeding, it may well be that the spirit of Confederation in its division of powers can be recaptured only by a frontal approach to cooperative action which first faces the facts of mid-twentieth-century lifee25

24Roscoe Martin (Gross Roots, University of Alabama Press, 1957) makes this observation which is pertinent to the Canadian scene: “The modifications in governmental structure seen in eographical adjustments (in the elimination of many smaller units, in particular) an8 in administrative re-organization have not been without significance, but they have been minimal by comparison with the adaptations which the changed conditions require. It is notorious that social institutions respond tardily to the stimuli of technological advances, which do not require consensus among men for adoption. Institutional lag, therefore, is expected and understood. What cannot be so readily accepted is the continued rationalization of governmental structure and practice in nineteenth century terms. The cry for help comes from a n urban-industrial democrac , but the answerin voice is that of a wilderness

X, ed. C. J. Friedriel and S. E. Harris, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960, p. 8 in his essay “An Approach to the Study of Government and Administration in Rural Communities.”

rted in The Montreal Star (November 17, 1981) in a recent address to the L a v a r University Conference on Canadian Affairs, the Honourable R e d Levesque, Quebec’s Minister of Natural Resources, urged that “the Canadian experi- ment . . . undergo continual review to keep the constitution abreast of day-to-da develo ment and needs. . . . We don’t need guarantees; we need opportunities w h i d will a l i w mobility of structure.” This is a recurrent theme reflecting a long-standing difficult and serious problem and seems to call for new institutional arrangements which will achieve the consistency of multi-governmental policies which is vital

agrarianism of a by one 6 y ” (p. 79). Quoted fl y J. M. Gaus, Public Policy, Vol.

26As re

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMXWOFIK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 145 The implications for Canada of these general considerations is not

academic and is well illustrated by the problems of jurisdiction and administration with respect to the role of natural resources. In fact the future of a viable federation hinges on whether we recognize and do something about the simple fact that resource policy is an integral part of over-all development policy and that policy concerned with natural resources must, to be meaningful, embrace the economic and social aspects as well as the technical-physical aspects of “resource problems.” So much hinges on our awareness and on our willingness and ability to act because the prevailing division of constitutional jurisdiction with respect to natural resources is a crucial matter influencing the rate and pattern of development. If it is true that under present trends the nature of economic change is eroding the provincial power with regard to this vital field of action, the reaction of the provincial governments to this fact of life will either take the form of secession (in a mild stage-by-stage form or in a more rapid dramatic fashion) or of greater cooperation on a different basis as between the provinces and the federal government.

The manner of working together and the issues to be on the agenda of such a cooperative effort will be influenced by the recognition of the scope of resource policy and of the inter-relationships of resource policy to over-all development policy. On the basis of this awareness of the role of resources in the process of development, it may be recognized that if the provinces are to discharge their responsibilities, their constitutional jurisdiction over resources must be given “teeth.” They must work within a national or regional context, coordinating among themselves as provinces and with the federal government with respect to the other elements of policy that condition the rate and manner of resource development. National policy for development cannot be effective on the basis of federal-provincial fiscal conferences which are concerned with arrangements to cut the revenue pie after the size, shape and texture of the pie have been determined. It is analogous to pulling on one side of a sticky drawer by a handle marked “monetary-fiscal policy.*’ We are, as matters stand, shaking the bureau badly and not pulling out the drawer which will not become unstuck until we pull on the other handle

for development and yet, at the same time, respect the prerogatives of these many governments, The ‘‘Resources for Tomorrow” Conference and the functionin of its National Steering Committee and its Secretariat offer a prototype approact to a continuin form of Secretariat under an all-governmental Council or Committee. The Honourabqe Wa1te.r Dinsdale, for example, has spoken of a National Council for Resources Research and the Premier of Quebec, the Honourable ean Lesage, of an

from the usual form of Federal-Provinciarad hoc agreements which are usually of a conditional grant varie with rovinces seldom, if ever, involved in the conceptual stage, and the projects se 7 7 dom re ated to an explicit national framework of goals and over-all program.

intergovernment Secretariat for all the rovinces. These shod d be distinguished


which may be labelled roughly “resource-industrial development policy.” The basis for resolving this can be provided by establishing a coordinat-

ing framework designed by all eleven senior governments and, as a main element, a national investment policy for development.26 National goals could be elaborated not only with respect to the rate of development but also with respect to the regional puttern of development and, implicitly or explicitly, as a corollary aspect of no less vital significance, the structural balance as among resource, primary, secondary and service industries, These are all aspects which cannot simply be divided among various jurisdictions without reference to their interconnections in relation to the national growth objectives. Only by participating in the determination of these goals in their many facets can provincial jurisdiction over resource development become more meaningful. As it is, the provinces play more and more of a passive custodial or a huckstering role which give more of the appearance than the substance of determining the resource-industrial development rate and pattern. So long as the framework with respect to policies determining capital availability and marketing (including thereunder, transportation and tariffs) are in federal hands, we can describe the provincial role as hardly more than one of setting the sales pitch and the royalty-rental conditions as bait. This is almost the sum and substance of the provincial role-and, at that, often in a beggar-my-neighbour fashion which works against the national interest in permitting or fostering a less-than-optimal arrangement for the disposition of the resources to investors who come from both inside and outside the country and who can operate in a capital and resource industry market like monopsonists who play one provincial landlord off against the other for their own advantage.27

26In a United Nations’ document (Report TAA/BRA/3, 1957) entitled Economic Deuelopment in North-East Brazil, by P. H. Robock, the followin point is made which seems apropos: “One major issue is a proper and valid fe % era1 investment policy for regional development. It arises in several ways and requires better theo- retical work than is now available as to what should be a p ropriate federal The issue is implicit in the popular complaint in the Nor$-East that the cgii F r n m e n t is taking more from the re ion in taxes than it is returning throu h ederal ex nditures . . . (and) on the o k e r hand, the same issue is involved in tfe

position agocated by persons outside the region, that scarce overnment resources should not be wasted . . . (in) the North-East (which) is (in tfeir opinion) without hop“ and possibilities.

‘The merits of the uestion are of broader importance. Other versions of the same issue are being debatel in regions of the U.S. and probably in many other countries. What is a valid national public expenditure policy as related to regional economic develo ment?”

27WKen the investors are nationals, the taxation and other arrangements at a second round are more likely to be able to rectify any undesirable features of the bargain of the first round. Only the federal government has sufficient power to achieve this at the second stage, but it cannot restore the situation to a possibly more favourable position in the national interest which may have been achieved before the commitment.

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 147 With the passage of time, given the continuation of prevailing trends

with respect to the role of resources in the industrial process, the provincial jurisdiction will become even emptier in terms of determining the rate and manner of resource use.28 Not only will the other factors as labour and capital which influence the development of industry increase in importance relative to resources, but concurrently the non-resource policies affecting the availability and productivity of labour and capital will become more decisive. To have government policies concentrate on resource development without reference to the broad economic and social context would be rash since the likelihood of this being self-defeating and a misdirection of effort and funds is greater the narrower the frame of reference. That framework involves migration policy (from outside the country and, no less important, within the country), international trade and tariff policies, transport and monetary-fiscal policies, and also educational-training and research policies. Some of these (as the latter) are within provincial jurisdiction but only to a limited extent in terms of achieving the most promising returns for the investment in educational and scientific research establishments. Unless the priorities are set in national rather than narrow regional terms, the duplication and bottle- necks with respect to the use of professional trained personnel and the investment in research facilities will be much greater than they need be for the choice of the most appropriate scale often requires a national perspective.

It is important to recognize that this is not a jurisdictional issue necessarily involving constitutional change. The legal arrangements as set down in the B.N.A. Act may be sufficiently flexible for administrative arrangements to be made within the constraints of the constitutional separation of powers as they are set down.2B Beyond that, the substantive

2sThese farces were neat!y sketched in their essentials in a paper “The Development of the Extractive Industries by Professor A. Scott delivered at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association in Montreal in June, 1981. He distinguished three sta es of development which resource industries ma be in, the third of which is the ‘controlled stage” wherein the market specifies d e nature of materials to be used and substitution for natural roducts is both feasible and essential. The owners of natural resources are place8 in a deteriorating bargaining position and this has profound implications for rovincial responsibilities with respect

and original characteristics of resources-in determining the need for and use of natural resources arises from the nature of the changes in the industrial structure and technology. (This paper has been ublished in the February, 1982 issue of the Canudhn Journal of Economics and Poltical Science, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1, Toronto.)

See also Professor J. H. Dales’ comment in Natural Resources and Economic Growth where he talks of “the folly of talking about ‘natural resources’ as if they were a homogeneous factor of production” but notes that “the importance of a wide ran e of natural resources as a factor in promoting industrial develo ment has

k

to resources. The increasingly important role o P the market-rather than the location

un c f oubtedly declined significantly in the last 50 years’ (op cit., p. 18, 197. 2QThis possibility was stressed by Dean W. Lederman in his

Resources for Tomorrow Conference on the jurisdictional factor as


“give-and-take” is a matter for the parties to work out. But it does not follow that what is “given” is merely transferred to another government since the process of doing things differently may add up to more than the sum of the original powers.

5. Some Administrative Implications We are dealing with federal- rovincial relations and with the fundamentals

organization and modes of functioning, out of which come public decisions.30 We need new institutional arrangements for cooperative actions such

as special joint boards or agencies set up under the sanction and control of both provincial and federal governments. The implications of this for agricultural policy, to take but one example, are profound. Who (in terms of jurisdiction) is going to decide about the need for agricultural development in terms of land use and in terms of capital investment including community facilities, transportation and so forth? The decisions are often made beyond the area of local government, and beyond the horizon of the provincial purview. Though it is also often beyond the control of the federal government it is only at this level that national measures can be taken in relation to international conditions. The market for the output of the land, the alternate opportunities in other industries or regions, the scientific-technological innovations and capital availability to utilize them are all determinants of the resulting situation in the agricultural sector of the economy. Their impact, and the effects of what are seemingly non-agricultural policies and forces may be less direct than the effects of the conventional programs and pressures which are considered to be the concern of agricultural policy, but they are no less signscant and powerful. In fact, they are usually of greater relevance than the direct aspects and are ignored at great peril. Since their origin and their effects are beyond a department or a jurisdiction, or a sector of the economy or a region, the relevant scope of policies affecting agriculture and rural life are broad and involve at least a national approach on many other fronts than land use and such which have been the traditional ambit of agricultural policy.

The framework of national policy must incorporate a conception of what constitutes a balanced and integrated development and thereby in-

development. But in the workshop of the same Conference devoted to jurisdictional roblems, the o inion was often voiced that what was legally possible, given most

realizing the possibilities under prevailing conditions. In fact, in reporting on the workshop discussion in the Montrcul Star (October 26, 1961, p. 3) the story was headed ‘Canada’s Division of Authority Seen as Hindering Growth.”

30D. W. Carr “Resource Adjustment in Agriculture: Effects of the Legislative and Administrative Framework,” Resources for Tomorrow, background papers of conference, Montreal, Oct., 1961, Vol. I, p. 124 (Queen’s Printer, Ottawa, 1961).

of democracy (which) . . . to x ave substance , . . must take shape in concrete

favourable con B itions of a rather ideal nature, was not necessarily conducive to

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 149

volves a conception of the role of agriculture in the dynamic of growth. To what extent are those responsible for agricultural policy at the various jurisdictional levels aware of, interested in, or given a voice in determining the concept of “balance” which sets the goals for their sector and region of the economy? To what extent are they involved in or even concerned about the social dimensions of the rise and wane of agricultural activities? Apparently, after the costs of ignoring the implications of agriculture’s changing role in the economy have become too pressing to ignore, the whole range of “rural life” has become the relevant area of focus but this broadened concern of governments has not been accompanied by appropriate administrative changes within and between jurisdictions at the local, provincial and federal levels. Nor has the urban side of the problem of population shift and changing land-uses been integrated conceptually, administratively or jurisdictionally.

Measures for integrating the policies of many jurisdictions and regions, as in the Canadian case of a geographically large federated nation, is likely to strain the limits of traditional concepts and the prevailing institutiona1 framework. There is little precedent for the type of coordination which is needed. To date, the interdepartmental cooperation within any government and intergovernmental cooperation in any one resource field and across many interrelated fields have been of a very limited kind. They have usually been of an ad hoc nature to meet a particular type of limited problem where conflicting uses had to be resolved or anticipated and criteria or rules established invariably on the basis of technical-physical or legal considerations. Sometimes coordination was called for to meet a critical regional situation of an emergency nature in one of the resource sectors. Thus was the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act conceived (and later, though in a rather lame fashion, the Maritime Marshland Rehabili- tation Act) and perpetuated, Recent legislation (the Agkuhral Rural Development Act) may be breaking new ground. But in being a federal Act in its conception and implementation and only permissive with respect to provincial participation, and being limited initially to a rather narrow sectoral approach through agriculture, its innovational character has yet to be established. However, its concern for the socio-economic aspects on a regional plane holds promise that its scope and techniques in intergovernmental matters will be a departure from the narrow tradi- tionalism of the conventional resource policy approach.

The type of administrative change called for is more clearly evident in the proposals for a National Power Grid.s1 Here the problem has

SlPeter C. Newman (“Backstage at Ottawa,” Maclean’s, November 4, 1981) reports a national power grid as the likeliest of Prime Minister Diefenbaker‘s “New Vision” for the forthcoming election. Tha Finonda2 Post (Oct. 15, 1960) in an article b N. Anderson entitled “Ottawa Rushes to Study of Electrical Needs,” the Honouraile A. H. Hamilton is quoted as saying that he, as the (then) federal


several aspects. The first is one of fostering scientific-technological research to resolve such basic hurdles as the long distance transmission of power. This is now a responsibility resting primarily on the shoulders of a provincial Crown Corporation, Ontario Hydro, and on the applied international research work being done, principally in the Soviet Union and Sweden. The second facet is one of financing the vast capital outlays and integrating regional power sources with inter-regional needs in such a manner as to make the most economical use of available power and the capital invested for its development. Thus will more power be made readily available at lower cost to improve the regional distribution of power and to further the possibilities for more industrial development.

There are many forms the cooperation could take so as to integrate the many elements of policy at the conceptual and implemental stages while respecting the constitutional fundamentals of federation. One such form could involve new agencies sponsored and financed by a joint federal- provincial arrangement to complement, in an advisory or research or operational capacity, existing agencies of a related nature. Among them the following suggestions may be illustrative : (a ) A National Council for Resources Research as proposed by The Honorable Walter Dinsdale, by Dr. J. Ballard of the National Research Council and by a workshop of the “Resources for Tomorrow” Con- ference which will help integrate present research activities and supple- ment them as appropriate. ( b ) A N a t i m l Land Use Board along lines suggested by the recent Commission on Design of the Residental Environment sponsored by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. (The formation of the Canadian Council on Urban and Regional Research in March 1962 is an encourag- ing development. ) ( c ) A Watershed Review Board to work out an agreed set of principles and processes for the application of cost-benefit analysis as applied to multi-purpose interprovincial water development projects. (d ) A Nationul Centre for Resources Znformation to collect and make available existing literature and data and to interpret and disseminate information on request and as a continuing program.

Other aspects involving financing and regional or project studies and

Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, would act as “honest broker” in bringing together representatives of rovincial governments, power utilities and electrical manufacturers to pro se a fulrscale study of Canada’s electrical need for the next 20 to 40 years “towargealization of the Canadian dream of cheap, plentiful electric power bumped and wheeled across the nation on a power grid.” The article noted that a spur to this was provided in the realization that “the Russians (are) five years ahead of Canada in Ion distance wer transmission work OR D.C.” A Canadian delegation of eleven ut%y men w g h visited the U.S.S.R. “was im ressed

and transmission problems (that) surpassed, by far, anything being $one in Canada.” by the massive amount of research being done in Russia on electric ower pro i uction

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR msomm POLICY 151 the like could be incorporated in such agencies or in new ones. The proliferation of new bodies will not, however, suffice to rectify the lack of coordinated action in many related fields. There is a need, on another plane, of some interdepartmental coordination agency in each government,92 and of some intergovernmental coordination agency to give national perspective to relevant problems.gg The response to the pressures which gave rise to the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, the sugges- tion of Premier Lesage for more interprovincial coordination through the Provincial Ministers’ Conferences ( and possibly a continuing Secretariat ) , and the proposal of Prime Minister Diefenbaker of a National Resources C o ~ n c i l ~ ~ are all slender threads of hope that can, as yet, support no weight. But they are indicative of the growing awareness and help to confirm that the consensus seems to be gaining ground that institutional changes are necessary for realizing national purposes.s6

6. The Expectationr Can administration in articular agencies be brought into a sufficient measure

successful operation of the economic systemT36

It would be naive to expect these institutional developments to take place rapidly so that the administrative-jurisdictional structure can be better adapted to meet the immediate pressing problems of economic development. There is, quite naturally, great reluctance to add new bodies to a great multiplicity of agencies already complex and cumber- some. There is great difficulty in rationalizing the structure and processes

BzAs, for example, along the lines of the Economic Advisory and Planning Board in Saskatchewan and the Manitoba Development Authority.

W u c h as, for example, a re-constituted National Energy Board might provide. s4Made in a speech at the Resources for Tomorrow Conference. By a decision of

the National Steering Committee of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference on February 5, 1962 a ministerial Resource Council was formed but on an ad h c basis without a continuing full-time secretariat.

35A Secretariat or a Council of such a character, which could, in the first instance, serve as an informution-gathering and conference-sewicing agency, has already come into bein in the Resources for Tomorrow Conference Secretariat (though its life has not %em extended by the National Steering Committee a t its meeting on February 5, 1962, nonetheless, a newly constituted Secretariat could be more easily formed on the basis of past experience). Later, at the appropriate time and under ap ropriate circumstances, this Secretariat or variation thereof could play an analytic TOE as a form of national advisory consultative agency working on designated aspects of resource problems which are national or interprovincial in scope. Only at a third stage could the Secretariat be expected to assume a coordinating role for designated purposes which could help in the formulation and execution of resource policies for consistency and efficiency in relation to other policies affecting the development of the country. A great deal of reservation with res ect to the establishment of a Secretariat or Council of an advisory nature could be Assipated if its many possible roles were distin uished one from the other so far as they can be se arated and the roles relate8 to a stage-by-stage implementation as and when possgle.

36Professor E. Redford, Administration of National Economic Control, New York: Macmillan and Co., 1952, p. 2.

of accord with overa P 1 economic objectives and (thus) contribute to the


for political and related reasons. I t is made all the more difEcult by the fact that, even while change seems necessary, it is hard to place the sources of the failings. The administrative machinery is, at the best of time, difficult to evaluate in terms of performance. The problems handled by an administration (or not handled but within their terms of jurisdiction) are complex, greatly varied and involve many agencies and, in a federated state, often of more than one government. It becomes difficult, if not impossible, to pin blame or praise on any sector of the administrative apparatus or even on all of them together if the jurisdiction is limited or the problems by their very nature are beyond a nation’s control. Forces quite outside the control of any single agency or even outside the control of all of them play roles for good or ill and usually behind the scenes, unseen and unheard but often acutely felt. Accord- ingly the appraisal of the administrative machinery and personnel is not to be made in relation simply to the immediate problems they are given to handle.

But for all that, we are helped greatly to effect necessary changes when there is an understanding of the responsibilities and the inter- relationships between decision-making agencies, assuming that the forces outside the control of a single government or all governments give some leeway for self-help. Resource-administering departments which are given a limited range of resource supply-maintenance responsibilities for one resource come up against the need to understand the relationship of that resource to others in ecological, engineering and economic terms. The administrative responsibilities in one resource sector as they relate to the others or one use to others can better be understood on the basis of this knowledge. But the problem still remains one of seeing beneath the structural administrative arrangements to the basic problems and their ramifications.

It is necessary to see the whole administrative apparatus in relation to its historic evolution and its current and anticipated problems which it is established to meet and to examine each agency in relation to the various segments of the over-all responsibilities. The coordination necessary to perform their functions has to be seen within the limits of the legislative jurisdictional responsibilities for all of them together at the national, provincial, regional or community level and for each of them individually. Accordingly, it is necessary to know the basic problems and the policies at the various levels as they are now, as they have evolved, and as they are anticipated. Only then are the necessary conditions laid for evaluating the administrative structure and processes and determining the extent and the forms of coordination and housecleaning that are called for.

Should we be dividing the administrative load among departments along functional lines (for example, how they relate to economic

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 153 develop1nent)~7 rather than along the traditional lines of physical characteristics (for example, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mines, etc. ) ? Should an intergovernmental integrating agency be only advisory or vested with other functions? Should such an agency be attached to the office of the highest-ranking member of the government, namely, the Prime Minister’s or Premier’s office or to a national committee composed of these persons or their designates acting on their behalf and not on behalf of any one department as Natural Resources, Lands and Forests, Industrial Development, Agriculture and the like? Programming for economic development with each section playing its appropriate role in relation to common goals and agreed-upon techniques calls for answers to these practical q~es t ions .~~ Without changes in the administrative machinery and the policy-making process there is little hope for action. The experience of the United States in the field of water resources is illustrative. Simply looking at one jurisdiction, the federal government, the situation was described by a governmental commission as urgently in need of improvement in a tone illustrated by one extract: The Federal Government’s organization for carrying out its policies on water resources and power development lacks coordination, creates competition among its agencies, causes controversy, confusion, duplication and waste and encourages rather than curbs bureaucratic ambitions . , . (and) has no effective means of accomplishing an independent and objective review of projects or providing adequately for the collection and analysis of basic data. , .39 The report pointed out that There is no one administrative place where conflicts of purpose, dBerences in policy and principles, or basic questions of financial responsibility are brought together and related in proper perspective to one another.40 It recommended a single office within the federal governmental administrative structure which would be vested with jurisdiction over “these

37’rhe distinction between “environmental-ecological resources’’ and “economic resources” may be helpful in terms of whether the natural resources are amenable to transportation, substitution and transformation in the productive process or whether they are valued for their contribution to the aesthetic dimensions of living and need not be moved, used and transformed to be enjoyed.

3V0r a consideration of this in the,y.S. see S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, “Administrative Co-ordination of Conservation Policy, Land Economics, February, 1948. This subject is treated in a s ecific concrete manner by Ira M. Robinson in his paper on the Peace River Region g r the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, Vol. I, OP. dt., pp. 505-524.

3W2ommission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, Task Force Report on Water Resources and Power, Vol. 1, p. 90 (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, June, 1955). For an account of the state side of affairs, see State Administrution of Water Resources, Chicago: The Council of State Govern- ments, 1957, which indicates the variety of forms of water problems, water agencies and need for revamping administrative organization to achieve greater coordination among water agencies, between water agencies and other resource agencies, and between these resource agencies and other departments. . 78. They noted that “all study groups of recent years have deplored the situation tgat has grown up.”

4OOp. cit.,

154 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINXSTRATION

intimately connected” aspects of broader governmental policy. To date, after the passage of over five years, there is little evidence that the situation has been changed in any significant respect with regard to the administration and its methods of operation. The pressures of the problems, meanwhile, continue to mount.

The broad outlines of this situation apply to the Canadian situation though with less intensity.’l From the vantage of study and experience a viewpoint emerges: There is a clear need to explore new avenues in developing the administrative framework necessary for the solution of the emerging problems of water resource management. . , . The framework of agencies that have been established to carry out the responsibilities of the federal government in water management is characterized by a multiplicity of components perform- ing a wide variety of functions (with) many cases (of) duplication and . . . areas where coordination is lacking.42

It has been well elaborated by D. W. Carr in his background paper for the “Resources for Tomorrow” Conference with respect to agriculture, and by other authors with respect to other resource sectors.48 Mr. Carr describes the situation pertaining to the agricultural sector of the economy and its relationship to over-all economic development and change and asserts that “the need for coordination is becoming urgent.”*“ Shall we, too, report no significant progress in five years?

The situation is being well described, an atmosphere of awareness and resolve is being formed, proposals are being put forward for consideration and study. Will they, in the words of D. W. Carr, ”launch resource development on a comprehensive national basis”? The follow-through will not be simple nor painless, but, at least, it seems to have begun.

In his keynote address at the “Resources for Tomorrow” Conference, the Honourable Walter Dinsdale set the tone for the new approach:46

“See Resources for Tomorrow background a rs by K. Krist’anson and W. R. D. Sewell, “Water Management Problems an%l%es in Canakf and by T. M. Patterson, “Administrative Framework for Water Management, Vol. 1, Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1961.

42K. Kristjanson and W. R. D. Sewell, op. cft. 43See especially D. W. Carr, “Resource Adjustment in Agriculture: Effects of the

Legislative and Administrative Framework,” Vol. 1, op. c t . 44He remarked that “in (prevailing) circumstances, the need for co-ordination

among the numerous federal departments and agencies as well as with provincial and municipal governments, is becoming urgent.” His paper is an excellent summary of the situation. He writes: “Our main difficulties today stem from the fact that not only is there little three-level (inter overnmental) co-ordination, there is also a lack

and provincial sphere, the legislative-administrative structure (which was) designed for land settlement has proved ineffective as a vehicle for planning and carrying out long-run adjustment pro rams.”

the heading “Dinsdale Underlines New Look Approach in Development.’

of co-ordination within each of the t %r ee separate Icvels. In brief, in both the federal

45As quoted from T a e Montreal Star, Monday, October 23, 1961, p. 3, under

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAbfEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY 1% We are concerned less with resource development as such and more with the promotion of economic development. The two are not synonymous. Resource development may not be the best way for a country to grow either in terms of speed, stability or regional industrial structure. The relationship of natural resources to our goals of economic development must be well understood and then we can more consistently adapt our jurisdictional, administrative, research, management, information-extension and other activities at all government levels.

The call for re-appraisal of our prevailing resource policies is a first step, a reflection of an awareness of the rapidity of fundamental change in the world about us and of the need to understand our position in relation to these dynamic developments as we make changes to meet the challenge. The second step of adaptation is being taken slowly and hesitantly. We could be more hopeful if we did not have to be pushed by pressure of events at every step.

Documents

THE DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOURCE POLICY AND ITS JURISDICTIONAL-ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATION