In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Uneasy Allies : Quebecers, Canadians, Americans, Mexicans and NAFTA1 André Turcotte University of Toronto When NAFTA was announced on August 12, 1992, most observers agreed that the removal of trade barriers between the three countries offered advantages and disadvantages for all the parties involved. However, there was a lack of consensus among both analysts and citizens over the costs and benefits of the trade deal. In fact, the only common trend in this debate was sharp division over the perceived beneficiaries of the trade deal and its socioeconomic repercussions. It will be the aim of this study to explore further this lack of public support for NAFTA, and the sadly ironic commentary its enactment represents for democracy. In the end, only Mexicans majoritarily supported NAFTA, placing both American and Canadian elected representatives in the ironic position of ratifying and enacting a legislation contrary to the views of their constituents. It will be shown that trade-centred strategies have become the preferred option for government in the nineties despite public perceptions. It will thus be argued that trade liberalization is politically driven rather than an example of popular will endorsing the benefits of freer trade among nations. Without condemning or supporting the concept of free trade, the results of this analysis will at least identify the gap existing between the policy actions of the political elites in representative democracies and the views of citizens. The consequences of the existence of such a gap will also be considered. 1. The author would like to thank Mr. Jon Hugues, without whose help this paper would not have been possible. Mr. Hugues helped in the gathering of the information and provided critical insight which proved invaluable to the author. 240 Quebec under Free Trade "What is new in the so-called capitalist countries — and this is a vital point — is that the controlling contentment and resulting belief is now that of the many, not just of the few... The result is government that is accommodated not to reality or common need but to the beliefs of the contented." John Kenneth Galbraith When NAFTA was announced on August 12, 1992, most observers agreed that the removal of trade barriers between the three countries offered advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. Throughout the debate preceding the ratification, critics pointed to the small current trade between Canada and Mexico, Mexico's low labour costs, Mexican competition with Canadian goods in U.S. markets, and the alleged failure of the existing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as reasons for Canada to spurn the agreement. Concerns over the ratification of the trade deal were sufficiently salient that during the 1993 federal election campaign, Chrétien's Liberals expressed serious reservations about the agreement, and pledged to seek and obtain further concessions from the Mexican and American governments before ratifying it. In contrast, proponents of the deal stressed the benefits in terms of economic growth, job creation and increased competitiveness as the main advantages of the Accord. Specifically, both the Canadian and Mexican governments had for objectives to achieve secure access to U.S. markets by improving their influence on application of U.S. trade laws. Moreover, supporters of the agreement stressed the inevitability of North American integration within the context of globalization. Lack of consensus over the costs and benefits of continental integration was also found among citizens. In fact, the only common trend in this debate was the sharp division over the perceived beneficiaries of the trade deal and its socioeconomic repercussions. In the end, only Mexicans majoritarily supported NAFTA, placing both American and Canadian elected representatives in the ironic position of ratifying and enacting a legislation contrary to the views of their constituents. It will be the aim of this study to explore further this lack of public support for NAFTA, and the sadly ironic commentary its enactment represents for representative democracy. It will be shown that it is despite public perceptions of the issue that a strategy of continental integration has become the preferred option for government in the nineties. During the NAFTA debate, these policy initiatives were presented to the electorate as a way to deliver economic renewal and a higher standard of living. This promise was greeted by a dose of scepticism. It will thus be argued that continental trade liberalization is politically driven rather than an example of popular will endorsing the benefits of freer trade among nations. Without condemning nor supporting the concept of continental integration, the results of this analysis...

Share