WHY ALBERTA VACILLATED OVER WARTIME DAY NURSERIES

Tom Langford

Accepted for publication by Prairie Forum, January 2003

ABSTRACT

Between August of 1943 and March of 1944, it looked as if Alberta would become the third province, after Ontario and Quebec, to partner with the federal government in funding wartime day nurseries. Utilizing national, provincial and municipal archival records, this article investigates why the Social Credit government of Ernest C. Manning initially indicated strong support for the establishment of such nurseries, but later abandoned that support.

The Manning government of 1943-44 exhibited a considerable amount of pragmatism in its consideration of wartime day nurseries. One reason for this pragmatism was that many women's and social service organizations strongly lobbied for the nurseries. They pointed to labour shortages, child neglect, juvenile delinquency and child development as reasons to proceed with this new social program. Importantly, women's rights were never cited by the advocates, suggesting a recognition of the deep anxiety in Alberta society about the possibility of women being freed from the homemaker role.

WHY ALBERTA VACILLATED OVER WARTIME DAY NURSERIES

On 13 August 1943, Alberta's new premier, Ernest C. Manning, met with representatives of Edmonton's Committee on Day Care for Children of Working Parents and delighted them by announcing that the provincial government had accepted a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government to provide day nurseries for the care of young children whose mothers are engaged in war industry. It looked at that moment, and for at least the next six months, as if Alberta would become the third province, after Ontario and Quebec, to partner with the federal government in funding wartime day nurseries. However, first the City of Edmonton and then the federal Department of Labour balked at the specifics of the province's funding schemes for day nurseries. This delayed implementation of the agreement signalled that the province would have to come up with more money than originally planned, and tempered the commitment of both Premier Manning and Dr. W.W. Cross, the provincial cabinet minister responsible for administering the cost-sharing agreement.⁽¹⁾

In early May of 1944, Premier Manning and Minister Cross formally abandoned their plan to fund wartime day nurseries when they accepted the controversial and highly disputed conclusion of a Provincial Advisory Committee that "there is not sufficient demand in either of the Cities of Edmonton or Calgary to warrant the establishment of day nurseries for the care of children of mothers employed in war industries."⁽²⁾ A wide range of organizations in Edmonton and Calgary lobbied against this conclusion, but to no avail. The possibility of reopening the matter greatly diminished once it appeared there would be a speedy end to the war in Europe after the successful Allied invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944. The matter seems to have been definitely settled by the results of the Alberta election of 8 August 1944, when the Social Credit League was easily returned to power. Ernest Manning had formulated a decidedly more conservative program than his predecessor, William Aberhart, and the 1944 election proved that Manning's conservatism offered electoral rewards, particularly in rural and small-town Alberta where Social Credit won every seat.⁽³⁾

The Alberta government had thus been on the brink of publicly funding day nurseries in 1943. Had it done so, it would likely have continued to assist with the funding of at least one day nursery past the war's end, since such a nursery would have been the first in Calgary. In light of this, the decision to back away from the Dominion-Provincial agreement on wartime day nurseries proved to be a policy shift with very long-lasting consequences. It would be more than two decades before the Alberta government finally funded a day care.⁽⁴⁾

Is there any value in investigating Alberta's 1943-44 policy vacillation on wartime day nurseries in greater depth? A review of the extant historical scholarship suggests not, since these events have either been ignored or given very cursory treatment.⁽⁵⁾ But because the government's vacillation resulted in an extended public debate and considerable negotiations between different levels of government, study of this set of events can yield insights into two more general topics.

Firstly, this policy vacillation occurred during the most important change of leadership in the history of the Social Credit League of Alberta. Ernest Manning became premier following William Aberharts death on 23 May 1943, and within three months he had indicated his willingness to enter into the Dominion-Provincial agreement on wartime day nurseries. At that moment, and for a number of subsequent months, there was considerable doubt about the policy direction of the Social Credit movement and its prospects for a third consecutive electoral victory. The Manning governments handling of the controversial issue of wartime day nurseries provides insights into its approach to governing during a transition fraught with political uncertainty.

Secondly, the prolonged policy arguments centred on a foundational belief of the gender order in Canadian society at mid-20th century: that a mother's proper place is at home with her children. Foundational beliefs are usually taken for granted and treated as beyond the realm of dispute. Consequently, study of the policy arguments over wartime day nurseries in Alberta provides a rare opportunity to assess the strength of this foundational belief and to identify the different ways that proponents of wartime day nurseries in Alberta accommodated and occasionally challenged this dominant belief.

Background: Wartime Employment of Married Women in Alberta

The Second World War created a strong demand for female labour. However, most of the federal government's war contracts were placed with firms in Ontario and Quebec, with Vancouver and Winnipeg being secondary war production centres. As a consequence, single Albertan women were actively recruited by war industries in other provinces, and National Selective Service (NSS) facilitated their relocation. A total of 15,000 civilians left Alberta during the war, a great many of them women recruited by war industries. As a result of this exodus of civilians and enlistment into the military, Alberta's population declined from 796,000 in 1941 to 776,000 in 1942 (apparently its low point between the 1941 and 1946 censuses). But at the same time as many young men and women left the province, the demand for industrial employees in Edmonton and Calgary increased from approximately 25,000 in 1939 to 35,000 in 1943. Married women were the only relatively untapped source of industrial labour living in the two cities, and as a consequence care of their children became an issue. In 1941 there were 13,000 children aged 0 to 4 years in Edmonton and Calgary and another 13,000 children aged 5 to 9 years.⁽⁶⁾

On 1 July 1944 there were approximately 1,072 Albertans employed in the munitions industry, 1,326 in the aircraft industry and 2,000 in metal production. Of these almost 4,400 workers, about 680 were women. In addition, many women were employed in meat packing and garments, Alberta's two major wartime manufacturing industries. Both Edmonton and Calgary had major meat packing firms; the four Edmonton companies employed 2,200 employees in 1944, including many women. The Great Western Garment Company (GWG) in Edmonton was the largest garment manufacturer in Canada during the war; in May of 1942, 470 of its employees were women. A survey of these employees revealed that there were 56 children for whom mothers desired daytime care while at work. This was enough demand by itself for a day nursery.⁽⁷⁾

Altogether there were 2,000 women among the 10,000 employed in primary wartime manufacturing in Alberta. In addition, there was a higher proportion of women in other wartime industries such as meat packing and garment manufacturing. We also know that in the first quarter of 1944 alone, NSS in Calgary placed over 3,000 women in jobs. Furthermore in July of 1944, 42% of wartime industrial jobs in Vancouver and 52% in Winnipeg were held by women. Taking these figures into account, a conservative estimate would put female wartime industrial employment in Calgary and Edmonton at 33% of the total of 33,000 industrial employees in July 1944, or approximately 11,000. No statistics are available for how many of these women had young children, but because of the structure of the labour market at the time we can assume that it numbered in the low thousands. For the first time in Alberta's history, a large number of young children were not being cared for by their mothers during weekday mornings and afternoons.⁽⁸⁾

Effective Research and Advocacy, 1942-43

A great deal of sophisticated research and advocacy work on behalf of wartime day nurseries preceded the Alberta government's decision of August, 1943 to sign a Dominion-Provincial cost-sharing agreement. The first such efforts occurred in Calgary in 1942. Preliminary investigations in the spring and summer of 1942 concluded that there were inadequate provisions for the care of the children of working mothers. Not only was there no charitable day nursery in Calgary, the only kindergarten located in a city school offered solely a half-day service and "private kindergartens ... were very crowded and too expensive for many working mothers." The investigation also cited reports of children being left alone or in inadequate environments while their mothers went to work. This led to an attempt in the fall of 1942 to assess the demand for a day nursery by a joint committee of the Local Council of Women and the Council of Social Agencies. This effort seems to have been quite independent of the federal government's wartime day nurseries initiative since no attempt was made to delineate the children of war-industry workers from other workers, and the action taken, once it was concluded that a day nursery was required, was to try (unsuccessfully) to find a suitable location for such a nursery.⁽⁹⁾

Research and advocacy did not begin in Edmonton until the following year. In April of 1943 the Child Welfare Division of the Edmonton Council of Social Agencies struck a "Committee on Day Care for the Children of Working Mothers." It consisted of 11 women, including the director of the School of Nursing at the University of Alberta and the President of the Edmonton Catholic Women's League. From the outset this group was in contact with federal government officials in charge of the wartime day nurseries program and geared their efforts towards trying to involve Alberta in the program. Its immediate objectives were to survey "the need for day nursery care among women employees of the larger Edmonton industries" and to assess how the standards of care at the city's existing charitable day nursery, the Edmonton Creche, compared to what they believed should be the minimum standards for day nursery care. The Committee also solicited support for its efforts from a number of women's organizations including the Women's Auxiliary to the Kinsmen's Club, the Council of Jewish Women, the University Women's Club and the Local Council of Women.

The needs study itself was very thorough. Discussions were held with experts such as plant managers, clergymen and school nurses as well as "large numbers of mothers." In addition, the committee studied newspaper advertisements seeking care for children of working mothers and distributed survey forms to women working in industrial plants and through women's organizations. Most evidence pointed to the need for wartime day nurseries. For instance, many plant managers stated that "they had lost valuable women employees because of the lack of adequate day care facilities." However, the survey results were not nearly so conclusive. The Committee argued that some forms were not returned because of a "language barrier," and that many women were unwilling "to commit themselves until they could see the nurseries in operation" or because they felt "the signing of a survey form would be an admission of neglect on their part." In the end the Committee concluded that both out-of-school care and pre-school care were needed and should be established in Edmonton.⁽¹⁰⁾

The Edmonton Day Care Committee took a two-pronged approach to lobbying the provincial government. They first met with the Deputy Minister of Education "and had no difficulty in persuading him of the need for child care." However, the Department of Education was unable to secure funds to support child care programs.

In late June, the Edmonton Day Care Committee met with the Deputy Minister of Health who informed them that sponsorship from his department was only available through the Child Welfare Branch. In explaining why the Committee favoured sponsorship by the Department of Education, its secretary informed the Associate Director of NSS, Fraudena Eaton, that "there is a definite lack of confidence in the Child Welfare Department among the members of the Committee." One of the criticisms of the Child Welfare Branch was the low provincial standards for foster homes. In light of this, the Committee did not believe that foster homes should be used for the day care of the infants of mothers engaged in wartime work, and inquired, "Are there any plans available for group care of the infant-two year old, with definite standards set by the Dominion?"⁽¹¹⁾

The efficacy of the Edmonton Committee's lobbying is demonstrated by the fact that in the spring and summer of 1943 both the Departments of Education and Health contacted federal officials to ask questions about the wartime day nurseries program. In addition, federal officials were contacted by the Calgary Day Nursery Committee which had been struck by the City of Calgary's health officer in June. The Calgary Committee also submitted a number of reports and letters to the provincial government advocating the establishment of a day nursery in that city.⁽¹²⁾

All of this advocacy for wartime day nurseries occurred at an opportune political time -- during the first weeks of the premiership of E.C. Manning. Premier Mannings immediate political task was to rebuild the Social Credit electoral base prior to the next election, scheduled for 1944. In light of this it is hardly surprising that he was open to representations from the Calgary Day Nursery Committee and Edmonton Day Care Committee, especially considering that they were supported by prominent womens and social services organizations in each city. In late July 1943, the Edmonton Committee presented a report to the province that advised signing the wartime day nurseries cost-sharing agreement. The provincial government accepted this advice, as announced by Premier Manning on 13 August, but only with an important condition.

Delays While Finances are Negotiated

The provincial government was prepared to make a contribution towards the establishment of wartime day nurseries in Calgary and Edmonton, but only if each city made an equivalent contribution. On 31 August 1943, Minister of Health W.W. Cross sent a letter to the acting Mayor of Edmonton proposing that the Federal Government will pay fifty per cent, the Province twenty-five per cent and the municipality twenty-five per cent.⁽¹³⁾

This is an historically significant idea since Social Credit also insisted upon municipal financial contributions towards day cares and other preventive social services in Alberta in the late 1960s, at the end of its long reign of power.⁽¹⁴⁾ Fiscal prudence would seem to be the reason for the request for municipal financial contributions in 1943. Prior to the discovery of oil at Leduc in 1947, Albertas finances were in difficult straits. For example, in the summer of 1944 it was reported that the government was in default on $25 million of provincial bonds and owed another $25 million in unpaid interest.⁽¹⁵⁾ Insisting that municipalities pay 25 per cent of the cost of wartime day nurseries would not only reduce the provinces financial responsibility for a particular day nursery, but would also dampen municipal enthusiasm for the program, and thus likely serve to limit the number of day nurseries that would be established. It also appears that the provincial government was taking a long range view of its financial commitment to day nurseries. After a meeting with Minister Cross in Edmonton in January, 1944, Fraudena Eaton reported, Honourable Dr. Cross has no illusions about being able to close down day nurseries once they are established and believes the Province will have to continue the service in part at least after the war. For this reason he is insisting on the financial cooperation of municipalities at this stage.⁽¹⁶⁾

Minister Crosss letter of 31 August to the City of Edmonton indicated that he was prepared to establish an Advisory Committee that would have almost full authority to decide whether the scheme is to be proceeded with or not. He also outlined a formula for choosing members of the Advisory Committee that would seemingly guarantee a favourable recommendation: one recommended by each municipality willing to take advantage of this arrangement, one from the Department of Health and the one appointed by Selective Service.⁽¹⁷⁾

This demonstrates that the provincial government was enthusiastic to proceed with wartime day nurseries as long as its financial commitment could be limited.

The City of Edmontons administration responded to Dr. Cross's proposal in haste without considering evidence on the need for wartime day nurseries in Edmonton and without any sort of a process of political consultation. It rejected participation because of the request to contribute towards the operating costs of day nurseries, and opined, We feel that the present Creche meets the local situation better than any organization which might be set up under the Agreement.⁽¹⁸⁾

Despite lobbying from Edmontons Day Care Committee, including a presentation to City Council on 27 September 1943, the three City Commissioners (two bureaucrats and Mayor John Fry) persisted in their hard line position. In a report on 6 October they continued to reject municipal involvement in the wartime day nursery program and even called into question the provinces involvement: It is really an integral part of running the war and as such should be administered solely by the Dominion Government in conjunction with the employers concerned in war works. The Commissioners also argued that any additional demand for day care could be accommodated by the Edmonton Creche and by a commercial centre, Edmonton College, which is caring for 85 children of mothers employed in essential industries, and has accommodation for 50 more. In response, City Council passed a motion on 12 October that concurred with the Commissioners' view that the City had no responsibility for supplying wartime day nurseries. At the same time, in opposition to the Commissioners position, the Council motion asserted that there was a need for such nurseries.⁽¹⁹⁾

If the provincial government only had lukewarm interest in wartime day nurseries, it could have used the City of Edmontons intransigence in the fall of 1943 as an excuse to mothball the program. Instead the province made a major funding concession that broke the impasse: it agreed to pay 25% of the gross operating costs of a day nursery, before parent fees. Since the federal government would pay 50% of the net costs, after parent fees, the municipality would only be responsible for the difference. At the 11 January 1944 meeting of city council, Alderman Ainlay estimated that the city would only have to pay $50 of the $1000 monthly operating expenses of a day nursery filled to capacity. The Commissioners were instructed to discuss the matter with the Premier and Minister Cross, and confirmed this estimate. However, they cautioned that there would be considerable start-up costs for a day nursery and concluded, Your Commissioners are still of the opinion that this is a matter entirely for the Dominion Government. This time Edmonton City Council rejected the Commissioners' position in total, and passed the following motion on 24 January: The establishment of a Day Nursery is desirable and [...] we authorize the Commissioners to appoint a member of this [Provincial Advisory] Committee with a report of the Committees conclusions to be brought back to Council. Council made a fateful error at that meeting in delegating the choice of Edmontons representative on the Advisory Committee to an administrative body that was unsympathetic to the project.⁽²⁰⁾

Meanwhile in Calgary, the Day Nursery Committee had placed newspaper advertisements in September, 1943 and again in November in order to establish that there was demand above the minimum of 20 children required under the terms of the Dominion-Provincial agreement. Working mothers were asked to call a telephone number to register their children. The November survey generated 79 registrants, of whom 43 had mothers who were currently working. Importantly, the City of Calgary did not express the same reservations as Edmonton about sharing in the funding of a day nursery, and the Mayor informed W.W. Cross that the Day Nursery Committee was prepared to administer a wartime day nursery. Indeed, a Calgary Day Nursery Provisional Board appeared on the scene no later than January, 1944.⁽²¹⁾

However, a different funding problem emerged in Calgary connected to the wartime economic boom: no space suitable for a day nursery was available for rent anywhere in the central part of the city. Fortunately an excellent house on a large lot was available for sale by an estate, and a purchase price had been negotiated. But the cost-sharing agreement clearly stipulated that the federal government would not contribute towards the costs of lands or buildings or to the costs of alterations "except upon the written approval of the Minister of Labour."⁽²²⁾

The Alberta government had signalled a strong desire to proceed with wartime day nurseries on 21 December 1943 when it increased its own funding commitment and concomitantly reduced what was expected from each municipality. This strong desire was confirmed in a letter from W.W. Cross to the federal Minister of Labour, Humphrey Mitchell, on 29 December 1943. After noting that the cost of the property in Calgary would be $9,000 and that another $2-3,000 in alterations could be expected, Cross unequivocally stated that "the Province is willing to participate in the cost of this structure," thus making clear that he would like the Dominion to participate.⁽²³⁾ He also demonstrated a pragmatic attitude towards which children would qualify for care under the cost-sharing agreement. The Calgary Committee's list of 37 employed mothers (with 43 children) who had registered for day nursery care was attached. Cross was not interested in applying his own definition of war industry to the list of mothers' occupations only in getting National Selective Service to apply its operational definition to occupations like teaching, nursing and railway coach cleaner so that he could be sure there was sufficient demand to trigger federal participation in the cost-sharing agreement.⁽²⁴⁾ The ball was now in the court of federal bureaucrats.

The Associate Director of NSS was immediately dispatched to Alberta. Fraudena Eaton met with the Calgary Day Nursery Committee on 9 January and with Dr. Cross on 12 January. She learned that although the City of Calgary had not made a definite commitment, "they are willing to consider sharing the cost of the purchase" of the Calgary property. The Albertans hoped that Mrs. Eaton's visit would bring the federal government on board for the purchase. During her stay, however, she gave them no reason to think this likely: "Remembering our refusal to purchase property in Ontario, I stated that I believed the Minister would be reluctant to enter upon any agreement to purchase property and urged a survey of other rental property or other arrangements for purchase."

For the federal Department of Labour, the wartime day nurseries program was strictly a means to increase the supply of married women at a time when there were widespread shortages of workers in industries deemed essential to the war effort. Fraudena Eaton was a consistent administrator of this policy, and at no time did she promote the establishment of day nurseries for any other reason. Her observations on the labour market in Calgary in January, 1944 are thus crucial to the eventual decision of the Minister of Labour on purchasing property in Calgary for a day nursery. Mrs Eaton did not believe there was a serious shortage of women workers in Calgary. "The employment situation for women in Calgary is fairly easy," she wrote, "and will probably continue this way at least until the agricultural work opens up and some girls go back to the farms." Her conclusion on the question of purchasing the property was, "I do not believe the emergency is so great or would extend over a sufficiently long period of time to warrant agreement to share in the cost of purchasing property."⁽²⁵⁾

This position was not formally conveyed to the Alberta government until a letter dated 10 March. That letter stated that the Department of Labour did not believe "the emergency of the need for the mothers to be employed" in Calgary was sufficient to justify the overhead cost.⁽²⁶⁾ Minister Cross would have received this letter just days before the membership of the Provincial Advisory Committee was set by an Executive Council order on March 17.⁽²⁷⁾ The federal government's unwillingness to assist with the purchase of a property in Calgary meant that the province was looking at a larger start-up cost than it had anticipated, and also sent the clear message that the establishment of a day nursery in Calgary was not viewed by the Dominion as being crucial to the war effort.

Whether the federal government's decision on this matter affected the final composition of the Advisory Committee is not known. Back in August of 1943, Dr. Cross had proposed a five-person Advisory Committee, with the province nominating two members (including the chair), Calgary and Edmonton one each, and National Selective Service the fifth member. The Committee appointed on March 17 had seven members, four of whom were nominated by the province. The key point is that three of Dr. Cross's nominees turned out to be quite unsympathetic towards the idea of establishing wartime day nurseries. Indeed, a letter to the Calgary Herald at the time noted that one of Minister Cross's nominees, "Mrs. Harold Riley, long associated with child welfare, is known to be opposed to Day Nurseries and had not attended any previous meeting on the subject." It may have been that the government stacked the Committee at the last minute in order to try to secure a negative recommendation.⁽²⁸⁾ It is also possible that the Social Credit government simply did not want to proceed unless the need for wartime day nurseries had been vetted by a committee that included those who represented the socially conservative philosophy of the members of its core constituency, given that keeping the core constituency happy was central to the Social Credit re-election strategy. In either case, W.W. Cross's nominations to the Advisory Committee ensured its work would not be a routine exercise of endorsing the thorough research conducted by the Calgary and Edmonton advocacy committees and accepting their recommendations in favour of wartime day nurseries in each city.

Why the Provincial Advisory Committee Made a Negative Recommendation

Only three of the members of the Provincial Advisory Committee were not nominated by Dr. Cross. The nominee of the City of Calgary was Alderman Hedley Chauncey. Calgary's nominee carried the authority of that city's elected council, and represented the council's favourable view towards the establishment of a wartime day nursery. Indeed, when Alderman Chauncey was unable to attend the second meeting of the Advisory Committee he was replaced by Mayor Andrew Davidson.

Unfortunately the elected council of the City of Edmonton did not demonstrate the same political acumen. They had delegated the choice of a representative on the Committee to the city commissioners who themselves opposed council's position in favour of Edmonton's participation. The commissioners immediately nominated Frank Drayton, Superintendent of the Children's Aid and Civic Relief Departments for the city. It is likely that the commissioners knew that this senior city employee was unsympathetic to the idea of day nurseries. Drayton worked closely with a provincial child welfare bureaucracy that was renowned for seizing children from parents who were unable to provide the means of subsistence, and quickly making those children available for adoption to families in Alberta, other provinces and the United States. This approach to child welfare minimized both relief and foster care costs to the province and municipality, although its inhumanity to low income parents, particularly single mothers, is chilling. Wartime day nurseries in Alberta would have been partially subsidized by the three levels of government and thus represented material support for working parents, many of whom were low income. Such a program of family support ran counter to the philosophy of the child welfare system that Drayton administered.⁽²⁹⁾

Like the City of Edmonton, NSS bungled their choice of a representative for the Advisory Committee. Marjorie Pardee was a member of the Edmonton Day Care Committee and the provincial commissioner of the Canadian Girl Guide Association. But even though Mrs. Pardee was firmly committed to the idea of wartime day nurseries, was well versed in the research that had been done to establish the need for such nurseries in Edmonton and was extremely conscientious, she lacked the knowledge and status to definitively convey how NSS administered the program. Pardee herself recognized her inadequate preparation for the job in a letter to Fraudena Eaton's assistant, Margaret Grier, on 28 March: "As I have received no instructions as to my duties as representative of Selective Service on the committee," she wrote, "I asked the Council of Social Agencies to let me see a copy of the agreement...."⁽³⁰⁾

The question where the NSS representative needed to act authoritatively concerned which women worked in "war industries" according to the Dominion-Provincial agreement. This matter was the subject of much discussion at the Advisory Committee's first meeting on 4 April 1944, with committee members offering conflicting interpretations. The NSS representative should have ruled this discussion out-of-order, pointed out that the operational definition of "war industries" had been established as priority A and B essential occupations, and asserted that the authority to make this determination rested strictly with a local NSS office. Minister Cross's letter to Humphrey Mitchell on 29 December 1943 had accepted the federal government's authority on this crucial matter, and the NSS representative should have insisted that the Advisory Committee do the same. Unfortunately Mrs. Pardee lacked the knowledge and political authority to do so. Her lack of knowledge also made her unable to detail how a NSS office participated in determining which children qualified for care in a wartime day nursery; this would have allayed some Committee members' fears that the nursery could be used by "mothers who merely wanted a place to park their children."⁽³¹⁾

The issue of eligibility was also debated at the Advisory Committee's second meeting on 26 April. The Committee again treated eligibility as being open to subjective interpretation rather than as a technical question. Their absurd modus operandi was to read out the name and occupation of women who had responded to a newspaper advertisement and have each Committee member decide "whether or not the applicant was eligible to use Day Nurseries for her children! The results of this varying from 8 to 19 according to the individual member's opinion."⁽³²⁾ What should have been a bureaucratic determination based upon labour market data was turned into a normative debate.

In addition to Maude Riley, Dr. Cross's nominees to the Provincial Advisory Committee were the Chair, Dr. Angus C. McGugan, superintendent of Edmonton's University Hospital; Harry Coombs, Supervisor of the Child Welfare Department in Calgary; and David Sullivan, a high school inspector in Edmonton. The non-voting secretary of the Committee was Alexander Miller, the secretary of the Bureau of Public Welfare in Edmonton, and hence a close associate of Dr. Cross. (Incidentally, W.W. Cross became the Minister of the newly created Department of Public Welfare on 30 March while maintaining the Minister of Health portfolio.⁽³³⁾) One of these nominees, Mr. Sullivan, turned out to be a consistent supporter of the establishment of wartime day nurseries. It is possible that his appointment was influenced by the Department of Education, which had signalled support for day nurseries in 1943. The other provincial nominees, however, were inclined against the idea. Marjorie Pardee took note of this at the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on 4 April and wrote to Mrs. Eaton that "the attitude of certain members of the Committee did not encourage me in hoping to see day nurseries established, though Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Chauncey and myself feel the need does exist."⁽³⁴⁾

The Advisory Committee made three telling decisions at its meeting in Edmonton on 4 April that suggested it was inept, crudely looking for a way to justify a negative recommendation, or most likely something of both. Firstly, it decided that the research completed by the Edmonton Day Care Committee and Calgary Day Nursery Committee in the previous fall and winter was "not of much help" because it was out of date.⁽³⁵⁾ Instead of using that past research as a baseline, and asking each advocacy Committee to take steps to update the baseline, the Provincial Advisory Committee secondly decided to embark on its own, independent survey of the need for wartime day nurseries. An independent study is not in itself a bad idea, although if conducted properly it would have been very time consuming. The Provincial Advisory Committee, however, decided to do a minimal-effort, quick study of the current need for day nurseries using the single method that had proven most problematic in past research: getting working women to commit to a sight-unseen day nursery by returning a coupon advertisement through the mail. The survey coupon itself was biased since it requested responses from women employed in "WAR INDUSTRIES" without indicating that the federal government's definition of war industries was much broader than munitions and armaments. The method of distributing the survey coupon was equally suspect, since it was simply printed in a major newspapers for a number of days running.⁽³⁶⁾ Thirdly, the Committee instructed its secretary to write letters "to the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia to secure information as to the reasons they had refused to participate in the agreement." This investigation fell outside of the Committee's mandate, as established by order-in-council 355/44, and it is therefore peculiar that the Committee pursued this course of action. It is likely that securing this information was a tactical move by the opponents of wartime day nurseries who were searching for ways to bolster their position.

There was a three-week gap between the first meeting of the Advisory Committee in Edmonton and its second meeting in Calgary. In that time both the Edmonton Day Care Committee and Calgary Day Nursery Committee were very active. The Edmonton advocates did not try to mobilize working mothers to reply to the Advisory Committee's newspaper advertisement, but instead initiated a major new systematic study. From experience they knew that a systematic study would provide more valid data. However, the opponents of wartime day nurseries on the Advisory Committee ignored the results of this new, systematic study and treated responses to the newspaper advertisement as the only relevant indicator of need. Since there were only eight replies from Edmonton mothers to the coupon advertisement, they concluded that there was insufficient demand to support a wartime day nursery in that city.

The systematic study was conducted between 18-22 April 1944 and built upon the findings of a study carried out in December 1943. In that earlier study, the Day Care Committee had distributed a survey form to all elementary school children covered by the Edmonton Public School Board. Of the 3,614 survey forms that were returned, 18.6% came from families with working mothers. These working mothers had 553 school-age children and 461 pre-schoolers. The survey assessed the need for out-of-school care and found: 78 mothers with 123 children requested before-school care; 205 mothers with 330 children requested lunchtime care; and 145 mothers with 250 children requested after-school care. The Day Care Committee regarded these as minimum figures since teachers reported that "a number of children whose mothers are working did not return forms."

Using the results of the December study, the Day Care Committee identified a 10-block area that had a high proportion of working mothers. Forty women volunteers from the Citizens' Volunteer Bureau conducted the April 1944 survey, with the time spent by each volunteer averaging four hours. This study effectively demonstrated the difficulties faced in any survey of working mothers. Despite repeated callbacks, some working mothers were never available for interviews. Other working mothers refused to be interviewed. The volunteer interviewers also found some children "who had no adult supervision" and "appalling conditions ... in some crowded houses where families with two or three children were living in one small room." The value of on-site investigations is demonstrated by these findings.

Nevertheless, the survey results were not as convincing as the Committee had probably hoped for. In the ten-block area, 16 mothers of 21 children said they would use a day nursery if it were close to their home. To supplement these numbers, 8 other working mothers known to the Committee but living elsewhere in Edmonton were contacted. Representing 10 children, they confirmed their desire for day nursery care. The Committee then got the Edmonton NSS office to check the occupations of the 24 working mothers; "all but 3 fell in either A or B priorities and would be eligible for day nursery care." The Committee also noted, "This survey covered less than a quarter of the area which could conveniently be served by one day nursery."⁽³⁷⁾

All of this hard work and the strong evidence of the need for at least one wartime day nursery in Edmonton were disregarded by the majority on the Provincial Advisory Committee. Indeed, the Advisory Committee did not even invite representatives of the Edmonton Day Care Committee to appear before it.⁽³⁸⁾

According to Marjorie Pardee, the Calgary Day Nursery Committee phoned working mothers on their lists and encouraged them to respond to the newspaper advertisement. As a consequence, there were 26 replies from Calgary, more than triple those from Edmonton but still not enough to secure a favourable recommendation from the Provincial Advisory Committee.⁽³⁹⁾

One of the interesting facets of my research on wartime day nurseries in Alberta is that nowhere in any archives have I found a document that opposes their establishment while there are documents from more than two dozen different groups and individuals that register support. However, a prominent opponent of the day nurseries program did address the Advisory Committee at its meeting in Calgary on 26 April, where she "waxed eloquent about the sanctity of the home" and made a submission that "was definitely unfavourable to the project." Rose Wilkinson represented the Catholic Women's League (CWL) of Calgary at the meeting. However, Mrs. Wilkinson was also a prominent member of the Social Credit movement; indeed she had just returned from Toronto, where she had been one of the Alberta delegates to the party's national convention. On 21 April 1944, Rose Wilkinson gave a report on that convention at a meeting of the Calgary constituency association of Social Credit; Premier Manning was the keynote speaker.⁽⁴⁰⁾ At the time Mrs. Wilkinson was also a city alderman, although she clearly disagreed with the majority on council on this issue. Significantly, she would soon enter provincial politics: she successfully ran as a Social Credit candidate in Calgary in the August 1944 provincial election and served continuously as a member of the legislature until her retirement in 1963. In 1944 Mrs. Wilkinson was one of only two members of that caucus from Calgary, and was one of the three female members of the legislature.⁽⁴¹⁾ Rose Wilkinson was, therefore, a very high profile opponent of wartime day nurseries who undoubtedly had the ear of Premier Manning and Minister Cross, and who had a number of kindred spirits on the Advisory Committee itself. Mrs. Wilkinson's affiliation with the CWL was certainly less significant in this matter than her affiliation with the inner circle of the Alberta Social Credit League. In fact, the position against day nurseries taken by the CWL of Calgary was contradicted by the support for wartime day nurseries expressed by the CWL of Edmonton, whose president had been a member of the Day Care Committee in that city.

Separate votes on the need for wartime day nurseries in Edmonton and Calgary were taken at the Advisory Committee meeting on 26 April. "The result in both cases was the same," wrote Marjorie Pardee to Fraudena Eaton. "Mayor Davidson, Mr. Sullivan and myself being of the opinion that a need existed for the establishment of Day Nurseries. The other three members voting no and the chairman casting the deciding vote against.⁽⁴²⁾ The majority on the Provincial Advisory Committee utilized questionable or irrelevant evidence to support a negative recommendation and deliberately ignored the strong evidence that one wartime day nursery was needed in Calgary, at least two were needed in Edmonton, and extensive out-of-school care programs were needed in Edmonton.

The anti-day-nursery majority on the Provincial Advisory Committee was not entirely Minister Crosss doing since Frank Drayton, representing the City of Edmonton, was part of this bloc. This suggests that there was some element of accident behind the negative recommendation that was forwarded to the Minister on 27 April. Something as simple as Mr. Drayton falling ill (as he did in June of that year) could have resulted in a different decision since, if City Council had become involved, Edmonton's replacement nominee would have been a supporter of wartime day nurseries. Furthermore, if the volunteer researchers in Edmonton between 18-22 April had spent their time attempting to get women workers with young children to fill out and return the newspaper advertisements, at least one of the four who voted against a wartime day nursery for Edmonton may have been convinced to vote in the affirmative. A likely candidate is Maude Riley, who by June of 1944 appeared to be having second thoughts about her negative vote on 26 April.⁽⁴³⁾ Therefore, it does not take too much imagination to see the vote in the Advisory Committee being 4-2 in favour, at least in regard to Edmonton where the need was incontestable, with Dr. McGugan not called upon to vote. That said, it soon became apparent that the provincial government was very comfortable with the negative recommendation and would seize the opportunity to end their plans to help finance wartime day nurseries.

Why the Cabinet Accepted the Advisory Committees Recommendation, and Ignored the Critics

The decision of the Provincial Advisory Committee was immediately greeted by a flood of opposition. Within a week, the two daily newspapers in Edmonton had each published two editorials which disputed the conclusion of the Advisory Committee. The Edmonton Bulletin was particularly disparaging of the decision. It noted the results of the systematic surveys conducted in December 1943 and April 1944 that were apparently ignored, and criticized the newspaper coupon questionnaire for being "vague and complicated and uninformative." The Bulletin expressed its contempt for the work of the Committee when it prefaced its remarks with expressions like "anyone who knows anything at all" and "thinking people".

The Edmonton Journal took a more constructive tone in its editorials, at one point praising W.W. Cross for showing "such a commendable desire to extend health and hospitalization services on a broad basis to the people of Alberta." Rather than belittle the Advisory Committee, the Journal simply argued that the Council of Social Agencies (CSS) was the authoritative body on welfare matters and the CSS's support for the establishment of wartime day nurseries in Edmonton carried more weight than the negative recommendation of the Advisory Committee.⁽⁴⁴⁾

In contrast, the two Calgary daily newspapers did not editorialize on this subject in the days immediately after April 27. Nevertheless, in the first ten days of May, 1944, Premier Manning received messages of protest from the Calgary Day Nursery Committee and the University Women's Club of Calgary to go along with similar messages from a number of Edmonton organizations: the Planning Board of the Citizens' Volunteer Bureau, the War Services Council, the Edmonton Council of Social Agencies, the Ladies Jay Cee Club, and the Women's University Club. Copies of the letters from the latter two groups were reprinted in the Bulletin, which also printed a letter from "a working mother" who testified as to the benefit her child received from attending a day nursery in Vancouver. The Journal published a story based upon the letters of the latter two groups.⁽⁴⁵⁾

W.W. Cross at first indicated that the provincial cabinet would decide whether to accept the Provincial Advisory Committee's recommendation at a meeting on 2 May. He was also quoted defending the recommendation in considerable detail, suggesting that he had not only been thoroughly briefed by Advisory Committee Secretary Alexander Miller but was in agreement with the logic of the Committee's majority decision. One line of argument used by Dr. Cross to defend the recommendation was the low number of children of qualified working mothers who had signed up for the wartime day nurseries, specifically four in Edmonton and 19 in Calgary. Secondly, Dr. Cross emphasized that this decision to reject wartime day nurseries was consistent with the decisions in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. He stated, "Vancouver turned down the plan flat, after making complete investigation."⁽⁴⁶⁾

The provincial cabinet did not make a final decision on this matter on 2 May, presumably because of the storm of protest that had followed the release of the Advisory Committee's recommendation. Instead the matter was put over to the following week for a decision by the Executive Council of senior cabinet ministers. On 9 May, Premier Manning issued a written statement that explained why the government had decided to accept the recommendation against establishing wartime day nurseries. The statement mainly reiterated the arguments that W.W. Cross had previously offered in defence of the recommendation. Indeed, the only new element in the statement was the assertion that the Advisory Committee had decided to conduct its own survey of the need for day nurseries because "the evidence and the viewpoints" contained in the materials submitted to it "were so conflicting and contradictory." Since previous reports on the 4 April meeting of the Provincial Advisory Committee had not mentioned this factor, and since the archival record is devoid of documents expressing opposition to wartime day nurseries, it is doubtful whether this element of Premier Manning's statement is accurate. Perhaps he was mixing up the sharp ideological conflict among Committee members with what appeared in the submissions.⁽⁴⁷⁾

The decision of the Executive Council sparked even more protest for the next several weeks. Both Edmonton papers editorialized against the decision on 10 May, as did the Calgary Herald on 26 May. The Edmonton Journal published its fourth editorial on the matter on 14 June, and was particularly insistent that Frank Drayton be censured for his failure to represent City Council's position on the matter. At about the same time, Edmonton City Council formally asked Minister Cross to reopen the question. Among the other groups who expressed support for wartime day nurseries were the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire (Junior Branch) of Edmonton, Local No. 1 (Edmonton) of the Amalgamated Building Workers of Canada, the Council for Canadian Unity of Edmonton, two different units of the Labour Progressive Party in Edmonton, the Stanley Jones Home and School Association in Calgary, the Edmonton Junior Chamber of Commerce, and the Soroptimist Club of Edmonton.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Throughout the spring of 1944 there was a shortage of women workers for essential occupations in both Edmonton and Calgary. For example, for the week ended 13 May 1944, there were 635 jobs available to women in Edmonton, more than double the number of women registered as out of work. In that same week, 33 women began work in meat packing plants. At the same time there were 513 jobs available for women in Calgary. By the middle of June the number of jobs available for women in Edmonton had climbed to 785, with most of the jobs in essential occupations. At the end of June the federal Minister of Trade and Commerce described the shortage of workers in Edmonton as being worse than anywhere else in the country.⁽⁴⁹⁾

The combination of an increasing number of married women in the paid labour force, a strong demand for even more married women, political pressure by prominent women's and social services organizations, and a looming provincial election led Premier Manning to announce on 17 July that wartime day nurseries would be reconsidered by the Executive Council "at the earliest possible date."⁽⁵⁰⁾

That same day, Calgary "clubwomen," in conjunction with the Calgary CSS, opened a demonstration day nursery for children between 3 and 5.5 years of age. Their hope was that government funding would become available so that the day nursery could be kept open past September. Operated in the James Short school, the day nursery struggled to build an enrollment; yet only 22 children were in attendance by mid-August. Apparently parents were unwilling to discontinue other care arrangements for an experiment that might well be ended on 15 September. Their caution was sensible since the clubwomen were forced to close the day nursery when no government money was forthcoming.⁽⁵¹⁾

Indeed, the Council of Social Agencies of Edmonton never found out whether the Executive Council ever reconsidered the issue of wartime day nurseries after 17 July 1944, and by the middle of October had concluded that "further agitation is probably useless."⁽⁵²⁾ The sweeping Social Credit electoral victory on 8 August, as well as successes on the European war front, had allowed the provincial government to quietly let the matter drop.

The Manning government of 1943-44 exhibited a considerable amount of pragmatism in its consideration of wartime day nurseries, even if at its philosophical heart was a social conservatism that celebrated the care of young children by mothers at home. That pragmatism covered gaining benefits from the Dominion government for Albertans, and building sufficient popular support to ensure the election of the Social Credit League to a third consecutive term. Consequently, it would have probably taken renewed federal interest in wartime day nurseries in Alberta, backed by a funding commitment towards purchase and renovation costs, to rekindle the interest in wartime day nurseries that the Manning government had shown between August 1943 and March 1944. Even then, it might also have taken much stronger political opposition than was mounted by the C.C.F. and the Independents in the 1944 provincial election campaign. It is very significant that Premier Manning and Minister Cross had not been swayed by the withering criticisms of the Provincial Advisory Committee's flawed methodology and logic. These criticisms had been voiced by many prominent organizations of middle class and elite women. This suggests that only compelling practical advantages could have led the Manning government to consider reopening the matter; but such advantages never materialized during the latter half of 1944.

Accommodating and Challenging the Gender Order

Labour shortages, child neglect, juvenile delinquency and child development were the major issues put forward by advocates in Alberta to justify the establishment of wartime day nurseries. Importantly, women's rights were never cited. Nevertheless, there is evidence that women's freedom from the homemaker role was widely feared in Alberta society; despite advocates' efforts to dispel it, this fear was an important component of the belief system that rejected the establishment of wartime day nurseries.

Advocacy groups recognized that the principle of mothers looking after young children at home was contradicted by the care of young children in day nurseries. Some groups proclaimed allegiance to the principle and then explained why they also supported wartime day nurseries. For instance, the Catholic Women's League of Edmonton stated it believed that women's proper sphere is her own home and that her work as the mother of a family is her noblest career," then argued that day nurseries were necessary when "the mother of young children is forced by circumstances to become the breadwinner of the family."⁽⁵³⁾ The Edmonton Day Care Committee implied support for this principle when it asserted, "This Committee advocates the extension of day care of children only because our country is at war and women are called upon to meet a serious labour shortage."⁽⁵⁴⁾ And an editorial in the Edmonton Bulletin proclaimed its adherence to the view that "for children there is no substitute for homes," immediately adding: "But pretty and high-minded as this view may be, it still merely dodges the facts. Whether mothers should work or not, they still do work. They still have children who need day nursery attention."⁽⁵⁵⁾

Other advocates took an analytical approach to the contradiction. We are aware that the greatest opposition to opening a Day Nursery here is the belief in the principle that mothers of pre-school children should not be away from home," wrote the University Women's Club of Calgary. "The fact is that mothers of many children are already working. It is this existing condition rather than a theory with which we are concerned...."⁽⁵⁶⁾ The Calgary Day Nursery Committee offered a blunter dismissal of the relevance of normative principles to the current circumstances: Whether you think a womans place is in the home, that mothers of small children should not work, these principles do not enter this agreement at all. This is a Wartime Emergency measure.⁽⁵⁷⁾

1. 1... The meeting with Premier Manning is recorded in Enid McCalla, 1966, "Nursery Story, World War II." McCalla was a member of the Edmonton Committee in 1943-44 (City of Edmonton Archives [hereafter EA], MS 323, Class 2, File 27). Minister of Health W.W. Cross sent an unsigned copy of the agreement to the City of Edmonton on 31 August 1943 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7). Order-in-Council PC 6242, dated 20 July 1942, authorized "the Minister of Labour, on behalf of the Dominion to enter into an agreement with any province, in accordance with an attached draft, for the provision of day nurseries, creches and recreation centres for children." Ontario and Quebec had been involved in drafting the terms of PC 6242, and consequently signed agreements within two weeks. Other provinces were sent a copy of the draft agreement and invited to participate (Ruth Pierson, Theyre Still Women After All: The Second World War and Canadian Womanhood, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1986, p. 51). McCalla reported that the draft agreement was sent directly to Ernest Manning on 9 July 1942 and when no reply was received a follow-up inquiry was sent in March, 1943 ("Nursery Story, World War II".) The agreement between Alberta and the federal government was officially dated 7 September 1943 (see draft agreement on funding between the Province and the City of Edmonton, EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 8).

2. 2... Premier Manning's 9 May 1944 press release is found in Provincial Archives of Alberta [hereafter PAA], 69.289, File 882, as is the 27 April 1944 statement by the Provincial Advisory Committee. The press release was printed in the Edmonton Bulletin, 9 May 1944, p. 9, "Day Nursery Plan Now Is In Abeyance."

3. 3... For an analysis of this change in the orientation of the Social Credit League between 1940 and 1944, see Alvin Finkel, The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1989, chapter 4.

4. 4.. . In June of 1965 the Alberta government promised renovation and operating funds for Edmonton's Community Day Nursery in the ensuing fiscal year (letter from L.C. Halmrast, Minister of Public Welfare, to Edmonton Mayor V. Dantzer, 7 June 1965, EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 16).

5. 5... Both scholarly and popular histories of Alberta have tended to ignore these events. An example of the former is Finkels The Social Credit Phenomenon in Alberta while an example of the latter is Ted Byfield, ed., The War that United the Province, volume eight of Alberta in the 20^th Century: A Journalistic History of the Province, Edmonton, United Western Communications Ltd., 2000. Works on the history of day care in Canada have offered one or two sentences of description, without any sort of analysis. Examples are Pierson, Theyre Still Women After All, p. 51 and Patricia Vandebelt Schulz, Day Care in Canada: 1850-1962, in Kathleen Gallagher Ross, ed., Good Day Care: Fighting for It, Getting It, Keeping It, Toronto, The Womens Press, 1978, p. 150.

6. 6... Donna J. Alexander Zwicker, Alberta Women and World War Two, MA thesis, University of Calgary, 1985, pp. 71-75. Edmonton Journal, 4 July 1944, p. 4, "Population Gains and Losses." Alberta Bureau of Statistics, Alberta Facts and Figures, Edmonton, 1950, p. 36. The combined population of the two major cities in 1941 was 182,721 with Edmonton having about 4,000 more residents than Calgary (p. 39).

7. 7... Zwicker, Alberta Women and World War Two, pp. 77-88. Calgary Albertan 11 May 1944, p. 9, "More Women Getting Jobs." F.D. Sutcliffe, secretary of GWG to Council of Social Agencies, 21 September 1942 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7). Pierson notes that independent of the Dominion-Provincial agreement, some companies, such as the Canada Rubber Company in Galt, Ontario, built and operated day nurseries near their factories (Theyre Still Women After All, p. 52).

8. 8... Zwicker, Alberta Women and World War Two, p. 69 and p. 78. Calgary Albertan 11 May 1944, p. 9, "More Women Getting Jobs."

9. 9... Submission of the Calgary Day Nursery Committee to the Provincial Day Nursery Advisory Committee, April 1944 (National Archives of Canada [hereafter NAC], RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

10. 10... "Information re. need of day care for children in Edmonton," presented by the Day Care Committee of the Edmonton Council of Social Agencies to the Provincial Advisory Committee, April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

11. 11... Jessie Stewart to Eaton, 30 June 1943 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

12. 12... "Setting up of Day Care Units in Other Provinces," memo from Eaton to Mr. A. MacNamara (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 609, File 6-52-1 pt. 1). Submission of the Calgary Day Nursery Committee (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

13. 13... EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7.

14. 14... Leslie Bella, The Origins of Albertas Preventive Social Service Program, Edmonton, Department of Recreation Administration, University of Alberta, 1978.

15. 15... Thoughts on Alberta Election. Reprinted from the Lethbridge Herald in the Edmonton Journal 28 June 1944, p. 4.

16. 16... F. Eaton, 18 January 1944, Report - Day Nursery Situation, Calgary, Alta. (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 60, File 6-52-2, Vol. 3).

17. 17... Cross or his nominee was to serve as the committees chair (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7).

18. 18... Letter of 9 September 1943 from Deputy Mayor Ainlay to W.W. Cross (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7).

19. 19... Commissioners Report to Finance Committee, 6 October 1943; Finance Committee Report no. 14, section 1 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7).

20. 20... Information re. need of day care for children in Edmonton (NAC RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9). Memo submitted to Edmonton City Council by Alderman Ainlay, 10 January 1944; Commrs. Report No. 4, Section 4, Day Nurseries, including council decision of 24 January 1944 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 8).

21. 21... "Submission of the Calgary Day Nursery Committee" and Letter from Adelaide Hobson to Eaton, 13 January 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9). Letter from W.W. Cross to Humphrey Mitchell, 29 December 1943 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 610, File 6-52-2, Vol. 3).

22. 22... Letter from Hobson (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9). Memorandum of Agreement (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7).

23. 23... NAC, RG 27, Vol. 610, File 6-52-2, Vol. 3.

24. 24... The definition of "war industry" in the cost-sharing agreement was very broad, but the term "war industry" itself suggested a narrow focus on the munitions and armaments industries. Beginning in 1943, "war industry" was defined according to the manpower priority classification system that had been established on a nationwide basis in 1942 and was being continually updated by the Department of Labour based upon reports by employers. Specifically, a mother was classified as working in a war industry if either the industry in which she worked or the firm where she was employed had a priority A (very highly essential) or B (highly essential) rating for women workers (Letter from Humphrey Mitchell to the Chair of the Toronto Board of Education, 18 May 1943, NAC, RG 27, Vol. 610, File 6-52-2, Vol. 1; Michael D. Stevenson, Canadas Greatest Wartime Muddle: National Selective Service and the Mobilization of Human Resources during World War II, Montreal & Kingston, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001, pp. 28-29).

25. 25... Eaton, "Report -- Day Nursery Situation, Calgary, Alta." (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 610, File 6-52-2, Vol. 3).

26. 26... Letter from A. MacNamara to Dr. W.W. Cross, 10 March 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

27. 27... A copy of Provincial Order in Council 355/44 is found attached to a letter from Marjorie Pardee to Fraudena Eaton, 6 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

28. 28... "Why the Day Nursery Delay?" Letter from R.W.R., 14 April 1944, p. 4. Maude Riley had been the president of the Calgary Council of Child Welfare since the 1920s and had been actively involved in the Canadian Welfare Council. Despite her opposition to the establishment of day nurseries in 1944, she was no lackey for the Social Credit government: she supported Charlotte Whittons critical views on Alberta's child welfare practices (P.T. Rooke, and R.L. Schnell, No Bleeding Heart: Charlotte Whitton, A Feminist on the Right, Vancouver, UBC Press, 1987, p. 128). Riley's nomination to the Provincial Advisory Committee in 1944 is perhaps the best indication that W.W. Cross chose to stack the Advisory Committee with negative votes. Furthermore, there is evidence that Minister Cross's list of nominees was fluid until the last moment. In March, 1944, the only elected woman member of the Alberta legislature, Mrs. C.R. Wood, told the NSS nominee to the Advisory Committee that Dr. Cross had asked her to be on the Committee (Pardee letter to Grier, 29 March 1944, NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9). Mrs. Wood did not end up on the Committee.

29. 29... Receipt of Drayton's nomination is recorded in a letter from W.W. Cross to Mayor John Fry, 7 February 1944 (EA, RB 11, Class 32, File 8). The practice of seizing children from single mothers was outlined and critiqued by the Calgary Children's Aid Department in a brief to the 1947-48 Judicial Commission of Inquiry (Patricia T. Rooke and R.L. Schnell, "Charlotte Whitton and the 'Babies for Export' Controversy 1947-48," Alberta History 30(1), 1982, p. 14).

30. 30... NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 5-52-9.

31. 31... Pardee to Eaton, 6 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

32. 32... Pardee to Eaton, 27 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

33. 33... Edmonton Bulletin, 30 March 1944, p. 9, "New Portfolio Taken Over by Dr. W.W. Cross."

34. 34... 6 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

35. 35... This quote is from Frank Drayton's report to Edmonton's City Commissioners, 6 April 1944 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 9).

36. 36... For instance, the advertisement ran continuously in the Calgary Albertan between April 18 and 24. It read, MOTHERS employed in WAR INDUSTRIES, who will undertake to place their children under the age of SIX years in DAY NURSERIES if such were in operation, are requested to fill in the blank form below and mail it not later than 22^nd April, 1944 to The Secretary, Advisory Committee on Day Nurseries, 134 Administration Building, Edmonton, Alta. Interestingly, the advertisement ran on Monday 24 April (p. 8) even though the deadline for mailing in the form had passed. An identical version of the advertisement ran on 25 April in the Calgary Herald (p. 2), three days after the stated deadline for mailing. The failure to ensure that the content of the advertisement was consistent with its appearance dates in the newspapers is a small indication of the ineptness of the Provincial Advisory Committee.

37. 37... "Information re. need of day care for children in Edmonton" (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

38. 38... Information regarding the Wartime Day Nursery Situation in Edmonton. Presented to the City Council of Edmonton by the Day Care Committee of the Edmonton Council of Social Agencies, 12 June 1944 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 9).

39. 39... Pardee to Eaton, 27 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

40. 40... The Calgary Albertan 24 April 1944, p. 2, Albertans Unequalled.

41. 41... Kenneth A. Wark, A Report on Alberta Elections 1905-1982, Edmonton, 1983.

42. 42... 27 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

43. 43... After learning of Draytons illness, Edmonton City Council appointed a supporter of wartime day nurseries, Alderman Mitchell, to take Draytons place should the Provincial Advisory Committee reconvene. Mrs. Rileys second thoughts were conveyed at a Calgary meeting and reported second hand to Pardee. Pardee to Grier, 16 June 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

44. 44... Edmonton Bulletin 29 April 1944, p. 4, "Day Nurseries;" 4 May 1944, p. 4, "Day Nurseries." Edmonton Journal 1 May 1944, p. 4, "Some Day Nursery Questions;" 2 May 1944, p. 4, "For All Working Mothers."

45. 45... Edmonton Bulletin 6 May 1944, p. 4, "Day Nurseries" letter from "A Working Mother;" 8 May 1944, p. 4, "Delinquency" letter from Ladies Jay Cee Club and "Asks Action" letter from University Women's Club. Edmonton Journal 6 May 1944, p. 11, "Two Organizations Protest Decision Against Nurseries."

46. 46... Edmonton Bulletin 1 May 1944, p. 11, "Day Nursery Report To Be Under Review."

47. 47... PAA, 69.289, File 882. Compare to reports on the 4 April meeting written by Frank Drayton (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 9) and Marjorie Pardee (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

48. 48... Letter from Mayor Fry to Minister Cross, 27 June 1944, quoting a city council resolution from 12 June (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 9). Copies of letters from many groups are found in this file, and in PAA, 69.289, File 882.

49. 49... Edmonton Journal 13 May 1944, p. 11, "3,088 Jobs Open At End of Week;" 20 June 1944, p. 9, "Need 2,735 Men For Work in City;" 27 June 1944, p. 9, "Labor Lack Here 'Worst in Canada'." Calgary Albertan 11 May 1944, p. 9, "More Women Getting Jobs."

50. 50... Hazeldine Bishop to Grier, 13 October 1944 (R.G. 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

51. 51... Mary Livesay to M. Shannon, 16 August 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9.) Calgary Herald, 6 July 1944, Community Nursery to Assist Mothers.

52. 52... Bishop to Grier (NAC, RG 27, Vol 611, File 6-52-9).

53. 53... Letter to A. Miller, 22 April 1944 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 9).

54. 54... Brief to be Submitted to City Council, Committee on Day Care for Children of Working Mothers, 24 September 1943 (EA, RG 11, Class 32, File 7).

55. 55... Edmonton Bulletin 10 May 1944, p. 4, "Still Unsatisfactory."

56. 56... Letter to Premier Manning, 5 May 1944 (PAA, 69.289, File 882).

57. 57... Submission of Calgary Day Nursery Committee to the Provincial Day Nursery Advisory Committee (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

58. 58... The Calgary Day Nursery Committee offered a particularly thoughtful labour-market analysis: "It so happens that the most desired group to draw back into industry is the young marrieds, usually young mothers. They are trained in present day business methods, business experiences are fresh and they have good health." (Submission to the Provincial Day Nursery Advisory Committee, NAC RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9.)

59. 59... Edmonton Bulletin 8 April 1944, p. 24, "Dr. W.E. Blatz Gives Talk on Child Problems." Calgary Albertan 18 April 1944, p. 5, "Claims Nursery Schools Greatest Invention of Age." Background on Dr. Blatz and the Institute can be found in Donna Varga, Constructing the Child: A History of Canadian Day Care, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1997, pp. 39-78

60. 60... Soroptimist's letter, 16 May 1944 (PAA, 69.289, File 882). Calgary Herald 11 May 1944, p. 4, "Value of Nursery Schools," by Ida M. Anderberg; 26 May 1944, p. 4, "Day Nurseries Are Much Needed in Calgary."

61. 61... Pardee to Eaton, 6 April 1944 (NAC, RG 27, Vol. 611, File 6-52-9).

62. 62... Edmonton Bulletin 3 May 1944, p. 10. This Dix column dealt with young mothers who shopped and went to the movies when they found someone to look after their kids. The headline writer, however, provided a different moral message in the subtitle: "A Woman Has No Right to Leave Tiny Children With Grandparents, Neighbours or Friends While She Goes Off to Work."

63. 63... Edmonton Journal 21 June 1944, p. 10, Council Deprecates Discrimination Against Employment of Wives.

64. 64... 19 June 1944, p. 4, Canadian Women May Demand a New Deal.