Trouble in the Woods: Forest Policy and Social Conflict in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

Ken A. Armson, a former executive co-ordinator of the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources’ Forest Resources Group, is currently a forestry
consultant.

This is a collection of 10 papers dealing with the development of the
forest industry and its impacts on the economies and social structure of
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, primarily since World War I and with
greatest emphasis on the post–World War II period. The intent of the
book is made clear in the opening paper—“to document the process of
consolidation of power by the forest industry and the provincial
government, and to record the struggles of the men and women challenging
that power structure.”

The individual papers are historical and analytical in their approach.
The underlying theme is that, whether as colonies or post-Confederation
provinces, the area has been dependent on forest resources for revenues,
and has an overdependency on large, externally based companies. With the
exception of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have
the largest proportion of privately owned forests—70 percent and 49
percent, respectively—of any Canadian province. This ownership
pattern, and in most instances the almost complete economic dependency
of communities on single-forest-based mills, has disadvantaged both
those who are directly employed by the mills and those who own small,
private woodlots (who depend on the mills to purchase their timber).
More recently, since the mid-1970s, there has arisen a new class, the
large forest contractors, who have to use costly mechanical equipment to
maintain their viability; their presence has significantly weakened the
position of the small-woodlot owners.

The book concludes that the time has arrived to push for wider benefits
from the forest industry and to achieve this goal through strategies
that are socially equitable and environmentally acceptable. The four
main obstacles to this objective are environmental concerns; the lack of
empowerment of other forest interest groups; the divisions between the
primary (harvesting) and secondary (processing) sectors; and the
involvement of the federal government via various federal–provincial
financing agreements.