Mulroney's Place In History

Mr. Mulroney's defenders give him high marks for the negotiation of Canada-U.S. free trade, improving Canada-U.S. relations generally, the attempt to achieve constitutional reconciliation through the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, and tax reform. Electorally he led a united party to two majority governments, a feat no Conservative leader had achieved since Sir John A. Macdonald (Sir Robert Borden's second majority in 1917 came only after forming a coalition). Many of the accusations of scandal, patronage and personal extravagance levelled at Mr. Mulroney and his government have been shown to be exaggerations, distortions and the result of the application of double standards by Liberal-friendly journalists. The fact that Brian Mulroney was unpopular with Canadians by the end of his tenure means very little in itself. Pierre Trudeau was also unpopular when he left office. Mackenzie King was never popular, in or out of office. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin may be more popular than Brian Mulroney, but few today would rank either of these successors as highly as Mulroney. The abuses of patronage and power in Liberal Ottawa since 1993 have been at least as bad as anything the Mulroney Conservatives tolerated. Given all of this, can it be said that Mulroney's achievements add up to a record of prime ministerial leadership that ranks with Macdonald, Laurier, King, Borden, Trudeau, or Pearson? Let us examine the record item by item. Free trade with the United States is Mr. Mulroney's greatest claim to fame. The 1988 election, fought almost entirely on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, seemed to many to be a turning point in our history. Until very recently continental free trade seemed to be working well and further economic integration with our great neighbour seemed likely. Many Canadians still oppose free trade, of course, and quite a few more, including some of the men who negotiated the agreement, believe it was a very flawed deal, nothing to cheer very loudly about. Nevertheless, quite a few historians and others would still agree that being the father of free trade with the United States stands as a major prime ministerial achievement. Think of the mess we would be in if the deal had never been made. The problem is that Brian Mulroney's paternity of the Canada-U.S. Free-Trade Agreement is a little murky. Personally he was a latecomer to advocating free trade, which probably would have been supported by any Canadian government by the late 1980s. Brian Mulroney did not put his personal stamp on his government's initiative in anything like the way that John A. Macdonald did on building the Canadian Pacific Railway, Borden on war leadership, or Trudeau on constitutional matters. About the best that can be said -- this is still fairly high praise -- is that free trade happened while Mr. Mulroney was prime minister and he fought it through the 1988 election. Improved relations with the Americans and many of our other international neighbours also happened during the Mulroney years. Brian Mulroney probably did achieve more respect for Canada internationally than trendy, camera-mugging Pierre Trudeau. It helped Mulroney immeasurably to be able to hob-nob with such kindred spirits as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. But he, too, liked being there for the photo-ops, which is not the same as actually making a difference. During the Mulroney years Canada contributed nothing significant to the collapse of Communism (which came as a huge surprise in Ottawa) and our military power and influence continued to shrink. Compare this with the days of Borden and King, when Canada sent huge armies across the Atlantic to fight against tyranny and fascism. In Brian Mulroney's time, Canadian foreign policy came to be an exercise in finding a style, usually deferential, that would effectively mask our diminished substance. The constitutional accords of the Mulroney years did have substance, and if implemented would have changed the country drastically (Mr. Mulroney's remark to Peter Newman that the "distinct society" clause meant "dick" is being read out of context). Of course they failed, and it's hard to see why it should be considered good leadership for Brian Mulroney to have presided over the making of accords that could not be implemented. At best, it is often said that Meech and Charlottetown were well-intentioned, "noble" failures, and perhaps today's Canada would be better-off if they had succeeded. But should we give a prime minister high marks simply for effort? For rolling the dice and losing? More to the point, should Brian Mulroney ever have become involved with constitutional risk-taking in the first place? In my view it was a huge mistake when Mulroney and the other first ministers rejected Trudeau's constitutional settlement. Instead of letting Canada be quiet and heal, the power-hungry premiers and the naive prime minister bought into the big lie that Quebec's signature was necessary on the 1982 constitution. They hammered out a rickety deal at Meech Lake to permanently decentralize Canada. They were unable to implement it, and then gave the country an even worse stew at Charlottetown, all the while pouring kerosene on the embers of separatism by claiming that Canada would probably not survive if we turned them down. Far from giving Canada wise, statesmanlike leadership on constitutional matters, Brian Mulroney recklessly rolled the dice, put the country at risk, and lost. If that were not enough, he had, en passant, recklessly advanced the career of Lucien Bouchard, the man who nearly finished the job of national destruction in 1995. More: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=678a28b5-5a9a-437d-98e3-68f9d133d564 [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on September 18, 2005]

Note: http://www.canada.com/n...