TIMMINS: The new year’s first political news was Drapeau’s announcement that he would retire in November after nearly 30 years as mayor. He still enjoyed the job but age and deteriorating health – he had suffered a mini-stroke two years earlier – meant he could no longer function as effectively as even a few years earlier. Drapeau had won a plurality in 1982 and while he would have won narrowly, probably by about 8-10%, council would have been far dicier. Claude Dupras had been chosen as his successor despite a decade of Unionist attempts to find an alternative. Quebec City wanted a pliable conservative, or at least a flexible progressive, as Drapeau’s successor. Yet the dynamic of municipal politics had produced opponents who ranged from ultra-liberals like Dore to the hard left, and Municipal Affairs anticipated constant battles with the city. Quebec City itself and most small towns had UN-sympathizing mayors, reflecting the governing party’s dominance at every level of administration outside Montreal. Unionist MNAs were careful to avoid direct interference in municipal politics, but it was common knowledge if a municipal politician – usually entrenched incumbents or promising young talent - had their MNA’s backing. This sort of indirect arrangement dated to Duplessis’ day and had been disbanded by Daniel Johnson in the early 1960s as part of his campaign to purge old-style pork.
PIERRE-MARC JOHNSON: Our rule for municipal politics is that incumbents who do a good job and are at least within the realm of reason should be left alone, dating to Duplessis’ day. Anyone who disobeyed was severely punished. The case in point was Maurice Bellemare, who became so annoyed at his city’s mayor that he decided to run against him in violation of Duplessis’ direct order. Duplessis sent Mlle Cloutier across the river with campaign cash and the incumbent handily won. He himself never interfered with Trois-Rivieres municipal elections – if he had [future Liberal MP J.A.] Mongrain would never have been elected. Centrist Liberals were usually helpful allies, as Lucien Borne had been to us for his entire 27-year tenure. In January our focus was on the budget that would be delivered in weeks, which would contain a small family tax cut and continue the privatization process for natural resource companies. The final resource privatization would start later that year, since we wanted them all completely sold off by 1990. SAQ privatization was for the next term and we had already planned out the process a few months previously. Public housing ownership was next on our agenda, and our program would be based on the highly successful British model.
Finance Minister Jean Chrétien shows off his budget shoes before delivering the budget speech, Feb. 10, 1986.
STEVENS: Chrétien’s third budget was well-received, with a surplus being used for middle-class tax cuts and job training that were popular with swing voters. There was no real budget debate as such, since it interfered with Campbell’s election timing. It would be enacted after the election that had been pencilled in for Apr. 7, with dissolution in just 2 weeks’ time. Final preparations were underway for all sides, and there were no last-minute retirements to contend with, unlike 1978 and 1982. Erik Nielsen told Wilson that he would run one last time out of party loyalty, but would prefer the Speakership or appointment in lieu of the deputy’s position. By that time, Nielsen had become exasperated with his party’s leadership and felt underappreciated despite Wilson’s attention to him. Indeed, Wilson had listened to Nielsen far more often than the more experienced Stanfield and La Salle had done. Relations between the two men were cordial but never friendly. The Tory and Liberal platforms were safe, bland documents that had almost no sharp differences between them. One idea internally floated, yet ultimately shelved idea was replacing the inefficient and cumbersome manufacturing tax with a GST, advocated by the economic teams in both parties. Neither Campbell nor Wilson wanted to run on a new tax.
GAGNON: The 1986 campaign was not really a contest at all, with Campbell’s popularity and a booming economy guaranteeing him another comfortable majority. Tories and New Democrats had to protect themselves from cresting Liberal popularity in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. They could take comfort in the fact that despite Campbell’s ardent wooing, conservative BC remained highly resistant to Campbell’s flashy brand of centre-left Liberalism. No Liberal leader since King worked so hard to woo the Prairies, but Campbell and the Liberal Party were too progressive to make serious inroads in the area they lost permanently nearly 30 years earlier. Quebec remained a stalemate, with Wilson unable to make serious inroads and the heavily entrenched Tory MPs untouchable by their Liberal opponents. Campbell himself focused on Atlantic pickups and targeted Tory frontbenchers in what was internally known as a decapitation operation. Wilson himself, Flora MacDonald, Sean O’Sullivan and less established Tories such as St. Paul’s Barbara MacDougall, running for her second term, were heavily targeted. Not since 1949 had a Tory leader been personally targeted for defeat, yet Wilson was not in serious danger. His personal connection with voters was too strong to replace him with a Liberal backbencher. Much the same applied to MacDonald and O’Sullivan, like Wilson members of the Class of 1972.
TIMMINS: The 1986 debates were seen as a win for Campbell in English and somewhat surprisingly, Wilson in French. Wilson made a strong pitch to Quebec voters against federal overreach and was universally seen as the winner by Francophone commentators. In English it was a different story, where Campbell dominated completely and the fieriest exchanges were between he and Broadbent over progressive values. Wilson tried to ignore questions and pitch swing voters on his platform, but swing voters were enraptured by Campbell in a way that they had not been since Trudeaumania in 1968. Economic and government performance combined with Tory disunity to cement a double-digit Grit lead throughout that campaign. Wilson remained upbeat, since in his heart he knew he could only play defence barring a massive scandal of a sort which had always eluded the straight-arrow prime minister. Whatever you think about all three leaders, their personal integrity was always of the highest order.
Liberal Leader Alex Campbell at a breakfast photo-op in St. John's, Mar. 31, 1986.
GALLUP CANADA, MAR. 28-30, 1986
IF A FEDERAL ELECTION WERE HELD TOMORROW, WHICH PARTY’S CANDIDATE WOULD YOU VOTE FOR?
LIBERAL: 46.6%
PC: 33.1%
NDP: 20.7%
PIERRE-MARC JOHNSON: Our rule for municipal politics is that incumbents who do a good job and are at least within the realm of reason should be left alone, dating to Duplessis’ day. Anyone who disobeyed was severely punished. The case in point was Maurice Bellemare, who became so annoyed at his city’s mayor that he decided to run against him in violation of Duplessis’ direct order. Duplessis sent Mlle Cloutier across the river with campaign cash and the incumbent handily won. He himself never interfered with Trois-Rivieres municipal elections – if he had [future Liberal MP J.A.] Mongrain would never have been elected. Centrist Liberals were usually helpful allies, as Lucien Borne had been to us for his entire 27-year tenure. In January our focus was on the budget that would be delivered in weeks, which would contain a small family tax cut and continue the privatization process for natural resource companies. The final resource privatization would start later that year, since we wanted them all completely sold off by 1990. SAQ privatization was for the next term and we had already planned out the process a few months previously. Public housing ownership was next on our agenda, and our program would be based on the highly successful British model.
Finance Minister Jean Chrétien shows off his budget shoes before delivering the budget speech, Feb. 10, 1986.
STEVENS: Chrétien’s third budget was well-received, with a surplus being used for middle-class tax cuts and job training that were popular with swing voters. There was no real budget debate as such, since it interfered with Campbell’s election timing. It would be enacted after the election that had been pencilled in for Apr. 7, with dissolution in just 2 weeks’ time. Final preparations were underway for all sides, and there were no last-minute retirements to contend with, unlike 1978 and 1982. Erik Nielsen told Wilson that he would run one last time out of party loyalty, but would prefer the Speakership or appointment in lieu of the deputy’s position. By that time, Nielsen had become exasperated with his party’s leadership and felt underappreciated despite Wilson’s attention to him. Indeed, Wilson had listened to Nielsen far more often than the more experienced Stanfield and La Salle had done. Relations between the two men were cordial but never friendly. The Tory and Liberal platforms were safe, bland documents that had almost no sharp differences between them. One idea internally floated, yet ultimately shelved idea was replacing the inefficient and cumbersome manufacturing tax with a GST, advocated by the economic teams in both parties. Neither Campbell nor Wilson wanted to run on a new tax.
GAGNON: The 1986 campaign was not really a contest at all, with Campbell’s popularity and a booming economy guaranteeing him another comfortable majority. Tories and New Democrats had to protect themselves from cresting Liberal popularity in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. They could take comfort in the fact that despite Campbell’s ardent wooing, conservative BC remained highly resistant to Campbell’s flashy brand of centre-left Liberalism. No Liberal leader since King worked so hard to woo the Prairies, but Campbell and the Liberal Party were too progressive to make serious inroads in the area they lost permanently nearly 30 years earlier. Quebec remained a stalemate, with Wilson unable to make serious inroads and the heavily entrenched Tory MPs untouchable by their Liberal opponents. Campbell himself focused on Atlantic pickups and targeted Tory frontbenchers in what was internally known as a decapitation operation. Wilson himself, Flora MacDonald, Sean O’Sullivan and less established Tories such as St. Paul’s Barbara MacDougall, running for her second term, were heavily targeted. Not since 1949 had a Tory leader been personally targeted for defeat, yet Wilson was not in serious danger. His personal connection with voters was too strong to replace him with a Liberal backbencher. Much the same applied to MacDonald and O’Sullivan, like Wilson members of the Class of 1972.
TIMMINS: The 1986 debates were seen as a win for Campbell in English and somewhat surprisingly, Wilson in French. Wilson made a strong pitch to Quebec voters against federal overreach and was universally seen as the winner by Francophone commentators. In English it was a different story, where Campbell dominated completely and the fieriest exchanges were between he and Broadbent over progressive values. Wilson tried to ignore questions and pitch swing voters on his platform, but swing voters were enraptured by Campbell in a way that they had not been since Trudeaumania in 1968. Economic and government performance combined with Tory disunity to cement a double-digit Grit lead throughout that campaign. Wilson remained upbeat, since in his heart he knew he could only play defence barring a massive scandal of a sort which had always eluded the straight-arrow prime minister. Whatever you think about all three leaders, their personal integrity was always of the highest order.
Liberal Leader Alex Campbell at a breakfast photo-op in St. John's, Mar. 31, 1986.
GALLUP CANADA, MAR. 28-30, 1986
IF A FEDERAL ELECTION WERE HELD TOMORROW, WHICH PARTY’S CANDIDATE WOULD YOU VOTE FOR?
LIBERAL: 46.6%
PC: 33.1%
NDP: 20.7%