Post-Mortem on the Free Trade Election

Post-Mortem on the Free Trade Election The 1988 general election in Canada was a remarkable and exhilarating affair. The almost exclusive focus on the proposed Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FrA) resulted in an unusual campaign in which issues dominated over images. Canadians' traditional deference and passivity was swept aside. They debated the issue incessantly at work and at home - families and friends found themselves passionately divided. On election day, countless Canadians entered polling booths uncertain as to how they would vote. The free trade forces were victorious electorally. The Canadian public and its leaders sank into a state of political and psychological exhaustion. Subsequently , there has been a significant but understandable absence of discussion of the character and meaning of this election. It is as if the intensity of the event consumed our capacity to reflect on it. Perhaps it is now time to begin to formulate the questions that ought to be asked. Here are ten to begin with. 1. Why was the government so poorly prepared for negotiations? Why did the Mulroney government enter the free trade negotiations so ill-prepared? Say what you will about the Americans, at least they had an agenda and knew what they wanted. The Canadian government agonized before taking the negotiation plunge. As in the Meech Lake negotiations, it did not appear to have staked out a clear or precise position. Canadians had difficulty understanding and evaluating the FTA because the government never explained precisely what package of ingredients it wanted to realize from the deal. There was substantial uncertainty alx>ut what the FTA actually accomplished and alx>ut why certain items (e.g. , subsidies) remain unresolved. This made it difficult to evaluate the government's accomplishments, and also explains why the government entered the election campaign with no particular desire to explain or defend the deal. 2. Why did Mulroney persist? The most crucial political actor in all ofthis was Brian Mulroney. He gave the go-ahead to negotiate; he could have stopped the process at any time; he named the key players on the Canadian team; and he could have vetoed the deal. Why, given the uncertainty and risks, did he persist in seeing this deal through? After all, this is a leader who cannot be characterized as having strongly held views or passionate commitments. And this is a government that has been keen to avoid offending voters. The government could conceivably have lost its political life over free trade. Regardless of one's views, Mulroney has demonstrated unexpected tenacity in two of the biggest policy events of his prime ministerial career: Meech Lake and free trade. 3. Why was free trade decided in the manner it was? Why were the opposition parties not more vigorous in insisting that free Journal of Canadian Studies Vol. 24. No. I (Printemps 198') Spring) 3 trade be decided through a national referendum? Determining the issue via elections was doubly perverse. In the first instance, the 1984 election produced a government which had never even hinted at an intention to enter into free trade negotiations with the United States, but which had the political strength (an overwhelming majority) to do what it pleased. On the other hand, the 1988 election produced an alleged mandate for free trade on the basis of the electoral support of substantially less than 50% of Canadians. The idiosyncracies of the first-past-the-post electoral system saw the anti-FTA vote split in numerous ridings. Why is it that we endlessly reform federalism but dare not reform the electoral system? The division of powers within federalism is dissected and debated in Canada with the same tenacity and effect as theologians discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Yet simply raising the issue of electoral reform leaves one open to the charge of being a crank or, in the case of the 1988 election, of crying over spilled milk. Is federalism debated because this offers politicians the promise of increased power, while electoral reform is seen to threaten their power? 4. What if the debate hadn't produced the perfect 'sound bite'? Ifthe Conservatives had had their way, free...