Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
“Group Government” was the principle of political organization put forward by Henry Wise Wood, president of the United Farmers of Alberta, 1915-31, at the time that body entered politics in 1919. By the phrase, Mr. Wood meant that political organization should be on an occupational, or functional, basis and that political action by economic groups should replace political parties. As such, the idea had affinities with the doctrines of pluralism and even corporativism. When applied to representative and parliamentary institutions, however, it raised those constitutional issues which are common to multi-party and coalition government. Fundamentally, that is, it came into collision with the principle of cabinet unity. Group government, however, encountered an immediate constitutional problem in the prevalent form of the domination of the legislature by the cabinet, and to this aspect of the matter, the present paper is addressed.
The farmer's movement which followed the slackening of the wheat boom of the first decade of this century was, in its political aspect, a revolt against the party system. The ground for this revolt was that the parties were controlled, it was alleged, not by the rank and file of the voters, but by the party organization, the professional politicians. This small group was in turn said to be controlled by the “interests,” upon whom the parties were dependent for funds. It followed that the parties existed to serve, not the people, but the “interests”; it also followed that there was no difference between the two traditional parties. Hence the need for a people's nonpartisan organization, which would sweep away the old parties, curb the “interests,” and make the will of the people effective. The validity of this analysis need not be examined here; the effect of these beliefs is what concerns us.
1 Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution (London, 1922), p. 12.Google Scholar
2 See Jennings, W. Ivor, Parliament (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
3 See Morton, W. L., “Direct Legislation and the Origins of the Progressive Movement” (The Canadian Historical Review, vol. XXV, no. 3, pp. 279–89).Google Scholar
4 The Nutcracker, 05 25, 1917, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
5 The Alberta Non-Partisan, 09 29, 1917, p. 8.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., February 22, 1918.
7 The Morning Albertan, March 6, 1917.
8 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1920, 03 2, p. 29.Google Scholar
9 Edmonton Journal, March 3, 1920.
10 “Responsible Government—An Alberta Mistake” (The Canadian Nation, 03 20, 1920).Google Scholar
11 The Grain Growers' Guide, July 7, 1920, “Our National Charter,” p. 7.
12 The Alberta Non-Partisan, 05 22, 1919, p. 8.Google Scholar
13 The Grain Growers' Guide, December 15, 1920.
14 U.F.A. Annual Review, 1921.
15 Wood Files, in possession of L. D. Nesbitt, unnamed, undated clipping.
16 Edmonton Journal, March 3, 1920.
17 Redlich, Joseph, The Procedure of the House of Commons (London, 1908), p. 122.Google Scholar
18 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, 1921. 04 12, pp. 196–8.Google Scholar
19 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1922, 03 2, p. 60.Google Scholar
20 The U.F.A., 03 1, 1922, p. 13.Google Scholar
21 Edmonton Journal, March 3, 1922.
22 Ibid.
23 Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1922, 03 2, p. 61.Google Scholar
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., p. 62.
26 Ibid., p. 63.
27 The U.F.A., October 1, 1923.
28 Spencer Files, paper written by H. E. Spencer, 1924. I am exceedingly indebted to Mr. Spencer for the material he placed at my disposal and for other courtesies.
29 The U.F.A., 02 1, 1926, p. 4.Google Scholar
30 Hansard, 1926, p. 4.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., p. 6.
32 The U.F.A., February 1, 1926, and March 11, 1926.
33 See Dawson, R. MacG., Constitutional Issues in Canada, 1900-1931 (London, 1933), pp. 85–8.Google Scholar
34 The U.F.A., 07 15, 1926, p. 3.Google Scholar
35 Ibid., August 2, 1926.
36 Ibid., “How Government of Canada Functions,” September 1, 1927.
37 Spencer Files, H. E. Spencer, “Federal Affairs in Review, 1922-30.”
38 Ibid., “Manifesto Passed by the U.F.A. Conference Held in Edmonton,” June 30, 1932, italics in original.
