Strange Bedfellows, Trying Times: October 1992 and the Defeat of the Powerbrokers

Penny E. Bryden teaches history at Mount Allison University in New
Brunswick.

The Charlottetown Accord and the national referendum called to determine
Canadians’ reaction to the constitutional proposals produced an
emotional response even more intense than that surrounding the Meech
Lake Accord. Despite the general opinion in post-referendum Canada that
the public and the politicians had grown weary of the constitutional
debate, it is likely that many will be still interested in an assessment
of what happened during those fateful months in 1992. Jeffrey’s
contribution is one of the first book-length attempts to make sense out
of the post–Meech negotiations and the emotional referendum campaign
that brought to an end the so-called Canada Round of constitutional
deliberations.

In addition to providing a useful summary of referendum voting behavior
according to region, gender, and ethnicity, Jeffrey traces the process
of constitutional development from the establishment of the Spicer
Commission through the Charlottetown Accord. The largest portion of the
book, however, is devoted to an assessment of the national referendum
campaign itself. In this account of the formation of the “yes” and
“no” forces, the peculiarities of the campaign in Quebec, and the
gradual national shift in public opinion against the constitutional
proposals, Jeffrey makes few attempts at objectivity. The “no” side
is characterized as a group of outsiders who bravely take on the
establishment and the political elite of the country. In contrast, both
those responsible for formulating the constitutional agreement in the
first place and those who campaigned on the “yes” side during the
referendum are depicted as manipulative and out of touch with the
discontent of the average Canadian. Jeffrey’s tone throughout leaves
little question about how her vote was cast.

In the end, the book suffers from having appeared too early. Jeffrey
ultimately finds it impossible to separate herself from the impassioned
rhetoric of the referendum campaign she seeks to document, so instead of
producing a balanced analysis of a significant political event, she has
written a somewhat superficial celebration of the victory for the
“no” troops.