William Watson: Let’s see the last draft. Inquiring voters want to know

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeFP CommentWilliam Watson: Let's see the last draft. Inquiring voters want to knowIt's best to judge the policy sausage itself, not the sausage-making. But when talks blow up we need to know what was left on the tableLast updated 23 minutes ago Is Mark Carney the fearless Trump-defier poll numbers suggest many think he is? Or is he a not extraordinary politician jostled by interests he is unwilling to challenge? Photo by ANDREJ IVANOV/AFP via Getty ImagesRegarding the aborted negotiations for a renewed Canada-U.S. trade deal, former Quebec premier Jean Charest argues Ottawa shouldn’t have to negotiate in public.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountEasy for him to say. Charest is a member of Dominic LeBlanc’s advisory committee on Canada-U.S. relations (which probably needs to add a psychiatrist or two, including a child psychiatrist, after this week’s Canada-U.S. name-calling). He was briefed on the negotiations as they were happening, unlike ordinary Canadians, who had to be satisfied with LeBlanc’s empty talk — noise comes out but it’s content-free, a trick perfected during three decades in Ottawa. It’s the default position of insiders that outsiders don’t need to know.Plus: Charest is also a lawyer and nothing I’ve seen or heard says legal services were on the table during the talks. Just the opposite, talks always generate demand for such services. Well-compensated lawyers queue before the table.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againIn general, we in the press overdo the importance of transparency. We want maximum disclosure regarding everything governmental — OnlyFans for public affairs, as it were. Acquaintances in the federal government tell horror stories about the gobs of time spent on freedom-of-information requests. FOIs do sometimes dredge up exquisite examples of idiocy, but public service productivity is a big enough problem that the bar for diverting government employees from their normal duties needs to be set high.Nor do journalists or even commissions need access to the emails and telephone transcripts of government officials going back and forth over what to do with a given problem or policy. We want people in government to be able to communicate with each other without using code or hand signals or having to whisper to each other on park benches.The thing about talking “in confidence” is that you’re confident enough to speak plainly. Yes, the way real human beings converse with one other often does look appalling in print. But it gets the communication job done. By contrast, walking on eggshells is difficult, slow and can leave important points unstated. Titillation aside, we have no need to see the details of the sausage-making. Just judge the sausages.That’s also true in international negotiations. Deal-makers have to be frank with one other, explaining why things can or can’t be done. We don’t need to see every cut and thrust, every parry and lunge. That can all be very interesting, especially for specialists, but if a deal results, we can judge its merits. If you’re making a movie or writing a novel or are a historian 50 years hence, you want the sordid details. But for democratic purposes, what matters is the final product.That’s only possible, however, if there is a final product. In the case of last week’s failed trade talks, we’ve got nothing. Mr. Carney says we walked away because the U.S. went after our sovereignty, our culture and our key industries and he and his government had to stand up for Canada — courageously, he might add — and leave the final offers on the table. (In fact, the truly courageous thing would be trying to sell an imperfect deal, which is the only deal we’re likely to get from this president.)This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The prime minister wasn’t wearing a cowboy hat during last Saturday’s post-rupture remarks and press conference, so you might assume he’s telling the truth. (By contrast, he was in full Calgary Stampede regalia when this former head of not one but two globally important central banks inadvertently misstated the in fact rather simple new financial terms of a Gordie Howe Bridge deal that Donald Trump extorted from us at the last minute. Hats apparently restrict blood flow to the brain.)Not to question Carney’s integrity, but he has a strong interest in our buying into his truth, to use a term Liberal identitarians would favour, while the rest of us would like to know the truth. The Americans supposedly asked too much and gave too little. Well, what exactly did they ask and give and why were they, respectively, too much and too little? What were they offering early in the week, when it seemed we were heading toward a deal? And what changed? Did the U.S. really get more difficult? Or did the premiers rebel, as some reporting, possibly fuelled by self-serving provincial leaks, seems to suggest?The government obviously knows what went on. So does the Trump administration — though, given its history, what it knows may be quite different from what it’s saying. Canadians would like to know, too. Was killing the talks really a profile in Carney courage? Or was it a case of caving cravenly to culture-industry lobbyists or Quebec dairy farmers in advance of key byelections and a provincial election? How big were the requested concessions on supply management or wine-labelling or French-movie promotion? And how costly are these things, really?Inquiring voters want to know: Is Carney the fearless Trump-defier this week’s poll numbers suggest the country seems to think he is? Or is he a not especially extraordinary politician jostled by interests he is unwilling to challenge?Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.