The Struggle to break the Uniparty system in Canada.
This is the story of how a small and obscure centre-right party challenged Canada’s uniparty politics and eventually emerged as the winner. Just how the Reform Party of Canada rose from the fringes of Canadian politics to dominate the centre-right is not just interesting, but provides insights and lessons for Reform UK.
Its founder, a Western Canadian called Preston Manning faced all the familiar problems and obstacles that confronted and continue to confront Nigel Farage: a hostile media, accusations of bigotry, problematic members, ridicule and much more.
It was a long battle, marred by many wounds, some self-inflicted. There were the unwelcome attentions of the far-right leading to negative PR, clownish outbursts by some MP’s, mistakes in the over-democratisation of the party and a disastrous leadership coup.
These problems took nearly two decades to overcome and cover a lot of ground. As such, Reform Canada’ s hard path to power will of necessity be covered in several articles over the next few weeks.
Background to Canadian politics 1987
Until the Reform Party of Canada came along, the Canadian political landscape was similar to that of the UK, with two dominant parties. Control of the Canadian Federal Government would alternate between the centre-right Progressive Conservative Party and the left-leaning Liberal Party.
There were the smaller parties too, not least the French ’nationalist’ Bloc Quebécois, who much like our own SNP, were a regionally based party.
Of note was the young New Democratic Party (NDP), a socialistic-left party and a little like our Liberal Democrat Party. This arrangement was to change over the next few decades.
The creation of Reform Canada and 1988 election
In 1987, Preston Manning, a former member of the Progressive Conservative Party quit and announced the formation of a new centre-right political party. The intention was to champion the cause of the English-speaking provinces of Western Canada that felt alienated and left behind by the metropolitan elites of Ottawa in Ontario, who were seen to be acquiescing to the demands of Quebec. A two-tier Canada was to be resisted argued Manning, special privileges could not be granted to a section of the community based on ethnicity, They were particularly concerned about the impact of the proposed Canadian Multiculturalism Bill Passed in 1988), which declared “multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and…provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future.”
A two-tier Canada was to be resisted argued Manning, special privileges could not be granted to a section of the community based on ethnicity
Manning rejected this two-tier approach that divided Canadians into groups and countered that,“Reform believes that the key to unity is to treat all citizens and provinces equally.” Beyond that, Manning advocated a raft of economic and social measures, including smaller government, and lower taxes.
Reform finds a national platform – the make or break referendum
Brian Mulroney, the new PM, was keen to avoid Quebec breaking away from Canada. His attempts to accommodate them produced a constitutional formula that was opposed by Reform. The wrangling culminated in his fateful decision to hold a referendum which expected to win easily. Much like David Cameron’s decision to call the Brexit Referendum, Mulroney did not foresee the chain of events that were to follow.
Mulroney negotiated the Meech Lake Accord which would grant the French-speaking Quebec province special privileges. To be passed, it required the consent of both parliament and each provincial assembly by 23rd June 1990. However, the First Nations saw this as an opportunity to demand special rights and an. A indigenous member of the Manitoba Assembly ensured it could not be voted on by the deadline.
Although some of these issues featured in the 1988 election, the debate was dominated by an argument between the two big parties over other there should be free trade with the US. Reform only contested seats in Western Canada an area traditionally dominated by the Progressive Conservatives and struggled to make itself heard.
The Progressive Conservatives were the big winners with 295 seats and 43% of the vote. Reform won no seats and only 2% of the national vote. It did however make some limited headway in the West and in particular in Alberta where it managed to win 15.4% of the vote and came a good second in nine deeply conservative ridings (constituencies). The possibility of future advance was confirmed almost immediately by a Reform victory over the Progressive Conservatives in a by-election held just weeks after the General Election.
.
Manning believed these proposals threatened the very essence of Canadian nationhood, that a ‘New Canada’ must not become “a federation of founding races or ethnic groups.
Undeterred, Mulroney negotiated a new arrangement. The so-called Charlottetown Accord included changes to address the demands of the ‘First Nation’ indigenous peoples, who now wanted their own special status of self-government, including litigation through their own courts, thereby creating “a third order of government.” Manning believed these proposals threatened the very essence of Canadian nationhood, that a ‘New Canada’ must not become “a federation of founding races or ethnic groups” each with different laws and destroyed national Canadian sovereignty from within. Reform’s growing strength in the West as evidenced by their by-election win and provincial assembly gains gave weight Reform’s calls for a national referendum. Mulroney had the support of all ten provincial premiers, plus the bulk of his party thought he would win. Confident of a ‘Yes’ vote, Mulroney agreed to a national referendum thinking it would put the matter to bed and see off Reform.
Polls predict a ‘Yes’ win
In October 1992, Canada went to the polls to vote Yes or No on the question, “Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?” Just as Nigel Farage and his supporters were able to elevate their profile in the Brexit referendum, so too did Preston Manning in the Charlottetown Referendum. It was still an uphill battle.
…formed by Vote No supporters from the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties who did not want to be associated with the ‘oinks’ in the rival Reform Party Committee.
At the start of the campaign, ‘Yes’ appeared to be ahead with 60% support. The Accord had the support of practically every element of the Canadian establishment. This included the leading parties both in the Federal Parliament but also the provincial governments. The Progressive Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and indigenous political groupings all were represented in the officially registered referendum committees. In total, there were 205 ‘Vote Yes’ Committees ranged against just 36 registered ’Vote No’ committees. Of these ‘No’ committees, the two dominant players were the Reform Party Referendum Committee and an umbrella organisation called ‘Canada for all Canadians’ organisation. This latter one had been formed by Vote No supporters from the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties who did not want to be associated with the ‘oinks’ in the rival Reform Party Committee. This was much like the situation Leave.EU’s found itself in during the Brexit referendum.
Project Fear
Suffice to say, the prospects for the No vote did not look good. They faced an array of opponents from the unions, business interests, the media and academics who urged the electorate to vote Yes, warning of the dire consequences of a no vote. It was the usual Project Fear narrative from the metropolitan elite. One academic warned that there would be “economic devastation” and “interest rates would skyrocket and the value of the Canadian dollar would plummet… Canadian and foreign investment would flee, unemployment could increase dramatically.” Canada’s recession “would become quite likely a depression” and to cap it all a No vote would mean a break-up of Canada.
The Accord was described as the “Charlatan Accord” foisted on the electorate by out of touch elites with their own agenda…
Preston Manning and Reform rebutted these predictions as scaremongering and attempted to warn Canadians of the dangers to nationhood by embarking on constitutional tinkering that would undermine the nation. Manning coined the slogan “Know More,” a phrase that also suggested both ‘don’t be fooled’ and a definitive stop to the gradual destruction of Canada: “No more.”
The Accord was described as the “Charlatan Accord” foisted on the electorate by out of touch elites with their own agenda. It did not appear to be enough to cut through, but much in the same way Boris Johnson’s support for the ’No’ cause changed the dynamics, so it was in Canada when former Liberal PM, Pierre Trudeau unexpectedly joined the ‘No’ camp. It was a turning point. Against all the odds, the No vote came out at 54% with Yes at 46%. Reform Canada now had a national profile and had high hopes in the 1993 General Election.
The run up to the 1993 election
During the referendum campaign, Reform Canada faced constant accusations of being racist or far-right with one-off comments by individual Party members seized upon by the media. Opponents knew well that the referendum was facilitating a Reform presence across Canada and would provide momentum for the general election in 1993.
The left began a sustained campaign to brand the Party as racist and stifle any momentum. Far-left activists and agitators “invited all progressive organisations and individuals” to come together in the Coalition Against the Reform Party (CARP) to oppose the Thatcherite/Reaganite fascist, chauvinists.
The Party was to suffer serious damage from the unwanted attentions of a hard-right ex-jailbird with a following of young thugs recently deported from the US.
This unfavourable narrative continued to be promoted by the media despite the Party leadership acting to disassociate itself from extremist and racist elements. Manning acted swiftly to avoid association with individuals associated with the far-right but not always with success. The Party was to suffer serious damage from the unwanted attentions of a hard-right ex-jailbird with a following of young thugs recently deported from the US. This episode and the election itself will be covered in Part 2 of the Reform Canada articles.
