Reviews/Comptes rendus
Do We Care? Renewing Canada’s Commitment
to Health
edited by Margaret A. Somerville. Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999.
Pp. xviii, 166. $44.95.
This is an interesting and timely book, particularly
in light of the recent Canadian federal budget that
did nothing to increase funding for health care. It
taps into two crucial questions. Will the socialized
health-care system in Canada survive? If it does survive, what form will it take? Chapters treat the question of privatization, the history of the current system, ethics, law, and the political forces that drive
levels of spending on health care.
The book could be used as a supplemental text in
second year or higher level undergraduate health
courses in the areas of medicine, administration, social work, business, sociology, political science,
economics, or nursing. There is sufficient variety to
offer a diversity of ideas as well as enough congruence to provide coherence.
I saw a thread running through several of the
chapters: the nature and role of evidence. It is interesting to note that authors criticize the use of evidence to direct resource allocation and improvement
of services. Yet they fail to attack the implicit
trivialization of lived experiences by buying into
discussions of “anecdotal” evidence. Perhaps this
is a way to move the debate forward, not by dismissing evidence but rather by arguing for more
valid and inclusive forms of evidence.
387
I find two limitations in terms of what the book
omits — diversity and criticism of health-care practice. In terms of diversity, I applaud the inclusion
of discussions of persons living with HIV/AIDS, but
note the absence of significant discussion of how
the issues relate to important Canadian constituencies such as women, persons of colour, and persons
with disabilities. The discussions centre on questions of maintaining or improving the current healthcare system. However, this seems to have limited
criticism of the current system despite discussion
of how health-care consumers are beginning to “vote
with their feet” and in so doing create an enormous
market for alternative therapies. My worry is that
the threat of taking health care away has meant
people are forgetting to push for its reform and examine the large range of troubles that our society
relegates to health care. Both these omissions come
together when we consider that much of the burden
of downloading and downsizing has been borne by
women as patients, health-care workers, and care
givers to loved ones. Ideas like family and community care may have their greatest impact on women.
In total, I think it is a useful book but the omissions in the book would require additional readings
and discussions in class in order to cover Canadian
diversity and a critique of health-care practice.
BARBARA HANSON, Atkinson College, York University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
388 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Once Upon an Oldman: Special Interest
Politics and the Oldman River Dam
by Jack Glenn. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 1999.
Don’t be misled by the apparent narrowness of the
subject of Jack Glenn’s Once Upon an Oldman. The
implications Glenn draws from his analysis of the
building of an irrigation dam go far beyond the details of conflict involving a divided Indian band,
litigious environmentalists and an old Tory government intent on pandering to the water lobby in
Alberta’s deep south. What this book is really most
about is the demise of the rule of law in Canada.
As Glenn argues, there are sweeping constitutional and political significances in the stymied effort of the Friends of the Oldman River Society
(FOR) to press charges on the Alberta government
for violating the federal Fisheries Act in constructing the dam in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The
precedent was set that there is now officially no way
short of constitutional challenges for citizens as
groups or individuals to hold government officials
accountable for violating Crown statutes. In other
words, governments are effectively free to carry on
criminal activities as long as voters are willing to
sanction them in doing so.
As Glenn puts it, “the unfettered power of attorneys general, which the courts are not prepared to
challenge and which Parliament is not prepared to
diminish, allows governments to sidestep their own
laws.” As the word gets out that government officials and their friends can and do simply flout Crown
statutes with impunity, we citizens can legitimately
ask why we should be expected to respect the very
legal regime that is violated by those charged to protect it.
A former civil servant in the environment bureaucracies of both Alberta and Canada, Mr. Glenn
has a pretty colourful story to tell. He fills his readers in, for instance, on the elaborate legal manoeuvres tried by FOR’s Martha Kostach, on the heavyCANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
handed political responses of Tory patronage boss
Ken Kowalski or the rookie environmental minister
Ralph Klein, on the olive branch offered by former
oil executive cum Indian chief Peter Strikes With a
Gun, on the self-indulgences of Lonefighter leader
Milton Born With A Tooth, on the court of Judge
Laurie MacLean who was chastised by his judicial
peers for the “insensitivity to cultural and religious
differences,” and on the belated work of a federal
Environmental Review Panel who recommended that
the dam be decommissioned after the installation
was already completed. All in all the truth is as good
as a yarn by Tom King, whose acclaimed novel,
Green Grass, Running Water, draws on the rich convergence of what Glenn refers to as “special interest politics” in the coulees of the Napi’s River. Napi
is the Blackfoot name of the old man trickster who
created the world.
I have a major axe to grind with Glenn. There
were two people who faced criminal charges as a
result of the protests aimed at the project. One of
them was Milton Born With A Tooth. In 1990 in an
action inspired by the concurrent stance of the
Mohawk Warriors at Oka Quebec, the Lonefighter
leader let loose what he claimed were two warning
shots when the RCMP and Alberta Environment officials came to shut down his group’s own anti-dam
digging project. The other person charged was me.
But my chosen projectile of protest was words rather
than bullets. That matter, like many other features
of the local resistance to the dam, remained
unaddressed in the author’s otherwise compelling
legal, administrative, and environmental history.
Glenn entirely missed the criminal charge I faced
for having spoken in a public education centre about
my contention that the Alberta government was violating its own laws. The CAUT would later deem
that this charge itself constituted a violation of my
academic freedom. Meanwhile, the very Attorney
General trying to criminalize me was also busy taking over from FOR the charge that the Alberta government had violated the federal Fisheries Act. The
provincial government then stayed its own charge
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
against itself as it continued to press forward what
Glenn descries as “the illegally constructed dam.”
Among the provincial Crown’s other violations was
the fact that the builders lacked a federal permit on
a project clearly affecting federal legislative responsibility for fish, for Indians, for lands reserved for
the Indians and for inland navigation.
Glenn makes little effort to give historical background to his important observations that governments in Canada are basically now above their own
laws. My inclination is to see the breakdown as the
outcome of a long process whose origins lie in the
sabotaging of key features of our British constitutional heritage that began with the Liberal regime
of Prime Minister W.L.M. King. As many academic
critics of the King government have pointed out,
King moved toward American models of governance
but without the checks and balances of the US sys-
389
tem. As Senator Eugene Forsey observed, the result
has been “to promote the demagogic hearsay that
elections ultimately decide constitutional law and
that a people can vote away its own liberties.” For
the regimes of Brian Mulroney and Don Getty it was
far more expedient politically to push ahead the illegal Oldman Dam than to insist that their
governments should obey the law and uphold the
constitution.
Jack Glenn’s book illuminates an important trend
of breakdown in the core integrity of our institutions of law enforcement. If this trend is not soon
reversed then all Canadians will have to deal with
the pervasive prevalence of the rule of politics over
the rule of law.
ANTHONY J. HALL, Department of Native American
Studies, University of Lethbridge
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
390 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Civil Society in Question
by Jamie Swift. Toronto: Between The Lines, 1999.
Pp. xiii, 170. $16.95.
The collapse of the Soviet Union has led to a number
of interesting intellectual developments. One of
these is the revitalization of the concept of “civil
society.” Those on the right continue to fear big
government, while those on the left continue to fear
big business (now generally referred to as the “market”). A possible alternative to both is the development of what Ripkind (The End of Work, 1995) has
called the “Third Sector” and what the author, Jamie
Swift, calls “the fuzzy area between the state and
the market” (p. 61). Of special interest from a policy
point of view, are non-profit, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based on the voluntary support
of ordinary citizens. Such organizations offer the
hope of de-centralization of power, accountability
to the grass roots and greater efficacy in dealing with
practical problems. The lack of a profit motive
pleases the left, the minimal role for government
pleases the right, and the possibility of effective
action pleases those whose foremost concern is the
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
welfare of the weak. The book under review offers
an interesting discussion of the concept by someone with close ties to the NGO movement. (Indeed,
it is, in part, a summation of a successful conference on the topic.) It provides a useful perspective
on both the theory and practice of NGOs. Case
studies from Canada and South Asia illustrate the
main themes. There is an acute consciousness of the
many potential pitfalls that face such organizations.
One such pitfall is that successful NGOs quickly
find themselves dependent on business or government sponsors. Thus, much of the initial ideological appeal of the NGO is lost while its original aims
may be compromised. However, after considering
many sides of the topic, the author concludes that
NGOs still have a valuable role to play. Students
and neophytes would likely find this text a good introduction to the field. Specialists may well find its
perspectives interesting. Activists may wish to add
it to their library.
R ICHARD O GMUNDSON , Department of Sociology,
University of Victoria
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Straight Talk on Canadian Unity
by Stéphane Dion. Montreal and Quebec: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1999. Pp. xxi, 254.
This book is a collection of 36 speeches and statements by the minister of intergovernmental affairs
during his first three years in office, with a preface
by Peter H. Russell, who describes himself as the
“instigator” of the book, and an introduction by the
author. Reportedly no francophone publisher was
willing to publish it, and since the author rightly
insisted that it be published in both languages, or
not at all, McGill-Queen’s published both the English and French editions.
The selections are arranged in four sections: The
Spirit of Federalism, A Changing Federation,
Canadian Identity and the Quebec Society, and The
Dangers of Secession in Democracy. The first two
sections, which could probably have been combined
into one, provide the most eloquent defence of Canadian federalism by a practising politician since
the retirement of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The third
consists mainly of pleas for the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. The last section, the only
one in which most of the selections were addressed
to Quebec audiences in the first instance, warns of
the perils of secession. It includes several letters
addressed to provincial politicians in Quebec. There
is no index, although the inclusion of one would have
enhanced the usefulness of the volume.
There is, understandably, considerable repetition
of arguments and themes in this collection of
speeches addressed to different audiences. (Only
four of the speeches were made in the House of
Commons.) The themes or expressions that appear
most often are democracy and multiculturalism (tied
for first place), decentralization, linguistic duality,
391
flexibility, and unity. De Tocqueville is the only
political philosopher mentioned more than twice.
There is surprisingly little reference to Canadian
history, although Cartier and Laurier are each mentioned twice, and Baldwin and Lafontaine once. The
speeches are factually accurate and on the whole
convincing, apart from a long paragraph on page 158
in which Dion grossly underestimates the number
of Irish and Welsh people who can speak the traditional languages of their respective countries. (The
point of the paragraph is to argue that French in the
provinces other than Quebec has resisted assimilation better than minority languages in Europe — a
questionable thesis except in the case of New
Brunswick.)
Comparisons with Trudeau and with Federalism
and the French Canadians are perhaps inevitable
given the circumstances in which Dion left academic
life to become a politician. As Peter Russell points
out in his preface, there are differences between the
two men, and the two volumes. On the one hand,
Dion’s speeches are less academic in tone and contain fewer erudite references than Trudeau’s essays,
most of which were written before he entered politics. On the other hand, Dion only once (p. 146)
approaches Trudeau’s level of hostility and contempt
for the sovereignists. He seems less inclined to denounce them than to show them the error of their
ways.
Whether Stéphane Dion will succeed in his political mission to resolve Canada’s persistent
national question remains to be seen. Meanwhile,
those with an interest in the subject should read this
volume, whatever their point of view.
GARTH STEVENSON, Department of Political Science,
Brock University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
392 Reviews/Comptes rendus
New Canadian Perspectives: Languages in
Canada, 1996 Census
by Louise Marmen and Jean-Pierre Corbeil. Ottawa:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services,
1999. Pp. 86.
This book examines the evolution of language in
Canada since 1951. It examines two major questions,
namely, what factors determine the size of language
groups in Canada and what factors determine their
growth and/or decline. In so doing, it presents an
overview of changes and draws a portrait of the current language situation in Canadian society.
The book consists of five chapters. Chapter 1
deals with the English language. It looks at changes
in the size and distribution of English as a mother
tongue and home language. In addition, it looks at
the knowledge of English among Canadians as well
as the distribution of English as an official language.
Similarly, Chapter 2 examines patterns of French
language use among Canadians. Chapter 3 deals with
the patterns of use of Canada’s non-official lan-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
guages. Chapter 4 focuses on bilingualism in terms
of French and English speakers in Canada. This
chapter also looks at individuals who speak neither
of Canada’s official languages. The final chapter
examines the major factors that have affected the
evolution of language groups since 1951, such as
immigration, fertility, interprovincial migration,
generational transmission, and language transfer.
As indicated in the preface, the demolinguistic
statistics of Canada have been quite comparable over
the last 50 years, whereas the ethnic origin statistics have not been. This book should prove valuable
as a data source regarding the changing position of
the two founding groups in Canada since 1951. In
addition, the straightforward analyses of trends regarding the French and English languages, the nonofficial languages and knowledge of official languages should also be of interest to scholars, students and policymakers for some time to come.
M ADELINE A. K ALBACH , Chair of Ethnic Studies,
University of Calgary
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
A Female Economy: Women’s Work in a
Prairie Province 1870-1970
by Mary Kinnear. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1998. Pp. xiv, 215. $55.00.
This book is far more than its title leads one to expect. It is a quietly told story of massive social
change. Manitoba was the first province to allow, in
1916, non-First Nations women to vote. Fifty years
later it was alone in presenting a provincial brief,
written and researched by feminists, to the 1967
Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Kinnear’s history of women’s work in Manitoba
presents, as one would expect, details of the work
women performed in the home and outside, richly
illustrated with contemporary accounts showing its
endless, difficult, and unacknowledged nature, as
well as the way it was affected by factors such as
class and property, ethnicity, and rural or urban residence. But Kinnear includes in her definition and
analysis of women’s work those activities, conscious
and unconscious, that contributed to policy reform.
Kinnear asks what was the contribution of women’s
work to the economy, and what were its constraints.
Throughout the period, women’s work was limited
by the family wage ideology which affected economic policy, family policy, land title policy, access
to birth control, marriage patterns, and labour utilization. Understandings of what women should do
was written into law and policy, but also emerged
in contemporary feminist writing. While feminists
took issue with policymakers and prevailing ideology, taking pains to reveal the material reality of
women’s lives, they debated each other on questions
of women’s work and motherhood. Kinnear discusses the influential work of Manitoba women like
Margret Benedictsson, who wrote about the value
393
of women’s work in the family in an Icelandiclanguage magazine, suffragist and pacifist Francis
Marion Beynon, family planning advocate Mary
Speechly, and Charlotte Whitton whose 1928 child
welfare inquiry recommended women be allowed
to supplement their mother’s allowance with employment income. Yet any focus on individual reformers is balanced with attention to women’s
organizations, and to the shifts brought about by
thousands of women whose sometimes subtle, other
times dramatic steps in their everyday lives have
gradually brought about changes.
Throughout the book Kinnear documents the
impact of policy on women’s lives, shown most
starkly for First Nations women. As well she discusses women’s involvement in policy and legislative critique and development. Suffrage brought with
it “a new confused and confusing role for women:
woman as citizen” (p. 138). Public service was seen
to be particularly well suited to women. As Winnipeg alderman and feminist Margaret McWilliams put
it “When we women get out into this work ... then,
indeed, I think the business of living will begin to
improve and civilization will move onward”
(p. 138). Kinnear’s historical analysis shows us that
women’s dependency, on the feminist agenda in the
early years of the century, was still there in the
1960s, but an important shift was taking place, in
which women were assuming an individual identity
within and outside the family. This book is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the complexity of women’s work in policy reform, and a
quiet celebration of its potential.
BELINDA L EACH, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
394 Reviews/Comptes rendus
White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada
by Karl Froschauer. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1999. Pp. xiii, 322. $85.00.
There was a common pattern to hydroelectric development in the five provinces with significant
hydro resources. At an early stage, rural households
and small businesses were dissatisfied with the reluctance of existing private firms to provide them
with affordable service. Political movements led to
the establishment of corporations run by the provincial governments to provide “power for the
people,” “at or below cost.” Successful at assuming
the risk of development and at cross subsidizing
small interests, the provincial hydros proceeded to
a stage of intensive overbuilding, exhibiting preferences for exporting to the US as a use for allegedly
temporary surpluses, and for luring foreign investment in the long term. The desired foreign investment did not come. Moreover, this development path
was inimical to the creation of an east-west grid,
which would have increased the security of the supply of electricity in Canada, postponed the need for
building new facilities, and supplanted some uses
of fossil fuels. Blame for the missed opportunity
rested on the uncooperativeness of the provincial
governments and the unwillingness of the federal
government to impose a national policy through the
National Energy Board. As a result, Canada was increasingly locked into a continental electricity market.
The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
now imposes terms of reciprocal access to transmission systems, which have become common carriers.
Any province that wheels electricity into the US
must make its own transmission system a common
carrier, divested from its generating facilities. Such
liberalization of the market may lead to privatization of the provincial hydros.
Although his research is extensive, Froschauer
is open to interpretations of only the nationalist left,
stressing the potential linkages that might have been
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
had from a national electricity program. He seems
to agree that “power exported is power lost,” and
yet to fear that US firms might eventually export to
Canada. His discussion of load management and of
power surpluses is unsophisticated.
Even so, several of his points are well taken. It is
arguable that nationalization (“reverse privatization”) was good policy. Monopoly pricing and rural
electrification were universal problems. A provincial government may have been able to diversify risk
better than a private firm. Consumers’ surpluses may
have justified costly, risky capital expenditure. These
issues are not addressed consistently, however, and
the lack of discussion affects the interpretation of
later events. Once firmly established, the provincial
hydros may well have developed remote sites imprudently; it is easy to spend other people’s money.
The point is missed that any such imprudence stands
in distinct contrast to privately owned Brinco’s care
in assuring contracts for its output at Churchill Falls
before proceeding with development. Finally, interprovincial barriers to trade stand out as an egregious
inefficiency of Confederation. Roland Priddle,
Chairman of the NEB, indicated a desire to eliminate them in electricity trade, but could not.
Little is said of the future, except for mention of
the “danger” of privatization. It is hard to escape
the conclusion that the next decade will see a major
restructuring of electricity provision in all provinces.
For the past century, the industry has been a natural
monopoly. Now, technologies of generation and of
transmission are making competition possible. Liberalization will indeed erode any remaining justification for the hydros. Far from being a danger, however, liberalization will have significant benefits for
all Canadians, and yield a triple dividend to residents of the five hydro provinces. It will provide all
three gains attributed to the lamented national grid,
but more effectively. By selling their hydros, provincial governments will be able to pay down (some
of) their debt. There will be more rational develop-
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
395
ment, pricing and use of resources, yielding abundant power at marginal cost, for all who are willing
to pay.
R OBERT D. C AIRNS , Department of Economics,
McGill University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
396 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural
Relations in Canada
by Will Kymlicka. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Pp. 220
This scholarly but eminently readable book should
be read by everyone (not just scholars) interested in
multi-ethnic/national societies generally and Canada
in particular. Its ideas, insights, and arguments
would be helpful for citizens of increasingly diverse
societies to better understand and cope with the bewildering set of complex and difficult issues they
are confronted with almost daily. Leaders in Europe,
Asia, and North America are doing exactly that.
Pascal Zachary of The Wall Street Journal1 claims
they draw inspiration from Will Kymlicka’s ideas
and regularly seek his advice. The book takes a refreshingly unusual, objective, and balanced look,
unlike many others, at one of the thorniest problems
of our times — ethno-cultural relations in general
and multiculturalism in particular.
Unlike his earlier, more theoretical work
(Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights) Kymlicka examines the more practical, policy issues here in order to get “a meaningful
debate going in which Canadians can discuss the
real issues in an informed way” about ethno-cultural
diversity. Contrary to many of the popular views,
he argues that “Canada provides an important model
of how a pluralistic country can live, not in utopian
harmony, but in peace, civility and justice.” He examines the two major sources of ethno-cultural diversity: “national minorities” (the Aboriginal people
and the Québécois) and smaller “ethnic (or immigrant) groups,” both living in a country dominated
by people of British origin. The first half of the book
(entitled The Merits of Multiculturalism) deals with
Canada’s approach to the accommodation of “immigrant groups” and the second half (The Unhappy
Marriage of Federalism and Nationalism) with national minorities.
In explaining and evaluating the debate around
“multiculturalism” over the past decade, Kymlicka
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
systematically refutes the claims of “best-selling”
but “ill-informed” critics such as Neil Bissoondath,
Richard Gwyn, and others who have argued that
Canadian multiculturalism has promoted a form of
“ghettoization,” “apartheid” and disunity. He points
out that not only do these critics not provide any
evidence for their views but the evidence contradicts them: the levels of integration, as measured
by rates of naturalization, political, economic or
social participation, official language acquisition,
intermarriage, residential integration, etc. have increased since the adoption of the multiculturalism
policy in 1971. Indeed, the two countries with such
a policy (Canada and Australia) “lead the world in
the integration of immigrants.”
Kymlicka gives several reasons for the common
myths and misconceptions about the policy among
“so many intelligent and otherwise well-informed
commentators:” defenders of the policy, especially
the federal government, have been “strangely inarticulate;” looking up and evaluating the evidence
involves more work than armchair speculation; Canadians have no clear sense of the “limits of
multiculturalism” and hence feel insecure; and the
failure of many people to see that this policy is “not
the only — or even the primary — government
policy” impacting on ethnic groups in Canada.
Situating the policy in this broader context, it
becomes clear that it is not a rejection of integration but rather a vehicle for adjusting the terms of
integration — a renegotiation “not merely justified
but overdue” according to Kymlicka. In the rest of
Part 1 of the book, he discusses a range of specific
policies associated with multiculturalism, the limits of tolerance, and the potential directions for
multiculturalism — pertaining to race relations, various non-ethnic identity groups (e.g., gays/lesbians
and people with disabilities) and group representation in the political process.
Unfortunately, Kymlicka does not sufficiently
explain two points that help us better understand
multiculturalism. The first is that the meaning and
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
use of the term varies greatly (as a concept, official
policy/program, everyday reality/practice, etc.) from
one person to another and one context or time to
another, resulting in confusion and people talking
at cross-purposes. Second, the importance of the
historical context, particularly the evolution of the
policy from its original emphasis on ethnic heritage
retention to the later focus on participation and social justice, needs to be clearly underlined.
Just as Kymicka’s conclusions in Part 1 are, by
his own admission, relatively optimistic, his arguments on the more complex and problematic question of national minorities in Part 2 are more ambivalent and his outlook more pessimistic. National
minorities in Canada view federalism as a way of
maintaining themselves as distinct, self-governing
societies (controlling their own legal, educational,
social, and political institutions) within the larger
Canadian confederation. They therefore favour the
“asymmetrical” model of federalism which enables
them to exercise such control. However, most English-speaking Canadians (including ethnic minorities within this population) view federalism as a
partnership of “equals” with no constituent province having special status or powers. Thus they want
the “symmetrical/territorial” model which is administratively less complicated. These are diametrically
opposed positions and, unless positions change, an
uneasy deadlock ensues with an ever-present threat
of secession looming in the background.
The only way out of this situation, Kymlicka believes, is to persuade English-speaking Canadians
to accept some form of “asymmetrical multination
federalism” which allows for differential status for
nationally-based units (e.g., for the Québécois and
397
the Aboriginal people). Kymlicka himself is not very
optimistic about the future because, based on his
reading of the situation, Canadians seem unwilling
to learn from our successes in the case of
multiculturalism and unwilling to learn from our
failures in the case of minority nationalism. This,
however, may be an excessively negative take on
the situation.
History does not really bear out this reading of
the way Canadians have dealt with such difficulties.
Indeed, a convincing case can be made that the notion of “asymmetry” is not new to Canada. It has
been a basic building block of the present Canadian
state — from the earliest days to our time — and
Canadians have managed with it quite successfully
for several hundred years (two examples, widely
separated in time, are the retention of the code civil
in Québec in 1774 and the unique terms under which
Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949). Perhaps this is why, as Kymlicka himself notes, much
of the rest of the world wants to learn how Canada
has managed to evolve so peacefully. I believe Will
Kymlicka would be the first to be glad to have history prove him over-pessimistic. Perhaps if all Canadians recognized the pre-existence of such asymmetry and its valuable contribution, they would be
less afraid of endorsing it today.
NOTE
1
G. Pascal Zachary. 2000. “A Philosopher in Red
Sneakers Gains Influence as a Global Guru — From Estonia to New Zealand, Nations with Ethnic Strife Turn to
Will Kymlicka,” The Wall Street Journal, 28 March, p. B1.
D HIRU P ATEL , Department of Canadian Heritage,
Ottawa
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000
398 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Pondering NATO’s Nuclear Options: Gambits
for a Post-Westphalian World
edited by David G. Haglund. Kingston, ON: Queen’s
Quarterly, 1999. Pp. 208.
The only reason for including a reference to a PostWestphalian World in the title of this special edition of Queen’s Quarterly appears to be that the
occasion for the workshop that gave rise to this collection was to commemorate the 350th anniversary
of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This event has
become accepted by students of international relations as conventionally marking the definitive emergence of an international system that in its essentials remains with us today, and the constitutive
principle of which is that it is composed of equally
sovereign independent states. This characterization
has always been something of a fiction, but, nonetheless, has been the basis of the world in which we
live. Now, some argue that the central position of
the state in world politics is being eroded, and that
as a result we are moving into a post-Westphalian
era. The authors who contributed to this volume are
too sensible to be beguiled by the many misconceptions associated with this position and, other than offering some more or less token recognition that the
world is indeed changing, base their analyses on the
firm assumption that the state (sovereign indeed!) is
still the central actor in international politics.
Nowhere is this more so than when the role and
character of nuclear weapons are being considered.
So far, these weapons remain firmly under state control, and despite frequently expressed concerns
about their falling into the hands of various nonstate actors, no solid evidence has yet emerged that
this is something likely to happen anytime soon, and
is unlikely to do so as long as the present nuclearweapon states keep a firm grip on them. Concerning nuclear weapons, no one should be looking forward to a post-Westphalian world. Even in the case
of a possible future European nuclear deterrent, the
two authors who consider this possibility (Schmidt
and De Spiegeliere), recognize that such an eventuality will come to pass only if the European Union
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
becomes, in effect, a state writ large. The rest of the
chapters in this book range widely, and include accounts of the post-Cold War policies of the three nuclear powers in the Atlantic Alliance, a thoughtful essay on the concept of “national interest” (MacFarlane),
a sceptical examination of the role that nuclear weapons might play in deterring the use of biological weapons (Thränert), and two pieces on the Canadian debate. Again the editor of this book might be called on
truth in advertising since it is surprising, given its title, that there is no chapter specifically on NATO.
All in all, this is a collection of articles worth
reading, but for readers of this Journal it is the two
articles on Canada’s policies concerning nuclear
weapons that might prove to be of greatest interest.
Jockel and Sokolsky discuss the consistent misrepresentation by Canadian governments of what
American and NATO nuclear strategy was all about
during the Cold War. Rather than being about deterrence pur sang, as represented by the acronym MAD
(Mutual Assured Destruction), the authors argue that
the deterrence strategy adopted by the Alliance, and
concurred in by all the allies, including Canada, was
one premised upon war-fighting assumptions. In
turn, Fortmann and Haglund examine the 1998 hearings and report of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade on Canadian policies with respect to nuclear
non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament.
Despite the bias of the committee toward the committed nuclear disarmers, who advocated a major
shift in Canadian policy and who sought an initiative along the lines of Foreign Minister Axworthy’s
successful pursuit of a treaty banning land mines,
the end result was in effect a reluctant endorsement
of NATO’s current policy, which, it is worth noting,
retains the option of first use. In the end, Fortmann
and Haglund conclude that Canada’s long-standing
history of pursuing consensus in the Alliance overcame the temptation to take dramatic initiatives in
this diplomatically sensitive field.
PAUL BUTEUX, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba
VOL . XXVI , NO . 3 2000
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Much Ado about Culture: North American
Trade Disputes
by Keith Acheson and Christopher J. Maule. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Pp. 364.
Keith Acheson and C.J. Maule are very knowledgeable and prolific scholars. They understand the diverse and complex matters of cultural policy in
Canada and comparatively. Indeed, in the bibliography to their book, Much Ado about Culture, they
list no less than 25 entries under their own names —
and that is just since 1988.
The book is divided into three parts. The first part
deals with the issues and setting of culture and cultural industries. Part two deals with the economics
of cultural production in film, television, radio, publishing and sound recording. Part three deals with a
variety of “cases” which have caused friction or disputes between Canada and the US in the cultural
industries, such as the case of Sports Illustrated, the
Country Music Television channel, Borders bookstores, and others.
The book is overwhelmingly historical and descriptive. And the research and depth of knowledge
are complete and exhaustive. If one wants a portrait
of the topic, then one can read the introduction and
conclusions to each chapter. If one wants to probe
the depths of the topic, then the details found within
each chapter are thorough and complete.
But there is a larger intent to the book. As the
authors state: “The purpose of the book is to examine these industries, their modes of organization and
underlying technology, related domestic policies and
their interface with international agreements. By
examining the evolution of particular disputes that
have arisen between Canada and the United States,
we look for lessons and implications for developing an international governance structure for this
sector of the economy, one that will be flexible
enough to accommodate convergence and the
Internet” (p. xi).
399
Alas, after reading this well-researched and exhaustive work, one comes away with a deep sense
of unreality. The book was published in 1999, but
much of the research and academic citations derive
from the early and middle part of the nineties, or
from earlier decades.
The Internet has exploded in the past year and
the scale, scope, and eruptive influence of the Internet
on all aspects of the cultural industries are only now
being understood, experienced, and thought through.
Nobody anticipated the profundity of these changes.
In the real world, we are now witnessing a furious struggle for ownership, development, and control of intellectual and cultural properties. Mergers,
mega-mergers, attempted break-ups of monopolies,
global rivalries, volatility in NASDAQ.... it is all
very dizzying and complicated. And all of this has
to do with the fact that value and profit in the twentyfirst century is driven by cultural/intellectual
properties.
Hence, the book’s intent may be valuable, but it
suffers from a profound air of contemporary unreality. It is badly dated. In effect, it has very little to
tell us or offer insights into the questions of “convergence and the Internet.” On the matter of the
Internet, for example, there is a section entitled “The
Emergence of the Internet” found on pp. 29-37, but
it appears to have been written some three years ago
and is both vague and shallow.
Much Ado about Culture is a valuable historical
work and it should find a secure place in university
libraries. But it would be significant to have the
authors revisit the topic in a year or two from now
and really undertake and complete what they stated
they would do: “look for lessons ... to accommodate convergence and the Internet.” An excellent
intent, but not executed in this book — yet!
H OWARD A STER (retired), Department of Political
Science, McMaster University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVI, NO. 3 2000