For many years, the origin and content of the 1947 - 1948 free trade area discussions between Canada and the United States were shrouded in secrecy. In the summer of 1986, the US State Department declassified pertinent trade negotiations documents from 1947 - 1948. In contrast, the Canadian central government withholds information from its citizens. This is of interest from a political culture perspective because it illustrates quite clearly the significant difference in how these two states view their citizens.

Thanks to James Madison, the US has the First Amendment, guaranteeing the right of free speech. US Supreme Court Justice White said it well in the case of the New York Times Co. v. United States. In this case, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish in 1971 the contents of a classified Vietnam era study. Adopting the Madisonian argument, Mr. Justice White said:

In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government.

In October 2000, Canada's Information Commissioner, the Honourable John M. Reid, P.C., made public the disturbing 1999-2000 Annual Report to Parliament. The report highlights the power of secrecy in government. Mr. Reid noted the palpable hostility in government regarding the public's right to information, and singled out for significant criticism the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board, and the Department of Justice.

In Canada, trade negotiation documents can be withheld on several grounds. Based on an "injury test," for example, international affairs, defence and security are granted specific exemptions under Section 15 of the Canadian Access to Information Act. In addition, paragraph 21(1)(c) of the Act provides a broad basis for non-disclosure of records associated with international negotiations. There is as well the very useful evasion of "cabinet confidence" which is increasingly irritating dispute panels under WTO and NAFTA regimes.

As a result, most Canadians remain shielded from their history by a very paternalistic governance system. In the case of the 1947 - 1948 negotiations, there is understandable confusion among interested Canadians. Some believe the matter was quashed before negotiations formally began; others suggest that the initiative never got beyond the initial discussion stage. Some Canadian writers say the initiative to negotiate came from the US side; others assert it was a Canadian proposal. Some suggest the negotiators were discussing a customs union; others say it was a free trade area. Even Canadian scholars who reference US State Department documents make a mash of reporting document contents, producing less than an accurate portrayal of the timing and substance of these negotiations.

Well wonder no more. Die hard Can-Am policy wonks, history buffs, and the really paranoid will find the key US memorandum answering these and other burning questions right here.

Readers should note that:

1. What has not been generally appreciated is the extraordinary proposal to surrender unilateral rights to impose balance of payment quantitative restrictions on merchandise trade. This proposal moved well beyond the GATT Article XII provisions, which avoid undue restraint on national sovereignty in the application of measures to safeguard the balance of payments. In the context of contemporary discussions about a possible Canada - US customs union, it is clear that much of the ground is already familiar.



2. The "Basic Principles" section starting on the fourth page is not concluded on the following page. We infer that one page is missing from this document, being the balance of the paragraph headed as "Export Controls." It seems clear that the missing page also carried the heading for the fifth principle, "National Security." It is believed that the missing page referred to an advance consultation requirement preceding any imposition by either party of export controls.



3. The original document was typed onto 8.5x14 paper. The copy presented here has been reduced to an 8.5x11 format.