Reviews/Comptes rendus
Sustaining the Forests of the Pacific Coast:
Forging Truces in the War in the Woods
edited by Debra J. Salazar and Donald K. Alper. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2000.
Pp. 256. $75.00.
This edited book by University of Western Washington political scientists Debra Salazar and Donald
Alper presents the results of a lecture series, held in
Bellingham, Washington in 1997–98, on the future
of forestry and the forest industry on the Pacific
coast. It joins a growing number of edited volumes
and monographs published on BC forestry by UBC
Press in recent years: Chris Tollefson’s The Wealth
of Forests: Markets, Regulation and Sustainable
Forestry; Jeremy Wilson’s Talk and Log: Wilderness
Politics in British Columbia; Roger Hayter’s Flexible Crossroads: The Restructuring of British Columbia’s Forest Economy; and Cashore, Hoberg,
Howlett, Rayner and Wilson’s In Search of
Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the
1990s.
There is some overlap between these volumes and
many share the same authors and contributors. However, each addresses a different facet of this complex policy area, in which governments of different
persuasions and stripes, at different levels and in
different countries, try to grapple with the maintenance of a mature (or declining) industry in a new
situation characterized by the rise of environmental
and Aboriginal rights movements and legislation.
In this volume, Salazar and Alper bring together
11 authors to specifically address the new actors and
issues facing the Pacific coast forest industry, and
several of the responses governments have made to
the new challenges faced by the sector. Chapters by
George Hoberg, Thomas R. Waggener, Benjamin
483
Cashore, Ilan Vertinsky, Rachana Raizada, David
Boyd, Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson and Beverly
A. Brown examine the positions and actions of governments, the forest industry, First Nations, and labour in the sector. Clark S. Binkley, R. Neal Wilkins
and Mae Burrows then provide examples of government responses to the challenges raised by these
actors, discussing efforts in the 1990s to promote
sustainable forest management, wildlife conservation on private lands, and multi-stakeholder consultations, respectively.
In their conclusion, Salazar and Alper examine
the results of these efforts and their ability to defuse the “war in the woods” characteristic of 1990s
Pacific coast forestry. They are somewhat optimistic that increased representation and accommodation of diverse interests can lead to peace in the
woods, but note that “the challenges remain formidable.”
This book is a welcome addition to a growing
literature on the subject. Comparative analyses, especially, are needed as there is a distinct tendency
in the literature to treat BC forest policy as sui
generis. However, only three of the essays
(Waggener, Cashore et al., and Brown) actually compare Canadian to US practices or vice-versa. Wilkins
only looks at the US, while Hoberg, Boyd and
Williams-Davidson, Binkley, and Burrows focus
exclusively on the BC experience. While promising, therefore, this volume is only partially successful in delivering on its advertised provision of an
examination of “US Pacific Northwest and British
Columbia” forest policy “in a binational context.”
MICHAEL HOWLETT, Department of Political Science,
Simon Fraser University
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVIII, NO . 3 2002
484 Reviews/Comptes rendus
Who Cares? Women’s Work, Childcare and
Welfare State Redesign
by Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Pp. viii, 289. $55.00.
The goal of this book is to explain changes in the
welfare state, specifically with regard to child-care
policy over the past few decades, in the context of
fiscal restraint and the debate between those who
see the welfare state as dismantled and those who
see it as reformed. Five case studies are presented
(Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden, and the European
Union) from which it is concluded that the welfare
state has been redesigned such that a much greater
emphasis is now on market forces rather than citizenship rights. Under the neo-liberalist ideology of
the past two decades, the goal of equality for women
has been sacrificed. The current focus on choice for
post-partum child-rearing, with options for parental leave, is seen as an exemplification of women’s
equality losses.
In a comparative analysis of the commonalties
of experience among the five areas, the authors determine that child-care policy has become more directly linked with employment policy, and that high
rates of unemployment provoke parental leave policies, thus limiting the workforce participation of
mothers. Choice (which usually is in quotation
marks or italics) is regarded as a euphemism for initiatives that are designed to encourage mothers to
care for their own children, thereby restricting their
access to workplace equality and promoting their
dependence on men.
The major strength of the book is in the description of policy developments in the countries examined, and in the provision of comparative statistics
and analyses. This information will be of value to
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE
DE
POLITIQUES,
those interested in comparing such data as spending on social programs, social policies, labour force
participation rates, and historical patterns in policy
developments. In addition, the provision of such data
over time and socio-historic changes is interesting
and well-documented. The book is also very useful
in emphasizing the crisis in child-care and the urgent need for comprehensive child-care policies, especially for infants. The diversity among the
countries examined in their child-care policies,
goals, strategies, and services underscores the general inadequacy and inaccessibility of child-care.
The major limitation of the book is that the analysis is constrained by the use of the somewhat cloudy
lens of the second-wave feminist who views children as impediments to career development and parental leave policies as state-enforced denial of
workplace equality rights. A corollary limitation is
in its perpetuation of the belief that child-rearing is
strictly a female responsibility, albeit rarely a choice.
As such, recent policy developments and social
changes that have seen more paternal involvement
in child-rearing are given little attention. Similarly
a large body of social science literature indicating
maternal choice is a key factor in postpartum satisfaction is not addressed.
Nonetheless, the authors’ explanations should
provoke interesting discussion among those who can
conceive of alternate constructions for the apparent
link between employment and child-care policy,
those who believe family policy is not restricted to
policy for mothers, and those who wish to compare
the data presented with those of Canada.
KATHERINE COVELL, Department of Psychology, University College of Cape Breton
VOL. XXVIII , NO. 3 2002
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Loyal No More: Ontario’s Struggle for a
Separate Destiny
by John Ibbitson. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.,
2001. Pp. 225.
John Ibbitson argues that there is a paradox about
politics in the country’s richest and most powerful
province: “devoid of separatist sentiment” but
“nonetheless spinning out of Confederation.” He
sees this paradox reflecting the continuity in Ontario’s quest for political autonomy and economic
leadership within Confederation from the leadership
of George Brown and particularly Oliver Mowat,
through that of Mitch Hepburn and particularly
George Drew, to David Peterson, Bob Rae, and particularly Mike Harris. Harris for Ibittson is “Mowat’s
Heir.”
Following this forebear’s entrenchment of provincial powers through the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council in 1884, Confederation by 1914
meant that “powerful, independent provinces, sovereign within their own spheres, manipulated the
rights of property, levied their own taxes ... exploited
their natural resources, and managed schools, hospitals, and relief for the poor, while a weak and ineffectual central government presided over not much
of anything in the drab little capital on the banks of
the Ottawa.” As Ibbitson acknowledges, if with too
little emphasis, this outcome was as much the result of federal initiative through the National Policy
as the result of autonomous provincial action. And
although the National Policy was in tatters by the
First World War, federal powers expanded in that
and, more especially in the subsequent World War.
The national income tax, and “notorious federal conditional grants” vastly increased the powers of the central over the provincial governments after 1917.
Ottawa centralized all income taxation and took over
unemployment insurance after 1941, continuing its
control of the war economy through deeper involvement in employment, social policy, and economic
development.
485
Ontario’s opposition to this rebalancing of powers in Confederation was expressed by the erratic
Hepburn, and then very vigourously by his opponent and successor, Drew. But Drew’s attempt to
extend the fight by his election to Ottawa failed dismally, and his successor, Leslie Frost, initiated a
close alliance with the central government in developing the postwar welfare state.
For 30 years, that development continued with
the close collaboration of Ontario under Premiers
Frost, Robarts, and Davis, but collaboration started
to unravel after the failures of Pierre Trudeau’s national energy and industrial policies. With the escalating strain of entitlements and equalization policies
on Ontario taxpayers, even after the radical shift in
federal policy under Brian Mulroney, collaboration
turned to confrontation. The Liberal Peterson and
the NDP Rae governments continued to align with
the federal counters to Quebec, but intergovernmental relations deteriorated as the provincial economy
drifted into recession and fiscal crisis.
So came Mike Harris and his Common Sense
Revolution to address the fact that “in a community
whose culture is its economy, the province’s decline
amounted to a spiritual crisis.” Ibbitson has already
documented the Harris Revolution in an earlier book.
Here he locates it in the context of the historical
quest for autonomy and dominance in Ontario, and
the current pressures of globalization on Canada’s
federal system. Relying on the work of Thomas
Courchene, Ibbitson sees Ontario “evolving from the
glue that bound Canada together into an autonomous
region state” within the American/Canadian Great
Lakes region, with possibly dire consequences for
the federal government.”
The argument is well presented, but suffers from
an over-emphasis on historical continuity, and a relative lack of interest in the dynamics of national politics. Ibbitson’s expectations of unification on the
Canadian political right, incorporating the princi-
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVIII, NO . 3 2002
486 Reviews/Comptes rendus
ples that inform the Harris Revolution, is far from
convincing, no matter the solid hold of such principles in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Federal opposition remains in disarray, and the national
government, for all its signs of sclerosis and arrogance, retains a hold on the country, rooted in a vision of national government leadership in social
policy and economic innovation. And the real paradox is that Ontario is both a key source of the neoconservative vision of the decentralized, minimalist
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE
DE
POLITIQUES,
state, but also the political base of a “third way”
commitment to a revitalized national economy and
social justice. If “you can’t have it both ways,” Ontario has done well enough so far playing both sides
of the political street, and it is not as sure as Ibbitson
insists which will become the road most travelled.
MICHAEL STEVENSON, President and Vice-Chancellor,
Simon Fraser University
VOL. XXVIII , NO. 3 2002
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Public Sector Labour Relations in an Era of
Restraint and Restructuring
edited by Gene Swimmer. Don Mills, ON: Oxford
University Press, 2001. Pp. 232.
The last decade has seen earthquake events in the
economic and public policy environment of public
sector labour relations. The big poster items have
included the experiences of the Rae and Harris governments in Ontario, the Klein government in Alberta, and now the Campbell government in British
Columbia. In spite of the big thunder, we can still
ask: Has anything really changed?
One can easily observe that there has been an
incredibly small amount of change in the model of
public sector labour management relations. Most of
the impact has taken place at the margins. Workload stress has significantly increased for individual
nurses and teachers, but contracts have remained
largely the same. The most dramatic labour relations
hit has been taken by those in marginal local institutions such as Community Living workers who no
longer have jobs or collective agreements. The big
battleships on the employer and union sides have in
fact absorbed the cuts through relatively generous
pension arrangements and limited involuntary
layoffs.
To assist us in understanding the new environment and its implications, Gene Swimmer has edited a new volume of essays Public Sector Labour
Relations in an Era of Restraint and Restructuring.
Swimmer, contrary to popular conceptions, summarizes the recent developments as not being char-
487
acterized by a “union busting” animus. Aside from
downsizing, civil service employees have gone relatively unscathed. Salary freezes and rollbacks have
been temporary. What has changed is the political
background to public sector labour-management
relations. Governments are more willing to invoke
their legislative hammers to override or avoid collectively bargained outcomes. It is in this respect
that relations have permanently changed.
The essays in the volume deal primarily with the
issues of centralized bargaining, either civil service
relations at the federal and provincial levels, or some
discussion such as in British Columbia where bargaining is more centralized than in any province
outside Quebec. As a result, the lessons we learn
may be of limited value to 80 percent of the people
who work in the decentralized, broader public sector of hospitals, school boards, municipalities, social agencies, local transit, etc. Real change in the
model may be taking place at the local administration level, particularly municipalities, because that
is where the greatest impact of contracting-out takes
place and where the downloading has most impacted
service delivery.
The Swimmer collection is well worth reading
by students, academics, and practitioners of public
sector labour relations. What it may need is another
volume on the broader public sector where most of
the employees, the contracts, and the service delivery crunch is taking place.
PETER WARRIAN , Centre for International Studies,
University of Toronto
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – A NALYSE DE POLITIQUES,
VOL . XXVIII, NO . 3 2002
488 Reviews/Comptes rendus
A Seat at the Table: Persons with Disabilities
and Policy Making
by William Boyce, Mary Tremblay, Mary Anne
McColl, Jerome Bickenbach, Anne Crichton, Steven
Andrews, Nancy Gerein and April D’Anbih. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University
Press, 2001. Pp. 205. $65.00.
A Seat at the Table is a valuable addition to public
policy literature that deals not only with disability
but also more generally with human rights and the
role of citizen participation in policy-making. The
central theme is the importance of structures, and
especially organizational structures, in affecting the
policy process and the role of participation in the
process.
The book is very well organized. In the introduction, the authors tell us that their main purpose is to
examine disability policy development in Canada
in the areas of problem identification and policy
formulation. The chapters then proceed in logical
order from historical background and theoretical
frameworks to four case studies (two federal and
two provincial cases), ending with a discussion of
overarching themes and conclusions. For the most
part, the book is well written. But in some places it
becomes too tightly written, without enough examples and elaboration. This is particularly the case
toward the end, where discussion becomes somewhat convoluted and bogged down in details, rather
than aimed at a more general explanation of policy
developments.
A major strength of the book is that it provides
readers with much information on the evolution and
organizational characteristics of the major interest
groups involved, their strategies and policy networks, and policy outcomes. The book also does a
nice job of explaining contentious issues within the
interest groups and in comparing case studies to
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY – ANALYSE
DE
POLITIQUES,
show the structural requirements for citizen participation and policy influence.
However, there also are problems. In the selection of case studies, one wonders why three full
chapters (of five) are given to constitutional policy.
Much time is spent on showing disability group success in establishing a disability provision in the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in defeating
the disability-limiting Charlottetown Accord. But
previous to the Charter, disability groups were successful in establishing important disability protections in human rights legislation across the country.
Given the importance of this legislation in the dayto-day life of many people, it deserves much more
than passing attention. And if the Charter has been
so important, the authors might have discussed why,
in terms of its impact on constitutional legal cases.
The authors also might have provided more analysis of the context and its link to social movements,
interest groups, and the policy process. The growth
of rights consciousness is mentioned as an important cultural context, but there is little attempt to
link such cultural change to the policy process. This
is surprising given that one purpose of the book is
to examine the problem identification part of the
policy process. Surely broader cultural and political forces such as equality rights consciousness, the
belief in participatory democracy, and the activities
and success of ethnocultural and women’s groups
would have had an impact on the identification of
problems relating to disability.
These issues aside, I would recommend the book.
Little has been written on disability policy development in Canada and this book is a welcome addition to the literature.
R. BRIAN HOWE, Department of Political Science,
University College of Cape Breton
VOL. XXVIII , NO. 3 2002