Reviews/Comptes rendus
The Rights Revolution
by Michael Ignatieff. Toronto: Anansi Press, 2000.
Pp. xi, 170. $16.95.
Michael Ignatieff says that his latest book, The
Rights Revolution, is a “modest exercise in democratic education.” Its text was delivered originally
in five parts for the famed Massey Lectures Series,
and broadcast on CBC Radio in November 2000. In
fact, this small book — it is only 141 pages long —
grapples with some very big questions: How can a
modern society reconcile political equality and social diversity? Do group rights jeopardize individual
rights? Do individual rights weaken the idea of community? What is going on in Canada, and why have
we seen so many constitutional and social crises in
recent years? Just as ambitiously, the book tries to
address two audiences simultaneously: political and
legal academics who have made careers writing
about such things, and an informed lay audience that
wants to locate Canadian public life within a larger
discussion of rights, democracy, and equality.
None of this makes this dense and idiosyncratic
book easy to read or easy to review. Yet Ignatieff’s
snapshot of the state of modern Canada is too insightful to be ignored. Ignatieff’s book asks what,
for Canadians, is the hardest question of all: whether
or not the “rights culture” we have developed over
the last generation will be enough to hold our society together, in the face of the many and profound
cross-cutting forces that threaten to pull it apart. His
conclusion — almost a year ago now — was hopeful,
but open-ended. As the anniversary of the lectures rolls
around, it is time to consider whether we know anything more about the answer to his question.1
Ignatieff sets the stage for his discussion by way
of a sweeping, high-speed tour through Canada’s
political and social landscape, highlighting such
features as Quebec’s secession debate, Aboriginal
self-government, the evolving nature of the family,
and the impact of immigration. The image of the
Canadian cultural environment that emerges looks
like this (and both he and I are being impressionis-
515
tic here): first, the country bears the inheritance of
three nations — the English, the French, and the
Aboriginal — that, unlike other “minority groups,”
assert collective political rights based on the fact
that they were present when Canada was created
such that its original legitimacy rested (or ought to
have rested) on their consent. Second, those nations
disagree profoundly with each other when it comes
to central truths about Canadian history and identity. According to Ignatieff, this cuts deeper than just
contested interpretations of a common experience
in whose truth everyone ultimately believes. He argues that Canada’s constituent nations literally do
not inhabit the same historical reality, even though
they share a coincidence of time and place; they are
three solitudes. Third, this historical Canada is being transformed by fundamental demographic shifts,
particularly the presence of more recent immigrant
populations that are not prepared simply to accept
the “founding nations” mythology on which the federation’s original parties struck their bargain. For
these new Canadians, the notion of Canada as a pact
between founding nations undermines not only the
rhetoric of multiculturalism, but also all Canadians’
legitimate claims to inclusion as equal, rights-bearing citizens.
Ignatieff’s keen eye picks up how Canadians have
longed at times to be a straightforward nation of
individuals, freed from the encrustations of history
and group allegiance. He argues, for example, that
Trudeau’s bilingualism policy was really aimed at
eliminating the political significance of one’s
francophone or anglophone status, rather than at
celebrating the country’s dual linguistic heritage. On
the other hand, Ignatieff points to the persistent role
that linguistic, religious, and educational group allegiances have played in Canada, and to the groupconscious political theory that Canadians like
Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka have produced.2
He argues that multinational, multi-ethnic states like
Canada cannot be described accurately either as a
nation of identical rights-bearing individuals operating within an undifferentiated political space, or
as a patchwork quilt of distinct national collectives
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
516 Reviews/Comptes rendus
contained in one state; they are both. The consequence is a continual tension between individual
identity and group affiliation that has resurfaced in
various guises throughout the country’s history.
Ignatieff observes correctly that in this environment,
the delicate Canadian federation traditionally has
been kept up — for at least a century almost everyone
seemed to believe, in good faith, that it could only be
kept up — as a conscious, tightly choreographed political dance directed by a select few powerbrokers and
constitutional specialists, with minimal input from, or
accountability to, the citizenry.
Enter, unexpectedly, a Rights Revolution. Beginning in the 1960s but reaching a zenith over the last
decade, the struggles of women and minorities for
full civil rights, and the struggle of Aboriginal
peoples for self-government, have widened and
deepened the scope of political debate. Rights talk
has seeped into every conversation and even become
something of a trump card, not only in the public,
but also the social and private spheres. The arguments mustered in favour of expanded rights recognition have been compelling. As a result, Ignatieff
argues (a bit prematurely, I think) that for the first
time in their history western liberal societies are trying to make democracy work on conditions of total
inclusion, not only of propertied men, or whites, or
traditional dual-gender married couples, but of
everyone. Greater inclusion is, of course, more just;
yet the rights revolution has also been divisive and
destabilizing. Certainly in Canada, the increasingly
democratic and disputatious nature of political debate has made the country harder to govern by usual
means. To switch to the author’s metaphor, the “high
priests of federalism,” who for 125 years
“interpret[ed] the sacred texts and wave[d] the incense of rhetoric in the direction of the congregation,” had lost control utterly of the “rituals of unity”
by the time of the 1995 Quebec Referendum.3
The book’s most important question is how the
explosion of rights talk is shaping a particularly
Canadian neurosis: the view of our history as an
unresolved struggle to fashion a common sense of
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
identity and place in the world. Ignatieff poses it
squarely: the central question for Canada at this
point in its rights revolution is whether a culture
based on rights “is enough to hold the country together, whether it creates a sufficiently robust sense
of belonging, and a sufficiently warm-hearted kind
of mutual recognition, to enable us to solve our differences peacefully.”4 He does not try to finesse the
answer; there are no satisfied nods to geography,
“Good Government,” non-Americanness, or even
beer commercials. 5 Ignatieff recognizes that the
country faced alarming doubts in the 1990s, not only
about what held it together as a state but also about
what, other than necessity and historical accident,
held Canadians together as a society. But Ignatieff’s
most arresting observation is that in contemporary
Canada, it is a rights culture or nothing, no Canada;
this state cannot fall back on blood or culture or even
common history.
In an attempt to understand where events have
taken us, the author looks at what recognizing rights
actually means for a society. He distills his own
concept of “rights” down to four key elements at
the end of the book’s second chapter.6 First and most
basically, rights mandate limits on the use of force
against human beings. Second, rights create
reciprocities, which are the bedrock of communities; they express not only individual but also collective values. Third, the supreme value that rights
protect is human agency (which he defines as “the
capacity of individuals to set themselves goals and
to accomplish them as they see fit”7). Because individual agency manifests in uniqueness, not sameness, Ignatieff advocates the “recognition” of
difference (as Charles Taylor uses the term), and a
focus on reciprocity — that is, on a demonstrated
give-and-take between parts of society — rather than
on mirror-image identity of treatment. Fourth, rights
are not abstractions. They represent the core of a
society’s values, as forged by its own unique history and through the efforts of its own ancestors.
Each of these observations receives sophisticated
treatment in Ignatieff’s hands, but the second one is
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
the most relevant here. In claiming that reciprocal
rights are community-creating, Ignatieff disagrees
with Mary Ann Glendon, who coined the term
“rights talk” and who would set rights and community in opposition to each other.8 Ignatieff argues
that rights are not only dynamic themselves, but also
have the potential to transform the landscape around
them. Rights themselves can be a source of legitimacy and cohesion. By recognizing reciprocal
rights, groups can create a particular kind of community, based on a “rights culture,” even where other
cultural or historical ties may not pre-exist. That
community is based on the principle that all individuals are deliberative equals, that no group may
be excluded from the public forum simply by virtue
of who its members are, and that the essential strategy and the ultimate goal are both to stay in the room
and keep talking, no matter how large our differences may seem. Inevitably the political space of
rights cultures will be conflictual and unfinished,
but this is not a bad thing. For Ignatieff, the balance
that just, pluralistic societies need to seek is one in
which there is “just enough collective sense of purpose to resolve these disputes, but not so much as
to force individuals into a communitarian straitjacket.”9 In his view, if the goal is to permit human
agency and diversity, then this is as much unity as
modern life can afford.
Ignatieff finds it painful that outsiders do not recognize how significant and how promising the Canadian experiment is. Ours is not the only modern
heterogeneous society facing the great challenge of
“[reconciling] equality with diversity in an age of
entitlement,” 10 but it is one of only a handful trying
to do so within a political space so contested that
continued national existence is at risk. Moreover,
what Ignatieff calls Canada’s civic nationalist rights
culture is remarkable for how much weight it gives
to both group recognition and individual rights, both
equality and human agency. Ignatieff argues compellingly that Canada’s political culture may even
be the country’s most distinctive and unifying feature. The truth, however, is that we cannot yet be
sure that the Canadian experiment will work here,
517
let alone be instructive to anyone else. Ignatieff has
posed the burning question facing us — a hugely
significant act — but he has not answered it.
It is frustrating that there is so little how in this
book. Ignatieff believes, as I do, that equal rights
alongside ongoing, respectful dialogue between individuals and groups represent the most promising
way forward for the country. We agree that where
common history and experience are lacking, equal
and reciprocal rights alone cannot create a community, but they can create trust. Yet the concept of
equal rights is too vague to ensure an automatic progression to recognition, mutual trust, and community. Respectful dialogue does not just happen. The
very least that can be said is that deep diversity, equal
rights, and effective public deliberation relate in
complicated ways.
The next step for Canada has to be more work on
the tricky details of turning a rights revolution into
the foundation of a satisfying and sustainable community. Some important work already exists: even
within the covers of this short book Ignatieff could
have pointed to the work going on in the (foreignsounding but not actually that foreign) “civic republican” school of constitutional legal thought, to
which his presentation owes a great deal.11 Modern
civic republicanism, which emphasizes active citizen participation as a means of creating community
and evolving social norms, could be an attractive
approach for a country that nearly unravelled for
lack of a common vision of itself. I would also have
liked to see Ignatieff turn his mind more explicitly
to bridging the gap — surely this work is not yet
done — between liberalism, republicanism, and the
Canadian “multicultural” school of thought with
which he also identifies.12
Just as importantly, Ignatieff could have talked
about the actual processes by which this rights revolution could be nudged in the direction of respectful community-building dialogue, processes that
include ensuring that effective and accessible forums
exist for democratic conversations about rights-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
518 Reviews/Comptes rendus
balancing; that public decision-making processes are
demonstrably legitimate, accountable, and transparent; and that mechanisms are in place to recognize
and build on the successful trust-building strategies
that do evolve in practice.13 In truth, so much of the
how is working itself out on the ground (or on the
Internet or in the myriad other interstices of our
networked and decentralized society). To come back
to Ignatieff’s starting point, rights-consciousness has
transformed the way we interact at every level, and
the rights revolution has spilled far beyond the
boundaries of the formal political sphere. Now that
we have recognized this new reality, our goal must
be to develop real-world strategies to channel this
rights revolution into a community-building force.
If Michael Ignatieff is right about the amount of
consensus we can expect in a rights-based pluralistic society, then negotiable, contingent solutions are
all we ever had anyway. So what if we are an improbable combination of three founding nations, and
we do not always agree about deep things, and our
collective destiny is not always manifest to us? It is
not the end of history. Since the 1995 Referendum,
we Canadians have been making our way back from
the brink of disintegration not by grand design, but
through an accretion of incremental, pragmatic accommodations by individual people and groups. The
rights revolution offers us a renewed opportunity to
build a sense of collective identity, as the-ones-whoworked-it-out-together. The hope — optimistic, but
far from impossible — is that we can realize through
practice what we may only be able to name, with
pride, in retrospect: the foundation of a richer, more
authentic, and more democratic Canadian
community.
NOTES
1
I have chosen to emphasize what I see as the book’s
primary themes, which are national and political in orientation. At least one commentator has discussed the
book’s international human rights themes in some depth:
see Andres Kahar, “Michael Ignatieff’s Surprising Habits,” Peace Magazine (April/June 2001). At <http://
www.peacemagazine.org/0104/kahar.htm>. Ignatieff also
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
devotes the whole fourth of his five chapters to considering the effect of the rights revolution on the “private”
sphere of the family, where Canadians continue to struggle with the balance between the personal drive toward
“authenticity,” respect for others, and respect for the family as a unit. While it is gratifying to see the sphere of the
family incorporated into this argument, the chapter is primarily an illustration, in a parallel factual context, of
themes developed earlier in the book.
2
Even if some of these thinkers might not do so themselves, Ignatieff offers the idea that one could speak of a
“Canadian school of rights thought” that includes Will
Kymlicka, Charles Taylor, James Tully, Peter Russell,
Stéphane Dion, and Guy Laforest. Ignatieff correctly identifies his heavy debt to Kymlicka, in particular Will
Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory
of Minority Rights (1995), and also to Charles Taylor, The
Politics of Recognition, Multiculturalism: Examining the
Politics of Recognition (Amy Gutmann, ed. 1994).
3
Ignatieff, supra note 1 at 116.
4
Ignatieff, supra note 1 at 126.
5
See Jeff Jacoby, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being Canadian,” Boston Globe Frontpage Magazine, 20
April 2000. At <http://216.247.220.66/jacoby/2000/
jj04-21-00.htm>.
6
The fact that the author chose not to be more precise,
earlier, about the term “rights” also makes the book slower
going than it otherwise would be. For example, in a single chapter he talks about the tension between rights and
democracy; about rights as indications of what we as citizens value; and about rights as the positive and negative
entitlements citizens can lay claim to from the state.
Ignatieff also weighs group and individual rights against
each other at times as though they were comparable units
of measurement and not, as some people believe, altogether different things. (None of this includes human
rights, which he treats separately and at length by way of
moving examples from international and refugee law and
the history of war crimes.) There is something to be said
for under-defining arguably over-theorized ideas, not only
when lecturing on a radio show. Yet for those who have
been trained to recognize each of his observations as
shorthand for entirely separate conversations, the effect
is disorienting. More importantly for his general audience, which may not have tried to reconcile equality with
diversity from this perspective before, the result is a
somewhat unwieldy “backpack” concept of rights to have
to carry around.
7
Ignatieff, supra note 1 at 23.
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
8
Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment
of Political Discourse, 1991.
9
Ignatieff, supra note 1 at 34.
10
Ignatieff, supra note 1 at 138.
11
This American school of political theory has nothing to do with either the political party of the same name,
or the governmental structure that may be distinguished
from constitutional monarchies like Canada’s. Modern
civic republicanism’s fundamental assertion is that highly
participatory political deliberation is indispensable to a
well-functioning democracy. Like Ignatieff, the republicans emphasize a “romantic” view of human agency and
the relationship between human agency and evolving public norms. “Active citizenship” is crucial as a means for
ensuring that peoples’ rights are observed and for emancipating marginalized groups. Political participation is
also intrinsically valuable, both because it demonstrates
respect and recognition of the participants, and because
inclusion produces bonds of community. Modern republicans assert that the respectful interaction of communities and individuals allows social norms to evolve and
community to be created even where it does not pre-exist.
In other words, they believe that democratic deliberation
is what Frank Michelman calls “jurisgenerative.” Frank
I. Michelman, Law’s Republic, 97 Yale L.J. (1988) 1493,
1495. See also Richard K. Dagger, Civic Virtues: Rights,
Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (1997); Cass R.
Sunstein, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 Yale L.J.
(1988) 1539, 1566-71. On republicanism’s relevance to
Canadian constitutional evolution, see Janet Ajzenstat and
Peter J. Smith, Liberal-Republicanism: The Revisionist
Picture of Canada’s Founding, in Canada’s Origins: Liberal, Tory, or Republican? ed. Janet Ajzenstat and Peter
J. Smith (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1995).
12
The debates between liberals, civic republicans, and
“multiculturalists” is beyond the scope of this review. Each
school disagrees with the others on issues of varying magnitude; for example, Kymlicka’s main issue with republican
519
citizenship is that it is not neutral as between different cultural groups; see, for example, “Liberal Egalitarianism and
Civic Republicanism: Friends or Enemies?” in Debating
Democracy’s Discontent: Essays on Politics, Law and Public Philosophy, ed. Anita Allen and Milton Regan (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 131-48.
13
Ignatieff observes that rights-balancing conversations
in Canada traditionally have taken place in the courts,
but I am not convinced that courts are the only, or the
best, institutions for dealing with disputes of this scope
and significance. My views are expressed in Cristie L.
Ford, In Search of the Qualitative Clear Majority: Democratic Experimentalism and the Quebec Secession Reference, 39:2 Alberta Law Review 511 (Oct. 2001). In that
article, I attempt to integrate direct democratic deliberation with the enforcement of constitutional norms in the
context of the Quebec secession debate. I argue that, rather
than attempting another referendum, the debate over Quebec’s future needs to be re-oriented by reference to the
normative framework set out by the Supreme Court of
Canada in the Secession Reference, combined with a renewed democratic process. In describing that renewed
democratic process, I incorporate a non-Canadian constitutional model called “democratic experimentalism,”
which proposes concrete mechanisms for ensuring legitimacy, participation, and accountability within heterogeneous, complex democratic systems. My conclusion is that
democratic experimentalism is compatible with Canada’s
constitutional values and traditions, and with the notion,
emerging from the Secession Reference, of creating a
“clear qualitative majority.” Creating the clear qualitative majority, as I have defined it, is precisely an act of
community-building through ongoing and respectful
democratic dialogue.
CRISTIE L. FORD, Attorney, Davis, Polk & Wardwell,
New York, and 2000–2001 Lecturer in Law, Columbia University School of Law
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
520 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Toward a New Mission Statement for Canadian
Fiscal Federalism
edited by Harvey Lazar. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000. Pp. xxii,
428. $24.95.
The intersection of the set of people interested in fiscal federalism and those not yet jaded with talk about
“mission statements” is probably very small, so one
wonders about the choice of title for this book. In fact,
of the 14 chapters in the book probably only two (those
written by the editor and presumed title chooser) have
much to do with mission statements. Rather, the book
is another in the series of useful reviews of the state of
the Canadian federation provided by Queen’s Institute
of Intergovernmental Relations. The papers in the book
fall into three categories: reviews of recent developments and recaps of current thinking; contributions by
members of the “Queen’s school” of fiscal federalism
— scholars who advocate a return to a more centralized and redistributive federation; and one innovative
policy proposal.
Topics in the first category include a review of
economics literature (Boadway), and a recap of the
transfer renewal of 1999 (Boucher and Vermaeten).
Other papers discuss “small” transfer programs
(Vaillancourt), recent trends in provincial taxation
(Hale), provincial-local finance (Kitchen), and fiscal relations with Aboriginal governments (Prince
and Abele). Rounding out the category are a comparison of Canada with other federations (Watts) and
an invaluable chronology of events for 1998–99
(Garfin and Arsenault).
The “Queen’s school” of fiscal federalism is ably
represented in the second category. Harvey Lazar,
in addition to his long introduction as editor, considers the impact of the Social Union Framework
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
Agreement on future fiscal relations. Norrie and
Wilson defend the status quo of large federal cash
transfers to provinces against the realignment of tax
fields. Hobson and St. Hilaire argue against recent
moves to reduce the amount of interprovincial redistribution inherent in the CHST and for the need
for new mechanisms to increase the overall level of
interprovincial redistribution. Osberg advocates a
greater federal role in interpersonal redistribution.
The final category contains a single paper. Bird
and Mintz address the often neglected area of provincial-local fiscal relations with an innovative proposal for a “business value tax.”
So what about the “mission statement”? At this
stage in our history, Canadians do seem to lack a
sense of overall purpose or direction for our country. Provinces have been able to construct a broad
consensus for action from time to time — for example, the consensus on the need to eliminate deficits in many provinces in the 1990s. However, such
a consensus has proven elusive at the federal level.
Lacking a “mission” for the country, it is not surprising that we don’t have one for fiscal federalism.
Who should read this book? Only the most ardent
student of fiscal federalism would want to read the
whole volume. Those who believe that Canada needs
more federal-government-led redistribution and attending centralization will find the book comforting. More
importantly, the review articles (and associated references) will provide all students of fiscal federalism
with a valuable reference tool to guide their study of
this important part of Canadian public policy.
PAUL BOOTHE, Department of Economics, University
of Alberta
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Merger Mania: The Assault on Local
Government
by Andrew Sancton. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000. Pp. 183.
$24.95.
Commissioned by the mayor of Westmount to provide a context for Montreal’s restructuring debate,
Merger Mania will be read with interest long after
the resolution of that debate. The book surveys
recurring waves of forced local mergers in
Canada — chiefly in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,
and Nova Scotia. It also discusses similar experiences in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of continental Europe. This record
is contrasted with the American experience, in which
a century has passed since the last significant municipal amalgamation. Theoretical discussion is included where relevant.
On occasion, Westmount’s agenda surfaces
abruptly. For example, the chapter “Municipal Amalgamation in the United States, 1854–1942” contains
a detailed chronology of annexations by the City of
Montreal. The apparent purpose here is to confront
Quebec readers with parallels as they arise, rather
than rely on them to await a later chapter.
Nonetheless, the prominence accorded to Montreal is no distraction overall — given the importance of that city region. When Merger Mania was
published, the Montreal restructuring outcome was
still uncertain; the Quebec government has since decided on amalgamated city status for the island of
Montreal. Westmount is to become an internal
arondissement (a borough without staff or taxing
power).
The book’s analysis of contrasting Canadian and
American experiences is especially interesting.
American municipalities have no special protection
under the US Constitution, but have gained that protection anyway in many state constitutions. These
constitutions, which are not easily amended, limit
521
the actions of state legislatures even in fields where
the federal Constitution gives them free rein.
As an aside to Sancton’s discussion of state constitutions, one could note that voters have used them
to create a variety of tamper-resistant enactments.
Examples include limitations on property tax assessments (California, Oregon) and urban growth
boundaries (Portland region). Sancton observes that
even in states without constitutional barriers to municipal mergers, state governments have avoided
mergers because they would provoke new constitutional amendments to make them unconstitutional.
American cities, suburbs, and counties have assurance they will not be merged against their will.
A corollary is that the system appears overly rigid
when it comes to setting up regional governments.
Still, secure status for municipalities seems to encourage voluntary regional cooperation. Such cooperation may in turn make constitutional rigidity a
less serious concern.
In Canada, municipalities can be merged or dissolved on provincial whim, causing local insecurity
in provinces where this power is used. Regional
government systems can readily be created, but their
value is compromised by municipal strategic
behaviour aimed at reducing the other tier’s relative importance, a by-product of insecurity. Ontario’s two-tier system exemplifies these characteristics, and will be the primary focus of what follows
below.
Although regional government in Ontario had a
promising start in the 1950s, Sancton offers a telling comment on its eventual evolution:
The phrase “the status quo is not an option” has
become a great cliché of our time ... With respect
to regional governments in Ontario, the cliché
happens to be true. Although two-tier regional
government has its inherent problems, it is not
completely unworkable. What is unworkable is a
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
522 Reviews/Comptes rendus
system in which each tier has equal political status and in which each is at risk of being abolished (Merger Mania, p. 2).
questions regarding this model, and suggests that it
would be more difficult to apply if more than two
municipalities were to be created.
In May 2001, Ontario Municipal Affairs Minister Chris Hodgson met with the regional chair and
mayors in Waterloo Region. He was there to advise
them of a policy shift: the status quo is an option, at
least for them and at least for now. Apparently the
same message has been conveyed to the other surviving regional municipalities.
Both the Haldimand-Norfolk and regionwide
amalgamation models end the squabbling between
tiers — by eliminating two-tier government itself.
It remains to be seen whether the problems associated with these solutions amount to a cure worse
than the disease and whether other workable models can be devised.
Strategic behaviour is unlikely to end as a result
of this policy shift, the permanence of which cannot be determined. Each tier of government has an
incentive to spend more than necessary, given that
the province has routinely cited the regions’ higher
spending share to justify amalgamation at that level.
To the extent that savings from regionwide amalgamations do materialize, the likely source is elimination of this aspect of the Ontario two-tier model.
Leaving aside British Columbia and other provinces which have intervened with restraint — thus
approximating the American model’s results informally — the experience described in Merger Mania
raises an intriguing question. Would Canadian city
regions be better off had there been provincial constitutions protecting municipalities from forced
mergers? Not so long ago, any local government
model with American origins would have been dismissed summarily in this country. However, dramatic revitalization of some US cities is lessening
this superiority complex.
While alternatives to regionwide amalgamation
have been proposed in Ontario, and in one case implemented, regional services are difficult to subdivide once they have already been unified. If they
are to remain unified, an agency to deliver them has
to replace the regional government. Sancton notes
that whatever such a proposed agency is called (e.g.,
services board), the proposal will be criticized as
essentially semantic and not necessarily an improvement over the status quo.
In the one case where a regional municipality was
restructured without regionwide amalgamation (the
former Haldimand-Norfolk, now Haldimand and
Norfolk), the regional administration and its lower
tier municipalities were regrouped into two singletier counties. Some regional services were subdivided, others are delivered by one county to the
other, and police services came under the oversight
of a joint board. Sancton notes some unanswered
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
The rationale for provincial intervention power
is that it can improve city regions in ways not achievable by voluntary local cooperation. Several provinces have used this power extensively, but any
resulting improvements are difficult to document —
whether in comparison with other provinces or in
comparison with a non-intervention scenario. At
best, perhaps, recent interventions have mitigated
problems created by earlier interventions. Meanwhile, transition costs have amounted to hundreds
of millions of dollars, and never-ending debate has
diverted energy from more fundamental problems.
Anyone reading Merger Mania is likely to learn a
great deal. We may regard it as part of the considerable legacy the City of Westmount is leaving behind.
PETER TOMLINSON, University of Toronto
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
A State of Minds: Toward a Human Capital
Future for Canadians
by Thomas J. Courchene. Montreal: The Institute
for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), 2001. Pp. xiv,
323. $24.95.
In A State of Minds, Thomas J. Courchene draws on
the breadth of his professional expertise to argue
that globalization and the knowledge/information
revolution — GIR in Courchene-speak — are producing a new global order. To stay prosperous,
Courchene asserts, “Canada and Canadians must
make the transition from a resource- and physicalcapital-based economy and society” to a humancapital-based one. Governance, social safety net,
taxation, and other policies are recommended to
speed the transformation. Courchene’s arguments
often echo those of other socio-economic pundits
such as Lester Thurow. However, Courchene adds
details and speculative insights on Canadian
development.
The private sector in Canada is pictured as increasingly international and competitive, while the
public sector is viewed as non-competitive, at the
national level at least, and plagued by shrinking taxation options in a footloose GIR world. However,
Courchene sees the subnational governments as benefiting from the discipline of “competitive federalism.” As examples of competitive federalism,
Courchene cites Quebec for leadership in family
policy and daycare, Ontario for early childhood development initiatives, and Alberta and Ontario for
important personal and business income tax program
initiatives, respectively.
Courchene worries about the future of Canada.
He writes, for instance, that: “We tend to downplay
the fact that Canadian productivity lags the US by
noting that the significant lag occurs only in two
related industries — computers and informationrelated areas. But this is the new economy!” Courchene
also asserts that there is an important difference between the American and Canadian concepts of interpersonal equity. He argues that the essence of the
523
American dream is the notion of upward mobility or
the opportunity to have a better tomorrow.
Courchene writes, “if most Canadians are like me,
they are astounded by the degree to which apparently ‘down and out’ Americans remain committed
to their system. I used to chalk this up to the more
overt nationalism of the Americans and their melting-pot indoctrination of their citizenry. However, I
have come to the view that ... the American notions
of equity and income distribution are viewed temporally, not at any given point in time. The essence
of the American dream is the notion of upward mobility, or the opportunity to have a better tomorrow.
This feeds into other aspects we associate with the
Americans. For one thing, Americans, much more
than Canadians, tend to celebrate their entrepreneurs
and success stories.”
In contrast, Courchene claims “Canadians are
more concerned with static or point-in-time income
distribution.” He goes on to point out that Canada
has put in place transfer payment and tax incentives
that almost force citizens to focus on a static concept of income distribution.
In my opinion, markets deliver rewards and punishments reflecting short-run information and vision. However, human dreams, pride and bonds of
love for family, friends, profession, community, and
country can provide longer term rewards, including
incentives for risk-sharing. Courchene implies that
the US may have superior institutions and traditions
for fostering the long-term incentives and balancing these with the market incentives.
Courchene is effective in stimulating thought on
creating Canada’s advantage in the years to come.
He neither really claims to be, nor is, effective at
marshalling statistical or institutional evidence to
back up his recommendations. For instance, on the
American Dream, Courchene notes that the “dream”
may be “more myth than reality” and that myths can
matter regardless of their factual basis. However,
the only references he makes to empirical evidence
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
524 Reviews/Comptes rendus
on this point are to a year 2000 article in the International Herald Tribune.
A State of Minds by Thomas J. Courchene is an
IRPP volume that is worth reading and will hopefully be followed by other volumes and articles that
offer consideration of the relevant evidence. There is
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
relevant evidence that would strengthen some of
Courchene’s points and lead to a reconsideration of
others.
ALICE N AKAMURA, School of Business, University of
Alberta
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
A State of Minds: Toward a Human Capital
Future for Canadians
by Thomas J. Courchene. Montreal: The Institute
for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), 2001. Pp. xiv,
323. $24.95
A State of Minds is about Canada’s place in the new
global economy of the twenty-first century. The new
global economy is comprised of a trilogy of interactive forces that include globalization, trade liberalization, and the information technology and
communications revolution. The author focuses his
attention on two of those paramount economic forces
of the twenty-first century — globalization and the
revolution in information technology. This book is
an articulate contribution to the academic and public
debate about the challenges and opportunities for Canadian public policy in the new global economy. It
provides a succinct argument for developing the mindset and providing the leadership and vision to transform Canada’s old economy with its strong natural
resource base and adjacent industrial sector toward the
new economy of information, communications, and
knowledge-based industries. The central thesis of the
book is captured in one sentence “Design a sustainable, socially inclusive and internationally competitive
infrastructure that ensures equal opportunity for all
Canadians to develop, to enhance, and to employ in
Canada their skills and human capital, thereby enabling them to become full citizens in the informationera Canadian and global societies.”
The book explores the linkages that will provide
economic growth and social cohesion in Canada during the information age. More specifically, the author
addresses the multidimensional policy issues involved
in attaining Canada’s social and economic goals such
as early childhood education, federal-provincial relations, tax policy, and income distribution.
A State of Minds promotes the thesis that the preeminent objective of Canadian public policy in the
twenty-first century should be the creation of knowledge and human capital. It argues convincingly for
a massive investment in education and the need to
525
hold on to a highly skilled workforce. The author
summarizes his vision in the following manner:
“Overseeing all this, must be a state that recognizes
its role as a knowledge and information intermediary — the organization of bureaucracy must shift
away from the previous industrial production system, and toward a human capital production system.”
However, the complexities of the brain drain are
dealt with fleetingly. Furthermore, the proposal to
lower income taxes and shift the burden of fiscal
revenue to consumer taxes such as the GST as a
means of curbing the exodus of our young and highly
educated Canadians requires a more detailed analysis and further intellectual debate.
The book emphasizes the need for public policy
to acknowledge and implement the complementarity
between economic policy and social policy. The
decades of the 1970s and 1980s saw the development of economic policy and social policy on two
different tracks that crossed very infrequently. The
financial restraints and fiscal deficits of the 1990s
forced governments to rethink the isolation of economic policy and social policy. However, this was
done at the expense of social policy as funding and
programs were cut to a bare minimum. The author
provides a convincing argument for acknowledging
the interdependence of economic policy and social
policy in the twenty-first century.
The author also discusses the issue of economic
competitiveness. In this regard there appears to be a
disparity in public policy between Canada’s international and domestic policy initiatives. Canada has
taken a leadership role in promoting the benefits of
trade liberalization starting with the Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) between Canada and the United
States, followed by the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) which embraced a free trade zone
between Canada, the US, and Mexico, to the contemporary phase and the pursuit of a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) to include all countries
of the northern and southern hemisphere of the Americas except Cuba. This in sharp contrast to serious barriers to the movement of goods and people between
provinces on the national economic landscape.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
526 Reviews/Comptes rendus
A State of Minds is a welcome addition to the
growing list of recent publications on the new global economy. This book should be of special interest
to academics and researchers in the area of economic
and social policy. It should be required reading for
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
parliamentarians, legislators, policy wonks, civil servants, and private sector public policy consultants.
CONSTANTINE E. PASSARIS, Department of Economics, University of New Brunswick
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Opportunity and Uncertainty: Life Course
Experiences of the Class of ’73
by Paul Anisef, Paul Axelrod, Etta BaichmanAnisef, Carl James and Anton Turrittin in collaboration with Fred Ashbury, Gottfried Paasche and
Zeng Lin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
2000. Pp. ix, 327. $24.95.
The authors of this book report on an extensive 21year longitudinal study of the Class of 1973. The panel
consists of a group of “late baby-boomers,” first contacted when they were in grade 12 classes in different
regions of Ontario. Life-course and school-to-worktheories (rather than the human capital and status attainment theories that the authors used in previous
works) are employed effectively. A sophisticated multimethod approach is used. Analyses at the beginning
of the study in the 1970s were based primarily on surveys of over 2,000 members of the Class of ’73. In
later stages of the research, follow-up surveys were
supplemented with interviews and life-course analyses. In addition, some Canadian data from Statistics
Canada and other sources are reported. Quantitative
and qualitative results are integrated throughout and
add to the richness of the findings.
The book consists of an introduction to the Class
of ’73, nine chapters, and an appendix on sample attrition. Chapter 1 introduces the two themes used
throughout the book: “human agency” and “social
structure.” The authors use life-course theory to study
the relationship between the individual and the social
order at both micro and macro levels. The world of
grade 12 students in 1973 and changes in the Ontario
school system are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
analyzes the educational trajectories of members of
the Class of ’73 — focusing on the three main pathways of the panel: (i) directly into the labour market,
(ii) to community colleges, and (iii) to university.
Chapter 4 looks at the world of employment as
experienced by the Class of ’73. The workplace that
527
the Class of ’73 entered was at the beginning of
major changes in work and the way organizations
were structured. The authors use the “spiral” and
“transitory” career concepts of Venne (1996), instead
of the traditional career concepts of “steady state”
and “linear” due to the changes faced by the panel.
The next chapter continues the authors’ examination of employment but turns to social, career, and
geographic mobility. Chapter 6 focuses on the experiences of first-generation Canadians. The authors
note that “there is little evidence in our data to suggest that being children of foreign-born parents
posed any kind of handicap for members of the Class
of ’73” (p. 177). Chapter 7 deals with family life. A
number of changes in family structure are noted, but
the importance of families to the Class of ’73 is evident. Chapter 8 is unique, containing five biographies of members of the Class of ’73. Chapter 9
provides the conclusion.
The title Opportunity and Uncertainty is used to
convey the dual nature of the future that the Class of
’73 faced in 1973: opportunities in a strong economy
and dynamic postsecondary education system, but
uncertainty, because of the changes underway in education, work, social norms, and the economy. Their
uncertainty was justified: the authors note that by 1995
the members of the Class of ’73 had held an average
of four full-time jobs. But there were many opportunities as well, for example, “overall, the respondents
appeared to enjoy their work, with women enjoying a
slight edge in job satisfaction” (p. 109).
REFERENCE
Venne, R.A. 1996. “Demographic and Career Issues Relating to Youth in Transition to Adulthood,” in Youth
in Transition, Perspectives on Research and Policy, ed.
B. Galaway and J. Hudson. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, pp. 46-52.
FREDERICK T. EVERS, Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, University of Guelph
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
528 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Northern Edge: How Canadians Can Triumph
in a Global Economy
by Thomas P. D’Aquino and David StewartPatterson. Toronto: Stoddart, 2001. Pp. 331. $37.95.
The postwar synthesis of international economic liberalism and growing Keynesian welfare states helped
to shape an intellectual and institutional framework
for simultaneously promoting economic growth,
distributive justice, social cohesion, and political
stability throughout much of the industrialized
world. This “embedded liberalism” has shaped public
expectations of both the role and limits of government.
At the same time, trends toward globalization have
undermined the capacity of nation-states to pursue
these goals without adapting their policy instruments
and approaches to build a political consensus that responds effectively to the new realities.
Northern Edge, by Thomas D’Aquino and David
Stewart-Patterson of the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI), directly addresses the challenges of reconciling and promoting both economic
growth and social cohesion in a twenty-first century update of the Keynesian compact. This book is
the outcome of the BCNI’s “Global Leadership Initiative” — an internal consensus-building exercise
dealing with the implications of current global trends
for Canada in the next decade.
The authors go well beyond the normal range of
business concerns to address the social, human, and
political implications of global trends in ways that
come to terms with contemporary Canadian political realities. Indeed, much of their rhetoric is quite
consistent with the recent speeches of Paul Martin,
John Manley, and their senior officials. Any reader
looking for a summary of the vaunted “corporate
agenda” and the reasoning behind it can find them
neatly packaged here.
The authors address the issues thematically in
seven chapters dealing with the challenges of globalization, priorities for governments, education,
and human skills, “competing for talent,” promotCANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
ing innovation, building globally competitive companies, and foreign policy priorities. They argue that,
whatever past successes, Canadians cannot afford
to be complacent in a world of constant economic
change, migrating capital, footloose corporate executives (including those of their own member companies), and skilled professionals. Increased
prosperity depends on more than successful economic policy. It also requires a social consensus
rooted in a widespread distribution of economic
benefits and opportunities arising from technological change and entrepreneurial dynamism. To
achieve either goal, policies intended to promote
economic growth and social cohesion must be mutually reinforcing. Only a rapidly growing economy can
pay for the maintenance and improvement of Canada’s aging welfare state. Enhancing and expanding
access to education and needed skills are critical to
innovation, productivity, and the capacity of citizens
and workers to adjust to continuing economic change.
Balancing these goals in a democratic society requires
the active and responsible participation of governments, business, and citizens in a healthy, diverse, and
autonomous civil society that gives citizens a sense of
community and belonging alien to large, bureaucratic
institutions or impersonal market forces. While Tom
Courchene covers much of the same ground with a
comparable outlook in his recent book, A State of
Minds, D’Aquino and Stewart-Patterson provide a
greater depth and detail of research and analysis.
As a result, Northern Edge often reads like a compilation of literature reviews on topical policy issues. General readers may find it a hard slog. Policy
specialists may choose to argue with particular emphases or omissions. However, it provides a useful
service in linking different aspects of social and
economic policy that are often discussed in relative
isolation within a coherent intellectual framework
that demonstrates the relevance of economic, social,
and cultural factors to a broader view of human wellbeing and the public interest.
The policy ideas outlined in Northern Edge reflect a healthy dose of self-interest, not least in
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
advocating wide-ranging negotiations for deeper
North American economic integration. Their ultimate credibility will depend largely on the willingness of business leaders to back up their words with
action by investing in innovation, education, train-
529
ing, and community development — in other words,
in people.
GEOFFREY H ALE, Department of Political Science,
University of Lethbridge
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
530 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Independence and Economic Security in Old
Age
edited by Frank T. Denton, Deborah Fretz and Byron
G. Spencer. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000. Pp. vii, 380. $29.95.
The editors of this valuable book, all economists at
McMaster University, are leading researchers on the
nature and implications of population aging in
Canada. Yet, Independence and Economic Security
in Old Age is about much more than economics and
demographics. In fact, the book is as much about
the aging process within and across generations as
it is about the current elderly population in Canada.
With a multidisciplinary cast of authors, this volume will be of interest to academics, advocates, and
practitioners in economics, to be sure, but also in
the fields of gerontology, sociology, social work,
public policy, and women’s studies. In addition to
the inevitable statistics on demographic projections,
dependency ratios, and population age pyramids
several chapters in the book contain qualitative research
based on focus groups, literature reviews, and conceptual analysis. A number of chapters highlight the important role of social values, societal expectations, and
public assumptions with respect to retirement, personal
savings, and the division of care-giving roles and responsibilities within families.
As its title suggests, the book examines the personal independence and economic security of the
elderly population in Canada. The focus is on both
today’s and tomorrow’s seniors which, in certain
chapters, spans four cohorts. Personal independence
is thoughtfully examined and interpreted as a contested, multi-dimensional and relative concept. Major determinants of independence include economic
resources, health and functional ability, and the social and physical environment. All three determinants are addressed in the book, though the greatest
attention is devoted to the issue of adequacy of financial resources.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
Questions examined in the volume include: Is 65
still a reasonable definition for old age for the purpose of eligibility for various public and private
benefits? How much aging of the Canadian population is likely over the next 30 years? What factors
lead to involuntary retirement and what consequences are there for individuals and their families?
Several chapters contain a significant gender analysis,
in particular, addressing the economic status of older
women, present and future. The gender analysis relates to a question that implicitly runs through most of
the chapters, which is: What should be the balance
between personal and collective responsibility for income security for Canada’s aging population?
What of the future of economic security in old
age? Carolyn J. Rosenthal and her associates conclude that it appears each successive cohort of older
women will enter its retirement years in a stronger
financial position that the earlier cohorts, in light
of higher participation rates in the labour market,
job-related pensions, and RRSPs. Yet, they also conclude that most of tomorrow’s older women, like
today’s, will not be financially secure in later life
unless they are married. Several other authors in the
collection warn that any further move away from
collective responsibility to personal responsibility
for retirement preparations — that is, further cuts to
the Old Age Security or to the Canada Pension
Plan — would likely result in an increase in economic
insecurity and poverty among Canada’s elderly.
This is the most fundamental social policy lesson from this significant book. Contrary to our selfcongratulatory rhetoric, poverty among today’s
seniors has not been eliminated. Many seniors, especially retired widows, continue to live in precarious and straitened circumstances financially. If we
are not thoughtful and take action, poverty among
seniors may actually experience a boom among the
aging boomers.
MICHAEL J. PRINCE , Lansdowne Professor of Social
Policy, University of Victoria
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Beyond the Nass Valley: National Implications
of the Supreme Court’s Delgamuukw Decision
edited by Owen Lippert. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 2000. Pp. xvi, 544.
The Supreme Court handed down the Delgamuukw
decision in December 1997. The Fraser Institute held
two conferences, the first in July 1998 and the
second in April 1999, to help assess the national
significance of that decision. This book contains the
papers presented at those two events along with an
edited transcript of some of the discussions.
Lippert divides the book into eight main parts:
(i) basics of decision, (ii) impact in British Columbia, (iii) impact in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, (iv) impact in Ontario, (v) impact in Quebec,
(vi) impact in the Maritimes, (vii) overall economic
impact, and (viii) a final part entitled “All Still Here
and All Looking Ahead.” Notably absent from this
line-up is any assessment of the impact of the decision in the three northern territories. The volume
contains 28 papers of varying lengths and quality.
There are lots of essays by lawyers, both academic
(Slattery, McNeil, Henderson, Zlotkin, and
Monahan) and practising (Howard, Joffe, Lowes,
Lutes, McDonald, Plant, Roberston, Bud Smith and
Mel Smith, Strother, Tyler, Woodward, and Wilkins).
Thankfully, there are other disciplines and perspectives represented here with contributions from political scientists (Flanagan and Tenant), historians
(McNab), anthropologists (Tanner and von Gernet),
columnists (Cayo and Gibson), a pollster (Bricker)
and an economist (Lippert). Some of the essays are
well footnoted and referenced (Wilkins, von Gernet,
and Joffe are especially useful) while others are unsupported (e.g., Cayo’s essay focusing on the economic and social realities of First Nations or Mel
Smith’s two contributions). Despite the volume’s
title, the contributions are not always centred on the
implications of Delgamuukw. Sometimes this is useful as in Joffe’s efforts to locate Delgamuukw in the
broader context of both international human rights
law and the court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference. On other occasions, as in Gibson’s
531
two contributions, the result is a panegyric to liberal individualism and an assessment of all that is
wrong with the treaty-making process in British
Columbia, while Howard treats us to an unfocused
survey of everything from analytical positivism to
the CLS movement. There is much that is predictable in this volume, once you know the authors’
backgrounds and other writings but there were some
surprises too. For example, I was encouraged to read
Bud Smith’s assessment (former attorney-general in
British Columbia) that Delgamuukw is here to stay
and that we should just get on with “the everunfinished tasks of building our community” and
the apparent willingness of Gordon Gibson and
Chief Herb George to engage in a dialogue (they
talk but do they hear each other?).
Notwithstanding the authors’ varied backgrounds,
there are some common themes and even areas of
agreement. Not surprisingly there is universal agreement that Delgamuukw was an important decision
for the court. Some want to describe it as an “audacious departure” (Mel Smith) in an effort to undermine its authority and to support the charge that the
Court has exceeded its adjudicatory role and trespassed on the legislative function. Others (mainly
the legal academics, but also Bud Smith) emphasize how rooted the decision is in existing precedents
(especially St. Catherine’s Milling) and how the
Court was merely drawing out, in a logical way, the
implications of existing lines of decisions. There is
also substantial agreement (somewhat paradoxically
given the importance of the decision) as to how little the Court actually decided here. After all, it did
not decide that the Gitskan and Wet’suwet’en First
Nations had an Aboriginal title; the case has gone
back to trial on this point with guidance offered as
to how to evaluate the evidence, especially the oral
history evidence led by the plaintiffs. Similarly, the
Court did not reject the self-government claims of
the plaintiffs although it did say that they needed to
be framed less globally if they were to succeed.
The participants in the two conferences also
agreed that Delgamuukw was of national signifi-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE P OLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVII, NO . 4 2001
532 Reviews/Comptes rendus
cance and should not be confined to British Columbia. First, and most obviously, the decision applies
to those parts of Canada where there have been no
treaties (e.g., Labrador) a point made by Tanner but
also to those parts of Canada where the treaties did
not include land surrenders (the Maritimes) a point
made most strongly by Henderson in his review of
the Mikmaq treaties. Second, the contributors acknowledge that Delgamuukw will also influence the
judicial approach to the so-called numbered treaties of the Prairies with their blanket extinguishment
clauses. In the main this will flow from the Court’s
instruction to trial judges to give appropriate weight
to oral histories. This will require that courts ascertain the extent to which the written text of the treaties properly reflects the agreement between the parties.
Some, such as Flanagan, seem to have little sympathy
for this approach, while others such as Zlotkin welcome it, or at least (Tyler), recognize its inevitability.
Themes running through the volume include
property rights, the negotiation vs. litigation debate
and compensation questions. Property was a central feature of the Delgamuukw litigation. Some of
the authors (e.g., McNeil and Slattery) chose to
emphasize the legal protections that flow from the
Court’s recognition of Aboriginal title. The title will
bind the world, can be vindicated in competition
with that of the province, and will serve to found a
claim to compensation if interfered with by government. For these authors, property is a set of entitlements and a space within which Aboriginal
governments may develop. Others choose to emphasize what they see as the negative economic implications of Delgamuukw. Flanagan refers to this as
“an awkward duplication of property rights” (p. 180)
while Lippert decries the idea of sui generis property rights (p. 407) and thinks that, from an eco-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
nomic perspective, it would have been better if the
Court had recognized an individual fee simple entitlement. Gibson, not surprisingly, advocates a similar approach to treaty settlements.
Despite the plea for negotiation with which Chief
Justice Lamer concluded his judgement, the general
consensus of the commentators represented here is
that, at least in the short run, the result of
Delgamuukw will be more litigation. In part this is
because we simply need more guidance from the
courts in concrete cases on a range of issues: proof
of Aboriginal title versus rights; the circumstances
under which actual consent will be required and not
just consultation; and the circumstances under which
compensation will be payable and the calculation
of that compensation. In part it will be because (and
this has turned out to be a major driver) provincial
governments will not extend the benefits of the
Delgamuukw duty to consult unless and until First
Nations obtain a declaration of title.
The volume’s production values are generally
high, but the editing is not of a uniform quality.
Lippert’s own introductory essay contains a number
of obvious errors, for example, Treaty 8 does not
“cover” Alberta (p. 6), and it is awkward to describe
the same treaty as applying to “the lower eastern
part” of British Columbia (p. 5) — perhaps a treaty
map would have helped! For inexplicable reasons,
Henderson’s essay is replete with typographical and
grammatical glitches. But these are relatively minor detractions from a useful volume that, while
lacking any agreed public policy prescriptions, offers considerable diversity of views on a series of
important questions.
NIGEL BANKES, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
VOL. XXVII , NO . 4 2001