late countervailing cabinet debate on foreign policy issues. He particularly
wanted the cabinet to become more involved in deciding policy for Canada in
the outside world.

The Trudeau government's effort to engage the interested public in foreign
policy marked a new direction, away from policy-making by an insulated foreign
policy establishment. Since the early 1970s much more energy has been
expended to bring interested groups into contact with the foreign policy decision
makers. Communication generally has opened up, and representation of the
French-speaking community has greatly increased within the establishment.

Some of these developments are a response to the increasing importance of
economic issues in Canada's foreign relations. The Department of Finance could
be expected to play a larger role, for example, because its personnel are more
expert in finance than are personnel in the (now called) Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade. Thus, also, bureaucratic rivalry, although hardly
on the scale to be seen in Washington, can be expected to flourish, despite efforts
at consensus and coordination.

Nevertheless, compared with the United States, foreign policy making in
Canada is concentrated. The prime minister is the leader in the House of
Commons and depends on a tradition of cabinet solidarity, collective responsi-
bility, and party discipline. For the past few decades a committee in the House
dealing with external affairs and national defense has played a role in examining
various foreign policy issues and prodding the government. This committee has
now been split in two. The House of Commons can debate its reports, note its
recommendations, and accept them or refer them back for further investigation;
but it can also ignore them. And in Canada's parliamentary system the power of
even the House of Commons to check the prime minister is very limited. The
Senate wields some influence indirectly through conducting extensive inquiries,
with resulting reports that may provoke attention or provide some guidance for
future policy. Turning down the Canada/ U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988 and
thus propelling an election was a very rare decisive action by the Senate.

Although media criticism over some foreign policy issue may be keen, no
election since World War II has turned solely on such an issue, although the 1988
election focused on the free trade agreement. As in that case, the major parties
do take stands on foreign policy issues, sometimes with an eye to partisan advan-
tage. On particular foreign policy issues the Liberals and the Conservatives have
exchanged positions over the years, but usually their differences are not striking.
In contrast, the New Democratic Party (NDP), has strongly dissented from gov-
ernment policy on defense matters: its members dislike NATO and favor much

-13-