scholarly journals Elihu Stewart and the Beginnings of Dominion Forestry

1984 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. G. Honer ◽  
Kenneth Johnstone

Early proclamations regarding the payment of dues to the provincial governments for timber cut on provincial lands, established the precedent for provincial jurisdiction over the forest resource. But continued exploitation of the forest also gave rise to the conservation movement and a climate conducive to the initiation of forestry practice in Canada. In 1899, in response to public pressure for forestry on Dominion lands the federal government appointed Elihu Stewart Chief Inspector of Timber and Forestry. His forestry philosophy and program emphasized conservation and propagation. Stewart's skills in organizing an effective forestry group were only surpassed by his ability to communicate with farmers, lumbermen and politicians alike. During his tenure in office, he initiated a system of fire guarding, expanded the Forest Reserves, and commenced to regulate the harvest on Dominion lands. He was responsible for the program of tree planting on the plains of western Canada and founded the Canadian Forestry Association and served as its first secretary. Before resigning from federal service in 1907 he supported the establishment of the forestry schools at the Universities of Toronto and New Brunswick and played a key role in organizing the first Canadian Forestry Convention.

1982 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. P. Peschken ◽  
D. B. Finnamore ◽  
A. K. Watson

AbstractThe gall fly Urophora cardui (L.) (Diptera: Tephritidae), native to Europe, was released at 24 locations across Canada beginning in 1974. It became established in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick but died out in all but one location in western Canada. Evidence for winter mortality in the west does not explain the failure of these colonies. Although galls, in particular those on the main shoot, reduce the height of Canada thistle, so far the impact on the host weed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) (L.) Scop., is slight.


Significance As attention turns again to non-COVID-19 issues, discussion of ‘Wexit’ -- the possible separation of Alberta and Saskatchewan from Canada -- will resurge. Separation calls grew after the October 2019 federal election reinforced a sense that the federal government is deaf to both provinces’ concerns and interests. Impacts Saskatchewan and Alberta will create new provincial institutions to lessen their federal reliance. Eastern and central voters will keep voting for pro-climate policies, alienating western provinces. Given their different economies and politics, Wexit parties will struggle to make progress in British Columbia and Manitoba. If Alberta and Saskatchewan’s economies worsen, the Wexit narrative of disenfranchisement could strengthen.


Author(s):  
Megan Aiken

Since the 1950s, federal transfers have been moulded and remoulded under practically every Prime Minister. The current iteration of transfers, specifically the 2014 implementation of equal-per-capita funding through the Canada Health Transfer, poses major problems to regional disparities, and arguably favours provinces that have high growth; this leaves poorer provinces, like the Maritimes, to make major cuts to provincial budgets in order to maintain the standards set out in the Canada Health Act. This paper explores the history of transfers, why transfers are necessary for Canadians, as well as the criticisms of the current system. Following this, it is recommended that a needs-based model for determining health transfers be adopted; specifically, the model developed by Marchildon and Mou that accounts for an aging population as well as one that is geographically dispersed. This paper provides a more contemporary analysis on federal transfers as they relate to the health care system. Additionally, it focuses somewhat on the issues New Brunswick is facing currently as, among other things, a result of inadequate funding from the federal government.


2005 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-297
Author(s):  
Benoît B. Pelletier

The object of this study is to ascertain the power of the federal and the provincial governments to legislate concerning language in Canada. After a study of the ancillary doctrine as the constitutional basis for the exercise of this power by either level of government, the author studied the constitutional restrictions on its use, and determined the following restrictions : 1. For the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, only : section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 2. For the province of Manitoba only : section 23 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 which is also an entrenched provision providing minimum rights. 3. For the province of New-Brunswick, only : sections 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982. 4. For all provinces, subject to the present inapplicability of section 23(1) a) of the new charter concerning the province of Quebec : section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 5. For all provinces and for the federal government : section 16(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, section 15(1) which recognizes the right to equality, and 2b) which recognizes the freedom of expression. Finally the author studied the implications of the reasonable limits' provision outlined in section 1 of the new charter, this constituting the only means for our governments to avoid the application of the charter to their legislation.


Federalism-E ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-75
Author(s):  
Connor Molineaux

Regionalism has been a prominent feature of Western Canadian political culture even prior to Alberta and Saskatchewan joining confederation in 1905. One manifestation of this regionalism is through intergovernmental conflict, particularly jurisdictional disputes between the provincial and federal governments. These disputes have generally seen provincial governments of various ideological leanings cooperate, and yet decentralization–or expansion of provincial jurisdiction–is a position that has largely been advanced by conservatives in recent decade.1Is there an ideological connection between expansion of provincial jurisdiction and conservatism? This essay contends that the conservative ideology particular to Western Canada was uniquely influenced by the dynamic of federal-provincial relations in Canada because of particular features of the region’s brand of conservatism. This essay will demonstrate that ongoing disputes between western provinces–Alberta in particular–and the federal government, particularly over natural resource issues, have reinforced a dynamic of regionalism within Western Canadian conservatism, leading it to become the perennial feature of conservative policy, federally and provincially, that it is today.[...]


Author(s):  
G.V. La Forest

The recent penetration of a Russian fishing fleet into the Bay of Fundy has raised anew the status of that bay in international law. The manner in which the incident arose puts the issues involved in the clearest possible terms. Shortly after the Russian fleet was sighted in the bay, a newspaper reporter was informed by an unidentified federal government official that “No particular interest is being shown the fleet by the Canadian departments of fisheries and transport” and that “as long as they stayed outside the three mile limit, they would be subject to no restrictions from Canada.” This statement did not sit well with Premier Robichaud of New Brunswick, who promptly wired Prime Minister Diefenbaker that “The Bay of Fundy is an integral part of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia” and requested that Canada protest to Russia this violation of Canadian territory.


2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 1011-1024
Author(s):  
Richard Saillant ◽  
Herb Emery

This article examines New Brunswick's recent fiscal track record and major trends likely to shape its trajectory in the years ahead. New Brunswick's fiscal position eroded considerably over its "lost decade," from 2007-08 to 2016-17. During this period, the province's successive governments performed poorly—both in absolute terms and relative to the other maritime provinces—in adjusting to major shocks that seriously impaired revenue growth. Looking forward, the government's revenue-generating capacity is likely to remain constrained, while health-care spending pressures will mount with a fast-aging population. The authors conclude that, in a critical way, New Brunswick's fiscal future may no longer be in its own hands, but in the hands of richer provinces with a younger population, and the federal government.


2008 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Holloway ◽  
Glen A Jordan ◽  
Burtt M Smith

A condensed history of forestry and forest management in New Brunswick's Crown Forest during the 20th century is presented. It begins with a description of the advanced state of forest management in New Brunswick today. The description provides a sharp contrast to the subsequent detailing of forestry operations, and lack of forest management, that characterized the early decades of the 20th century. A gradual improvement followed, as professional forestry education and technology combined to elevate forestry practice. Next examined is forestry practice and its change across several distinct periods: the inter-wars period (1914–1938), WWII and aftermath (1939–1957), two decades of profound change (1958–1980), and the modern era (1981–2005). It is concluded that a few key events and individuals explain the gradual evolution of forestry in New Brunswick from controlled exploitation to sustainable management. Also suggested is that the Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management at the University of New Brunswick must continue to attract the brightest and best to its forestry programmes, if New Brunswick is to maintain its leadership position in management of public forests. Key words: forest management, history, Province of New Brunswick, technological advances, forestry practice, key personnel, Crown Lands and Forests Act


1977 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-88
Author(s):  
Douglas W. Stewart

AbstractThe struggle for control of this nation's life-giving blood resources was, up until five years ago, largely a private affair between representative organizations of the blood collectors. The system that emerged from that struggle was declared unhealthy by several experts who complained that blood was too often unsafe or unavailable. Then in 1972 the government, predominantly the federal government, responded to public pressure and joined the fray. This Comment examines some legal, political, and policy aspects of the battle over blood collection—a battle from which no stable guiding force has yet evolved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document