On October 5, two weeks before election day, the Conservative campaign announced that Stephen Harper’s government had successfully concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest free-trade agreement in history, representing a 12-country market of nearly 800 million customers.

“This is the largest economic partnership in history,” then-PM Stephen Harper said at a campaign stop shortly after the announcement, “guaranteeing our role in setting the rules of 21st century global trade, opening vast new markets to enterprise, ingenuity and jobs from coast to coast to coast. And under our government, Canada is going to be in the front door.”

By all accounts, the deal was supposed to be Harper’s silver bullet — the policy plank that would change the channel and help re-focus the election on the economy, putting some wind back in the Conservatives’ sails.

Paul Wilson, a professor of political management at Carleton University, said that he suspected the Conservatives were laying the groundwork for TPP negotiations back in August when they made changes to the ‘caretaker convention’.

According to the Privy Council Office, the caretaker convention requires that the government command the confidence of the House of Commons at all times. While a government has the constitutional right to govern during an election — and the responsibility to ensure that necessary government activity continues — it’s required to limit any actions that might be irreversible.

Under the Conservatives, Wilson said, the 2015 guidelines were amended, allowing them to partake in negotiations at a critical juncture with timelines beyond Canada’s control, in a situation where failure to participate might harm Canada’s interests.

“This seemed to me like the license the government needed to finalize TPP and make it an election issue,” said Wilson.

But despite Canada’s participation in the successful negotiations, the TPP never seemed to resonate as a decisive factor with Canadians, and was largely overshadowed by an election that, fundamentally, was about a desire for change.

David Coletto, head of the Ottawa polling firm Abacus data, said the Conservatives wanted to fight the election on the economy — and if they’d been allowed to do so, the TPP might have had a bigger impact. But by the end of the campaign, he said, the economy was not what was on most voters’ minds.

Adam Taylor, a director at ENsight, an Ottawa-based consulting firm, said that exit polling his company conducted after the election showed that, by and large, most voters were motivated by a wish to get rid of Harper rather than any specific policy issue like the TPP.

“Almost 70 per cent of people wanted change, and they got behind the party that they thought would bring that change,” said Taylor.

The 1988 election was famously dominated by the Canada-U.S. free trade debate — so a lot of experts expected trade to be an important ballot box issue this time around as well. But things have changed in Canadian politics in the quarter-century since the great Free Trade Election — mostly in terms of how Canadians themselves think about trade and the economy.

While Canadians’ positive perceptions of free trade may have kept the TPP from becoming a decisive ballot box issue, many also believe the Tories shot themselves in the foot by keeping details of the deal a secret. While Canadians’ positive perceptions of free trade may have kept the TPP from becoming a decisive ballot box issue, many also believe the Tories shot themselves in the foot by keeping details of the deal a secret.

Jonathan McQuarrie, a PhD student at the University of Toronto, said that Canadians’ perceptions of trade have evolved over recent decades, to the point where free trade today is something most voters accept. While there had been reciprocity agreements between Canada and the U.S. prior to 1988 (such as the auto pact) the free-trade agreement with the U.S. was the first deal that covered all facets of the Canadian economy. It was a new idea, and voters had reservations.

In 1988, McQuarrie said, Canadians were just emerging from a 20-year debate about Canada’s place in the world and the relationship it wished to have with the U.S. Canadians were worried about losing their identity, about being absorbed into an American empire.

The issue of national identity became an important one in the 1988 election and led to a heated, history-making debate between Liberal Leader John Turner and Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney.

Turner, who aggressively campaigned against free trade with the United States, said that the deal would hinder Canada’s ability to remain independent. One of the most memorable moments of the debate came when Turner said to Mulroney, “We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.”

And that, said McQuarrie, sums up the difference between the free trade debate in 1988 and the TPP debate in 2015. Back then, the argument wasn’t just about trade. People were asking questions about their national identity and purpose — questions which played on voters’ fears. It was a debate that was as much about emotion as it was about economics. Canada in 2015 is a more confident country when it comes to identity and political independence; nobody seriously worries about Canada losing itself in the pan-Pacific world.

While Canadians’ positive perceptions of free trade may have kept the TPP from becoming the decisive ballot box issue the Conservatives hoped it would be, many of those directly involved in the negotiations also believe the Tories shot themselves in the foot by keeping details of the deal a secret.

A former advisor to then-International Trade minister Ed Fast — who asked to remain anonymous — pointed out that, soon after the successful conclusion of the trade deal was announced, Fast went on TV promising to release the details of the agreement before the election.

“A week rolled around and there was no copy of (the) text, so it really fed into the narrative of Harper not wanting to consult with Canadians,” he said.

Making matters worse for the Conservatives was Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s promise to release the text of the agreement before ratifying it in Parliament. Fast’s former advisor said that, if anything, the agreement helped the Liberals by making the Conservatives seem secretive and unaccountable — a perception already held by many voters.

While experts agree that the TPP’s impact on the election was minimal and didn’t help the Conservatives in the way they had originally hoped, some pollsters and strategists say that the agreement’s biggest impact may have been to deny the NDP votes.

Journalist Kevin Hursh said that when the NDP came out unequivocally against the TPP, it ended up solidifying many voters’ belief that New Democrats were not trustworthy on economic issues. Journalist Kevin Hursh said that when the NDP came out unequivocally against the TPP, it ended up solidifying many voters’ belief that New Democrats were not trustworthy on economic issues.

The New Democrats were quick to denounce the agreement during the election campaign. Coletto said this approach may have hurt them in British Columbia — a province where they were expected to perform well. In B.C., he said, those who might otherwise have voted NDP were more likely to say that the New Democrats’ anti-TPP stance made them change their minds.

Coletto said he believes that one of the most interesting aspects of the 2015 election was how the Liberals ended up winning the most votes and the most seats in British Columbia — the first time they had done so since 1968. While Coletto acknowledges he can’t say for sure the Liberals did well in B.C. because they took a much more nuanced and supportive position on the TPP than the New Democrats, he said the trade debate may have affected the results there.

Kevin Hursh, an agricultural journalist and consultant from Saskatchewan, agreed that the TPP hurt the NDP more than it helped the Conservatives. Hursh said that throughout the campaign, the New Democrats tried to present themselves as a very moderate party — even more so than the Liberals — by promising to keep the budget balanced. Hursh said that when the NDP came out unequivocally against the TPP (and despite the promise of compensation and support for the dairy industry), it ended up solidifying many voters’ belief that New Democrats were not trustworthy on economic issues.

Though the TPP flew below the radar in the final days of the election campaign, there’s no denying its significance for Canada. It’s the biggest trade deal in history, covering everything from market access and investment rules to intellectual property and supply chain issues.

“If the Asia-Pacific is going to be where a lot of the growth in the global economy is coming from, it’s better to be at the table driving the agenda forward than to be on the outside looking in,” said Taylor.

Taylor also said he thinks that, in the long run, the agreement will be counted as part of the Harper government’s legacy — even if it didn’t help them stave off defeat.

“The good news for the now ex-government is that the TPP is a solid accomplishment for them and, going forward, they’ll feel good about it, especially if the Liberals ratify it. It’ll show that they made some solid policy decisions when they were in government.”

Hayley Chazan is a Masters of Journalism student at Carleton University.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.