1988 Canadian Federal Election Debate — Full Transcript

[00:03]

The order of speaking has been drawn by lot. To begin, each leader will deliver an opening statement of three minutes. The first speaker will be the leader of the New Democratic Party, Ed Broadbent. The second will be the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney. And the third, the leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner.

At the conclusion of these opening remarks, there will be three one-hour rounds -- the second of which, by agreement, will concentrate on issues of particular concern to women. Each round will consist of three debates between two of the leaders, and each leader is entitled to leave the podium when he is not participating in the debate. In these debate periods, the leaders will be responding to questions from the panel, who have worked together to develop the questions and themes to be raised.

The three journalists representing the television networks are David Halton, chief political correspondent for CBC Television News in Ottawa; Pamela Wallin, CTV's National Affairs correspondent; and Doug Small, Ottawa bureau chief for Global News.

At the end of the third round, each leader will have three minutes for closing remarks. The formal rules have been kept to a minimum, but to the extent that these rules have been agreed upon, it is the moderator's role to ensure that the principle of equal time is recognized, that the time limits are respected, and that the proper order is followed. To do this, the participants have agreed that the moderator can intervene where appropriate to enforce the rules as fairly as possible.

I know there are a lot of caveats in that explanation, but I think you can't expect anything else from a moderator who's a lawyer.

We begin with the opening remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Broadbent.

---

Last night in the French debate, Mr. Mulroney failed completely to answer criticisms that his trade deal threatens our families, our environment, our Medicare and pensions, that it jeopardizes regional development and sets back programs for our farmers.

The truth is that Mr. Mulroney signed a trade deal that goes way beyond the exchange of commodities between Canada and the United States. It affects virtually every aspect of Canadian life. And the truth is also that time after time, Mr. Mulroney gave the Americans what they wanted but failed to get what Canadians wanted.

Mr. Mulroney's deal permits subsidies in our energy sector because that's what the Americans wanted. It does not permit us to use subsidies to stop polluters, to encourage, to foster development in the arts -- and that's what Canadians wanted. Mr. Mulroney's deal will permit the United States to have a say in what's to be included in our regional development policies, instead of making it clear that decisions in such a crucial area affecting Canadians should be made only by Canadians. Mr. Mulroney's deal threatens our Medicare and pension plans, as businessmen are already saying -- benefits in Canada must be reduced to meet U.S. standards, a country where you find 36 million without any form of health insurance whatsoever. This deal must be stopped, because it takes away our right to make our own decisions about our own country, in our own way.

I want a fair Canada. I want a tax system that helps the average family instead of giving special breaks to the rich. A government that protects our lakes and forests and stands up to corporate polluters. I want a Canada that cherishes our parents and grandparents

[05:01]

instead of cutting back on their pension benefits. I want a Canada that believes in equality instead of ignoring women and remaining indifferent to the legitimate claims of Aboriginal people. I want a government that puts an end to patronage and has open competition for contracts. I want a government that makes reasonable promises and then keeps them -- just for a change. We need a government that says the concerns of families of loggers and nurses, farmers, fishermen, are just as important as the concerns of bankers.

Now is the time for such a change -- one made with confidence and determination. Now is the time, at long last, to put the priorities where they ought to belong: on the needs, hopes, aspirations, and dreams of the average family. This time we can do it. Thank you.

---

---

Canadians have created nearly a thousand new jobs a day, every day since this government has been in office -- the fastest employment growth in the western world. Because of this prosperity we are better able to finance social programs for those who need our care.

Canada has, in the last four years, led all of the countries in the industrialized world in economic growth -- and that is your achievement. The government's role was to make the changes in policy that allowed Canadians to create this new prosperity. And we are a more united country than we were, and that was long overdue. Governments are now at all levels working better together in the national interest, which is your interest. And I think we have strengthened our role internationally.

And so what has been achieved is there for you to judge, as are the choices for the future. What group of men and women should you choose to maintain Canada's strength and the growth and the prosperity and our standard of living in a complex and changing world?

For us, the Free Trade Agreement is central to that future. It illustrates very plainly the difference between the government and the two opposition parties. We want to move ahead and strengthen our values and turn the future to Canada's advantage. I know that Canada can compete and I know that Canadians can excel in the markets of the world and strengthen our identity as Canadians in the process.

In today's world, Canada's economy can compete and grow, or it can retreat and shrink. We have chosen the path of growth. My opponents tonight have a duty not only to criticize but to explain to you their alternative. They would tear up the Free Trade Agreement -- and then what? They offer you nothing but the poverty of protectionism. That is the real threat to our social programs and our environment. And just because you sell someone your products, as we all know, doesn't mean that you have to buy his values.

Free trade is supported by premiers of eight provinces, by small and large business, by agricultural producers, by consumers, and by just about every major public policy institute in Canada. I ask you very directly: do they all love Canada less because they want to trade more? No. They support this agreement because they have confidence in Canada and see free trade as essential for our future.

And so I ask all of you tonight who share that confidence with us in Canada to join with us and support us in this election. Thank you.

---

---

Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Broadbent will talk to you about leadership. They mean leadership of the

[10:00]

party. What they should be talking about is leadership of a country. Canada is more important than any single person. This election is not a popularity contest. The issue is the future of Canada.

My agenda for our country is clear. We have a better trading alternative than the Mulroney trade deal. We also have a progressive platform -- a blueprint for Canada. Against this, Mr. Mulroney has a hidden agenda. He now wants to turn us into a pale replica of the United States. Mr. Broadbent seems to be spending most of his time during this election hiding his program, trying to make us forget what his real agenda is, as it is found in his party's resolutions.

We Liberals will put fairness back into the tax system. In 1984 the Conservatives said they wouldn't raise taxes one single cent -- then Mr. Mulroney gave us the biggest tax increases since Confederation. Now he has plans to bring in a billion-dollar hidden sales tax on everything, which would cost the average taxpayer $1,000 more a year.

Our child care plan will give you the freedom to make the right choices for you and your family. It will be affordable and accessible. We believe that every Canadian has the right to affordable shelter. That is why we will provide a tax credit of up to $2,500 a year if you pay more than 30% of your income for shelter, whether you own a home or rent an apartment. We will make it a crime to pollute. The protection of our environment will be a priority. We will get an agreement with the Americans to clean up the air we breathe and the water we share.

My personal commitment to you is that I will give you an honest and ethical government. My cabinet ministers will spend their time in the cabinet room defending Canadians -- not in the courtroom defending themselves. Above all, we will never, never sign a deal which surrenders our control and ability to manage our economy, or our social and regional equality programs, or our destiny as a people. Mr. Mulroney's trade deal does just that.

I believe that tonight's debate will convince you that we in the Liberal Party have the policies, the commitment, and the ability to get on with the job of building a stronger, fairer, and more sovereign Canada. Thank you.

---

---

---

And I acknowledge, as I have in the past, that I as prime minister did not in 1984 do as well as I should have in terms of moving more swiftly to depoliticize the appointments of what are called Governor-in-Council appointments. It is true that one of the first things that we did was appoint the McGrath Commission on parliamentary reform, and that the right of a parliamentary committee to vet all GIC appointments and to give a view as to whether these people were competent was established. I should tell you that of some 1,700 GIC appointments made from all walks of life, only 72 -- I believe 72 nominees were

[15:00]

called before this parliamentary committee for examination and review, and I believe all of them were either approved or approved without much difficulty.

We then moved immediately to double the number of women who were appointed to agencies, boards, and commissions. We doubled the number of multicultural representatives, increased by 70% the number of women in federal judicial positions. I appointed the second woman to the Supreme Court of Canada -- persons without the slightest relationship to my own political party.

And so I believe that after a bit of a slow start -- I'll acknowledge that -- we made some major improvements that most people acknowledge. I believe it's fair to say that I appointed more members of the NDP and more members of the Liberals than any other prime minister in history in my mandate, and I'm proud of that.

I think the appointments of Donald MacDonald and Yvette Fors and Ian Deans and Stephen Lewis and Sylvia Gold to decision-making positions in the public service -- this has never happened before on this scale, and I think it's a good representation of what Canada should be.

Have we done it perfectly? No. Have we made -- and I acknowledge that, Mr. Halton -- have we picked up our socks and improved a great deal? I think any fair-minded person would acknowledge that we have. We've put in place some very fundamental reforms.

But most of all, I think the tremendous quality of the people such as those I've mentioned -- these are not token Liberals, by the way, or token NDPers -- a very large number of talented people from all walks of life who have been appointed. I conclude simply by giving you an indication of the most recent set of appointments, which involved a very important area of our national life: the Immigration and Refugee Determination Board, where some 50% of the appointments were members of visible minority communities without the slightest association with my political party. Many of them in key positions were women. Leaders of multicultural communities. Co-chairman is a refugee himself. And in all cases I think most people would agree that there has not been the slightest degree of partisanship. So I think, Mr. Halton, that while I acknowledge some of the criticism readily in regard to the early part of the mandate, I think any fair-minded person -- I hope -- would agree that we've made some very vast improvements, I think for the betterment of public life.

---

And I would say that your commitment to bring in a conflict of interest bill -- that you said you would do in response to the Parker Commission on Sinclair Stevens -- was a very tardy effort. As you know, the bill wasn't brought forward in time or pressed in time to get through Parliament. And so I would say that the next government of Canada has really got to come to grips with conflict of interest legislation to ensure that the public interest comes first -- that it comes before the private interest or any seeking after private gain -- that in a government, ministers' assets become public, that the lobby legislation be strengthened so that we know who is representing whom in Ottawa on the part of business or unions or other professional interests, that we have a new look at the financing of our political parties. And I would say that it's been a very sad four years for Canadians to have had to live through what you led us through.

---

[20:02]

responded by passing lobbyist legislation -- the registration of lobbyists -- by introducing the toughest conflict of interest legislation that I think exists in Canada, by doing a lot of things to clean up an institutionalized act, Mr. Turner, that you were familiar with and in which you were involved in the past. And I think that we have made a substantial break -- a new era -- that I think will benefit all political parties and the participation of all politicians.

If I may just conclude -- if I may just -- on this: in terms of public financing, we -- I believe the answer eventually is public financing of all political parties, and we are making a move now in the province of Quebec where all of the candidates are being financed not by corporations or by unions at all, but by contributions of private donors. And I think that while it's not a perfect example, it's a good illustration of leadership that could perhaps serve us in the way that we could draft new legislation for our future guidance and governance.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

And I'm saying, like a lot of other issues -- whether it's the environment or housing or battered women -- the issues that are before Canadians: your repentance has been a very last-minute one.

---

---

Mr. Turner, is there anything you wanted to conclude with?

---

---

---

---

**[Note: The transcript at this point briefly shifts to address Mulroney before cutting to Turner -- this appears to be an artifact of the auto-transcription misordering a brief moderator redirect.]**

We have heard some comments from you, Mr. Mulroney, but within the last few weeks on the campaign trail you've also been promising judgeships and Senate jobs and some cash for votes. And as for you, Mr. Turner, you seem to have no qualms about using your old patronage appointments in the Senate to have your way on free trade, overriding what went on in the House of Commons. I think the voters in this country know that there is really an option for clean government in Canada. I'm wondering why they should believe that either one of you would be prepared to deliver.

---

The mandate of Mr. Mulroney had run four years. He never told the country that he was going to negotiate such a deal. In other words, his own personal views when he sought the leadership of his party were against a free trade arrangement. He said it would affect our sovereignty and he would have nothing of it. There were a thousand days of secret negotiations between the governments of Canada and the United States, and yet he limited debate in the House of Commons to 12 days. There were virtually no public hearings -- none at all, except in the doldrums of summer in August, when people had to come to Ottawa. There were no hearings across the country. In those circumstances -- no mandate, no prior notice of this prime minister on a deal changing the direction of Canada fundamentally, no public inquiry or hearing, and virtually no debate in the House of Commons -- then I took the most democratic alternative possible: I said, let the people decide. And now we have an opportunity, and I hope we'll have a chance to talk about that issue here tonight.

---

With regard to the appointments that you raise, the question that you raise: I should point out to you that when I became prime minister I found that there were seven women serving as deputy ministers -- only seven. There are now, I believe, 17. There were only two women serving as ambassadors or heads of mission in Canada -- after all these years, only two. There are now 14. The number of judges in the federal public service increased by some 70%. That is the kind of initiative that we have taken in terms of proper appointments that never get mentioned.

You know, if you appoint the brother-in-law of the first cousin of a Conservative organizer to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Timmins, it gets an eight-column headline in the Globe and Mail. But if you appoint Gerald Laet -- the first Acadian in history to the Supreme Court of Canada -- without the slightest association with my party, or you appoint Madame Justice Leuret from Quebec City, without the slightest association with my party, or Stanley Hart as Deputy Minister of Finance, no association with my party, or Norman Spector -- bringing in all of these talented people, many of whom I suppose were of Liberal persuasion -- I think this is good for Canada. I think we have done a fair amount of that, and I hope it would be recognized.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[30:02]

protectionism in the United States, which was affecting so many Canadian jobs -- and there were so many actions against Canadian employers and Canadian employees -- the McDonald Royal Commission was subsequently appointed. It made a recommendation in support of --

---

---

For the next encounter, Mr. Turner will engage Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Halton, you have the question.

---

---

As I said in my opening comments, what we have here, Mr. Halton, is a deal that touches virtually every aspect of Canadian life. It has implications on regional development policy. The whole question of what constitutes a subsidy is now being negotiated -- the Americans know their view diametrically opposes ours. They regard most of our regional development programs as constituting a subsidy. I reject that. I don't think that should be any part of this deal.

We know now that because of this arrangement, Canadian business -- the president, for example, of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce -- I have an interesting quote here. He said: "We in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the U.S., whether it is the unemployment insurance scheme, workman's compensation, the cost of government, the level of taxation, or whatever." End of quote. I could give you a half a dozen leading businessmen and women who have said this deal affects our social programs. It affects regional development policy. It affects unemployment insurance. It does all of these things to radically change Canadian life.

We didn't build up this country -- our forefathers, for decades before us -- with better social programs, better regional development, control over our own energy -- to allow Mr. Mulroney and this government to sell it all out. That's what's wrong with the deal. You can't tinker with this deal. You've got to scrap it. You've got to get rid of it and then go back to building sensible trade relations strictly on trade with the United States and with other countries in the world. And that's what we would do.

---

Why did he go bilateral, head-to-head, with the United States in a negotiation? He was going to say that he was worried about protectionist sentiment in the United States. I said to him that would mean that you would have to get secure access to the American market by getting a specific exemption in any deal from American protectionist trade law. We didn't get that exemption. And the binational tribunal cannot enforce that exemption -- it enforces American trade law, under an American president and American jurisprudence. That's what the deal says.

That being so, we are in a worse position than we were before, because we are bound by American protectionist law and we can no longer challenge that law under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade internationally. We're worse off. So the deal is not negotiable, because it's quite clear that the Congress of the United States would never yield its jurisdiction over its protectionist trade law.

What do we do? Well, I hope Canadians defeat this deal by defeating Mr. Mulroney. Then I would go down to Washington and say: "Look, we were upfront with you. You've just had a general election -- a federal election. The Canadian people have turned down the deal. Now where do we go from here?" We go

[35:02]

back to the technique that has worked very successfully between Americans and Canadians since the war. We would proceed internationally and move again to enlarge the jurisdiction of the GATT into services and agriculture, enlarge the dispute mechanism system.

We would also -- and this is important -- no trade deal with the United States, Japan, or Europe is any substitute for a national economic strategy. No one is going to make us more competitive as Canadians. No trade deal. We have to accelerate our research and development. We have to have a national apprenticeship plan for younger people who are leaving school. We need more attention on post-secondary education. We need to focus our attention on the Pacific Rim, which we've neglected -- after all, we happen to be a Pacific Nation as well as an Atlantic Nation. We've got to restore our contacts with Europe. And on a sector-by-sector basis, if the new GATT rules allow it, yes, we can explore where we can go on steel or other major commodities. But this deal went well beyond trade. It doesn't just deal with tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers -- it goes to the soul of the country. It gives Americans national treatment in Canada. It sets up a subsidy negotiation that will wipe out our social programs, our regional equality programs, and go right to the sovereignty of the country. That's why I'm against the deal, and that's why it's the cause of my life to try to defeat it.

---

Now, it's one thing to make a big deal of this in an election campaign, when your party is in third place, and say, "Well, we'll start waving the flag and we'll pretend we're saving our country and maybe that'll get us back elected." I want to know: when it counted in the House of Commons, why weren't you there?

---

---

---

---

We have consistently, persistently opposed this deal, and everyone knows it. But we did it in the House of Commons. If I may say so, our members were there day in and day out fighting it in committee, and when we looked around for Liberal assistance to fight it in the House -- more often than not, including yourself -- you weren't there.

---

---

---

---

---

And so you're not going to -- and for a few days you didn't know where you stood on whether I had taken the right move. For the first three or four days you were against the Senate --

---

[40:00]

record for an elected Senate.

---

---

---

So I -- you know, I don't think there's any purpose in trying to get procedural about this. I'm not questioning your good faith or your motives. And I think you ought to understand that as a Canadian, I am devoting the best energy of my life to trying to convince our fellow citizens that this deal is a sellout -- that it would change the kind of Canada we are, it would change the way we look at ourselves, our way of life, our choices, our ability to control our future. And I hope that you will support that effort in every way possible.

---

---

I respond -- Mr. Turner? It's Mr. Turner.

---

Second issue: we're not only outward-looking in trade and always have been internationally -- witness what we did to lower those trade barriers over the years when we had the responsibility of government -- we are also outward-looking in our defense alliances. And we are committed to NATO. We're committed to our European and American friends in a defense alliance, and we're committed to our North American defense pact.

The New Democratic Party has on its books a resolution that is binding on the party -- binding on Mr. Broadbent as leader -- calling upon the party, if it ever forms a government, to pull Canada out of our defense alliances. Mr. Broadbent can skate around -- try to disguise it, say he wouldn't do it in the first term, wouldn't do it in the second term -- but that's not good enough. Because I don't believe Canadians want the type of isolationist, protectionist, neutralist politics and policy that the NDP stands for.

Mr. Broadbent can express his own personal views, but he's bound by a party program that he's desperately trying to hide. And that goes to the items that are still on the agenda for the NDP: nationalizing a Canadian bank, nationalizing 50% of the Canadian resource industry. That's there now. He can sound as mellow as he wants about it. But that's the reason I believe Canadians will pick a Liberal alternative as a progressive and direct alternative to this trade deal.

---

But let's take the basic question of why should people vote for us as opposed to Mr. Turner as an alternative to Mr. Mulroney's government? On the trade deal, well -- we're consistent. Unlike Mr.

[45:01]

Turner, we don't favour cruise missile testing one day and oppose it the next. We don't say yes we have to deal with polluters one day and then oppose it the next -- both contradictory positions that Mr. Turner's government has done in opposition. He's done --

But basically, I would like to say this: Mr. Turner has been there as prime minister. He had power. He has recently said that he would help municipalities, if he formed a government again, with sewer treatment to deal with pollution. Well, just a year ago -- or four years ago, excuse me -- when Mr. Turner was prime minister, you had the same option open to you, sir, and you said no. The municipalities asked you then, when you were prime minister, to do the same thing. At the time you said no.

You are now talking about education -- when you were Minister of Finance, it was a Liberal government, with you as the minister himself, who cut back, put a ceiling on money going to post-secondary education, and for health, by the way, to the provinces.

Let me finish, and then you can come in. You've talked now about the environment -- you were part of a government that did virtually nothing about it. You criticize the Prime Minister on patronage -- but you, sir, were prime minister and made a whole list of patronage appointees every bit as bad as any precedent in the past. You brought in tax loopholes for the rich. You don't now favour a minimum corporate tax. 60,000 profitable corporations in this country pay no tax whatsoever -- even Ronald Reagan, when he discovered that his secretary paid more taxes than large corporations, brought in a minimum corporate --

---

---

---

---

With regard to the question: it is our intention under the agreement to secure access through the elimination of tariff barriers, through the elimination of non-tariff barriers, through the elimination of the sideswipe -- through the new requirement that prevents the American government from initiating protectionist measures against Canada by the existence of the new binational dispute settlement mechanism, which is a first for Canada and for the United States.

We persisted, Mr. Small. I asked Simon Reisman -- who was the most outstanding negotiator in Canada, who negotiated the Auto Pact, when by the way a lot of people said the Auto Pact would be a disaster. These same people today are recognizing that the Auto Pact was a bonanza. And Simon Reisman is the very same remarkable man who negotiated both.

And we looked at it in the light of the climate we discussed a little earlier -- in the light of the need for more jobs, for more investment, for greater productivity, for lower prices for consumers. This is the kind of transaction that can reduce costs to the average Canadian family by approximately $800 a year. Greater security of access. So in the light of rising protectionism and the will to perfect an instrument

[50:01]

that would liberalize our trade, create 250,000 new jobs in Canada over the life of the phase-in process of the agreement -- we thought that this was very much in Canada's national interest.

May I just say: I was sort of taken aback by Mr. Turner's comments that the free trade deal was somehow done in secret. Nothing has been more debated. The McDonald Royal Commission held hearings across the nation for three years -- there are 72 volumes of research. I met with the premiers for an unprecedented 11 times -- one meeting, I think, lasted some 15 hours. It's been debated in the House until it was coming out our ears. Nothing has been more debated in the history of Canada, I believe, than this free trade agreement. We did it -- I did it -- with pride, because I thought it was good for Canada.

I had given Ambassador Reisman specific instructions: no impingement upon our capacity for regional development, no effects on our Medicare programs. App-- I'm sorry --

---

---

---

---

I suggested that Mr. Zimmerman -- Mr. Mulroney probably talks to him regularly on the phone -- Miranda had indicated the same thing. The president of the Ford Motor Company had said the same thing. And I, sir, I have a quote now from another old buddy of yours, I suspect -- Mr. D'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, who said this: "We in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the United States, whether it's the unemployment insurance scheme, workman's compensation, the cost of government, the level of taxation, or whatever." He is saying: because of your deal, there is total pressure on all of these programs in Canada to bring them down to the same level as the U.S. -- which, I remind you, includes a country where 36 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever.

Now, do you agree with him that there's this pressure to harmonize? And if you do agree, why didn't you get specific exemptions in the deal for all these social programs?

---

I gave specific instructions as prime minister to Ambassador Simon Reisman that health and social programs -- that our capacity for regional development -- would not be impaired or in any way -- and they have not been touched.

---

---

---

---

---

---

[55:00]

settled over the next five to seven years. But the only subsidy that is allowed -- and that you negotiated and put in there -- is in energy. And you could have got an exemption. Why didn't you get an exemption and say all regional development programs in the future will be exempt from countervailing? You didn't do that. And the Americans -- as you well know, in a fish case in Atlantic Canada -- talked about our social programs constituting a subsidy. And they have every intention of getting us -- as businessmen understand -- to accept their rules of the game instead of the Canadian rules.

---

---

Last night I told you that as prime minister I would give Ambassador Reisman precisely the same instructions in the future, in regard to negotiations of subsidies, as we gave him in the past -- which is why Simon Reisman came back and said, "Prime Minister, in this agreement there is not the slightest capacity -- as a result of this agreement -- for any impact on old age pensions, on our capacity for regional development, or any of those social programs." And, sir, I think you owe it to the Canadian people to acknowledge that there is no justification for what you've been doing. You've been scaremongering.

---

Now, why I ask you -- didn't you get something in there that permitted a subsidy in the arts? That permitted a subsidy for the environment? That permitted a subsidy for regional development? If you considered they were as important as energy -- the Americans got it in energy. Why didn't Canadians get --

---

The government of Quebec -- I'm sorry -- countervailing can be taken -- as you know, certain certain parts of the -- I'd like to finish.

I think we'd agree that if there was a government in Canada more sensitive about cultural and linguistic concerns, it would obviously be the government of Quebec. The government of Quebec -- which is a Liberal government -- caused to be examined by a parliamentary commission, in many sessions, this entire agreement, which they endorse. And very specifically in their report to the people of Quebec, they say that they sought an exemption for cultural industries, and cultural industries under this Free Trade Agreement are fully protected. The province and the federal government can do exactly what they wish in terms of giving further grants and support and subsidies to the arts, which we have continued to do.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

[01:00:00]

will -- and all other countries -- and under rules that I think the GATT not only acknowledges and supports. But I think that if you look at the evidence -- if you look at the evidence on social programs and cultural programs -- for example, an independent organization like the Economic Council of Canada has said there is no justification, sir, for your fears whatsoever. You should rest assured in that regard. And I think you've gotten good endorsements from The Economic Council of Canada and so many others.

---

---

---

But in the meantime, what is happening -- say on social policy? And I quote -- I could give you a half a dozen business people, I've given one tonight, I could give many more -- who are saying: "There's great pressure in all our businesses now to say we can't keep up these taxes, we have to compete with the U.S., so we have to lower our pension programs, we have to lower our Medicare schemes, we have to harmonize -- harmonize to the lowest common denominator, which is the U.S." That's what's going on right now.

There was an ad the other day in the Globe and Mail: "Move your industry to Georgia" -- or whatever state it was -- "saying you don't have to worry about the environment, you don't have to worry about trade unions, lower labour costs." And that's precisely the harmonization that's going on now.

The third point is: there's special -- I've already mentioned it -- subsidies that are permitted in the energy sector. They are spelled out. But they aren't permitted there -- and in regional development -- and everyone, I think every economist I know, whether he supports the deal or not, is quite convinced that the American rules will finally prevail in this, and not the Canadian.

---

**[Note: The auto-transcription appears to confuse who is speaking for one phrase here; Mulroney responds.]**

There's a very interesting acknowledgement by the leader of the NDP that there is nothing in the agreement now that justifies his apprehensions. What he is concerned about is in the future -- he's talking about what might emerge as a result of negotiations in five or seven years. There's a world of difference between what might happen and what is in the agreement. And there is nothing in the agreement whatsoever to justify the alarmist positions that he has taken in regard to the elderly in Canada, programs of regional development.

I mean, it's absolutely preposterous to consider that -- for example -- Premier Frank McKenna, who's a Liberal premier in New Brunswick, in a province which desperately needs regional development, which desperately needs social programs -- would for a second contemplate endorsing an agreement that didn't provide for full protection in those two areas. So we have protected those two areas, and many others. And I'm pleased to be able to see Mr. Broadbent tonight acknowledging that the problem is not now -- it's not in the text -- it's somewhere down the road.

---

---

---

---

It's the responsibility of government to introduce legislation to fill the response needed by the Supreme Court of Canada decision nine to ten months ago. I had that responsibility when I was Minister of Justice in 1969, and I brought in the legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court. That was legislation that -- as you recall -- provided that an abortion was exempt from the Criminal Code if, for therapeutic purposes, where the life or health of the mother was in danger, it was performed by a registered doctor.

I exercised that responsibility. Mr. Mulroney had that responsibility during the last nine months as prime minister, and he failed to bring in a bill. There were multiple-choice resolutions, there was difficulty in parliamentary procedure -- but he didn't present a piece of legislation to which we could constructively respond.

A Liberal government will bring in legislation immediately after the reassembly of a new Parliament. We will bring in a bill which will respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. We will have a free vote for members of parliament. And I will consult my caucus, of course, get the general tone of the House of Commons, and introduce a bill into the House.

---

---

We sought to get a sense of the House on this by way of a resolution -- perhaps imperfectly -- but we sought, on such an important social issue, to find out whether there was a consensus in the House. It turned out there was not. The Supreme Court was seized again of another issue which relates directly to the entire debate, which is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I've indicated many times before, it would be our intention, upon the return of the House, for me to consult actively with the leaders of the other parties, to depoliticize entirely this issue, to seek a compromise that respects the rights of women and the rights of the fetus, to bring forward a piece of legislation that will -- I think -- do honour to the kind of civilized country that we believe we are. And as I've always indicated, from the very beginning, make absolutely certain that there is not a party position. I don't think there should be a party position. I don't think political whips should be imposing party discipline in regard to a matter of strict and fundamental conscience.

So I would invite all members of parliament -- including my own -- when the proposal is before the House, to exercise their best judgment: not as they're told by party whips or by party leaders, but as their conscience guides them. And I think that we can follow that and achieve a successful conclusion of what is a very difficult issue.

---

[01:10:00]

There's the Borowski case currently before the court. But it is a matter that needs leadership. And despite the free vote -- to allow each member to reflect either a constituency view or a personal view -- that leadership was not exercised in the last Parliament.

---

---

---

---

---

---

The reason I say, Mr. Small, it's premature at the moment: we do not know what the composition of the House of Commons is going to be, nor what the views of the members are going to be -- I speak particularly of our own caucus. Nor can I predict, at the time I have the responsibility for presenting that bill to Parliament, what the state of the law as determined by the Supreme Court of Canada is going to be.

---

---

---

Our quarrel with Mr. Mulroney's plan is clear. First of all, despite the fact that we debated this issue four years ago and we both made a commitment to present a child care plan to the people of Canada -- Mr. Mulroney waited until July 6th of this year to introduce a plan into the House of Commons. It wasn't brought forward with any speed at all. Then closure or limitation on debate was imposed. Public hearings were limited to two days.

And I can tell you that virtually every witness who appeared said that the plan was inadequate. First, it went nowhere near attempting to fill and provide the number of spaces we need for child care in this country -- 1,600,000 at least. This has become a crisis for Canadian families -- a crisis for men and women who need an opportunity to have their children supervised and looked after, to open up employment opportunities and income opportunities. The plan doesn't do that. It doesn't go near to provide the spaces. It doesn't go near to provide national standards. It relies heavily on the tax system in favour of the wealthier groups of our society. And it's an entirely unbalanced plan, which has not met with the approval of any of the experts on the subject.

Our plan would double the number of spaces envisaged by Mr. Mulroney. It would cost $10 billion over seven years, compared to $7 billion for Mr. Mulroney's plan, of which $4 billion would be in the first four years. It would be flexible, it would be accessible, and it would be a proper balance in sharing costs between those parents who can, and employers, and governments -- but would always be open to those in need. That's the type of plan we need. That's the type of plan Mr. Mulroney has not provided.

---

The leader of the opposition is of course quite wrong when he says we didn't proceed with any degree of speed. We immediately began -- as we should have done -- taking it up with the premiers and the health ministers. I raised it -- it was an important agenda item at a First Ministers' Conference on the economy. Barbara McDougall was one of the key players in making sure that it was brought forward. There were intensive discussions -- endless discussions, as you might imagine -- with the provinces, in such a sensitive area which is by and large a provincial jurisdiction.

We agreed upon a plan which would have the effect of increasing from 200,000 to 400,000 the number of spaces available over a period of seven years -- not a miracle, but a very major step forward on behalf of Canadian women and Canadian families. It was balanced. It is flexible. It meets, for example, the fact of life that the requirements in -- say, metropolitan Toronto -- for child care are different from those in Labrador West or in Come By Chance. And this too has to be taken into account. The flexibility of various programs has to be adapted. But there are fundamental standards and norms that will be adopted between the province and the federal government, without which of course you couldn't have the kind of national plan that I think we have successfully developed.

And so, while I will acknowledge that it is not perfect, and that I suppose that with vast amounts of money we could do more -- it's a huge expenditure on behalf of Canadian women. And I think it represents the kind of initiative that can be improved upon, as we've improved upon the Canadian Pension Plans over the years. But I think it'll be regarded as landmark legislation in favour of Canadian working women and Canadian families.

---

[01:20:01]

brought in the legislation July 26, 1988. That's not any evidence of sincerity, and that isn't any evidence of his commitment to what I believe is a national crisis -- and his plan, your plan, sir, has no national standards. You cannot allow the provinces to vary in their support to what is a national problem. Yes, you consult, yes you negotiate -- but you exercise your responsibility as leader of a government to meet what I believe is the prominent social crisis of our time: supervision of our children when working men and women need that help in order to expand employment opportunities. And you did not live up to your commitment.

---

---

---

---

---

---

It makes sense to come to grips with the very severe inequality that exists. We know women are now getting approximately 65% of the pay that men get. The only way to do it is to make it mandatory. First of all, you do it in the federal jurisdiction. You apply it throughout the federal civil service. And then you do it with corporations that the government's dealing with. You make it a condition of getting government contracts -- you say: you either have this practice in place or you don't do business. You do that, by the way, not only in pay equity but also in affirmative action programs. We have to use the authority that we have. They've done it in the United States. Some companies haven't liked it; other companies, by the way, have responded very positively and have said so publicly. And it's long overdue, and we should get on with it.

---

On pay equity, I believe it's a mandatory situation. I support what's happened in Ontario -- the government of Ontario legislation. I think it must be mandatory first within the federal public service and the agencies attached to the federal government. I think secondly with corporations and individuals that deal with the federal public service and the government of Canada. And I think we have to consider it to be mandatory within areas of federal jurisdiction.

---

[01:25:01]

the Liberal government, and it was notorious. Human rights groups, women's groups, for years complained that it wasn't being enforced. The legislation was there, but there was no mechanism to make it work. You, sir -- it was your party that was there during this period, when we had legislation on the books that was being ignored.

Now, once again -- election time -- we're talking about the issue, and it's convenient. I'm not saying I'm questioning motive here. I'm simply saying: you're talking about it now, but when your government was in place, that legislation was there but it wasn't made operational.

Mr. Mulroney came along in 1984 and said, "Oh, vote for us, vote for the Conservatives. We'll not only make the legislation that's on the books work, but we would also extend it to the private sector -- to companies that do business with the government." He didn't do it.

People of Canada -- and my frank view -- if they're concerned about equity, if women are concerned, they should vote neither Liberal nor Conservative.

---

---

---

---

I believed, and still believe, that -- with all its faults -- the Meech Lake Accord has as an overwhelming purpose the bringing of Quebec fully into the Canadian family, constitutionally, psychologically, and politically. It has areas that I believe can be improved. I wouldn't reopen the Meech Lake Accord. I believe it's important that it be signed and ratified by all the provinces.

Now, we presented nine amendments into the House of Commons and the same amendments into the Senate. Among those amendments was to make it clear that the Charter rights of women were absolutely -- absolutely -- set forth in unambiguous terms. We also did the same for Aboriginal government -- the constitutional recognition of inherent Aboriginal rights of our native peoples. We did it in terms of recognizing the multicultural condition and aspects of our country.

So I can say to the women of Canada that our constitutional program -- and it's part of the platform before you in this election -- is to complete Meech Lake for the purposes of national unity, but to use the amendments we put forward into the House of Commons and in the Senate as our ongoing constitutional commitment for further negotiation with the premiers.

---

We worked very hard in 1981 and '82, the first round of constitutional change, to make sure the equality provision for women was put in there. It was a big struggle. The women of Canada led the struggle. If I may say so, I think our caucus played the leading role in the House to get that part of the package in '81 and '82.

The reality is, in terms of the Meech Lake Accord, I personally sat down with representatives of the women's groups in the province of Quebec -- who are feminist activists, lawyers in this particular case -- the Fédération des femmes du Québec. And they supported the accord. They said in their view it was not going to threaten women's groups. If there had been a

[01:30:01]

serious judgment to the contrary -- to take people like Pauline Jewett in my caucus, who's worked very hard for women's rights, Margaret Mitchell, and others going back many years -- you can be sure if we thought that they were threatened we would not have supported the Meech Lake Accord. I do not believe they're threatened. I believe the Accord is good.

---

---

---

The reality is that our defense program -- when it's announced in detail, as we will do before the end of the campaign, as I have said -- unlike Mr. Turner, by the way, who hasn't spelled out where the money's coming from, we have itemized every announcement of this campaign in terms of how much it will cost, and I have made a commitment to the people of Canada that we will be saying what the revenue flows will be and what the tax changes are and who's going to pay. We'll be doing the same on defense spending.

And it simply is not the case that it's anywhere near what the Conservative commitment would be in the next four years. We'll spell it out. We have a limited expenditure budget for frigates, for conventional submarines, for some other commitments in military spending which we think are necessary -- even though, as you correctly imply, our emphasis as a country -- we believe -- should be on contributing to the global disarmament process. We still need a defense policy for the sovereignty of Canada. But we will be saying -- I repeat -- how much it will cost, and I also emphasize it's nowhere near what the Conservatives will be spending, and we'll indicate that very clearly before the end of this election.

---

Now, when it gets down to defense spending, here is the interesting problem for Canadians. The New Democratic Party is bound by this resolution -- B43 of NDP policy: "Be it resolved that the New Democratic Party confirm its commitment to peace and disarmament by reaffirming its policy calling for Canadian withdrawal from NATO and other military alliances." The NDP has never told us how they would regulate their future relationships with the United States in defense if that were done. They've never told us how the country could pursue a successful arms control policy if that were done. And what they've never done, Mr. Halton, in response to your question, is to tell Canadians how much it would cost if we were to withdraw from the alliances and have to set up the entire defense mechanism on our own, without any American participation or any European participation.

And I venture to say -- if you look at the Swedish precedent -- I venture to say that Mr. Broadbent and his party, if they lived up to this commitment instead of trying to blur it, would leave us with about a hundred-billion-dollar commitment on defense, because there would be no participation from our allies at all on defense equipment.

Here again, the New Democratic Party has been vague. They say that their commitment is as ambitious as the Conservatives. Now I hear Mr. Broadbent

[01:35:00]

saying he wants to scale it down. And I would think that before this election is over, I would like to know -- and I believe Canadians deserve to know -- how firm is the commitment to pull out of NORAD and NATO? You are bound by these policies. How much would it cost to set up our own unique, isolationist defense program? And where would you be able to find future cooperation from our former allies?

---

---

---

---

---

Both of your programs as proposed have been quite limited and quite restricted. Women's groups across the country say that neither one of them comes even remotely close to filling the actual need in this country. Can we go back to the very basic issue: do you support -- and would you over the course of a government provide -- universally funded, universally accessible daycare?

Gentlemen, there are only two minutes left in this round. I just remind you of that so that everybody has a chance to answer that question. And that's to Mr. Turner first.

---

Our program differs from the NDP program -- although I saw or heard Mr. Broadbent shading that a bit last evening. His program, as I understand it, is a public program -- pure and simple. I think the costs would be, at this stage, unsustainable within the current financial commitments of the country. And the right of parents to have the responsibility and control of their children -- under the program contemplated by the NDP -- I don't believe is there.

---

---

---

---

Mr. Broadbent will now debate Mr. Mulroney. And the first question is from Doug Small.

---

[01:40:03]

help for battered women would be top priorities. You haven't delivered on homemaker pensions. And help for battered women has been described by women's groups as miserly at best. How do you explain this to women when you managed to find $8 billion for nuclear-powered subs?

---

With regard to your comment, Mr. Small, about battered women -- I don't know of a crime more cowardly than that. The abuse of women -- violence against women in the home or outside. We have taken some very important initiatives to help women, to build shelters, to help native women who are abused. There's a multicultural component to what we have done.

But I also think, in terms of battered women -- if I may suppose it's not really on the spending part of your question -- I've been very troubled, quite frankly, and have discussed it publicly in the month of May, by the state of the criminal law in regard to battered women. Where a woman who's battered -- she goes on trial, she is interrogated and abused, if I may put it that way, humiliated -- and while she is trying to state a case, she is the victim who becomes the accused. Now I'm a lawyer by trade. I know the presumptions of innocence and I know the manner in which the criminal law must function and the presumptions that have to exist. But I have to tell you that I have been saddened and shocked by what I believe is a current in our conduct of the law that is unfair -- I believe -- in its application to women. And I think the federal -- I think the criminal --

---

---

On the very serious problem of battered women: this government brought in a bill -- if you would believe it -- that would provide $10 per year for each battered woman in the country. And it is worse than insulting. Every women's group, every socially concerned group, church group in the country, thought it was atrocious to try to pretend that something was being done about what is a very serious social problem in Canada.

There are a number of women who are battered. When one of our members raised this in the House of Commons -- in the past couple of years -- Margaret Mitchell, in fact -- there was a great deal of laughter, which was outrageous.

So the government hasn't done anything. Didn't live up to its commitment. In fact, was as I say bringing in $10 per battered woman per year.

And again, Mr. Mulroney mentioned it -- the child care program. Again, it's a sham. Every women's group has appropriately condemned it. The amount of money spent in the programming that's gone into it will produce fewer child care spaces over the next seven years than would have been the case had the government not done anything. What the government did was bring in a major tax break scheme that went disproportionately to upper-income people instead of putting money into child care spaces. So if you had left the whole thing alone in place, we would have had more child care spaces. So whether we're talking about child care spaces or whether we're talking about battered women, your government, sir, has been a complete failure.

---

[01:45:02]

I didn't mention native people -- it's never done quickly enough. All of a sudden now, child care -- a $6.4 billion commitment -- that's not proper, that's not enough, simply because I suppose it doesn't meet with Mr. Broadbent's definition of what is proper.

We consulted Parliament. We consulted the provinces. They have a different view of what is taking place. I point out to Mr. Broadbent as well, in this very important area, the Amendments that we have brought to the Divorce Act, the Family Violence initiative, the national drugs strategy, the extension of spousal allowances, the fact that we've eliminated discrimination against native women --

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I think that -- unlike the United States, and this is the crucial social point about this country that makes us so different and, if I may say so, so desirable -- we have universal programs, whether it's pensions, whether it's Medicare, or whether it's family -- because we define them as characteristics of citizenship. The United States -- the only developed industrial country almost left in the

[01:50:00]

world -- defines all such things as charity. And therefore you have a hard time making progress in the United States. That's why you have not only 36 million Americans with no health insurance -- you have another 50 million that have very mediocre insurance -- because they don't make their programs universal.

That's the point I'm talking about. If we have social policy that we think is desirable -- if we think it's good, whether it's Medicare or whether it's family allowance -- that human beings growing up in our country get those benefits -- then the best social policy in my judgment is to make sure everyone gets them as a right of citizenship. And you take it -- if you like -- out of the market mechanism. You don't treat it as charity. But then, if it's an income program, by God, yes -- you pay progressive income tax rates on it, and make sure -- as we're advocating in this election, unlike the Conservatives -- that the richest Canadians pay a little more on an income tax basis, including on those programs.

---

So I believe that the expanding, growing economy that we have brought about benefits -- if it's properly done, and I think it has been -- principally women, as it should, particularly those who need durable jobs. And if you look at the results of the last four years, where we've led the industrialized world, I think it's a great tribute to Canadians. And I'm personally delighted that the manner in which the various economic strategies that we've developed have resulted in this tremendous degree of social justice for Canadian women. What could be more important to a woman seeking employment than the availability of a good, durable, high-paying job? And that is what we have provided. And that is the motherload of social programs -- that is the growing economy, the new pool of wealth that allows us to pay for a lot of these social programs that Canada desires.

---

And I want to ask you: notwithstanding the good news about jobs that have occurred -- and I support that -- in the marketplace, in the area where you have direct responsibility and where you made a commitment in 1984 in terms of narrowing that gap between men and women -- why didn't you act?

---

---

---

---

---

[01:55:01]

We are budgeting for the funds required on an ongoing basis to make sure they are available, so that this money will be given to those women who have been deprived of the degree of equity that we seek. That is exactly, Mr. Broadbent, what we've been trying to do.

---

---

It is not an easy thing. There are thousands of public service -- tens of thousands of jobs -- that require identification and definition and computation of pay, and this takes time. But the commitment is there. The money is there. The legislation is there. And the administrative action taken -- under Flora MacDonald's Employment Equity Act and under Pat Carney and Roberta Km's administrative actions at Treasury Board -- are going to bring about this, I think, quite desirable result.

---

---

---

---

We've heard this evening about job creation for women, and about the best social program being a job. But women feel particularly vulnerable under the free trade deal, in industries like the service sector and in certain parts of the manufacturing industries. We've heard as well about the differences in rules that apply in the United States which make it perhaps attractive for Canadian companies -- and for jobs in general -- to flow south as opposed to staying in Canada under this deal.

Mr. Turner, and again the comments later from Mr. Mulroney -- if we could: what kind of specific rules could you envision to ensure that a certain number of jobs -- and jobs in which women are mostly vulnerable -- stay in this country under free trade, if that arrangement goes ahead?

---

And I've said to Mr. Mulroney: what is he going to do by way of an adjustment program? He announced one in the House of Commons, and then the Minister of Finance contradicted it. I am saying that this whole trade deal -- and we haven't had a chance, Madam Chair, to explore it as fully as I think we should have -- this whole trade deal leaves us with a whole set of people, primarily women, who aren't going to be protected.

But we get down to some fundamental questions. Why -- and the Prime Minister hasn't answered this really in five hours of debate -- he hasn't answered why he changed his own personal mind against a bilateral agreement with the United States. He hasn't answered why -- when he didn't get secure access, as he admitted last night, didn't get secure access into the American market -- why he didn't pull out. He hasn't answered the question. He hasn't answered why he didn't ask for an exclusionary clause on the deal to ensure that when the definition of subsidy was being negotiated under the deal between Canada and the United States, social programs weren't excluded and regional economic equality programs weren't excluded.

He hasn't answered these issues. And by allowing national treatment of Americans in Canada without any screening limits on investment, he has allowed Americans to capture our industry, capture the future of high-tech and information in this country. Services industries -- that's where it's all going to be at. And the Americans can't believe their good luck. No wonder the Senate of the United States passed this deal in one day. No wonder the House of Representatives passed it in one day. No wonder President Reagan said that this is the fulfilment of the American dream.

We gave away our energy. We gave away our investment. We sold out our supply management in agriculture. And we've left hundreds of thousands of workers vulnerable -- and women particularly vulnerable -- because of the social programs involved, because of the minimum wages that we will have to start to

[02:00:00]

compare and harmonize because of the fact that they're in the vulnerable industries.

And really, I think the time has come -- after five hours of debate -- for the Prime Minister to really answer those questions, and tell us why he is where he is, and why he didn't pull out when he didn't get what he thought he should have got.

---

The question was put by Miss Wallin in regard to the impact on women. I would ask that perhaps you set aside your opinion and set aside mine. Dr. Judith Maxwell -- who is a woman, who is the chairperson of the Economic Council of Canada -- she forecasts that there will be a creation of some 250,000 new jobs under the Free Trade Agreement during its implementation period, and that there will be in these various sectors -- particularly the service sector -- brand new opportunities for women. She forecasts this as being a major new initiative that will benefit, among other people, women.

Now with regard to the question that Miss Wallin raises: any impacts -- and there will be -- there are sectors where, and I think even the Economic Council of Canada spelled it out quite clearly, there are sectors where the impacts on employment will be negative. Well, in that case we have employment adjustment programs now. But to be absolutely certain that we have done more than that, I asked a national commission -- chaired by one of Canada's most outstanding people, Jean de Grandpré of Montreal -- to examine all of the adjustment requirements and to bring forward, particularly for example in regard to the effects that might exist upon women, any new programs that exist around the world or in North America or elsewhere that could be of benefit to us if required. We are anticipating his report. Although we do have a lot of adjustment programs now, clearly they could be improved upon. Although the forecasts are all positive in regard to employment prospects for free trade, it may very well be that Mr. de Grandpré's national commission will come forward with some brand new ideas.

---

And here we are, frankly -- the Prime Minister failing to come to grips with some programs that really would sponsor jobs: the infrastructure of this country, restoring our ability to combat pollution at the environmental level, at the municipal level. 314,000 jobs, as mayors say. And really, he has done nothing concrete to help the women of this country.

---

Now, you've indicated that you'd be relieved that John de Grandpré didn't present his report. On the contrary -- I look forward to Mr. de Grandpré's report. He and his commissioners are people of uncommon reputation and ability. And I know they'll bring forward what'll probably be a most helpful report -- not only to you and me as parliamentarians to help us in what we do in the House of Commons, but to Canadians generally.

I would like us to be at the forefront of all problems of adaptation. If I may just say, there are four million Canadians today -- right today -- who on an annual basis change jobs. It's a phenomenon of a dynamic, growing economy.

Let's get back to the issue -- I want to ask the Prime Minister: would he take advantage of an invitation issued by Global to have a debate directly on trade, so we can examine the employment possibilities -- pro and con -- so he can examine what's going to happen to our energy and becoming a continental reservoir of the United States, so that we can examine what's going to happen with the Canadian farmer having to compete with a 12-month season in California, 12-month season in Florida,

[02:05:00]

Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia, with no protection? I want the Prime Minister to really say to me: "Look, we may differ on our views about the trade deal, but it is such a radical change in direction, and 70% of Canadians say they still don't understand it fully -- why don't you and I have a head-to-head?" Invite Mr. Broadbent -- fine -- isn't that nice, you're going to invite Mr. Broadbent. Yes, I would indeed have a head-to-head and let's deal with the issue the way Canadians expect us to deal with the issue.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I today, sir, as a Canadian, believe genuinely in what I am doing. I believe it is right for Canada. I believe that in my own modest way I am nation building, because I believe this benefits Canada, and I love Canada.

---

[02:10:00]

as Canadian as you are, Mr. Mulroney. But I'll tell you this: you mentioned 120 years of history. 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, will reduce us, I'm sure, to a colony of the United States. Because when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Your new one, Mr. Mulroney -- you say it will be revenue neutral. One of your own backbenchers says he doubts that. What guarantees can you give Canadians tonight that it won't be used to garner a windfall that can finance some of your election spending promises? And while you're at it, how do you answer critics that this new tax would shift the tax burden away from income taxes -- which are progressive -- to consumption taxes, which aren't?

---

In the national sales tax undertakings -- and I'm aware of the comment that was made by a backbencher -- but Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Finance, speaks for Canada, speaks for the government, and he clarified that matter completely.

---

---

---

---

Thank you very much, Mr. Turner and Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Broadbent now has the floor. The next question is from David Halton.

---

---

I happen to have talked to Mr. Gorbachev very directly about the need for the Soviet Union to open the country up to on-site inspection. I've talked to the principal American negotiator and the principal Soviet negotiator in the disarmament talks. I've had some experience in this field. And I know that this country of ours -- that played an early role in formulating NATO originally -- my party

[02:15:01]

supported now -- we're saying this: we're moving into the 1990s. This isn't the 1950s. The superpowers are taking us in a direction of disarmament. I want us to be part of that. We have said as a party that we wouldn't go for this lunacy of buying nuclear submarines -- especially when the superpowers are going in the other direction.

We have also said: yes, that's a goal -- to be out of NATO. But it has every kind of logical consistency in terms of a nation that wants to move in a peaceful direction. The people who first advocated NATO didn't ever envisage that we would be in there for our entire national life, that it became the cornerstone of foreign policy. Membership of NATO is a means to an end.

And so what we're saying is: move our troops out of Europe. I'm glad to take this opportunity -- Mr. Turner launched into a great digression on this a half-hour ago. We're saying European countries now -- unlike the late '40s and early '50s when NATO was first proposed -- many of them have a per capita income higher than ours, not lower. They have a military capacity greater than ours, not inferior. Now they can -- thank you very well -- look after the troop situation in Europe.

And what we're saying is: come back here. Bring our forces out of there. Create -- I say to Mr. Turner, who was often on a bizarre tangent on this -- we're not against all alliances, Mr. Turner. We've talked about the United States, for example -- wanting to reconstitute an alliance. The Liberals, by the way, signed the change in the NORAD agreement that permitted acceptance ultimately of a Star Wars project, which Mr. Turner himself at one time accepted. But he's changed his mind. I understand.

We wanted a change in the NORAD agreement -- a defense agreement with the United States as a North American country -- that would give us Canadian control over our territory. So we are not talking about putting our heads in the sand, or some kind of neutralism. We're talking about a responsible democratic country that looks to the future instead of the past -- that has a credible defense policy, that wants to be consistent with our traditional democratic allies. But, like in social policy and other areas, the NDP likes to think ahead instead of in the past.

Now, if Mr. Turner wants to reply -- I suspect it will be --

---

---

---

---

---

---

[02:20:00]

NDP wouldn't withdraw immediately -- it would consult. But that result is not consistent with your policy position. Canadians demand and deserve a better answer to this. And even your Member of Parliament Svend Robinson from Vancouver -- now from Burnaby -- commented sarcastically on your change of position and said that the move was, quote, "a triumph of political expediency over principle."

**[Note: The speaker in this passage appears to be Turner, not Mulroney, based on context -- Turner is pressing Broadbent on NDP policy. The auto-transcription appears to have inserted Mulroney's name in error. This is flagged as an attribution ambiguity.]**

Now I happen to agree on that issue with you, Mr. Turner -- every now and then I really do think you try to be fair. And now: will you tell me where the policy has changed? Give me the change in the policy.

---

But I, Mr. Turner -- I repeat -- I've talked to Mr. Gorbachev directly about having on-site inspection in the Soviet Union. I've talked to both the American and Soviet negotiators. I said just a minute ago, I have some experience. I don't want to exaggerate --

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I would prefer that position to the position of a prime minister who has presided over a government for four years, riven by scandal, riven by ministerial resignations, riven by conflict of interest problems, and interrupted quite frequently by police investigations. I would rather have my position. And I would rather have my position too than the leader of the New Democratic Party, standing opposite me, who -- bound by policy resolutions on defense, neutralist, withdrawing from NATO, bound by policy resolutions on nationalizing a bank, bound by policy resolutions of nationalizing 50% of our resource industry -- continually skates around and hides his real agenda from the Canadian people.

And we have not had from the New Democratic Party the kind of open debate, the kind of frank policy resolutions that we would expect. I haven't really been apprised of a new imaginative idea from Mr. Broadbent's party, because he's trying desperately to hide his true colors. I'll give a secret agenda -- hiding his true colors in order to gain political opportunistic value.

---

[02:25:00]

describes himself as progressive find this so heretical. We don't back away from it.

It's a question of timing on so many policies and serious objectives. We want to act on the environment. We want to spend money on it. We want to act on child care. We think that's a much more important priority.

You had the responsibility -- for example, you talk about us -- I have no hidden agenda, and I repeat that we're going to spell out everything we plan to do. We don't back away from things. You're bound by those party resolutions. You -- in contrast, Mr. Turner -- you come along here. You were prime minister four years ago. You're now publicly advocating so many things that you had a chance in cabinet when prime minister -- and you didn't touch. Whether it's your sewage treatment policy now, which you turned down; whether it's other environmental action; let's be fair and accurate. Whether pay equity -- when you were there, your party did nothing. You named the whole range. You put more tax loopholes in there for upper-income Canadians than all other Finance Ministers put together. Now you're talking about tax reform. And what about your $29 billion -- where are you going to get the money?

---

---

So don't feel that you've got any monopoly on good ideas, Mr. Broadbent, or on a good conscience. I'm just saying to you: the infrastructure program, the environmental program -- that I responded to three years ago with the Canadian mayors and municipalities in Hamilton in 1986 -- was the same kind of program that Walter Gordon, when I was with him, presented under Municipal Works in 1964. We've had a strong tradition.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I recognize that part of the reason is the tremendous growth that has been going on in central Canada, and some of the more far-flung regions suffer as a result. But I think we have to remember that inflation has been kept at about 4%, and we've had remarkable economic growth. And this is the first time that inflation has been maintained at these levels since about 1971.

And so the desired objective of sustained economic growth in a non-inflationary climate requires a great deal of vigilance on the part of the governor of the bank, who doesn't have an easy job. This is a tough and delicate call that he has to make.

The economy remains strong and powerful. The Free Trade Agreement that has been signed is sending off very positive signals of investment and confidence around the world. Our growth is to continue strong. Our job creation is going to continue strong. And that has brought about some tensions in respect of inflation and pressures in certain areas of Canada.

My hope is that we will be able to equalize opportunities much more, and that it will lessen the pressures of inflation and therefore the pressure on the dollar. That having been said, the governor of the Bank of Canada of course retains our full confidence, and will continue to do so.

---

And all the premiers -- without exception, to my knowledge -- a few months ago called upon the government of Canada to move with the Bank of Canada to bring down interest rates. And I think it makes sense. And to deal with the inflation problem in Toronto -- I think, if I can put it this way -- I think the government has the cart before the horse. The major reason for inflation in Toronto has been the booming nature of the Ontario economy, which caused people to move there because they couldn't get jobs elsewhere, putting pressure on housing. Housing prices have really gone up.

I think the government should have moved decisively to deal with the housing crisis in Toronto, which would have nipped the inflationary pressures in the bud and kept a lower interest rate policy in place for the rest of the country -- that is not fully out of the recession yet, in the Prairies, in the interior of British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, regions of Quebec.

So instead of imposing a Toronto high interest rate policy on the whole country, I think we should have interest rates down about a percentage point.

And to get back to your question, Mr. Halton, about the governor of the Bank of Canada: of course you don't do it on a day-to-day basis -- running the Bank of Canada. But as we saw in the Coyne Affair, we've changed governors of the Bank of Canada. If the bank governor doesn't make -- on a consistent, major policy like interest rates -- decisions that are consistent with government policy, of course at some point he would have to go. And in the sense of integrity, he would have to go.

So an NDP government that says: yes, we should be bringing down interest rates. If, after a chat with the governor of the Bank of Canada, he didn't see -- over some reasonable period of time -- that he started moving in that direction, and if he disagreed with that policy in good faith, I would expect him to leave the job.

---

---

---

[02:35:00]

policy. I understand that a given premier at a given time would like interest rates lower or higher -- if you're depending on the commodities that you're trying to export, I understand that. But we can't have two monetary policies. We can only have one. And there will only be one. And the governor of the Bank of Canada will set that policy, given the confidence that we have in his expertise.

This having been said, I think it's simplistic to suggest -- and to blame Metropolitan Toronto -- I didn't blame Toronto --

---

And it is very important -- we see it, for example, in wage settlements, we see it in all kinds of areas beginning -- it's important that the governor of the Bank of Canada exercise vigilance and good judgment in terms of interest rates.

It is important they come down. The way you ensure they come down is: make sure that your deficit goes down, and that you keep driving that deficit down, so you can restore some sanity to the financial apparatus of the government of Canada. That inspires confidence -- that'll drive interest rates down.

---

---

---

And I think that -- on a global basis -- we're finally moving towards that. But if I may add: on our other environmental matters, we are concerned about the environment. And Mr. Mulroney's government again -- on virtually every aspect of the environment -- has said one thing and then another.

For Mr. Mulroney, in 1984, it was -- again I'm quoting him -- "first priority." Then, right after he formed the government, there were hundreds laid off in the Environment Department. He produced a so-called Environmental Protection Act in June that every interest group in the country that's interested in the environment has said has no teeth, will be ineffective. And they were right.

Mr. Mulroney suddenly discovered the environment after there was a very regrettable accident involving PCBs at Saint-Basile-le-Grand. But it didn't lead to the government bringing forward legislation that has teeth in it. It didn't lead to it doing what West Germany has done, what Japan has done, what Switzerland has done -- what 10 states in the United States have done: putting environmental matters in the Criminal Code. Long overdue. But you will see Mr. Mulroney in this campaign again talking about the environment, as he did in the last -- but doing virtually nothing about it.

---

---

---

---

---

[02:40:02]

question that was asked by Miss Wallin in regard to sustainable development: our answer is in the affirmative to her question that these mega-projects, for example, must be developed in harmony with the environment. They must meet the very strict environmental standards that are promulgated -- otherwise the development will not proceed. This is the concept of sustainable development that was annunciated and articulated by Prime Minister Brundtland in her capacity as chairperson of the United Nations Commission on the World and Changing Environment, and we subscribe to that view.

I spoke to the United Nations in regard to it. We've established the first international centre at Winnipeg. And I know that my honourable friend is quite ready to criticize us -- he doesn't often give us much credit. But it's interesting that Prime Minister Brundtland did. And she is recognized as perhaps the most outstanding person on the environment internationally. She, some months ago, said -- and I'm quoting virtually textually -- "I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the government of Canada for the leadership they are providing the industrialized countries in respect of the environment."

The fact of the matter, Mr. Broadbent, is that we have done a lot. We haven't done enough. And perhaps we were a little late as a country and as a society in doing all of the things that we should have done and should be doing for the environment. But we are playing catch-up in a very serious and, I think, effective way.

Six national parks, Mr. Broadbent --

---

---

Well, the reality is: about a month ago, your government announced a decision about a river diversion project affecting Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There was no environmental study done by the federal government in advance at all. It led to the senior adviser in the Minister of the Environment's department resigning -- because she said your government was playing politics on the issue.

So here again, you go before the people of Canada and you tell them, yes, you're going to do all these things. But when you made a major decision affecting the environment in the context of an election campaign, you made a deal -- as she said -- with the government of Saskatchewan that violated all environmental concerns.

Why didn't you have your government do an environmental assessment of that decision before you approved it?

---

---

---

---

---

---

I think that my view on it is best expressed by the tremendous amount of effort that we put into -- as prime minister, that I put into it, along with everybody -- in trying to reach a constitutional amendment that favoured the Aboriginal peoples. I can say it because I think it was meant -- it was the kind of initiative that received the support from all parties in the House of Commons. And we came this close, in '85 and '86, this close to a constitutional amendment which would have brought about historic fairness and, I believe, a resolution of a problem that, as you say, has bedevilled Canada since its foundation. Deals with justice for our Aboriginal peoples. It goes to the root of the problem. And we came this close. And it's

[02:45:00]

interesting to note that one of the reasons I believe we failed in that exercise is because one of the provinces -- Quebec -- was not a member of the Constitutional process. Quebec would have -- at that point in time --

---

---

However, as the Prime Minister knows, there's a major involvement of the federal government. The whole question of division of resources -- particular potentially energy resources -- has to be settled by the federal government in discussions with the Lubicon. And I sent a telegram to the Prime Minister urging that he ask his minister, Mr. McKnight, to get involved -- so that the second step, the federal step, will be taken immediately following the settlement with the provincial government in Alberta.

On the question of Aboriginal rights beyond that: one of the amendments that we moved to the Meech Lake Accord -- that I deeply regretted was not there in the first place -- is a commitment that all the first ministers would have an early conference with Aboriginal Canadians to settle the issue of Aboriginal self-government. We have a commitment to have a conference on fish -- incredibly -- in that agreement. But none at all to meet the legitimate needs of the first people of this great country of ours.

---

**[Note: The speaker here is unclear -- context suggests the moderator is addressing Mulroney, but the auto-transcription assigns the preceding attribution to Mulroney himself. The following is Mulroney's reply.]**

Well, the matter of Aboriginal rights is one -- I don't think that Canada will be complete as a nation until that matter is effectively resolved.

---

---

Tonight, and throughout the election campaign, I have been speaking about some of the major initiatives of our government. Let me try to put our program into perspective for you by explaining why we are doing some of these things.

Canada can and does excel, given the opportunity to do so. That is why we stand for an expansionary trade policy, founded on free trade with the biggest market in the world. Second, more trade means more jobs, and a strong economy is the guarantee of a distinctly Canadian program in health care, education, social services, and environment. It's the new pool of wealth that's going to enable us to do more for the elderly and the disabled and those who need our assistance. Continued economic growth lets us ensure literacy and training and affirmative action programs so that every Canadian has a fair chance at a good job and a share of our national prosperity. A child care program -- generous enough to double current facilities and yet flexible enough to allow you to decide how best to look after your own children. To make the most of our commitment, we need a renewed commitment to education and science and technology and research and development.

And as we have been talking about environmental excellence, we have confidence in Canada. The human values of caring and compassion and respect will be enlarged, not weakened, in the stronger Canada we will build together. We don't intend to shelter those values but to proclaim them as the essence of our Canadianism, as our richest asset, as the most enduring contribution we can make to mankind.

That is the Canada of our vision. These are the choices we offer. The election is about choices -- it's about challenges and it's about change. It's about which party and which leader is competent, in your judgment, to manage the economy and direct federal-provincial relations and conduct foreign policy. It's about which team of men and women is best able to lead this country into the 1990s.

It is said to be about an agenda for our country and a vision of Canada in a new decade and a new century. We offer -- I believe, and I hope -- a team of men and women to carry forward that vision, to turn those choices into action. I believe that our Progressive Conservative candidates across Canada are the finest ever presented in a national election. I ask for your hand and I ask for your help. And I believe together we

[02:50:02]

can build a Canada that is more united, more tolerant, and more prosperous. Thank you.

---

---

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I have told you the kind of Canada I believe in, the values I will bring to government, the choices I will make as prime minister.

The NDP have made their choice -- they want big government to run everything. Mr. Mulroney has made his choice -- he wants us to be completely dependent on the United States. He wants them to decide what is best for us.

Never in my life has there been an issue on which I have felt so strongly. Mr. Mulroney calls it free trade, but thanks to Liberal governments, 80% of everything we already sell to the United States goes across that border free -- it is free trade. To get the other 20%, Mr. Mulroney negotiated away our ability to control our own economy and, in fact, our own future.

Our energy is important to us. Under Mr. Mulroney's deal, we would become a continental reservoir for the United States. The Americans will now be deciding how we use our resources -- including our water. Under this deal, any Canadian company worth up to $150 million can be taken over, and we can't say a thing about it. Under this deal, our farmers will be at the mercy of American farmers, who have a 12-month growing season compared to our shorter season. Even worse, he has agreed to let the Americans have a say in the future of our social programs -- like unemployment insurance, Medicare -- and our regional equality programs, like the support we give our fishermen and farmers. There is virtually no area of Canadian life that has been left untouched.

I believe in this country. I have faith in Canada. I don't believe my feelings are any different from yours. We have something special here -- something we don't want to lose. We have a way of life, a way of looking at ourselves, a way of reacting to the world. Mr. Mulroney's trade deal will change all that. It will make us little more than a junior partner of the United States.

I believe in a strong, sovereign, independent Canada. I believe that we are now confident enough and tough enough to make our own choices for our own future in our own way. I need your support on November 21st. You and I must not allow Mr. Mulroney to sell us out -- to reverse 120 years of Canadian history, to destroy the Canadian dream. Thank you and good night.

---

---

Well, people of Canada, you have now heard the three leaders talk about our priorities, our concerns, our hopes, our aspirations. You've heard Mr. Mulroney try to justify what has been, by and large, a very disappointing performance for four years -- whether it's on the environment, whether it's on women's issues, whether it's on a fair tax system, whether it's on the very fate of our nation in terms of this comprehensive deal that he has negotiated with the Americans.

On the other hand, you've heard Mr. Turner saying a lot of things now that -- when he had the chance as prime minister or part of a Liberal government -- he was taking completely opposite positions. Whether it's on taxation, whether it's on the environment, whether it's on regional development, Mr. Turner as leader of the Liberal Party is saying and doing one thing now -- quite different from what his own past experience as a member of cabinet had at that time.

They both had a chance. I am now saying: it's time for a change. It's time for people who will make choices. I don't have difficulty deciding when I have to make a decision between the environment and polluters. Doesn't bother me to decide, in the tax system, whether the average family should get preference over the rich. I know whose side I'm on. It doesn't concern me to work to change this country of ours so my daughter will have the same chances in growing up as my son. These are basic questions.

And what I'm asking you to decide is this: is it now the time to continue with the old ways of parties that say one thing before an election and do something after? Or is it time to change? Is it finally time to put as a priority -- which is my political faith --

[02:55:01]

fairness for the average family? That should be the guiding light. And that we say the same thing before an election and we do it after.

My party is not perfect. We don't preach perfection. But what we do say is: fairness for the average Canadian ought to be at the front burner of the political agenda. I promise you to work day in, day out, week in and week out, for the average family in this country. It's time that the average person really counted. That's what I'm all about. I need your support from coast to coast, and I hope we'll get it. Thank you.

---

I know at times the evening has been difficult, but I think everyone did their best to conform to the agreement. I want finally to thank the audience -- all of you for watching -- and hope that the exercise has been a useful one and an informative one. Thank you very much for keeping us company this evening. Good night.

---

*End of Transcript*