| Free trade opposition in Canada can be said to have emerged in the critiques of the Mulroney Government economic agenda in the early 1980s. It ended upon the ratification of NAFTA by the Chretien Government on December 2, 1993.; The dissertation examines the experience of the major anti free trade forces in Canada during the debates around the Canada-US and North American Trade Agreements: the Action Canada Network, its international networking partner Common Frontiers, and Citizens Concerned About Free Trade.; The primary question concerns the nature of a social movement. The Action Canada Network claimed to represent and to embody a national movement for economic and social change. It is therefore compared to a framework for social movements developed out of new social movement theories and international environment and development policy and politics. The central questions asked are, was the Network a social movement? Did the goals and strategies it pursued correspond to those of a social movement? How did internal perceptions of the role of the Network affect the success of its anti free trade campaigns? What legacy did it leave for Canadian social and political discourse and action at national and international levels?; It is argued that the Network confused itself with the social movement it claimed to represent and therefore blocked the possibility of its emergence. As a result, despite the movement potential exhibited by the Network during the 1987--88 anti Free Trade Agreement campaign, when it can be said to have been the closest to truly constituting a national social movement, it failed to achieve its goals. The so-called Free Trade election of 1988 was lost, and the next round of NAFTA opposition saw a much lower rate of public participation and support for the Network platform, despite polls indicating Canadians blamed the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement for a poor economic outlook. Finally, it failed to influence a new era of social politics in Canada. Little public space exists today for a credible challenge to the neoconservative ideology which underlay the agreements and which prevails today. |
