Negotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Abstract

In the preface to Wrestling with the Elephant, the author, Gordon Ritchie, says his book is a 'personal memoir' covering his experiences as a senior member of the Canadian team which negotiated the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and as an adviser in the private sector to companies involved in trade conflicts with the United States. 'It does not pretend,' he says modestly, 'to be the authoritative version of the truth -- whatever that is.'(f.1) So far, so good. The book is meant merely to offer a version of the truth. But his quip -- 'whatever that is' -- is a troubling one because the author poses a question about the reliability of his account of what must be regarded as one of the most far-reaching and significant negotiations in Canadian history.Master pundit Jeffrey Simpson, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail on 11 October 1997, stated that 'Mr Ritchie's account is likely to be as close to a definitive one as we will get until someone else also intimately involved in the negotiations writes one.' It is also 'a textbook from one mandarins perspective, about how Ottawa worked in the 1970's and 1980's.' If these remarks are to be taken seriously -- I find it hard to do so -- there is indeed cause for concern because we will be left with a picture of a barely competent Canadian team facing a duplicitous and bullying American one. In his review of the book, Michael Hart asks 'will this revisionist account take hold? Has the passage of time made it possible to uproot already firmly implanted ideas?'(f.2) These are good questions.Notwithstanding his disclaimer, Ritchie boldly asserts in his subtitle that Wrestling with the Elephant is The Inside Story of the Canada-U.S. Trade Wars. Note, the Inside Story. His memoir, no doubt, could be styled an inside story; his account of the free-trade negotiations -- the centrepiece of the book -- could then be better understood for what it is. But there is, perhaps, some difficulty even in this more modest title because Ritchie was not inside the negotiating chamber at critical times during the final negotiations and did not discuss his account with those who were. How else to explain his eccentric portrayal of some of the most salient and critical features of the dramatic last-minute breakthroughs which saved the negotiations from the dust-bin of history?It is curious that Ritchie, in the words of the Canadian chief negotiator, Simon Reisman, 'chose not to consult his chief, or other negotiators, as to the accuracy of his account.'(f.3) Reisman's critical review (in which he later commented that 'If you were to read the book, you would think the guy who ran the whole thing was Ritchie and this old fart Reisman was around ...') led to a curious public exchange which again raised questions as to the authoritativeness of Ritchie's memoir. The book's publisher at Macfarlane Walter & Ross wrote a letter of complaint to Time magazine, which, according to a report in the Globe and Mail on 29 October 1997, objected to Reisman's statement that the book contained 'numerous factual errors.'(f.4) 'I also felt obliged to point out' said the publisher, 'that Reisman had threatened legal action against the book. Is it not unusual that Time would allow someone to review the book who has threatened legal action against it?'Ritchie shared his publisher's view. In the same issue of the Globe and Mail he said that 'Reisman was on record as publicly threatening to take legal action, so it was surprising that he would be chosen to review the book, given that he had an agenda' (emphasis added). A journalism professor chimed in: 'If the review is to be a service to the reader, there's no point in giving it to someone who has an axe to grind.' This is meretricious nonsense. Who is more qualified to review Ritchie's book than Ritchie's superior in that negotiation? And if, by extension, everyone who is denigrated and therefore might, so to speak, have an 'agenda' or 'an axe to grind' is disqualified as being parti pris, who is there left in the negotiations to review it? …