Mount Royal University

“I just have enough here to get by”: Motherhood, poverty, and the family economy in Postwar
British Columbia1

Renee Leitch

Supervised by Dr. Heather Nelson and Dr. Kirk Niergarth

April 21st, 2025

1

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 10, 1965, McCrae Letters, Private
Collection.

1

Table of Contents

Introduction

2

Chapter 1: The Social World of Jacklyn McCrae

18

Chapter 2: The Economic World of Jacklyn McCrae

50

Conclusion

74

Bibliography

79

Copyright & Licensing
This work is completed in its entirety by Renee Leitch. All rights reserved.
Institutional Repository Statement
This undergraduate thesis is deposited in the Mount Royal University Institutional Repository for long-term access and
preservation. It is made available under the terms of the author’s chosen license and is subject to institutional repository policies.

2
Introduction
I first learned of my great grandmother Jacklyn McCrae’s letters two years ago. I had
known about the hardships my grandmother and her siblings had faced after the death of their
mother but had no knowledge of the life they had lived before her passing. My aunt, who visits
family in Terrace regularly brought the letters to me after I had expressed my interest in learning
more about our family history. The letters tell the story of a hard life: McCrae often struggled
with poverty, poor health, and difficult relationships with men while trying to care for her
children. Even through her many struggles, McCrae’s letters also reveal the life of a hardworking
woman who used every tool available to her for her family-and whose deep care for her children
shows decades later, even through great poverty and struggle.
The letters from McCrae provide insight into working class life in small town British
Columbia from 1955 to 1966 and, particularly, about the experience of a woman whose life was
both ordinary and unusual. Ordinary in the sense that to make ends meet, she drew upon a
variety of strategies of household economy that had been employed by Canadian women for
generations. She also had some of the advantages of state support that were relatively new in the
postwar era. Yet, McCrae was also not typical because she lived outside the social norm of her
time. She left her husband due to his alcoholism, but without a legal divorce, lived with a man to
whom she was not legally married, and had children with two different fathers. She was
decidedly outside the traditional nuclear family model that was idealized in North America
during the postwar years.
Born in 1938, Jacklyn McCrae was raised in Northern BC on the Queen Charlotte
Islands, and she would later spend time living in Quesnel and Terrace [see Figure 1]. She
married Vincent Shannon in 1955, and had four children – Kathleen, Donna, Darlene and Joey.

3
When she left Shannon in 1961, she was only able to take custody of her daughters while
Shannon retained custody of her son Joey. She took her three daughters to Quesnel, British
Columbia, where she eventually began a relationship with Roy Ridler. During her relationship
with Mr. Ridler, she had two additional children, Christine and Robin. They moved from
Quesnel to Terrace in June 1965, where they remained until McCrae’s death in October of 1966
at the age of 28.
McCrae died by overdose in her home on October 16th, 1966. Her eldest daughter Kathy
was the one who discovered her. The exact circumstances around her overdose are unclear, but it
is a common belief in the family that her death was suicide via overdose. My own mother, who
was named Jacquelyn after her, grew up being told that McCrae committed suicide because of
her circumstances. Regardless, McCrae’s death had immeasurable consequences for her children.
She was deceased in the home for a period of hours with her children before she was discovered
by an adult and the children were removed. After their removal, all of the children were put into
foster care, with her three oldest children by Shannon remaining together, while her daughter
with Ridler, Christine, was placed in a separate foster home, and her youngest son Robin was
adopted. When the children were placed in care, they were not permitted to bring any of their
belongings from home, or to have contact with their siblings in separate care homes. Overnight,
her children lost their home, their mother, their belongings, and for Christine and Robin, their
siblings. McCrae’s aunt Alice, who received the letters she had written was an important person
for McCrae’s children even after her death. While she herself did not get custody of the children,
she had contact with them as they got older. Some letters between McCrae’s eldest daughter
Kathy and Alice occurred after McCrae’s death. She eventually passed the letters to McCrae’s
children, which she had kept for years if not decades.

4
While McCrae’s experiences occur in a period with a growing welfare state, the support
available to her through family allowance and social welfare programs was not sufficient and
often left her to find means and support informally. McCrae relied on many methods: the wages
of a male breadwinner, taking in boarders, babysitting for pay, moving, support from family and
friends both financial and other, formal loans and from family, buying on credit, and delaying
purchases. These strategies were in many ways consistent with long-standing patterns adopted by
poor and working-class families in Canada but were adapted to the postwar era.
The methodology used to analyze McCrae’s letters will be similar to that of Bonnie
Huskins and Michael Boudreau’s Just the Usual Work. This book examines the diary entries of
Ida Martin, a working-class woman from St. John, New Brunswick. Ida Martin made daily diary
entries for decades, from 1945-1992, and these entries often detail the daily life of the writer.
McCrae’s letters span an eleven-year period, and much like the diary entries of Ida Martin, speak
about her everyday experiences as a working-class woman. One of the methodological tools
employed by Boudreau and Huskins is the close literary analysis of women’s life writing. 2 The
writing style of the author, such as handwriting, underlining, or punctuation, can give further
insight.3 It is also important what remains unwritten. In the case of Ida Martin, she rarely wrote
directly about sexuality or alcoholism. Boudreau and Huskins identify the use of “bad” as coded
language to describe her husband’s drinking.4 Like the diaries of Ida Martin, Jacklyn McCrae’s
letters were written to be read by the family, specifically her aunt. Therefore, using this

2

Michael Boudreau and Bonnie Huskins, Just the Usual Work: The Social Worlds of Ida
Martin, Working-Class Diarist, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021, pg. 9.
3

Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 21.

4

Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 17.

5
methodology and examining coded language is especially important. When life writing was
written to family, negative experiences are often written about in nuanced ways. For McCrae, her
relationship struggles were often written in a way that downplayed the severity, likely to prevent
Alice from worrying about her niece.
Boudreau and Huskins demonstrate the ways in which history can be written
appropriately by those who have a personal connection to the historical subject. Huskins has a
personal connection to Ida Martin much like I do to McCrae, as Ida Martin was her grandmother.
While many traditional historical narratives require a distanced approach to writing history,
Huskins and Boudreau identify the strengths of writing a historical analysis with a personal
connection. They explain how it puts bias at the forefront. Personal history is described as a form
of feminist analysis, which uses emotional attachment as a tool to encourage “insightful readings
that emotional attachment brings by an attention to theorization.”5 Rather than traditional
methods of historical analysis which call for a distant emotionless approach to history, the
feminist approach described by Huskins and Boudreau encourages a full acknowledgement of
bias in historical study.
Boudreau and Huskins characterize this methodology of historical writing as “a case of
‘vulnerable writing’ where one is more exposed by showing the personal.”6 This methodology
aims to recognize and acknowledge the bias of a historian rather than minimize it altogether.
Making personal bias the forefront of a historical study encourages transparency. Rosalind Kerr
writes of her grandmother’s letters in Working in Women’s Archives and argues that vulnerable

5

Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 22.

6

Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 22.

6
writing is “discouraged by traditional scholarship, which idealizes an ‘objectivity’ that hides
unacknowledged assumptions and biases.”7 Instead, personal writing encourages a direct
acknowledgment of bias.
Life writing, such as McCrae and Kerr’s letters or Martin’s diary entries, were a common
form of women’s writing in the 20th century. Since examining the lives of working-class women
must be done with unpublished writing of a kind that is rarely collected by archives, like
McCrae’s letters, there is limited source material available. The experiences of working-class
families and women were not perceived to be of great historical significance in many cases. Like
Ida Martin’s diaries, McCrae’s preserved letters are significant, as Bettina Bradbury explains,
since “few working-class women … appear to have kept diaries and few letters or other writing
by such women have been preserved in archives.”8 Other historians have handled this challenge
in different ways. My study of McCrae’s letters attempts to use a type of source that is rarely
preserved to identify the experiences of working-class women. In the case of documents such as
McCrae’s letters, their survival was contingent on descendants valuing them enough to preserve
them. Often families are the only ones who care enough to keep sources of this kind, like how
mine kept these letters. If preserved, however, the life writing of working-class women
introduces the historian into the experiences of a group of people that would otherwise be
voiceless.
This thesis aims to contextualize Jacklyn McCrae’s letters within a larger framework of
women’s working-class experience. The household economy, which determined how women

7

As quoted in Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 22.

8

Bettina Bradbury, as quoted in Boudreau and Huskins, Just the Usual Work, 5.

7
managed formal and informal income in order to, as Baillargeon puts it, “make do.” Her study
examines the experiences of impoverished women, and their household economy. Baillargeon
identifies the methods used by working-class women to provide for their children when the
man’s income was insufficient to do so with the women taking on boarders, relying on their
families, doing informal work, and receiving social welfare support to manage the household
economy.
Although McCrae’s experiences are thirty years later, the methods used by working class
families, even with the changing welfare state, largely remained the same. While the women
Baillargeon interviewed did not work formally, the domestic work they did in the household
nevertheless had economic value and was essential to their families’ survival.9 The money these
women earned through their informal work was used for household needs, rather than just for the
woman herself.10 These necessities often included paying the rent, groceries and the children’s
clothing.11 Baillargeon examines the experiences of working class families, which were
particularly stressed by the Depression since “the majority of them were already using all of their
resources and skills to get the most out of what they had” even before the Depression had hit.12
For the women she interviewed, housing boarders, especially relatives or friends, was a common
method to gain other income within the household in 1930s Montreal. Like McCrae, who housed

9

Denyse Baillargeon, Making Do: Women, Family and Home in Montreal during the
Great Depression, Translated by Yvonne M Klein (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
1999), 98.
10

Baillargeon, Making Do, 101.

11

Baillargeon, Making Do, 101.

12

Baillargeon, Making Do, 135.

8
her common law husband’s brother, in some cases boarders were friends or family.13 One
potential reason was because they would accept living conditions others would not.14 Similarly,
in industrializing Montreal, housing boarders was a common practice that gave women
additional income they would not have otherwise. This was especially common when women
had young children.15 Bettina Bradbury also points to this strategy, noting it was most common
during difficult periods.16 She also calls attention to how wives would seek informal paid work
when the male breadwinner’s income would not support their needs. Domestic work, or
‘women’s work’ could be turned into a source of income when needed.17 Likewise, McCrae
often babysat for her friends and neighbours, which provided her with a source of income.
The expectation that the wife managed the family economy was common in workingclass families and this continued into the development of the welfare state. Working class wives
like McCrae were expected to handle the income of the male breadwinner. One of the largest
tasks for these women, which remained through to McCrae’s time, was the management of the
household economy, which required “the transformation of those wages into daily survival.”18

13

Baillargeon, Making Do, 97.

14

Baillargeon, Making Do, 97.

15

Bradbury, Working Families, 178.

16

Bradbury, Working Families, 178.

17

Bettina Bradbury, Working Families: Age, Gender, and Daily Survival in
Industrializing Montreal (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 164.
18

Bradbury, Working Families, 153.

9
Women had little control over the amount of income brought in by the male breadwinner, both
because of the work the man could find, and how much of his income was available to the wife.19
In B.C specifically, Margaret Hillyard Little examines space for women in welfare in
“Claiming A Unique Space: The Introduction of Mothers’ Pensions in B.C.”20 The development
of the Mothers’ Pension in British Columbia, as explained by Little, “reveals a distinct notion of
citizenship. During the lobby effort, advocates embraced a rights-based discourse, claiming that
single mothers were able to make this claim to entitlement,” unlike single mothers in other
provinces.21 While Little’s examination of Mothers’ Pension took place in the 1920s, her
analysis examines women’s unique relationship to the state, which continued to be influential for
McCrae. One of the driving forces of the lobbying for Mothers’ Pensions in British Columbia
was how wealthy women’s identities were increasingly focused on their role as a mother.22
These wealthy women aimed to act as ‘experts’ and promote their idea of the ideal family;
husband as a male breadwinner, while the wife and children remained at home.23 As Little
explains, wealthy women aimed “to extend this ideology even to poor single mothers, by
allowing them to remain in the home to care for their children.”24 This was made possible due to
the “concern of the many women’s organizations who played a central role in lobbying for
19

Bradbury, Working Families, 107 and 153.

20

Margaret Hillyard Little, “Claiming a Unique Place: The Introduction of Mothers’
Pensions in B.C.,” In Child and Family Welfare in British Columbia, eds. Christopher Walmsley,
and Diane Purvey (Detselig Enterprises, 2005).
21

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 328.

22

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 331.

23

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 331.

24

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 331.

10
Mothers’ Pensions,” which likely explained why British Columbia was uniquely positioned in
the social welfare system.25
The inclusion of single mothers was not the only factor that made British Columbia
unique. Rather than a Mothers’ Allowance that Ontario and other provinces had, the Mothers’
Pension in B.C. was seen as comparable to workers compensation or old age pensions, which
were understood to be paid in recognition of services and work by the recipient.26 While B.C’s
Mothers’ Pension was “more generous than most Mothers’ Pensions policies they still remained
inadequate.”.27 For example, the Veterans allowance was $55 a month, whereas the Mothers’
pension was $35. The $20 was a significant deduction in benefits and goes to demonstrate just
how inadequate the benefit was. It also suggests, perhaps, that entitlement to benefits was
influenced by a multitude of factors. The space for single mothers in the welfare state as
established by Little are reflected within the experiences of McCrae in the later decades.
Similarly, Little’s No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit examines the development of the
welfare state in Ontario through the passing of Ontario Mothers’ Allowance policy. Little’s
analysis suggests that development of the OMA was centered as a “joint public-private welfare
venture” designed to “distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor.”28 Development
of this social welfare program acted as a tool to reinforce morality and traditional gender roles
for men and women, by keeping women in the home while the man acted as the breadwinner.

25

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 331.

26

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 335.

27

Little, Claiming a Unique Place, 337.

28

Margaret Hillyard Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit : The Moral Regulation
of Single Mothers in Ontario, 1920-1997, (Toronto ; Oxford University Press), 1998, 2.

11
Formation of the Ontario Mothers’ Allowance was created within the context of a maternalist
ideology that idealized domesticity.29 However, support for Mothers’ Allowance was only grants
so far as it continued to conform to existing gender roles. One of the persistent arguments in
support of Mothers’ Allowances was that they would reinforce existing roles for women. One
such example was how lobbyists endorsed legislation for Mothers’ allowances while “rejecting
other policies such as childcare; thus did not support policies that would have dramatically
altered gender relations.”30 Unmarried mothers were especially susceptible to scrutiny. In the
postwar period, Little argues that morality for single mothers was commonly judged within the
context of her sexual behaviour.31 Single mothers and deserted wives especially faced challenges
when attempting to receive benefits.32 Fears of increasing family breakdown and movement
away from the nuclear family model were considered especially concerning.33
Understanding the importance of the development of the Canadian welfare state after the
Second World War is also essential in identifying how McCrae’s family economy functioned.
During this period, Raymond Blake explains, welfare policies, such as the family allowance,
were understood as a right for Canadians. While welfare policies did provide some support to
low-income families, the complex political and economic climate often played a large role in the
formation of welfare policies.34 In post Second World War Canada, state funded welfare

33

29

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 26.

30

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 26.

31

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit,130.

32

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit,130.

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 130.
34

Raymond B. Blake, From Rights to Needs: A History of Family Allowances in
Canada, 1929-92, (Vancouver, UBC Press, 2009), pg. 3.

12
programs often worked to supplement the wages of men in an effort to encourage a nuclear
family.35The family allowance, for example, supplemented the wages of the male breadwinner
and made it unnecessary for women to work in some cases. The nuclear family model worked to
encourage women to stay in the home, while the man was the breadwinner. However, when the
male breadwinner was insufficient, which was often the case for McCrae, the state instead
became the breadwinner in some ways. By providing enough financial support to keep women in
the home, the state in turn took on the paternal role for McCrae when Ridler did not. This was
especially important in the years directly following the war, as women leaving the workforce
would improve employment for returning veterans. These social conditions led to the
introduction of the family allowance program in 1945, as its universal payment made public
discontent less likely36. Since the benefit went to all parents of underage children, it was believed
that parents would support the policy, rather than a needs based program, which would only
provide support for those who needed it most.
Rather than providing enough money to support children, the benefit was created to
supplement the wages of a male breadwinner so that other income would not be needed.37
Raymond Blake examines how the driving forces of the family allowance focused more on
nation unity than benefitting low-income families.38 Unlike before, where any social support was

35

Alvin Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada: A History, (Waterloo: Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 2006), pg. 8.
36

Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 131.

37

Blake, From Rights to Needs, 111-112.

38

Blake, From Rights to Needs, 10.

13
decided by each individual province. The family allowance was a universal payment that was
distributed to all parents regardless of income. Since all families were paid the benefit, rather
than just low-income families, family allowances were more acceptable to elites and the middle
class than targeted programs might have been and, because of their universality, could foster
national unity after the divisions that had emerged during the war. This is because the family
allowance was a national social welfare program, aimed at interprovincial cohesion.
Alvin Finkel similarly examines the distribution of wealth and power through the
development of social programs in Canada. Finkel argues that by providing the needed additional
support for children, the family allowance helped prevent wage increases for men while keeping
married women in the home.39 The limitations of the role of the state in providing childcare is
shown both in the works of Finkel and Pasolli. Childcare was understood as the responsibility of
the nuclear family, not of the state.40 Additionally, encouraging greater numbers of women to
return home after the Second World War ended would reduce any need for childcare.41 Pasolli
argues that previous scholarship had shown “that the citizenship rights associated with earning
have largely been reserved for male breadwinners.”42Instead, Pasolli finds that much of the
scrutiny and judgement around mothers working were formed through classed and racialized
social norms for women.43 Childcare politics, as examined by Pasolli largely reflect constructed

39

Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 8.

40

Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 194.

41

Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 143.

42

Lisa Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Child Care Dilemma: A History of British
Columbia’s Social Policy, (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2015). ProQuest Ebook Central, 8,
https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774829250.
43

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Childcare Dilemma, 5.

14
social roles for women, which associated women working outside the home as a symbol of
family breakdown.44 Pasolli contextualizes B.C.’s childcare policy within the concept of social
citizenship, which was defined as a right to an equal earning capacity within this context.45
Pasolli argues that to have achieved equal social citizenship for mothers, they “must include
social programs to ensure that women’s roles as mothers and caregivers do not hinder their
equality in the labour force.”46 Within the context of McCrae’s experiences, Pasolli’s analysis
claims “the feminization of poverty and the particular trials of poor mothers helped to establish
childcare’s association with other welfare initiatives.”47 Like welfare support, childcare was
understood within a paternalistic ideal that promoted women’s place within the home.
Like Pasolli, Christie suggests that welfare policy in the first half of the twentieth century
was developed as a response to fears of family breakdown.48 Increasing rates of divorce and
women working outside the home was seen as family breakdown, and it was believed that these
needed to be fixed. Social policy which aimed to enforce traditional gender roles were created
with the intention to keep women married and in the home. Christie identifies one of the main
characteristics of postwar power dynamics as paternalism and argues that the construction of the
welfare state was based on men’s right to work rather than the rights of women. Women’s rights

44

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Childcare Dilemma, 6.

45

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Childcare Dilemma, 10.

46

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Childcare Dilemma, 10.

47

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Childcare Dilemma, 108.

48

Nancy Christie, Engendering the state: family, work, and welfare in Canada (1st ed.),
University of Toronto Press, 2000, 4.

15
at the federal level were based on their role as a wife, rather than rights for themselves.49 The
postwar period marked a unique shift away from children and wives working to supplement
income, and instead idealized a single income from a male breadwinner.50 Instead, newly
developing welfare policy, as Christie argues, was the legacy of male work during the Great
Depression.51 The development of the welfare state through the second world war continued to
be influenced by “the notion that welfare was primarily a private and family responsibility.”52
These two sources together identify a paternalistic formation of policy, which places the work of
men at the top of the hierarchy. In many cases, the role of the welfare state was to act as the
breadwinner when a family did not have one or where the income was insufficient.
In order to analyse the impacts of the developing social welfare state on working class
women, this analysis focuses on a collection of letters McCrae sent to her aunt Alice McCrae,
who lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands, between 1955 and McCrae’s death in 1966. 106 of
these letters were kept by Alice and passed onto Jacklyn’s children. A careful analysis of her
everyday life reveals how working-class women made ends meet for their children through a
variety of means. In addition to these letters, I have collected a series of newspaper and magazine
articles from the time to find other cases of working-class women managing the household
economy to make ends meet for their families.

49

Christie, Engendering the state: 253.

50

Christie, Engendering the State, 14.

51

Christie, Engendering the State, 6.

52

Christie, Engendering the State, 4.

16
McCrae’s letters will be mined in this thesis to reveal the social world she lived in –
including her kin and non-kin relationships –and her methods to make do within those
circumstances. McCrae’s social world was complicated by her relocations through the years. In
the period covered by her letters, McCrae moved five times, two of which moved her hundreds
of kilometres away from existing communities and support. Her access to community support
and family was affected by these moves. Nevertheless, McCrae was able to maintain a network
of relationships in these years and these relationships were key to her ability to manage the
family economy. She regularly sought and received the assistance of friends and family. She
borrowed the neighbours’ phone, was given money by her aunt, and was provided help moving
and with money by friends.
Deeply important to McCrae’s circumstances, both economic and social, were her
romantic/spousal relationships. Her marital status changed on four occasions covered by the
letters: she was initially married to Vincent Shannon; she was a single mother after she left him;
she became a common-law wife to Roy Ridler; and, after the breakdown of her relationship with
Ridler, she was a single mother until her death. These shifts need to be understood in the context
of laws and social acceptance of divorce and common-law marriages in this period and they
influenced her access to social welfare, shaped her decisions about where to live, and to some
extent the community of relationships she maintained. McCrae’s letters indicate that one of the
ways she managed the household income was to control the income made by Ridler, the father of
her youngest two children. Using the income of the male breadwinner, she juggled both the
formal money brought in through his paychecks, the state support they received, and took on
other tasks to ensure adequate finances, such as taking on boarders or babysitting for neighbours.

17
McCrae’s relationships to her children were fundamental to the functioning of her family
economy. Meeting the needs of her children, the letters suggest, was a constant focus for
McCrae and in its pursuit she endured many challenges. While caring for her children, McCrae
faced several health issues and illnesses. McCrae had a continuous struggle to access appropriate
health resources and living conditions. The health of McCrae and her children was a continuous
struggle, as illness prevented her from working even in the informal economy, while medications
placed an additional financial burden on her. For McCrae, state support, both through welfare
services and the family allowance, were an important piece in balancing the family economy.
State support was not sufficient to cover all of McCrae’s needs, but for a low income family, the
additional support would have been welcomed and was combined with other strategies to
provide for the family’s needs.
McCrae’s letters suggest that her main task was making ends meet. This involved, at
different times, managing the income of the male breadwinner, gifts and loans from family,
informal work, state support, and simply delaying her purchases. McCrae’s experiences as a
single mother of six exemplifies how postwar Canadian women managed the household
economy through formal and informal work, support from kin networks, state welfare, buying on
credit, and working-class mobility. McCrae’s experiences indicate that even increased state
support was not sufficient to support working class families. Rather, families like hers
incorporated welfare support into strategies for managing the household economy that had been
deployed by working class women for decades.

18
Chapter 1: The Social World of Jacklyn McCrae
The letters of Jacklyn McCrae paint a vivid portrait of life in the middle of the twentieth
century. The preserved letters McCrae wrote to her aunt Alice between 1955 and her death in
1966 reveal a web of social and familial connections that she built and drew upon as she and her
children navigated difficult economic circumstances.
McCrae did not move through her life alone in spite of moving multiple times. While we
cannot be certain that aunt Alice McCrae was Jacklyn’s primary confidant, the letters suggest
that Alice must have been a valuable source of emotional and personal support for Jacklyn since
the two women communicated consistently even when, from 1961-1966, they were living a
considerable distance apart. Born in January 1907, Alice Kathleen McCrae, was the older sister
of Jacklyn’s father, Jack McCrae, and lived much of her life in Port Clements, on the Queen
Charlotte Islands. Alice did not have any children of her own, but was a consistent supporter and
maternal figure for McCrae from 1955 to 1966. McCrae often looked to her for support, both
emotional and financial.
McCrae’s own mother did provide some support to McCrae, but it was rather inconsistent
and it appears to have only been financial. One such gift was a cheque for $160 for McCrae’s
dental work. The gift of her teeth was a significant benefit to McCrae, but contact with her
mother was not a common occurrence.53 When she had come to visit McCrae in February of
1965, McCrae’s children “didn’t take to Mom like [she] expected but not seeing her before and
for such a short time [she] sure didn’t blame them” for not warming up to her mother.54

53

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 16, 1965.

54

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 16, 1965.

19
McCrae’s mother had been “so nervous around them and they seem[ed] to sense” that.55 Both
McCrae and her children’s lack of comfort around her mother indicates that while she provided
an essential financial gift to McCrae, her support, or even visits to her daughter were so
inconsistent that her grandchildren did not know her.
Unlike McCrae’s mother, Alice provided financial support to McCrae consistently, but in
significantly smaller amounts than McCrae’s mother had when paying for her dental work. This
is likely because of her financial status. The letters suggest that Alice was working class. McCrae
commented in September 1964 that Alice “sure sound[ed] busy with all [her] boarders.”56
Housing multiple boarders in 1964 is indicative of Alice’s class status and limited income. This
occupation was a regular one for Alice: again in June 1965, McCrae asked Alice; “Does Cliff
have a car? Or any of your boarders?” when trying to determine how she could get to Alice’s for
a potential visit.57 Alice’s working class status is also indicated in a letter in which Jacklyn
McCrae promises to return the money she was lent by Alice “as soon as possible as [she] kn[e]w
[Alice] need[ed] it as bad as” she did.58
McCrae’s letters to her aunt often discussed Roy Ridler, McCrae’s common law partner
from 1961 until March 1966. Ridler was the father of McCrae’s two youngest children, Christine
Ridler, born in 1962, and Robin Ridler, born in 1964. During their common law union, Ridler
worked as a labourer, often in jobs at the sawmill, in forestry or as a firefighter. Ridler’s

55

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 16, 1965.

56

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

57

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 14, 1964

58

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 23, 1965

20
employment was precarious and he was often out of work, or changing jobs. Ridler lived in
Quesnel from at least 1955 until he moved to Terrace in April 1965 for work.59
Ridler’s employment prospects might have been hampered by his criminal record.
Ridler’s manslaughter conviction was reported in the Quesnel Cariboo on 7 June 1956. Ridler,
27, was identified as a Quesnel district mill worker who had been at fault in a highway accident
involving eleven people and resulting in the death of M.J. Clingham in July 1955. During
Ridler’s trial in Prince George, it was “contended by the crown that he had been drinking to such
an extent that he was incapable of driving a motor vehicle.”60 The jury found Ridler guilty and
the judge “imposed a sentence of six months in jail. In addition he was deprived of his right to
drive anywhere in Canada for ten years.”61
In November 1957 McCrae explained these details to Alice. The timing of McCrae’s
letter indicating her familiarity with the case is possibly significant. That she relayed news about
Ridler’s crime and sentence more than a year after the fact suggests that McCrae had some
reason to learn of or recall this news at that later date and that she passed it along to her aunt
suggests that Ridler was quite possibly a person known to them both.
Ridler, it seems, was a complicated person who at times made poor decisions and acted
badly. His relationship with McCrae was flawed; alcohol, employment, housing and money were
consistent struggles. While the relationship was not always a happy one and ended with McCrae
kicking him out of the shared home, McCrae’s letters indicate they had moments of joy and love
at times when they worked together to better their situation for the children. After Ridler and

59

“Ridler Guilty of Manslaughter,” Quesnel Cariboo, June 7,1956, 10.

60

“Ridler Guilty of Manslaughter,” Quesnel Cariboo.

61

“Ridler Guilty of Manslaughter,” Quesnel Cariboo.

21
McRae’s relationship ended in March 1966, Ridler quickly became involved in another common
law union. Yet, after McCrae died in October, 1966, Ridler did not get custody of any of her
children. Whether this was because he did not seek custody or because he was found in some
way unsuitable is unknown. His previous criminal record was likely to have been a factor. His
two children were placed in foster care along with McCrae’s three daughters whose father was
her first husband Vincent Shannon.
Vincent Shannon was McCrae’s legal husband and the father of her four oldest children.
McCrae married Shannon when she was only seventeen years old, while he was thirty. Her
oldest child, her daughter Kathy was born on July 6th, 1956, a year after McCrae and Shannon
were married, with their other three children born in quick succession. Darlene was born on July
13th 1957, Donna on December 10th 1958, and her son Joey on September 2nd 1960. McCrae
wrote very little to Alice during her relationship with Vincent Shannon, but the existing letters
suggest a troubled relationship, which McCrae left in early 1961. When McCrae wrote about
Shannon, she expressed feelings of resentment towards him. Alcoholism was a consistent issue
in the marriage, and was likely a contributing factor in her decision to leave.
Tracing McCrae’s life through her letters involves following her through time, but also
through space. As was the case for many working class individuals and families, McCrae and
her family would frequently relocate, both in order to find employment and to find more
affordable housing. From 1961 to 1966, McCrae moved five times. During her marriage to
Vincent Shannon, McCrae lived on the Queen Charlotte Islands, presumably in Port Clements,
where her husband continued to live after their separation. After McCrae left Shannon in January
1961, she traveled to Terrace, British Columbia, four hundred kilometres from Port Clements.
The exact length of time McCrae spent in Terrace after her separation from Shannon remains

22
unknown. McCrae’s letters from January and February 1961 are written on paper from the
Terrace Hotel, indicating that she spent some time living there. Her next preserved letter, from
May of 1961 comes from Quesnel. Hence, it is not clear whether she stayed in Terrace very
briefly on her way to Quesnel, or if she stayed there for a period of several months. Quesnel is a
distance of 1094 kilometres from Port Clements, based on modern day roads. To travel from Port
Clements to Quesnel involves passing through Terrace, and hence Quesnel may have always
been McCrae’s destination.
While living in Quesnel from 1961 to 1965 with her common-law partner Roy Ridler,
McCrae writes about living at two separate addresses, having moved once. Until September of
1964, they lived in a smaller unit on Abbott Heights, an area near Quesnel’s city centre.62
McCrae lived on the outskirts of Quesnel from September of 1964 until the family moved again
to Terrace in 1965. Roy Ridler went to Terrace first, leaving on April 28th 1965, a Wednesday,
and was planning to “ be starting work on Mon. morning.” 63 Since Ridler left to go to Terrace
months in advance of McCrae and the children, it is likely that he left first in order to start
working in Terrace before McCrae and the children followed. Ridler had left the previous day,
April 28th, McCrae remained in Quesnel until the end of June, with Ridler sending “ some
money” in May while continuing to work in Terrace.64
While McCrae remained in Quesnel with her children before leaving to meet Ridler in
Terrace, she had to move one more time for a few days. As of late June 1965 she had moved in

62

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

63

The following day, McCrae noted that Ridler "left yesterday and phoned her today that
he got to Terrace”. Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 29, 1965.
64

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 18, 1965.

23
temporarily with friends, explaining to Alice that for the time being"[she was] staying at a good
friends of [hers] place as [her] rent was up yesterday.”65 The same friends assisted McCrae in
travelling to Terrace on the following Saturday when they drove her and the children to Prince
George. McCrae planned to “[go] on the train from there" up to Terrace.66 The move from
Quesnel to Terrace was a distance of approximately 691 kilometres, a significant distance,
especially when travelling with small children. In the first months after McCrae arrived in
Terrace, she, Ridler and the children stayed at the “Hideway Motel” while they looked for a
place to rent.67 Once McCrae and Ridler found a place to rent in September 1965, Roy Ridler’s
brother Pete Ridler boarded with them.68 Pete continued to board with them until McCrae and
Ridler’s separation.
Initially after the separation, she had considered waiting until the end of the school year
and then going “back to Quesnel. [She had] a lot of friends down there and [she] like[d] the
place.”69 This move never happened. Instead, McCrae remained in Terrace with her children
after her separation from Ridler. After her death, her belongings and remains were returned to
her estranged husband and, ultimately, he was buried beside her in Port Clements.
McCrae’s ongoing relocations affected her relationships. While in Quesnel, McCrae was
part of a community where she both provided support and received support. McCrae had
provided childcare for financial compensation for the schoolteacher Jean while in Quesnel, in
65

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 23, 1965.

66

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 23,1965.

67

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 29, 1965.

68

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, October 4, 1965.

69

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 16, 1966.

24
December of 1963, receiving $7 a week from her.70 In another instance, McCrae looked after the
home and children of one of her friends, who had to go to Vancouver to care for her sick father
in 1964.71 As mentioned above, McCrae’s friends offered her shelter and transport after Ridler
had moved to Terrace.
Once McCrae and the children followed Ridler to Terrace in June 1965, her access to this
support system changed. While in Terrace, much of McCrae’s support network was connected to
Ridlers. Aside from their boarder, Pete, another of Ridler’s brothers and his sister in law, Harry
and Lorraine, were a source of support for McCrae in Terrace.72 Shortly after her arrival, she
mentions going “over to Lorraine and Harry’s to wash” since there was a lot of dust in Terrace.73
While settling into Terrace from Quesnel, Harry, Lorraine and Pete Ridler provided McCrae with
“quite a lot of company.”74 Unlike Quesnel, the community available to McCrae in Terrace
largely consisted of Ridler’s relatives in the early months of her move.
During this time, McCrae also had support from outside of Terrace. McCrae
communicated with and received packages from other women while living in Terrace. She “Got
a big parcel from Margaret, kids clothes and shoes. And a big parcel from Faye. 2 nice grey
blankets (new) and some towels, tablecloths etc.”75 Both of these women were from the Queen
70

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 1, 1963.

71

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

72

A 1965 voter registration for the Skeena area lists Lorraine Ridler as a housewife and
Harry Ridler as handyman. 1965 voter registration In a letter referring to Harry, and Pete who
boarded with Jacqueline and Roy in the early months of 1966, McCrae describes the men as “
both Ridlers” suggesting that they were two of Roy Ridler’s brothers.
73

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 28, 1965.

74

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 6, 1965.

75

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, November 20, 1965.

25
Charlotte Islands, and appear to be family or close family friends who knew Alice as well. While
these women were a support system for McCrae, they could not be relied upon for other forms of
assistance, like caring for McCrae’s children, and sending goods became more difficult and
expensive, since they would need to be sent a considerable distance.
Similar to Montreal during the Great Depression, living in close proximity to family
“made it easier to exchange favors, which could also be more varied: babysitting during
childbirth or in case of illness and swapping or giving clothing” was more common when living
nearby.76 While these were all tasks done by McCrae, they were limited by the distance between
herself and support networks. While these gifts of clothing were incredibly useful, they would
have been more difficult for Margaret and Faye to send to her, since it required spending
additional postage than if they had been in the same locale.
In another instance, McCrae writes about a friend of hers, Jessie, who lived in the Queen
Charlotte Islands, whose husband had been hospitalized. McCrae asked Alice not to say anything
to anyone, as Jessie didn’t “want anything to get back to Clark,” her husband.77 However,
McCrae’s knowledge and empathy for Jessie’s situation shows a friendship between the two.
McCrae knew private details of her life, including that Jessie “just had another miscarriage,” and
that Jessie’s husband “Clark was so mental and the booze that was always given him sure didn’t
help either.”78 Social networks, for McCrae, were not limited to just to the area she resided.
Instead, she maintained relationships with friends and family who lived a far distance from her.

76

Baillargeon, Making Do, 156.

77

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 4, 1965.

78

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 4, 1965.

26
Another support to McCrae after separating from her common-law partner Ridler was her
friend Annette Ridler. Annette Ridler is mentioned in seven letters after McCrae’s separation.
When McCrae became sick with the flu, “Ann Ridler has been up staying with me as I was laid
up with the flu! She’s real good around the house. Good company too!”79 Ann’s assistance
around the house often included cleaning. She and McCrae together “did all the spring cleaning
“at McCrae’s home. 80 Ann came to stay with McCrae since “Roy and george were up bugging
me so [she] asked her to come back” after they had “came in a taxi about 3 o’clock in the
morning but I wouldn’t open the door.”81 McCrae indicates that Ann had stayed with her several
times after her separation from Roy. While Ann Ridler was likely related to McCrae’s expartner, she was a consistent supporter for McCrae. Within a community largely made of Roy
Ridler’s family, McCrae still received support after their separation.
Wife
Changes in McCrae’s romantic relationships played a key role in her experiences. In the
period covered by the letters, Jacklyn McCrae had two conjugal relationships and spent months
between and after living as a single mother. Her decision to leave her marriage, her inability to
obtain a divorce, and her subsequent common-law relationship with Ridler should be seen in the
context of her times.
McCrae’s decision to leave Shannon bucked social expectations of the time that called
upon wives to accommodate themselves to the behaviours of their husbands. As explained by
Purvey in “Must a Wife Do All the Adjusting?: Attitudes and Practices of Social Workers
79

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 27, 1966.

80

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 10, 1966.

81

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 5, 1966.

27
Towards Wife Abuse in Vancouver, 1945 to 1960,” women were often blamed for wife abuse,
spousal alcoholism and marital discontent.82 Male violence and alcoholism, Purvey notes, were
socially acceptable aspects of masculinity.83 Interpersonal conflict in the household, cases of
spousal abuse, sexual problems and other issues were understood to have resulted from mental
ailments of the wife.84 McCrae’s separation from her legal husband, Vincent Shannon in January
1961 broke the established expectation that it was a wife's responsibility to conform within her
marriage. Few of McCrae’s letters were written before she left Shannon and these do not discuss
the state of her marriage. This is likely because McCrae at this time lived in close proximity to
her aunt Alice, making it possible to discuss in person. Her later letters do give a sense of some
of the issues that led to her decision to leave the marriage. After her separation from Shannon,
McCrae explains how she is much happier, since she does not “have to contend with the liquor
problem” as she did during her marriage to Shannon.85
McCrae’s letter to Alice after she left Shannon, on February 20 1961, suggests that she
feared her Aunt might think ill of her as a result of her decision to leave. In her letter, she tells
her aunt that she hopes Alice is not too angry, but “life is too short to live like that.”86 McCrae’s
82

Diane Purvey, “Must a Wife do All the Adjusting?: Attitudes and Practices of Social
Workers towards Wife Abuse in Vancouver, 1945 to 1960, In Child and Family Welfare in
British Columbia, eds. Christopher Walmsley, and Diane Purvey (Detselig Enterprises, 2005).
83

Purvey, “Must a Wife do All the Adjusting?,” pg. 260.
Primary sources used by Purvey were focused on social work students at the University
of British Columbia, indicating that these constructs of wives’ failure was directly from social
workers’ perspective. These were the people that McCrae would have been directly dealing with,
and who- would have had control over her access to welfare support.
84

Purvey, “Must a Wife do All the Adjusting?,” 265.

85

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

86

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

28
hope for forgiveness from her aunt suggests that her aunt might have expected McCrae to
conform and adjust to preserve the marriage. McCrae did not do so. Instead, McCrae tells Alice
“I am not sorry I didn't go back.”87 In spite of the social expectation – to which Alice may have
subscribed – McCrae was unrepentant about her decision to leave Shannon. While McCrae’s
letters never directly tell her Aunt of the treatment she experienced in her marriage, her
comments “life is too short” and “I am not sorry,” give some indication of the difficult
circumstances in which McCrae had been living within her marriage.88 To some extent,
McCrae’s unwillingness to discuss the issues she had faced in her marriage to Shannon could be
because of whom she addressed her letters to. When writing to her Aunt, it is possible that she
did not want to disclose details about the relationship, to prevent worrying Alice.
As late as May 1964, in a letter written ten days after the birth of her youngest son,
Robin, she wrote that she hoped “Vince will want a divorce one of these days.”89 McCrae’s
access to divorce was limited by her financial hardship, Shannon’s unwillingness to get a
divorce, and divorce law of the time. Before 1968, divorce in Canada required a matrimonial
offense, adultery, abandonment or cruelty. Without being able to prove one of these cases,
divorce was not available.90 For women, marriage was commonly seen as a source of economic
stability.91When this source of stability left because of the end of a marriage, poor women would

87

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

88

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

89

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 20, 1964.

90

Margrit Eichler, “Divorce in Canada,” Canadian Encyclopedia, September 19, 2016.

91

James Snell, In the Shadow of the Law: Divorce in Canada, 1900-1939, (Toronto;
University of Toronto Press), 1991. 161,https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442676060.

29
often have to find support thorough their families or remarriage, both legal remarriage and
common law unions like McCrae.92 As Snell explains; “Women, especially working-class
women, who usually lived close to the poverty line, could view marriage in very hard terms: an
exchange of sex and home management in return for support.”93 Because of strict and limiting
divorce laws, when women got divorced or simply left their marriage, finding the financial
support of a man was a necessity. Even if McCrae was able to prove matrimonial offense, she
would have needed to be able to afford to go to court. It is likely that the reason McCrae hoped
“Vince will want a divorce” was to make the process possible.94 Her changing situation was also
likely part of the reason McCrae sought a divorce in 1964. By that time, McCrae had two
children with her common law partner Ridler. As Snell found, one of the most common reasons
for a divorce to be sought was so that the petitioning party could get remarried. This was
especially common for farmers, who often needed the labour of their wives to ensure the farm
would survive.95 Perhaps this was a factor in McCrae’s wish.
McCrae’s decision to leave her home without her children and travel hundreds of
kilometres away is in some respects congruent with what Chatelaine Magazine called a “Poor
Man’s Divorce.” This occurred, the magazine reported, when a man desired a divorce but could
not afford to legally obtain one. Instead, he would fake his own death, or simply leave for work

92

Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, 161.

93

Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, 164.

94

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 20, 1964.

95

Snell, In the Shadow of the Law, 161.

30
and never come back.96 In some ways, this pattern was similar to McCrae’s separation from her
legal husband, Vincent Shannon insofar as it involved leaving an unhappy marriage
unexpectedly and not obtaining a legal divorce, due to financial hardship. A key difference,
however, between a ‘poor man’s divorce’ and McCrae’s case, is that she did remain in contact in
with Shannon in some ways, which were connected to her hope to regain custody of her children.
Unlike the men described in Chatelaine who abandoned their families entirely, McCrae wanted
to take her children with her. She initially left Shannon in January of 1961 and went to Terrace
herself. Shortly thereafter however, she wrote to her aunt about how she was planning to “phone
Vince… and see if [she] can get the kids” to take with her.97 While she was unable to get
custody of her son Joey, she was reunited with her daughters Kathy, Darlene and Donna.
Much of McCrae’s contact with Shannon was through her Aunt Alice. In a letter dated
December 18 1965, McCrae tells her aunt that in the package she sent, that there was “a small
gift [she’d] like [Alice McCrae] to pass on to Joey.”98 This indicates that much of the contact
between McCrae and Shannon, especially regarding their son Joey, occurred through Alice
McCrae who lived in proximity to Shannon and Joey. This appears to be a common method of
communication between McCrae and Shannon, as her February 20 1961 letter asks Alice to “find
96

“Poor man’s divorce,” as characterized by Bodsworth, the author of the Chatelaine
article, explains that this occurs when a husband deserts his wife and children, either by simply
leaving, or creating a staged crime. A social worker from Ontario explained that this was usually
done by men who made between thirty and forty-five dollars a week; those who made enough to
have a small savings, but did not make enough to conduct a legal divorce. In the article, “welfare
workers point out that frequently the wife is far more to blame than the deserting husband
himself.” Statistics from welfare administrator George Reed of Timmins Ontario suggested that
urban men were twice as likely to desert their wives than rural men, for unclear reasons.
Chatelaine, Jan 1951, pg. 12, 13, 61, 62.
97

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

98

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 18, 1965.

31
out what Vince did with all [her] belongings.” And if Shannon was willing, for Alice to “ask him
to leave them at [Alice’s] place.”99 While the continued contact with Shannon was often
indirect, it is still unique when compared to a ‘poor man’s divorce’. In that instance, the husband
would simply leave without any contact with his wife or children. By fleeing or faking their
death, the family would have no knowledge of where the man went, or in some cases if he was
even alive. For McCrae however, Shannon had contact with McCrae, who knew with some
certainty what had happened.
McCrae was far from alone in her experience of leaving an abusive husband and being
subsequently unable to obtain a legal divorce. Barbara Croft’s “I am A Common-Law Wife,” an
article published in Chatelaine in May 1965 tells the story of ‘Kay Clefton,’ a pseudonym used
to protect her identity.100 Like McCrae, Clefton left her legal husband due to his drinking and
feeling unhappy in the marriage.101 The article was published while Clefton was living in
Toronto, but many of the experiences described occurred when she was living in British
Columbia, including Vancouver, and later in an unnamed small town in British Columbia.102
Kay Clefton, like McCrae, was in an unhealthy relationship with her husband, Bill.
Clefton describes the nights “filled with vicious and baseless accusations by Bill, with foul
language when the babies cried or demanded my attention, even sometimes with physical

99

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

100

Kay Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife,” Chatelaine, May 1965, 32, Proquest.

101

Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife,” 96.

102

Clefton, “I am a common Law Wife,” 94.

32
assault.”103 Clefton explains how her husband’s drinking, which was originally fun socially,
became problematic, leading to loss of employment, and general unhappiness in the home.104
McCrae hints at similar unhappiness in her marriage to Shannon as noted earlier.
For both McCrae and Clefton, a ‘poor woman’s divorce’ was more complicated than a
‘poor man’s divorce’ because of their continued ties to their children, who made it harder to flee
a considerable distance and, in McCrae’s case at least, kept her in contact with her legal husband,
first when seeking custody of all her children and in later attempts to stay in touch with her son
Joey who was in Shannon’s custody. Since Shannon had legal rights as the father of the children,
McCrae had to establish custody of the children with him. While she did not get custody of their
son Joey, McCrae, unlike men who obtained a ‘poor man’s divorce’ tried to maintain a role in
her child’s life.
McCrae and Clefton had the capacity to leave the relationship, both indicated that due to
divorce laws, they were unable to legally divorce their estranged husbands. Clefton explained
how she wished to get legally married to her common-law partner, but was unable to, since she
“had no grounds for suing Bill- he’d become sullen, a solitary drinker, and wasn’t interested in
women, but he refused to set [her] free.”105 If Bill had become involved in a relationship with
another woman, it would have given Clefton the matrimonial offense she required to procure a
divorce. Without a legal divorce, Clefton instead chose to pursue a common-law relationship,
much like McCrae did with Roy Ridler. A Common-law union is a conjugal relationship where
103

Fred Bodsworth, “Runaways From Marriage: This year 2,000 Canadian wives will be
left to fend for themselves and their children. What can be done to halt “the crime most easy to
commit”?” In Chatelaine, January 1951, 96.
104

Bodsworth, “Runaways From Marriage,” In Chatelaine, January 1951.

105

Clefton, “I am a common Law Wife”, 99.

33
the partners usually live together for minimum one year first. For McCrae common-law was
accessible when partners cannot be legally married because of an existing marriage to another,
for the man, woman, or both.106 This is how Clefton understood her ‘marriage’ to her commonlaw partner. The two could not be legally married since they were both legally married to other
people,and could not get divorced because of Canadian divorce law.
Common-law unions were the only spousal relationship possible for women when legal
divorce was inaccessible. These relationships could be ended, as McCrae’s with Ridler
ultimately was, without pursuing legal divorce. The fluidity of common-law relationships did,
however, have the potential to further disadvantage women, as Clefton explains. Clefton
describes a case in her community, where the common-law husband died, and his ‘wife’ had no
legal rights to any of their shared belongings.107 One of Clefton’s neighbours remarked, “She
asked for what she got. Can you imagine any woman being as stupid and immoral as that?”108
Clefton certainly could imagine a woman in this situation since it mirrored her own, a fact she
hid from her neighbors.
While larger social constructions of marriage excluded common-law partnerships, the
women themselves often treated common-law partnerships as an accessible form of union.109
Lori Chambers examines motherhood, common-law partnerships and poverty in Misconceptions:
Unmarried Motherhood and the Ontario Children of Unmarried Parents Act 1921-1969. As

106

Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife” 32.

107

Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife”, 32.

108

Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife”, 32

109

Chambers, Lori. Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood and the Ontario Children of
Unmarried Parents Act, 1921-1969. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007, pg 143.

34
Chambers explains, cohabiting women, like McCrae, had more than one child in a common-law
union in eighty-four percent of cases in Ontario.110 While women in common-law unions were
considered unmarried in the eyes of the law and heavily scrutinized for immoral behaviour,
evidence suggests that women in these unions often exhibited precisely the traits of “restrained
heterosexuality, domestic monogamy and honest motherhood” that was expected of legal
wives.111
While their family status was untraditional, women in common-law unions nevertheless
often conformed to social ideals of femininity and motherhood. Chambers' evidence indicates
that in 41% of cases in which women in cohabitation relationships had children from previous
marriages, the children were taken care of by their mother with support from the common-law
partner almost exclusively.112 McCrae’s experiences as a mother in a common-law marriage
follow this pattern to some extent, since Ridler did serve at times as a male breadwinner for both
McCrae’s children from her earlier marriage and her children with him. As Chambers explains,
for women leaving a relationship, “a woman’s best route out of poverty was often to cohabit with
someone else, either informally, or when possible, in legal marriage.”113 While of course Ridler’s
wages did not lift McCrae and her children out of poverty, it is probable that the additional
income was welcomed.
McCrae would have been categorized as a common-law wife during her relationship with
Roy Ridler, the father of her two youngest children. As a common-law wife, McCrae’s
110

Chambers, Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood, 142.

111

Chambers, Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood, 145.

112

Chambers, Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood, 142.

113

Chambers, Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood, 162.

35
experiences while separating from Ridler differed from her separation from her legal husband
Shannon. McCrae separated from Ridler in March of 1966, after she kicked him, along with their
two boarders, out of the house.114 The incident occurred because Ridler, and the two boarders,
Pete Ridler and George Whalen left the home on a pay weekend, and did not return until “all
were broke with no groceries or fuel or bills paid," leaving McCrae to rely on welfare services
for groceries and fuel.115 McCrae’s decision to kick Ridler out of the home seems to be because
of his failure to provide for the children on a consistent basis. Rather than rely on an inconsistent
breadwinner, McCrae chose to support the children herself, since it would give her control of the
income, and insure that it would be spent appropriately. This was likely because of a deeper
analysis for McCrae, who carefully measured her options, and chose to protect her children from
financial abuse. When McCrae separated from Ridler she stayed in the residence. Unlike her
leaving her legal husband Shannon, McCrae kept her belongings and some of the communal
property.
For both Clefton and McCrae, a concern while in a common law relationship was for
them to be able to access their shared property in the case of a separation or death of a spouse.
Since there were very limited legal protections for common law spouses at the time, McCrae and
Clefton themselves had to ensure that they would maintain legal rights and access to property in
the case of the end of the relationship. For Clefton, this was through creating legal documents
that ensured in the case of her common law husband's death, she would be entitled to their
communal property, which were listed under her legal name.116 McCrae explained that during
114

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 16, 1966.

115

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 16, 1966.

116

Clefton, “I am a Common Law Wife”, 99.

36
the separation between herself and Roy Ridler, they had determined that the shared debts
between them would be split, with Ridler taking on the Niagara loans and other debts, and
McCrae paying off the stove and vacuum cleaner.117 As McCrae writes, she kept the stove and
vacuum, and “had the contract changed to ‘SHANNON’ ”.118 This is the only place that she
refers to herself using a specific name in her letters.119 By using her married name on the
contract, McCrae marks a clear distinction between her legal husband, Vincent Shannon, and her
common-law husband, Roy Ridler. Changing the name on her contract could have potentially
been done to prevent Ridler access to it. Since these appliances were household necessities for
McCrae, it seems logical that she would ensure she kept them.
McCrae’s highlights how easily these common law unions could be created or ended.
When writing to her aunt, McCrae writes that “Roy is ‘married’ again.”120 This occurs only two
months after she kicked him out of the shared home. While Roy Ridler had only been in the
relationship for a short period of time, McCrae referred to the union as a marriage. The common
law marriage provided a unique space for women like McCrae. Other cases of common-law
marriage indicate that women did not wish to be in the arrangement. Clefton, for example,
remained in a common law marriage with her partner, since her estranged legal husband refused

117

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 10, 1966.

118

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 10, 1966.

119

Previously, during her relationship with Ridler, evidence suggests that she had used
his last name. Voter registration information from 1965 lists her as “Ridler, Jackalyn, Nel,
housewife, general delivery.” This is the same person as McCrae, as her middle name was
Nellie, shown in an abbreviated form. The registration was for the Skeena, which included
Quesnel, where they were living at the time and Terrace, where they had moved later. The same
list identified Roy Ridler and his brothers, Harry with his wife Lorraine, and his brother
Malcolm. Skeena Voter Registration, Newspapers.com, 1965.
120

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 9, 1966.

37
to grant her a divorce. Common-law unions were an alternative method to a male breadwinner
when a woman was unable to procure a legal divorce.

Mother
While McCrae was a niece, a friend and a wife, the role of mother was one she focused
on in the letters. Roy Ridler and McCrae had two children together, Christine Marie Ridler in
1962, and Robin Michael Ridler in 1964 who joined the household alongside McCrae’s three
daughters. McCrae’s letters during her ‘marriage’ with Ridler suggests providing for her children
was a continuous struggle. McCrae’s experiences with motherhood were not easy and a few of
her letters express hesitancy about having more children, while showing a great deal of care for
the children she had. When McCrae received a letter of congratulations from her Aunt for her
last pregnancy in January 1964, she expressed her concerns about becoming a mother again. She
wrote that: “I guess I was pretty discouraged to know another baby would be coming. I don’t
mind once they arrive as they are so sweet but it’s the waiting. I had quite a bad time with
Chris[tine] too so I’m a bit leery.”121 Christine, at the time of this letter, was about two years old.
While McCrae’s discouragement at having another child is indicative of some of her
struggles as a mother, other letters indicate her deep emotional bond with and continuous care for
her children. Her love for her son became apparent once Robin was born. Ten days after his
birth, McCrae wrote to her aunt to let her “know all is well.”122 McCrae goes on to tell her aunt
that “Robin sure is a good baby. Never says ‘boo’ unless he’s wet or hungry. He sure has a good

121

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 24, 1964.

122

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 20, 1964.

38
appetite.”123 While McCrae was understandably apprehensive about expanding her already large
family, McCrae’s letters suggest that once her children were born she treated them with love and
care.
McCrae’s experiences with poverty were connected to and shaped by her role as a
mother. Poverty, for McCrae, was felt most in relation to its impact on her children. One of the
most prominent concerns McCrae wrote about to her aunt is affording or getting gifts and
necessities for her children. For example, in April of 1963, McCrae thanked Alice McCrae, for
the two dollars she had sent in time for Easter, as she “had exactly 6 cents and nothing for the
girls.”124 McCrae describes instances in which she and Ridler were willing to sacrifice their own
comfort for the sake of their children. When McCrae and Ridler moved together to Terrace in
June of 1965, they struggled to find somewhere to rent.125 This led them to rent a one bedroom
accommodation with a large sunroom. To ensure her children had the most comfort possible,
McCrae wrote that the “four girls sleep in the bedroom and Roy, Robin and I sleep on the
couch.”126 Rather than prioritizing herself, McCrae focused on the comfort of her four daughters.
Prioritization of the children’s comfort was presumably common for working-class mothers. The
needs of women, such as clothing, or in McCrae’s case, the families' sleeping arrangements
prioritized the children. With a limited budget, proper clothing was often given to the children
first, with the women’s needs being the last need met.127
123

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 20, 1964.

124

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 19, 1963.

125

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 6, 1965.

126

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 29, 1965.

127

Baillargeon, Making Do, 109.

39
In all likelihood, economic factors influenced McCrae’s decision to become a commonlaw ‘wife’ to Ridler. In early 1961, McCrae fled from her marriage to Shannon in Port Clements
B.C. to Terrace B.C., temporarily leaving her children behind. Shortly thereafter, as of the end of
January, McCrae was apparently living as a single woman and wrote to her aunt, relieved that "I
am definitely not pregnant. I don't intend to get that way for a long time either, if ever."128 Yet, a
letter dated three weeks later reveals that she had no intention of abandoning her children
permanently and was worried about them and actively trying to regain custody of them.
That night, she wrote her aunt that she would phone Shannon to “see if I can get the kids
down here with me. I sure miss them. If he will give me custody of them will be going up real
soon for them. You write and tell me how they are.” 129 McCrae had an employment prospect
that would allow her to support herself if she had not gotten custody, as “they [were] hiring at the
hospital and it is good pay."130 If McCrae ever worked at the hospital is unknown, but by the
time she wrote to her aunt again three months later, she had obtained custody of all but one of
her children and was living with Ridler in Quesnel, signing her letter “"Love Jackie, Roy and the
girls."131 While McCrae was able to get custody of her three daughters, Donna, Darlene and
Kathy from Vincent Shannon within a few months, Shannon retained custody of their youngest,
Joey.
Through her letters to Alice, McCrae often inquires about and refers to her son Joey. In
August 1966, a person named Trudy was taking Joey on a trip and McCrae suggests part of the
128

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 31, 1961.

129

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

130

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

131

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 25, 1961.

40
itinerary was to bring Joey to visit with his mother.132 As she wrote, Trudy had yet to bring Joey,
but McCrae remained hopeful that “maybe she'll call in on the way back.” McCrae suspected that
the reason Trudy had not brought Joey to see her was because “she's afraid I’ll take Joey if she
comes down.”133 While she did not get custody of Joey before her death in 1966, she made a
series of attempts to connect with her son. Her letters indicate her love and care for her children,
even while they were not in her custody.
While McCrae struggled to regain custody of her children with Vincent Shannon after her
separation, the situation was different when her relationship with Ridler ended. After McCrae
kicked Ridler and their two boarders, Pete and George out in March of 1966, she became a single
mother with five of her children in her custody. Unlike her previous separation, McCrae stayed
in the marital home and Ridler continued to provide financial support. McCrae, now living as a
single mother, noted to her aunt that she was able to make ends meet because "Roy [was] also
giving [her] $80.00 a month for Christy and Robin," the two children they shared.134
McCrae was not concerned about the possibility that Ridler would take their children,
from her. Even when Ridler expressed intent to regain custody of his children with McCrae, the
threat did not appear to be a serious one. In May of 1966, McRae described to her aunt how
"Roy showed up with his new 'shack up' and he caused quite a commotion. He phoned the
welfare and tried to get [her] in 'hot water' on the pretense of wanting Chris + Robin."135

132

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 5, 1966.

133

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 5, 1966.

134

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 16, 1966.

135

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 29, 1966.

41
Language used by McCrae in this passage indicates that while Ridler had attempted to get her in
trouble with “the welfare,” it had not seemed to be a legitimate threat for her.
In her letter, McCrae suggests Ridler’s attempt to pursue custody of the children was not
sincere, but rather an attempt to cause McCrae problems with the welfare office. Even her
language calls attention to the intentions of Ridler’s call to the welfare office as to cause issues
for McCrae rather than to have gotten custody of his children. McCrae herself even referred to it
as a ‘pretense’. In contrast to her previous letter, McCrae calls Ridler’s new partner a ‘shack up’
instead of saying that Roy was ‘married.’ This is probably written out of anger at the situation.
McCrae’s interactions with Ridler as a single mother indicates her focus on keeping custody of
her children.
Her letters suggested that Ridler’s indications of wanting custody of their children was
not a threat to her motherhood. A key difference between McCrae’s experiences as a mother
when in a common-law marriage, and when she is a single mother is who McCrae relies on for
financial support. While Ridler was providing some financial assistance for the two children he
shared with McCrae, the majority of her financial support came from welfare services. McCrae
was receiving $225 a month from welfare in May of 1966.136 Unlike when McCrae was living
with a male breadwinner, she was the one taking the steps to ensure an income. She no longer
had to contend with unemployment or poor spending habits that Ridler had during their union,
which had ultimately led to McCrae kicking him out.
Motherhood also limited McCrae’s ability to pursue paid work outside the home. In the
course of her letters, McCrae did not give any indication that she had formal employment. While
attempting to get custody of her children after her separation from Vincent Shannon, McCrae
136

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 3, 1966.

42
told her aunt; “I plan to go to work here if I can’t get the kids. They are hiring at the hospital and
it is good pay.”137 McCrae only planned to go work at the hospital if she was unable to get
custody of the kids. This suggests that McCrae’s lack of formal employment was not because she
chose not to work, but that caring for the children prevented her from doing so. McCrae’s letter
indicates that it was not an unwillingness to work, but a lack of ability to do so in her
circumstances. McCrae was not alone in these circumstances. A 1967 article from the Daily
Colonist explains the plight of women on welfare, with one of the women proclaiming “I’m 39,
deserted and have five children. Where am I going to work?”138
In addition to her role as a mother, McCrae’s ability to work or procure an income was
influenced by the health of herself and her children. Illness frequently visited McCrae and her
children. Of McCrae’s 106 surviving letters, 16 mention cases of sickness, and three others
describe doctors’ visits. The frequency with which McCrae and her children were beset by
illnesses was quite likely indicative of and connected to their poverty.
It seems probable that living in cramped quarters, and for a period of time without
running water, had negative impacts on the family’s health. While living in Quesnel in 1964
McCrae wanted to move, since “[they] weren't going to put in another winter on abbott heights
without water”139 After they had moved on 8 September 1964, McCrae explained:
It is sure great to have a nice house and water. It was awfully cramped +
miserable with no water at the other place. We were just paying rent there $40 a

137

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 20, 1961.

138

“Social Workers: Welfare Too Low,” Daily Colonist, March 21, 1967.

139

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

43
month with option to buy but we won’t keep it now. If we could have got water it
would have been ok.140
While the physical space of the previous accommodation was clearly an issue for McCrae and
her children, her letter indicates that the greatest issue was the water. Without access to running
water, McCrae and her children would have been at a considerable disadvantage in terms of
maintaining personal hygiene and halting the spread of communicable illnesses. In addition,
McCrae’s domestic work would have been made more difficult, as the process of getting water
and heating it in order to do laundry would have been a time consuming task. Especially with her
young children, since having laundry would often become a daily task instead of a weekly one
with an infant.141 Her youngest Robin was around four months old at the time, so frequent
washing of baby clothes was likely.
Just a month before McCrae wrote about her lack of access to running water, she and her
children came down with the mumps. In, July 10 1964 she notes that “Christy had come down
with the mumps.” and by “Thursday Donna had them & on Fri Kathy got them."142 Given the
close proximity of the children, the speed with which the illness was spread throughout the
household is no surprise. Within the week, McCrae herself caught the mumps also.143
McCrae’s bout of illness did not end with her catching the mumps. On August 6 1964,
sick with bronchitis, she said that she “should phone the Dr. and get some penicillin but [was]

140

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

141

Baillargeon, Making Do, 135.

142

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 13, 1964.

143

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 16, 1964.

44
trying to hold off till payday.”144 If McCrae’s illness’ origin was connected to her circumstances,
her treatment options to lessen its duration was also limited because of financial constraints. A
1965 article from the Globe and Mail critiqued the “hodge podge of services to look after the
sick in Canada,” which relied on support from many services, such as welfare departments,
provincial health plans, and charitable organizations.145 Public health coverage in British
Columbia had not been consistent up to McCrae’s time. The first implementation of the Medical
Services Association in 1940 did not provide coverage for mothers like McCrae.146 Improved
coverage was not introduced until the Social Assistance Medical Services Fund was introduced
in 1949.147 In addition to providing coverage to those who were unemployed, benefits were
available to purchase based on family income.148 This suggests that perhaps McCrae had access
to some form of medical coverage even before Ridler was unemployed or they were on welfare.
Nevertheless, eventually, McCrae was able to access some forms of healthcare. After
McCrae’s continued bouts of illness, she underwent an x-ray in November of 1964, which found
pleurisy, a type of inflammation in her left lung.149 As a result, she “has to take it easy as Dr says
a chill could cause it to come back again. He told me no more washing clothes at home til’ spring

144

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 6, 1964.

145

Joan Hollobon, “The great gaps in medical services” Globe and Mail, February 20,

1965.
146

Brad Fritz, “The origins of publicly funded medical care in BC and the BCMA’s
contributions,” British Columbia Medical Journal, September 7, 2015.
147

Fritz, “The origins of publicly funded medical care.”

148

Fritz, “The origins of publicly funded medical care.”

149

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, November 18, 1964.

45
as it will help avoid both the arthritis in my hands and the chest condition.”150 With the arthritis
in her hands, and the lung inflammation, McCrae’s ability to take on other tasks would have been
severely impacted. Her poor health was especially unusual considering her age. She was twentysix at the time, so her illnesses cannot be attributed to old age.
The following year, McCrae’s mother – with whom she was not in frequent contact –
made a substantial gift in an effort to improve her daughter’s health. In February 1965, McCrae’s
mother and her husband came to visit, and “They bought gifts for all and presented [McCrae]
with a cheque for $160.00 to buy” her dentures.151 The couple took McCrae “down to the dentist
to take the impressions” for them.152 Purchasing McCrae a dental plate would have been a
significant expense for her mother Ellen Miles, but it would have given McCrae a great
improvement in her quality of life in terms of her health and ability to eat. McCrae was able to
try on her dental plate on March 19th 1965. She hoped she would not “have too much trouble
getting used to them. [She’d] been 17 months without teeth” by that time.153
The long wait for her dentures was presumably because of her finances. $160 for McCrae
would have been over half of Ridler’s biweekly paycheque, which was already needed
elsewhere. For McCrae, one of the primary reasons she looked forward to getting her dental plate
was to make it easier for her to eat. On 17 March 1965, McCrae “weighed 104 lbs” but was
hoping “to gain up to about 110-115 lbs.”154 Her final plate was delayed, with more fittings
150

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, November 18, 1964.

151

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 16, 1965.

152

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 16, 1965.

153

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

154

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 17, 1965.

46
occurring until her “dentures came in this morning” on 4 June 1965.155 Her next weight, from 18
May 1965, put McCrae at 98 pounds, having lost an additional six pounds in two months.156
This appears to be a common issue, as McCrae described this weight as “isn’t too bad for me.”157
Her struggles with her teeth, and waiting longer for her dentures, was likely a factor in
her struggle to maintain or gain weight. McCrae’s doctor, “Dr. Rahay said [she’ll] probably put
on more weight once” she got her “teeth in.”158 For low income women, there was a direct
correlation between health and income. As one woman explained in the Daily Colonist, she
believed that “both medical and dental bills could be cut down if [they] could afford proper
food.”159 A lack of access to healthy, consistent food, in addition to McCrae’s struggles to afford
to see the dentist would be likely culprits in her fluctuating low weight.
Illnesses faced by McCrae and her children did not end when they moved to quarters with
running water. Her youngest child Robin, only five months old, was ill again at the end of
October 1964. McCrae told her aunt that “Robin is at home again and feeling quite a lot
better”160 McCrae’s assertion that her son was back home again suggests that perhaps he had
been in the hospital, as she later stated that “the Dr. figured its a virus of some sort” that had
caused the illness.161 Not only was her son Robin Ridler brought to the doctors for his illness, but
155

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 4, 1965.

156

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 18, 1965.

157

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 18, 1965.

158

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 18, 1965.

159

Nancy Brown, “Bad Guess Means Hardship for Mother, Seven Children,” Daily
Colonist, November 13, 1966. pg 15.
160

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, October 30, 1964.

161

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, October 30, 1964.

47
he had to be on “2 different kinds of medicine [he had] to take for at least a month,” including
an antibiotic.162 From July to October of 1964, consistent illnesses occurred in McCrae’s
household. During this time, McCrae’s ability to work, both formally or informally would have
been severely limited. As will be discussed below, one source of income for McCrae was
informal work through babysitting other children. While caring for her own sick children,
McCrae was likely unable to babysit other children.
Her letters from July and August of 1964, the times when she and the children had the
mumps, then again when she had bronchitis, do not give any evidence that she was caring for
other children. Her September 8th letter, however, explains how she had taken care of her friend
Shirley’s household while she went to Vancouver to her very sick father.163 McCrae “took care
of her home, 4 kids, her husband” while “Shirley was gone 7 days.”164 In this instance, McCrae’s
letters do not indicate that she or her children were ill in September of 1964. While caring for
Shirley’s children, McCrae was caring for her own five children, Shirley’s four children, and
managing both households. As her letters indicate, this was an intense task which made McCrae
“glad when [Shirley] came home last wed.”165
Illness was a continuous problem for McCrae. Her ability to manage her household, hold
informal employment and care for her children would have been affected by the health of her and
her children. Within McCrae’s struggle with illness is the financial strain it caused. Being ill

162

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, October 30, 1964.

163

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

164

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

165

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 8, 1964.

48
caused additional financial strain, while her poverty was likely a contributing factor in her health.
While there was some provincial health care available to her, it was rather limited. Buying
prescription medications often required work from McCrae to afford them, or she simply had to
wait until payday as shown above.

McCrae’s ability to get by was heavily influenced by her social world. The physical
space she lived in influenced not only her access to welfare services, but her support networks
and their ability to help her when she needed it most. Much of her support came from her Aunt
Alice in the Queen Charlotte Islands, which placed a significant limitation on the type of support
she could provide, and how often it could be provided. Other social supports were precarious;
often connected to her common-law partner and where she was living at the time. Ridler himself
was a unique case in terms of support. Of course, the benefit of his financial support is evident,
but it was inconsistent if provided at all. Because of the economic importance of a male
breadwinner, McCrae’s relationship with her common-law partner, Ridler, was an important
piece of her experiences.
As evident in her letters, the relationship was a complex one, both because of her
common-law status since she was not divorced, and because of the volatile nature of the
relationship. Since McCrae was unable to procure a legal divorce from Vincent Shannon before
her death, she faced a unique set of circumstances. In some ways like a ‘poor man’s divorce’
McCrae leaving Shannon was done by her leaving without procuring a legal divorce. Of course,
McCrae’s experiences as a poor woman were quite different, especially in the case of her
children. Much of her separation with Shannon focused on her gaining custody of her children. It
seems, from her letters, that one of the most important pieces of McCrae’s experience was her

49
role as a mother. Even through difficult circumstances, McCrae’s care and focus on the
wellbeing of her children is evident. Even her son Joey, who she did not have custody of,
McCrae appears to have made several attempts to visit and send gifts to him. One of the
predominant issues McCrae and her children faced was continued bouts of illness. Illnesses were
an issue for McCrae, since her poverty was a factor in her illness, and the added financial strain
caused by purchasing necessary medications. Another health issue central to McCrae’s
experience was her teeth. Affording dental work was only made possible by her Mother’s gift.
Her dental health, however, had greater impacts on McCrae’s general health. All of these
experiences were integral to interpreting how she managed the household economy. Her ability
to afford necessities, get help from her community, access welfare support, and place in society
were dictated by these experiences. Without interpreting McCrae’s moves, lack of divorce and
common-law status, her motherhood and her health, understanding how she managed the
household economy is unclear.

50
Chapter 2: The Economic World of Jacklyn McCrae
Like the experience of working-class women before her, McCrae used the tools available
to her to ‘make do’ for herself and her children. McCrae used several sources of income and
limited her expenses to manage the family economy. During Ridler and McCrae’s relationship,
the family allowance, babysitting money and Ridler’s formal income were managed by McCrae.
The family allowance payment allowed McCrae to purchase groceries for her children, and to
pay her debts.
McCrae also had occasional additional financial support from friends, family and
neighbours. This came, largely, in three forms: gifts, loans, and babysitting. These supports were
made available to McCrae through her community, both from women who lived in proximity to
her, and those like her Aunt Alice, who lived a considerable distance away. While gifts of money
did not require any labour from McCrae, babysitting required a time commitment and loans
required careful management of future income to ensure she could repay them. Unlike other
forms of income in her household, money from community and kin relations seems to have been
money that was entirely within McCrae’s control.
While managing her own work in the informal economy, McCrae did often manage the
disposition of Ridler’s income. Her management was limited both by her access to his
paychecks, and how consistently he was working. Similarly, financial support through the state,
such as welfare payments were dependent on if she was living with a male breadwinner and how
much other income was coming into the household. Since McCrae did not appear to engage in
formal work from 1955-1966, her involvement in the informal economy provided her the ability
to work and gain an income herself.

51
There is evidence of five instances where Jacklyn McCrae received money without the
expectation for it to be given back. In four of these instances, Alice McCrae, the recipient of the
letters, sent her money. Unlike loans of money, which Alice also sent McCrae, the amount of
money was often much lower. This likely is because of two potential reasons. First, that Alice
was less concerned about being repaid for smaller amounts of money which were gifts that she
could afford. And second, these gifts were sent when McCrae had no prospect of paying back a
loan, coming in one instance when McCrae had found herself stuck, and unable to “ ask for
anymore assistance” from welfare.166
Alice sent Jacklyn McCrae one such gift of money for Easter 1963. McCrae wrote thanks
"for the $2 [Alice] sent the girls for Easter. What a life saver that was! [She] had exactly 6 cents
and nothing for the girls."167 Aunt Alice also sent small gifts of money directly to McCrae’s
children. McCrae’s daughter Kathy was “ever pleased with [her] letter and the $3.00” Alice had
sent in March of 1965.168 McCrae explained how Kathy“ [had] it tucked away in her purse,”
suggesting that it would not be used for regular household expenditure.169 While these gifts were
small amounts of money, they were important for McCrae to afford goods for her children. Since
the only instance where Alice sent McCrae money in connection to a holiday was this particular
Easter, Alice’s gifts were not necessarily connected to conventional occasions. Instead, it is
likely that Alice sent money when she could afford to do so, rather than in relation to holidays.

166

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 14, 1965.

167

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 18, 1963.

168

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 12, 1965.

169

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 12, 1965.

52
For instance, when Alice sent three dollars, which was given to McCrae’s oldest daughter,
Kathy, it was not around Kathy’s birthday.
Another person who gave McCrae money was Annette Ridler. Interestingly, Annette
Ridler gave McCrae money after her separation from Roy Ridler. She acknowledged that “Ann
ha[d] been giving [her] $10 or $15 out of her every cheque” on 28 August 1966, over five
months after she had kicked Roy Ridler out of the home.170 Not only was McCrae being given
money by someone who was likely related to Ridler, this happened a significant period of time
after the deterioration of the relationship. These smaller gifts of money were an important tool
for McCrae to purchase goods she otherwise would not have been able to afford.
While McCrae received some small financial gifts, she was also doing other work to
manage the household economy: housing boarders and babysitting. The family often was
boarding Ridler’s brother Pete or a man named George Whalen. Whalen boarded with McCrae
and Ridler several times. Whalen had boarded with them not only in Terrace, but before in
Quesnel as well. In March 1965 McCrae explains that they had “ George Whalen back with”
them.171 “He ha[d] boarded with us 3 or 4 times in the last few years” so his presence in the
family home would not have been uncommon.172 Whalen was “an elderly man, very nice and
good to the kids” while he was boarding with them.173 His boarding with them was beneficial
financially, as Whalen was paying “$15.00 a week” at the time since he was not working, but
McCrae explains how “he pays $20.00 when he's working” which “really help[ed] with the
170

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 28, 1966.

171

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

172

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

173

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

53
bills."174 The additional income, especially when McCrae was already facing financial hardship
would have been greatly beneficial.
In addition to housing boarders, McCrae was bringing in money through her work as a
babysitter. One such instance was in December of 1963, while McCrae was living in Quesnel,
she babysat “for Jean, the school teacher.”175 She did so “only from 8:30 to 12:30 or 1,” and was
paid “$7 instead of six” for the week.176 The next week, she estimated her “babysitting money
[would] be about $8.00.”177 McCrae continued to babysit through January 1964. In a letter of 24
January of that year, she had received a “letter note of congratulations” from Alice on her
pregnancy.178 Despite her pregnancy McCrae was “still babysitting. [She] sure hate[d] to quit as
the extra $7 or $9 a week sure [came] in handy.”179 With the $6 she had made babysitting from
the week, McCrae purchased a bedspread, since she had “wanted a new one for so long. [Her]
old yellow one ha[d] just about come to an end.”180 For McCrae, her babysitting money gave her
the ability to purchase goods the household needed but she could not afford otherwise. The
consistency of McCrae’s babysitting also suggests that other working mothers consistently
required informal childcare in her community.

174

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

175

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 1, 1963.

176

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 1, 1963.

177

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, December 6, 1963.

178

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 24, 1964.

179

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 24, 1964.

180

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 24, 1964.

54
Since there were incredibly limited licensed spaces to provide childcare in this period,
women would often find informal means such as babysitting to fulfill the necessity. Pasolli
explains how in the late 1950s to early 1960s, there were never more than 35 licensed care
homes in British Columbia.181 “In Vancouver, the Point Grey study group of fifteen women has
learned that over 6,000 children ‘desperately need day care’ and only 503 are in licensed daycare centres.”182 Since there were often more day care centres available in major cities than rural
areas, the statistics for Quesnel and other smaller communities were probably even lower.
In 1966, Chatelaine noted the general paucity of child care facilities especially outside of
metropolitan areas, noting that while “Canada [did] have some nurseries,” including Gordon
Neighbourhood house in Vancouver, they were almost exclusively “in other big cities.”183 The
lack of public support for day care facilities, Pasolli notes, was connected to “the feminization of
poverty and the particular trials of poor mothers” which worked to “establish childcare’s
association with other welfare initiatives.”184 Because of the social stigma for working mothers,
and the association with welfare services, the state was reluctant to provide greater access to
child care. As a result, women would use informal childcare services, like the school teacher
Jean, who had McCrae babysit for her. For many working women in these years, the method

181

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Child Care Dilemma, pg 104,

182

Margaret Kesslering, “Canada’s Backward Thinking on Day Nurseries: We applaud
well-to-do parents who send their tots to enriching nursery schools at top fees. Yet we let
working mothers leave their children in the streets or in makeshift “homes.” Why?” In
Chatelaine, April 1966, 68.
183

Kesslering, “Canada’s Backward Thinking on Day Nurseries,” pg 68.

184

Pasolli, Working Mothers and the Child Care Dilemma, 108.

55
they used to care for their children was to leave them in the care of another adult, or simply an
older child.185
McCrae looked after “3 extra little ones” for her friend Edna, their mother at the end of
May through early June 1965.186 McCrae was “babysitting 3 extra kiddies [that] week as Edna,
[her] friend just had her 6th baby.”187 The additional children in her care were Edna’s three
youngest, “ One age 5 one 3 and one 16 months,” which had McCrae “kept pretty busy” caring
for the children.188 While McCrae had expected to only care for the children for a short period of
time, this ended up extended: “Edna was supposed to be home today but she phoned me a few
minutes ago and her Dr. said she can’t come home til’ Thurs or Fri. Her baby isn’t doing very
well.”189 McCrae ended up babysitting the children for nine days. She was “making $3.00 a day
so that [helped] the grocery bill along.”190
Yet, in this particular instance, the financial benefits of babysitting were, at least,
delayed. With Edna in the hospital, McCrae presumably had not yet received payment and for
that period, the three young children were additional dependents for whom she needed to provide
care. At this moment, she was so short of money that she had to ask Alice for a loan on 1 June
1965, indicating that she had run out of money. Then, as often, McCrae’s household economy
was precarious – stretching dollars until Ridler’s next pay, the next family allowance cheque, or
185

Kesslering, “Canada’s Backward Thinking on Day Nurseries,” pg 68.

186

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 31, 1965.

187

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 27, 1965.

188

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 27, 1965.

189

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

190

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 27, 1965.

56
until her friend was able to pay her for her childcare labour. When stretched too thin, McCrae
would turn to welfare or to the benevolence of her aunt Alice to provide for her family.
When times were especially hard for McCrae, she asked Alice for a loan, likely because
she had run out of other options. Money loans for McCrae were often of a higher amount than
the gifts to her were. This is likely because there was a significant financial need for McCrae to
have justified asking to borrow money, and because there was an expectation that it would be
returned. Since Alice herself was working-class, she most likely could not have afforded to
simply give McCrae significant amounts of money. Most of the informal loans came from her
Aunt Alice. McCrae might have borrowed money from other people and not mentioned them in
her letters, but since she was writing to Alice, McCrae was more likely to discuss Alice’s money
she borrowed or had been given.
McCrae asked Alice to lend her money in this instance because she “really [was]
stuck.”191 At this time, McCrae’s common-law partner, Roy Ridler had moved to Terrace from
Quesnel, presumably for work, while McCrae and her children remained in Quesnel. She had
already received welfare, which “ paid the rent and gave [her] grocery order but that's all used up
now.”192 McCrae could not “ask for anymore assistance as Roy [was] working.”193 Her next
option was to “phon[e] and ask[] [Alice] to send [her] what [she] can spare.”194 Even though
McCrae “really felt horrible about phoning” Alice to ask if she had any money to spare, she did
so to provide for her children. McCrae assured Alice she would pay her $20 back when Roy was
191

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

192

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

193

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

194

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

57
paid ten days later, or “on family allowance day.”195 McCrae’s promises to pay the money back
to Alice continued throughout the month of June. She aimed to repay not just the loan, but even
for the phone call she made to Alice when she asked to borrow money. McCrae requested that
Alice “let [her] know how much that call was [she] made to [Alice] that day and will pay for
it.”196 This was three days after the initial letter about repaying the loan.
By June 14th, after Roy received his paycheck on the 11th, McCrae had not yet been able
to repay Alice.197 McCrae promised her Aunt that she would “get it returned as soon as
possible.”198 Eight days later McCrae once again thanked Alice “for the $20,” which, she
insisted, she would “be returning it as soon as possible as” Alice “ need[ed] it as bad as [she
did].”199 The recognition on McCrae’s part that Alice needed to be repaid and, too, had need of
money suggest why this was a method of making ends meet that McCrae would resort to in only
very difficult circumstances, when neither Ridler’s wages or welfare support were sufficient to
pay for necessities. In other words, asking Alice for money was her very last resort.
In most cases, larger amounts of money sent by Alice were loans rather than gifts, but
there was an exception in 1964. Then Alice sent McCrae thirty five dollars, much higher that the
two or three dollars she had sent her in three other instances. However, it still appears to have
been a gift, as typically when McCrae received a loan, she would explain she would be able to
pay the money back, as above. This money order sent by Alice came on 19 September 1964,
195

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

196

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 4, 1965.

197

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 14, 1965.

198

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 14, 1965.

199

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 23, 1965.

58
after she had moved on 8 September. It is possible that this was a form of housewarming gift.
McCrae explained to Alice how she spent the money she had received. She used “$10 for
groceries $10.00 for kids clothes $5.00 for show, taxi home etc. And the other $10 [she had]
left.”200 McCrae had taken the girls to see a “show” called “the Laughing Dog”.201 In this
particular case, the gift from Alice came after there was an issue with the family allowance
cheque.
On 19 September 1964, McCrae “was over to call for [her] family allowance cheque”
but “something happened and they didn’t come in.”202 The delay of McCrae’s family allowance
cheque placed her in a tight bind, left with only “ 3¢ in [her] purse.”203 McCrae had already
noted to her aunt that she “didn’t get very many groceries from Roys small $97.00 cheque,” and
had been expecting the additional income from the family allowance to make ends meet.204
McCrae was thus forced to find other means to buy groceries for her children. The monthly
family allowance cheque, evidently, had become a regular part of McCrae’s planning to maintain
the household economy.
While McCrae lived with Ridler, the combination of McCrae’s family allowance cheque
and Ridler’s pay cheque was a regular pattern that allowed the family to manage debts and meet
expenses. On 19 February 1965, McCrae noted that it was both “ family allowance day and also

200

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

201

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

202

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

203

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

204

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, September 19, 1964.

59
Roy’s payday.” This, it seems, was an opportunity to get caught up on deferred purchases and
payments.205 She planned to meet Roy “ after work at the P.O. to do some shopping and bill
paying” with his cheque.206
The next month, similarly, McCrae planned to “meet[] [Roy] down town at 5pm” since it
was his payday.207 Like the month before, it was “also family allowance day,” so McCrae had
both sources of income coming to her at once.208 In her management of the household economy,
McCrae had planned “to get all [her] mail ready and the bills ready to send money orders” so
they could be sent as soon as the family allowance and Ridler’s paycheck were deposited.209
McCrae, evidently, at this juncture was counting on both Ridler’s pay and the family allowance
in order to meet the family’s monthly expenditures.
The original intention of the family allowance when it was created was to support the
“maintenance, care, training, education and advancement of children.”210 Scholars such as
Raymond B. Blake also argues that the intention of the family allowance was primarily to act as
a tool of nation-building.211 The universal nature of the family allowance was especially
important to nation-building, since it was seen as a way to keep national unity, especially with
Quebec.212 This type of system, however, was not particularly effective in benefitting low
205

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 19, 1965.

206

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, February 19, 1965.

211
212

207

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 17, 1965.

208

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 17, 1965.

209

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 17, 1965.

210

“Children’s Allowance, A Children’s Charter,” Similkeen Star, May 24, 1945.

Blake, From Rights to Needs, 16.
Blake,From Rights to Needs, 18.

60
income families.213 High costs of a universal program prevented adequate increases to benefits.
For example, “to maintain the purchasing power they had in 1945, the average family allowance
benefit per child in 1966 should have been $11.01 rather than the $6.76 it was.”214 For working
class families like McCrae’s, the most pressing use for the family allowance was not the
advancement of the children, but instead to provide the most basic necessities for the children,
most commonly groceries. Since there were no other funds available to cover these expenses, the
family allowance became a necessary form of income to support the family. Evidently, this was
essential to the survival of the family.
Welfare, for McCrae, was distinct from other forms of government financial aid, such as
the family allowance. The family allowance was seen as a right for all Canadians, whereas local
welfare payments were reserved for low-income families. British Columbia was unique in this
sense as their Mothers’ Pensions were at times understood differently to the Mothers’
Allowances of other Canadian provinces. In comparison to other provinces, B.C. policy was
more supportive to single mothers like McCrae. Welfare in the decades before McCrae was
incredibly new. Welfare support for women was the result of lobbying by middle-class women
who sought government responsibility for mothers.215 Support for women, however, was
specifically supported by these women’s groups when they reinforced traditional gender norms,
which kept women in the home.216 Welfare policies were especially detrimental for single
mothers, since welfare policies reflected social norms of the time, which cast moral judgement

213

Blake, From Rights to Needs, 13.

214

Blake, From Rights to Needs, 188.

215

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 6.

216

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 6.

61
on single or unmarried mothers. One reason for this, as identified by Finkel, was that “state
payouts on childcare, social assistance, and housing could be reduced if the women requiring
these services were defined as violating desirable social norms.”217 For women like McCrae,
who in many respects did not follow these desirable social norms, judgement and perceived
immorality would have made welfare policies less suited to their needs. In many instances,
especially in Ontario, ideas of improving the welfare state often “favored a policy that would
include detailed investigations and moral guidance of recipients,” meaning that financial welfare
support was heavily tied to morality of those who received benefits.218 Welfare policy was
centered around the idea of gender difference, suggesting that the ‘natural’ role of women was
in the home, and for the man to be the breadwinner, ideals which policies aimed to reinforce.219
In cases where there was not a male breadwinner, or at least not a consistent one, the state
became the breadwinner.
When informal income, family allowance, and Ridler’s wages did not adequately pay for
their rent and groceries, McCrae went to ‘the welfare’ to get enough money to ensure these
essentials were covered. McCrae’s interactions with welfare came in two different situations:
welfare she received as a common-law wife to Roy Ridler, and welfare she received as a single
mother after their separation. The instances where McCrae received welfare while in a commonlaw marriage took place in June 1965, in Quesnel, right before they left for Terrace. There was a
limit on the support she could get, and in her moment of crisis in June 1965 when she had asked

217

Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 143.

218

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 14.

219

Little, No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit, 9.

62
Alice for a loan, as mentioned above.220 Her May 27 1965 letter likely referred to the same
instance when “the welfare gave [her] the rent money and a big grocery order”, since the letters
were written only five days apart.221 This was the only recorded instance of McCrae receiving
welfare while living in Quesnel. Interestingly, however, McCrae justifies her use of welfare by
explaining that “everyone also gets them so figured [she]’d join them” in receiving welfare.222 In
this, McCrae indicates that while she was in Quesnel at least, a significant percentage of those
around her were also receiving welfare.
Since Ridler was working, it indicates that McCrae had not gone to the welfare office
because she did not have any income, but because their only income was short of their needs.
Because of the struggle to piece together enough resources, McCrae had to rely on Ridler’s
income, the family allowance, the welfare, babysitting and loans from Alice to ‘make do’ in June
1965. The family economy was quite precarious at this time for McCrae, requiring her to utilize
all tools available to her in an effort to survive. This reflects the experiences of working class
families before the expansion of the Canadian welfare state, where women would carefully
balance multiple income sources for their families.
McCrae had also struggled to afford medical services at least in part. It seems that
welfare paid for McCrae’s prescription medications both while she was with Ridler and after. In
January of 1966, McCrae was still in a common-law relationship with Ridler. Because of
McCrae’s consistent health issues with her lungs, and her wrist arthritis, "[she had] to take

220

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 1, 1965.

221

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 27, 1965.

222

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 27, 1965.

63
antibiotics for [her] chest and cortisone for [her] hands indefinitely.”223 In order to ensure her
access to the medication she needed, “the health unit [was] going to supply it,” since she “just
[could not] afford it otherwise."224 The health unit mentioned by McCrae was likely the health
unit within welfare services. This was while she was living in Terrace, whereas McCrae had
struggled to afford antibiotics previously while in Quesnel, presumably because of the different
municipalities managing welfare services.
McCrae received welfare after Ridler and their boarders Pete Ridler and George Whalen,
spent all their cheques without paying any bills. McCrae kicked all the men out of the home, then
went to the welfare office to get the money to pay the bills. They had not paid for any groceries,
bills or other necessities. Since the men had returned with no money, “no groceries or fuel or
bills” McCrae “went to the welfare and got groceries and fuel.”225 In this instance McCrae was
not yet a single mother, still in the process of kicking Ridler and their boarders out but was not in
a relationship with him either. From a welfare perspective however, Ridler’s income was clearly
an expected part of McCrae’s family economy, since her management was based on the
assumption that Ridler’s payday was coming, and when it failed to do so, she had to go to the
welfare instead. After McCrae kicked Ridler and the two male boarders out of the home, her
primary income became welfare, with babysitting money, family allowance and family support
in addition.
Welfare payments were likely more consistent than Ridler’s pay cheque, since it would
not have been limited to when he was working steadily, or when he used all the money without
223

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 23, 1966.

224

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, January 23, 1966.

225

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 16, 1966.

64
covering groceries or bills, but the amount was much less. In July 1965, McCrae records that
“Roy makes pretty good wages here” in Terrace, totalling “about $215 every two weeks.”226 This
wage appears to be consistent while he worked in Terrace. In November 1965, four months later,
Roy “makes 2.92 an hour.”227 Assuming a forty-hour work week, Ridler’s total income for two
weeks work before taxes would have been approximately $233.60, which would be consistent
with McCrae’s earlier account, when taking into consideration times when he was not working
steady, or taxes taken off. When McCrae was on welfare in May 1966, she was making “$225 a
month” in addition to her medical “be[ing] covered through welfare,” including prescriptions.228
The $255 a month McCrae received through the welfare was significantly less than Ridler’s
income, at least while he had been working steady. Even with the medical and prescription
coverage, that was a dramatic reduction in her income.On one hand, she had a consistent,
monthly income coming in that was entirely in her control. In comparison to Ridler’s income,
however, it was considerably less, close to half of Ridler’s pay.
In order to ensure she got her payments properly, McCrae would “go back to the welfare”
at 10:30am every two weeks to receive her cheques.229 McCrae was still able to make do with the
limited financial resources given to her by welfare through planning and allocating money and
delaying spending. She received her next cheque on June 2nd, with which she “paid all [she]

226

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 24, 1965.

227

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, November 12, 1965.

228

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, May 3, 1966.

229

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, 3 May 1966 and 15 April 1966.

65
could and got groceries.”230 After she did so, she had “$15.00 to do me till’ the 19th so [she]
should get by ok.”231
The shortcomings of the British Columbia welfare program were recognized by social
workers themselves. Bridget Moran, a social worker was suspended from her work “until she
agree[d] to stop criticizing the B.C. Department of Welfare in public” after she attempted to put
pressure on the provincial government for better welfare support for recipients.232 A social
worker from Prince George, Moran describes the conditions as “just not good enough.”233 One
such inadequacy identified by Moran was “that her caseload of 205 persons was too large for her
to perform anything but an emergency service.”234 Constraints on the system were visible not
only to recipients, but social workers themselves too.
In another instance, a 1964 article from the Daily Colonist writes about British
Columbia’s social workers signing a declaration, which argues that “welfare payments in the
province are too low to permit normal decent living for recipients.”235 The social workers
released a statement, that; “many professional studies have shown that rates of payment over the
last five years have been so low as to cause extreme hardship for the recipients” of welfare in
British Columbia.236 Even amongst the best welfare services available in the country, British
230

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 3, 1966.

231

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 3, 1966.

232

“B.C. Social Worker Demands Law Change,” Globe and Mail March 14, 1964.

233

“B.C. Social Worker Demands Law Change,” Globe and Mail March 14, 1964.

234

“B.C. Social Worker Demands Law Change,” Globe and Mail March 14, 1964.

235

“Social Workers: Welfare Too Low,” Daily Colonist, December 19, 1967.

236

“Social Workers: Welfare Too Low,” Daily Colonist, December 19, 1967.

66
Columbians on welfare, like McCrae, were still subject to “extreme hardship” in their efforts to
make do for their family.237 Statistics from those protesting welfare conditions claim that “rates
were shown in 1958 to be 30 per cent below the dignity level and are yet maintained” at the same
rate.238 The Labour Statesman indicated that “welfare payments are from 21 to 50 percent below
the minimum required for bare subsistence” in 1959.239 Which suggests that multiple accounts
identified the shortcomings of the British Columbia welfare system.
The welfare available to McCrae in British Columbia would have been more sufficient
than if she had lived in another province. While it is clear that there was still a significant
struggle to make ends meet for herself and the children, the welfare system in British Columbia
was recognized and praised for being the best in Canada. A 1957 article from the Globe and Mail
examining provincial hospital insurance remarked how “this province will set the pace for all of
Canada in establishing future social welfare measures.”240 In comparison to welfare services
made available in other Canadian provinces, those in British Columbia were remarked as
exceptional at the time. These health services, which according to Globe and Mail cost the
province 20,800,000 in 1956, provided women like McCrae with “mothers allowances and
special medical services and drugs” in addition to old age and disability benefits.241 Services like
coverage for prescription medications helped McCrae afford necessary goods that she otherwise
would not have had access to. Social welfare services in British Columbia, while greater than
237

“Social Workers: Welfare Too Low,” Daily Colonist, December 19, 1967.

238

Kenneth Russell, “Ten Clergymen Join Mothers,” Daily Colonist, March 21, 1967.

239

“The Plight of those on Social Assistance,” The Labour Statesman, September 30,

240

“Many Drawn to B.C. by Welfare Benefits,” Globe and Mail, April 23, 1957.

1959.

241

“Many Drawn to B.C. by Welfare Benefits,” Globe and Mail, April 23, 1957.

67
other provinces, still left McCrae looking to other sources of income to ‘make do’ including the
family allowance.
McCrae continued to rely upon the family allowance to make ends meet once she and
Ridler separated. Welfare, supplemented by family allowance, allowed McCrae to sustain
herself and her family while she was living in Terrace as a single mother, from the time of her
separation from Ridler in March 1966 until her death on 16 October 1966. Because of how low
the support was, McCrae required both services, in addition to informal work, to provide for her
children. It seems likely that the family allowance for McCrae was probably factored into her
welfare benefits. This would contribute to how low the welfare was. Since she was receiving $80
a month from Ridler and the family allowance, these factors would likely be calculated in the
welfare she received. Since state support through welfare often acted in replacement of a male
breadwinner, the support from Ridler as the father of McCrae’s two youngest children would be
factored into this calculation of state intervention. If Ridler was atleast partially fulfilling this
role as the breadwinner for McCrae, it seems likely that less would have been expected from the
state.
McCrae’s management of money remained centered on providing the best she could for
her children. When explaining to Alice McCrae how she spent her welfare money, Jacklyn
McCrae wrote about paying her rent, her debts, groceries, and buying goods for her children.
Similarly, McCrae again "used [her] family allowance for groceries."242 McCrae’s management
of her own welfare and control over the finances without a male breadwinner are important
themes in interpreting her as a single mother. Unlike when she was in a common-law
relationship, she maintained complete financial control over the family income.
242

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 26, 1966.

68
Much like her experience as a common-law wife, McCrae’s work to manage the
household economy continued as a single mother. In the same way as previously, the family
allowance for McCrae was a reliable income that was used to pay debts and purchase groceries.
In July 1966, she explains how she had “made alot of the payments with [her] family allowance
and babysitting money.” 243 During this time, like during her relationship with Ridler, the family
allowance was a consistent payment she could count on when managing her household economy.
In the same letter, she reassures her Aunt that she will manage financially, since she had “ $10.75
to do me til' family allowance day for groceries.”244 In another instance, in April of 1966,
McCrae had “used [her] family allowance for groceries” for herself and her children in the same
way.245 For women like McCrae, all financial resources available to them were essential to the
care of their children.
The inadequacies of the program were shown when a mother of three spoke out in
Chatelaine magazine, explaining how her welfare payments left “the grand sum of $1.03 per day
per person” excluding rent in 1969, only three years after McCrae’s death.246 She describes the
importance of “the life saving family allowance cheque” which gave her an extra twenty cents a
day.247 While it was insufficient to provide adequately for the children, working class mothers
like McCrae found the extra income to be ‘life saving’ when trying to make do for their children
and should not be discredited as an important part of McCrae’s financial management.
243

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 11, 1966.

244

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, July 11, 1966.

245

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, April 26, 1966.

246

“It's Hell on Welfare,” In Chatelaine, May 1969.

247

“It's Hell on Welfare,” In Chatelaine, May 1969.

69
McCrae’s experiences demonstrate the methods used by low-income families to ‘make
do’ for their children. It was often the case that McCrae had to use more than one method to
provide. For McCrae, ‘making do’ was a careful practice of grafting together income and support
resources to provide for her household, when none of them were sufficient alone. But there were
also strategies that women like McCrae used to reduce expenditures. When income was
insufficient for McCrae, she used credit to make purchases, or simply avoided purchasing at all.
In some instances, McCrae’ would simply delay purchasing necessary goods until more income
came in. As a consumer, McCrae’s balancing the family economy is shown in two major ways;
her planning and delaying purchasing goods until more income was available, and purchasing on
credit when it could not be delayed.
One of the ways she made do was to delay purchasing shoes for her children. She
explains that “The kids need[ed] shoes but they [would] have to wait until next month.”248 Since
she faced a limited budget, McCrae had to manage her spending in order to make ends meet. She
clearly recognized that her children needed shoes, but did not have the money at the time, so she
had to plan to purchase them the following month. As a mother, McCrae recognized that new
shoes were a requirement for her children, but within her financial constraints, she simply could
not afford to buy them at the time, so she instead hoped that the next month she would have
enough to purchase the shoes.
It was very much the same case when McCrae was purchasing clothing for her children.
McCrae had asked her aunt Alice “send for” articles of children’s clothing (presumably
ordering them from a catalogue), but then changed her mind, telling her; “Just as well you wait

248

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, June 3, 1966.

70
til' the end of the month to send for jeans and t-shirts as we are short” on funds.249 She had
planned the budget with the expectation that “After the end of the month [they]'ll be caught up
tho' and can start sending off a few of the smaller debts” she and Ridler had accumulated.250
McCrae had carefully budgeted the money she had with Ridler both through buying on credit,
which had resulted in these debts, and by delaying purchasing goods.
Another instance where McCrae and Ridler accumulated debt in an effort to purchase
necessities was their visit to Niagara Loans in 1965. After several delays preventing McCrae
from sending for their other belongings to Terrace from Quesnel, McCrae and Ridler “went to
Niagara loans and borrowed the money” they needed to get their goods sent.251 Delaying these
goods any longer was not possible, since the girls’ winter clothing and other important items
were in storage. McCrae had made several attempts to send for the goods before, but with her
financial limitations, just could not manage it until she and Ridler took the loan in November.
McCrae and the children had initially moved in June, so it had been five months of them living
in Terrace without having all of their belongings from Quesnel.
A few months earlier, in August 1965, when McCrae and Ridler had found a space to rent
after moving to Terrace. McCrae explains that “in order to rent this place [she] had to get some
furniture.”252 McCrae and Ridler “were almost broke” at the time.253 Because of the financial

249

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

250

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, March 18, 1965.

251

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, November 16, 1965.

252

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 9, 1965.

253

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 9, 1965.

71
state they had found themselves in, McCrae “went to niagara loans and borrowed $185.00” to
furnish the home.254 With the $185.00 loan, McCrae bought;
a nice red chesterfield chair $10.00
An old cabinet style radio $10.00
A … table and 6 chairs $16.00
A rangette (electric) $10.00
A set of bunkbeds and mattresses $45.00
A double bed $20.00255
McCrae could not live in the home with her children without any furniture, but could not afford
to buy it either. So, she and Ridler instead decided to buy the furniture on credit, hoping that they
could afford to pay the debt at a later date in smaller increments. For McCrae, part of her
management of the household economy was centered on her balancing of debt: both in when to
take on debt to afford necessities and how to manage repayment of loans. McCrae and Ridler
choosing to buy on credit was a common narrative for working class families, who like them,
had no other choice but to either wait, or to take a loan if waiting was not an option.
Because of her limited financial means, McCrae’s ability to borrow money was curtailed
when her relationship with Ridler ended. Purchasing on credit was not exclusively on her own
credit. Since she was working class, and was on welfare consistently through 1966, she had a
limited ability to get credit to make purchases. When McCrae herself could not get the credit
herself to purchase a chest of drawers in August 1966, she instead asks her Aunt Alice to do so
for her. McCrae wrote to Alice, and asked her; "I am wondering if you'd get this chest of drawers
254

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 9, 1965.

255

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 9, 1965.

72
on it for me and have it shipped directly to me at Terrace. I'll send you $10 right away and
another $10 on the 1st of sept. and the balance on the 10th of oct. if you could. I tried to change
it myself but they wouldn't accept my application as I'm on welfare. And I can't afford to put out
the $31.48 all at once."256 For McCrae, buying on credit allowed her to access necessary goods
that she otherwise simply could not afford.
As a single mother, McCrae’s experiences demonstrate the work of British Columbian
women to manage their household through many methods to manage the household economy.
Even with all available methods; formal and informal work, support from kin, state welfare,
family allowance, moving, and changing consumer habits, the resources available to McCrae
were consistently insufficient to the needs of herself and her children.
Even with the work McCrae put into balancing the family economy and providing for
her children, it often proved to be insufficient to their needs, leaving them to go without. Even
though welfare and state support available to McCrae was an improvement at the time, it was not
sufficient for McCrae’s working class family. Because of her limited financial resources,
McCrae resorted to other methods in an effort to provide for her children’s necessities. When all
of these failed, McCrae was simply left to buy her necessities on credit, or delaying buying them
until she could afford it at a later date.
While buying on credit was more characteristic of the postwar period than before, the
methods used by McCrae largely reflect common themes that had been used by working class
families before the development of the Canadian welfare state. Buying on credit, while it was a
tool for McCrae to purchase necessities, still had lasting financial strain for her, as repayment

256

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 8, 1966.

73
required careful balancing of future income. When McCrae had asked Alice to purchase a chest
of drawers on her credit, she had planned when she would be able to make payments on them,
months in advance.257 The development of the Canadian welfare state, through the family
allowance and additional Provincial welfare services were vital for McCrae’s survival. But, she
was still required to do much of the same work that working-class families had done before its
implementation.
McCrae’s experiences largely reflect similar methods employed by working-class women
before the development of the Canadian welfare state. While the implementation of welfare
policies provided much needed support to McCrae and her children, they were not effective in
providing adequate support, leaving McCrae to fall back on other ways to provide for her
children. Rather than replacing informal methods to supplement the family income, welfare
services in the postwar era instead became one of many methods McCrae employed. The
postwar era was unique, as the new implementations of welfare services were unfounded at the
time, but with little actual change for the poorest of working-class families.

257

Jacklyn McCrae to Alice McCrae, August 8, 1966.

74
Conclusion
While the postwar era is renowned for the implementation of welfare reform, working
class families did not fundamentally alter the strategies they used to support themselves. Women
like McCrae continued to use methods of managing the household economy that had been
practised before. These practices were necessary to ensure her children would be provided with
the most basic necessities. Like Baillargeon identified in Montreal, mothers “had to move
mountains to manage to feed their families” within their financial constraints.258 McCrae still had
to utilize all opportunities available to her in an effort to ‘make do’ for herself and her children.
Undoubtedly, any source of income would have been welcome, especially for families like
McCrae’s. State support, such as the family allowance, became a staple in McCrae’s household.
But rather than lift the family out of poverty, as intended, it seems that the family allowance
simply became incorporated in a household economy that hovered around the subsistence level.
While the postwar period is associated with the development of a social welfare state, McCrae’s
experiences suggest that working-class families still relied on methods to get by that had been
used before. Even with all of the additional financial resources available to McCrae, there was a
consistent struggle to manage the most basic needs for herself and her children. While policy
makers implemented these policies with the idea that they would improve lives for working class
Canadians, their aspirations were not effective in the policies they enacted.
Methods used to get by largely remained the same for McCrae as they had been before
the development of the welfare state. She carefully managed all sources of income - male
breadwinner’s pay, informal work, social welfare payment, and boarders - to survive both as a

258

Baillargeon, Making Do, 149.

75
single mother, and during her common-law union with Roy Ridler. While Ridler’s income was
greater than what McCrae received in welfare as a single mother, she had still had to rely on
loans, family allowance, support of family and other methods in an effort to survive. The greatest
support for McCrae, outside of Ridler’s income, was Alice’s gifts and loans of money. Evenith
the support of Ridler, Alice, the family allowance and babysitting money, McCrae still often
found herself struggling to cover her necessities. As a single motherMcCrae no longer had access
to Ridler’s paycheck, so she was left to cover the bills using welfare and other informal work like
babysitting and receiving loans, in addition to voluntary financial support from Ridler and family
allowance.
McCrae’s health, motherhood, relationship status and community were consistent factors
in her ability to cope. Her health was both a factor and symptom of her poverty; since poor
health in turn both limited her ability to procure income, and treating her and her children’s
illnesses were a financial strain. Even though McCrae died at the age of 28, she had a significant
number of health issues and illnesses, especially for a young mother. McCrae required dentures
at 27, after she had been without her teeth for over a year. For McCrae, her lack of access to
dental care further influenced her poor health. As she explained, one of the causes for her being
underweight was struggles to properly eat without her teeth. McCrae suggested that her weight
was likely to improve once she got her teeth properly fitted, helping with a long standing health
problem she faced.
McCrae often went without her necessities largely because she prioritized the needs of
her children first. Much of her focus when balancing the household economy was not for herself,
but the goods her children needed to survive. Prioritization of the children where there was an
insufficient budget was a common working class strategy. McCrae’s letters demonstrate a clear

76
love and care for her children. Motherhood, for McCrae, was not easy. Financial limitations,
concern for her children, and a struggle to survive characterized her experiences through 1955
until her death in 1966. She was a woman who, like many, greatly loved her children, even under
less than ideal circumstances.
Part of McCrae’s experience of motherhood was connected to her complicated
relationships with the fathers of her children: her husband Vincent Shannon and common-law
partner Roy Ridler. McCrae was unable to procure a legal divorce before her death which left her
connected to her estranged husband without the opportunity to end the union in the manner she
sought in the years after she left him. Her relationship with Shannon influenced McCrae’s
relationship with Ridler. As a common-law wife, McCrae’s access to support and social standing
were influenced by the legal ramifications around divorce and separation. Because of the social
circumstances McCrae lived in, she faced social stigma, and more importantly, limited legal
protections for herself and her children. Divorce was inaccessible for McCrae due to the
financial cost. For her, divorce was a continuous consideration, something that she planned for if
she would have had the money to do so.
McCrae’s access to income was a significant factor in not only her inability to get
divorced, but also where she and Ridler had lived during their common-law union. Moving and
relocating for McCrae was often caused by circumstances and income. McCrae and Ridler
moved when Ridler changed work or sought employment, when better accommodations became
available to them, or through necessity. Finances are an important factor in many of McCrae and
Ridler’s moves, since better employment and more hours provided better accommodations, and a
lack of employment would force Ridler to look for work elsewhere. This is especially true

77
considering that Ridler and McCrae did not have a car until October 1965, both because of the
financial cost, and Ridler’s ten year ban on driving in Canada.
Moving not only influenced McCrae’s financial situation, but her social one. The Queen
Charlotte Islands, Quesnel, and Terrace are a significant distance apart from each other. McCrae
lived a considerable distance from Alice, her greatest support system. Much of her work and
efforts to ‘make do’ were influenced by the work and help she could receive, especially in
relation to her female support networks. The women she had around her were sources of income,
through babysitting their children, loans and gifts of money they gave her, in addition to the
emotional and social support they provided her. When moving considerable distances across
Northern British Columbia, McCrae’s access to these supports shifted and changed.
McCrae’s experiences as an impoverished mother identify the work and struggle of
women to ‘make do’ for their families. Her case offers insight into the life of a mother who
challenged the social norms around motherhood and marriage. Her way of life as the mother of
six children, who had a romantic relationship with two different men resulting in the birth of a
child, makes her an interesting case for historical study. Her life, which had many challenges,
struggles and efforts to ‘make do’ give insight into the role of working-class women and the
family economy. McCrae’ experiences, however, were not hers alone. Even with the growing
and developing welfare state, other cases of impoverished women demonstrate that McCrae’s
struggles were not unique. Instead, McCrae’s experiences give insight into the everyday
experiences of working-class mothers in Northern British Columbia, a group of women whose
experiences are largely found outside the traditional archival material.
With all of the support available to McCrae, including the newly developed welfare state,
which provided welfare benefits and the family allowance to McCrae, she still faced continuous

78
struggles and limitations in her efforts to ‘make do’ for her children. While the support was
considered unprecedented at the time, it was not designed for women like McCrae who did not
consistently have a male breadwinner to rely on. Instead, because of her circumstances, McCrae
used all sorts of methods to gain income. Balancing the family economy was a complex task that
involved careful management of intermittent formal work by a male breadwinner, babysitting,
housing boarders, loans from financial institutions and family, the family allowance, welfare,
buying on credit, delaying purchasing, gifts from family and friends, and moving
accommodations. In the end, McCrae made do for herself and her family through whatever
means were necessary. Her life provides insight into the impact of government policy, legal
status around marriage and divorce and an ever changing social safety net on working class
women and their families in mid-twentieth century British Columbia.

79
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Adams, Ian. “The Real Poor in Canada are Women: Three million women in Canada- one half of
all the women in Canada- are poor. Maybe it’s time they stopped taking their economic
beatings with a sweet feminine smile, and started to fight back.” In Chatelaine, April
1969.
Clefton, Kay and Barbara Croft. “I Am A Common-Law Wife: Our story may shock you, or
perhaps just sadden you if it is your story, too. We are a decent middle-class couple but
the rigid divorce laws of Canada force us to a life of deception.” In Chatelaine, May
1965.
Daily Colonist, 1957-1964.
Bodsworth, Fred. “Runaways From Marriage: This year 2,000 Canadian wives will be left to
fend for themselves and their children. What can be done to halt “the crime most easy to
commit”?” In Chatelaine, January 1951.
Globe and Mail, 1957-1967.
“It’s hell on welfare.” In Chatelaine, May 1969.
Kesslering, Margaret. “Canada’s Backward Thinking on Day Nurseries: We applaud well-to-do
parents who send their tots to enriching nursery schools at top fees. Yet we let working
mothers leave their children in the streets or in makeshift “homes.” Why?” In Chatelaine,
April 1966.
Jacklyn McCrae Letters, Private Collection, Calgary.
Silkameen Star, 1945.
The Labour Statesman, 1956-1959.
Quesnel Cariboo, 1956.

80

Secondary Sources:
Baillargeon, Denyse. Making Do: Women, Family and Home in Montreal during the Great
Depression. Translated by Yvonne M Klein. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press,
1999.
Blake, Raymond B. From Rights to Needs: A History of Family Allowances in Canada, 1929-92.
Vancouver, UBC Press, 2009.
Boudreau, Michael, and Bonnie Huskins. Just the Usual Work: The Social Worlds of Ida Martin,
Working-Class Diarist. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228006916.
Bradbury, Bettina. Working Families: Age, Gender, and Daily Survival in Industrializing
Montreal. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003.
Chambers, Lori. Misconceptions: Unmarried Motherhood and the Ontario Children of
Unmarried Parents Act, 1921-1969. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.
ProQuest Ebook Central. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442684577.
Christie, Nancy. Engendering the State: Family, Work, and Welfare in Canada. 1st ed. Toronto;
University of Toronto Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442674479.
Finkel, Alvin. Social Policy and Practice in Canada: A History. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press, 2006.
Little, Margaret Jane Hillyard. No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit: The Moral Regulation of
Single Mothers in Ontario, 1920-1997. Toronto; Oxford University Press, 1998.
Little, Margaret Hillyard. “Claiming a Unique Place: The Introduction of Mothers’ Pensions in
B.C.,” In Child and Family Welfare in British Columbia, eds. Christopher Walmsley, and
Diane Purvey (Detselig Enterprises, 2005).
Pasolli, Lisa. Working Mothers and the Child Care Dilemma: A History of British Columbia’s
Social Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central.
https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774829250.
Purvey, Diane. “"Must a wife do all the adjusting?": attitudes and practices of social workers
toward wife abuse in Vancouver, 1945-1960.” In Walmsley and Purvey, Child and
Family Welfare in British Columbia: A History.

81

Sangster, Joan. Through Feminist Eyes: Essays on Canadian Women’s History. Edmonton:
Athabasca University Press, 2011.
Sangster, Joan. “The Softball Solution: Female Workers, Male Managers and the Operation of
Paternalism at Westclox, 1923-1960. In Sangster, Through Feminist Eyes: Essays on
Canadian Women’s History.
Snell, James G. In the Shadow of the Law: Divorce in Canada, 1900-1939. Toronto, [Ontario];
University of Toronto Press, 1991. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442676060.
Strong-Boag, Veronica. “Interrupted Relations: The Adoption of Children in Twentieth Century
British Columbia.” In Walmsley and Purvey, Child and Family Welfare in British
Columbia: A History.
Struthers, James. The Limits of Affluence: Welfare in Ontario, 1920-1970. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1994. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487586232.
Walmsley, Christopher, and Diane Purvey eds. Child and Family Welfare in British Columbia: A
History. Calgary, Alta: Detselig Enterprises, 2005.