Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks last night before the adjournment of the debate, I was quoting from the Bishops' statement which was issued on January 5, 1983. I was explaining to the House how the rhetoric then is similar to the rhetoric we hear now. For example, we hear that we must be more productive, that the private sector is the engine for economic growth and recovery, that we must make our private sector more competitive, and that the private sector must have a greater return on profits, that this is the key to economic recovery. The Bishops pointed out in their statement that at the same time working people, the unemployed, young people, and those people on fixed incomes are increasingly called upon to make the most sacrifices for economic recovery, but it is these people who suffer most from lay-offs, wage restraints and cut-backs in social services. The Bishops went on to state that yet there is no clear reason to believe that working people will ever really benefit from these and other sacrifices they are called to make. For even if companies recover and increase their profit margins, the additional revenues are likely to be reinvested in more labour-saving technology or exported to other countries, or spent on market speculation for luxury goods.

The Bishops and we in this Party endorse an alternate vision of how society can operate. Let me quote the following passage from the Bishops' statement:

There are, of course, alternative ways of looking at our industrial future and organizing our economy. This does not imply a halt to technological progress but rather a fundamental re-ordering of the basic values and priorities of economic development. An alternative economic vision, for example, could place priority on serving the basic needs of all people in this country, on the value of human labour, and an equitable distribution of wealth and power among people and regions. What would it mean to develop an alternative economic model that would place emphasis on-socially-useful forms of production; labour-intensive industries; the use of appropriate forms of technology; self-reliant models of economic development; community ownership and control of industries; new forms of worker management and ownership; and greater use of the renewable energy sources in industrial production?

Yet we see in the Speech from the Throne and in the economic statement exactly the opposite type of vision, Mr. Speaker. It is not a vision of self-sufficiency, because the Government cuts back on the home insulation program, and on research and development into alternate energy technologies.

These are regressive steps, steps that make us more dependent upon capital intensive, large scale energy projects. This removes the element of self-sufficiency and protection which individual Canadians can have.

We see again in the Speech from the Throne and in the financial statement the belief that only through catering to the large multinationals will Canada recover economically. This is a wrong vision, Mr. Speaker. It is a vision that has been tried in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Great Britain, Chile and in many other countries. It has proved to be a disaster for ordinary working people. I warn this Government that if it continues on this path it will destroy the economic and social fabric of Canada. This will result in poor people and working people having to rise up in anger against their plight.

This Government was given a tremendous mandate, a mandate for change. Canadians want to see a government develop and form new visions for economic development. They do not want to see Reagan economics as practised in the United States. They do not want to have the industrial and labour strife that has occurred in Great Britain.

I plead, therefore, with this Government to reverse its directions and to develop, on a co-operative basis, a new vision for Canada, a vision in which ordinary men and women can join, a vision based on fairness and equality for all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Stackhouse:

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. I share the Hon. Member's concern that our technological development be accompanied by sufficient opportunity for human work. To supplement what the Hon. Member said, however, I would caution him that simply emphasizing the need for human labour is as bad as giving one's priority only to capital intensive development. If the Hon. Member has been in countries such as India, which I have had the privilege of visiting, he would see projects that involve much human labour. There are gangs of men and women making roads by hand, using hammers to break up stone for the road-bed. Such people know nothing else other than this dreary, almost animal-like kind of work. These people are the next in several generations of their families and clans committed to such labour. But one can go elsewhere in the great country of India and find that the level of life has been lifted, far above the kind of life 1 have just described, by technological development using large scale capital-intensive industries. What we in the western world are struggling to find is a balance which provides sufficient technological development and expansion to continue and indeed advance the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians and at the same time provide adequate employment opportunities.

November 20, 1984

The Address-Mr. de Jong

With all respect to the Bishops' statement, I have not found sufficient recognition of the need for this balance. They have served us well in calling us back from an unbalanced reliance upon technology, but I wish for a far greater recognition of the need for balance in their statement and in the Hon. Member's address.

Mr. de Jong:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a point. The fact is that the balance right now tips so much to the capital intensive side that there is very little recognition by industry or by government of that which the Bishops call appropriate forms of technology. In their statement, the Bishops said:

This does not imply a halt to technological progress but rather a fundamental re-ordering of the basic values and priorities of economic development.

I should like to give the Hon. Member one example in the energy field. If one invested the same amount of capital needed to build a nuclear reactor into home insulation, one would save more electricity than the nuclear power plant would ever produce. Home insulation is not capital intensive. It produces more work and it provides self-sufficiency for the consumer. The consumer would be no longer dependent upon the utility company and would no longer have to pay tremendous bills every month to pay off the cost of the nuclear power plant plus the interest on the debt.

Here are two different visions of development. We can go the nuclear route, which is capital intensive and environmentally questionable producing very expensive electricity; or we can go the route of home insulation and conservation. The same amount of money spent on the conservation side would surely bring much more benefit to ordinary people than going the nuclear route. Yet the Government in its statement slashes the Canadian Home Insulation Program and the program of developing alternate energies. Alternate energies can provide capital savings and produce greater self-sufficiency for the country, for communities, for individuals. The nuclear area, however, was never questioned or slashed in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).

The nuclear industry has cost the country billions of dollars. Underutilized heavy water plants have had to shut down. Nuclear power plants have been decommissioned at tremendous cost to the taxpayer. However, the Minister of Finance never touched one cent of the money that we continue to pour into the nuclear industry. Surely the Hon, Member must recognize that the balance is leaning toward capital-intensive programs, not programs for alternatives and for appropriate technologies, which would be more beneficial to Canadians in terms of creating jobs and being less capital intensive.

Mr. Stackhouse:

Mr. Speaker, what the House needs to recognize and the nation needs to appreciate, as I believe most Canadians do, is that the Hon. Member has set up a false dichotomy between capital intensive and labour intensive projects, illustrated by his example of home insulation and

nuclear reactor hydro electric generators. This is not a dispute over ecology and conservation. It really is a matter of providing that adequate technological development take place in our society and in other parts of the world which have a greater need of it, and at the same time of not ignoring the vital human need for useful employment opportunities.

The stark fact in a great part of the world is that their need is for technology and the kind of advance that we have known in the western world. In terms of electrical energy, the fact is that we could have all the conservation and insulation in homes that we could wish, but we would still have a desperate need for electrical power to be generated in sufficient quantity to serve the massive requirements of our society for electrical power. We need both.

Our need is not necessarily for nuclear reactors. They are an alternative. Nonetheless, we need highly technological generative plants. Whether they should be nuclear powered or powered in some other way is another issue altogether. However, we simply cannot maintain the level of life that we have come to enjoy and expect in this country without adequate technological development. That will be as great a human need as the other.

Mr. de Jong:

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. The question is what type of technological development. Technological development that benefits people, that reduces the cost of production, that is environmentally sound, that has some social use as well, or technological development that is really exploitive? Third World countries cannot afford nuclear reactors. It is a technology that is of very little use to them. What they need is appropriate technologies. Vertical turbines, wind, solar are the types of technologies that make the most sense, not only for Third World countries but for Canada and the rest of the industrialized world.

In his statement, the Minister of Finance goes the road of highly capital intensive megaproject forms of energy generation. He cuts the areas that I believe are our future: appropriate and small scale technologies, such as wind, solar and conservation. A mix of those technologies is the solution to our problem. That is how we will either generate or save more energy than the capital intensive nuclear route.

My criticism of the Government is that it continues along the same path that the Liberals have taken in all these years. It has not struck a new direction. If it cut the nuclear sector and if all the billions of dollars in subsidy that have gone to that sector were directed toward home insulation and alternate energy programs, I suggest to Members opposite that it would create tremendous political goodwill among the men and women of Canada. They would applaud this Government. They would realize that here is a Government with some new ideas, with a sense of new direction, not one that is tied and beholden to the financial interest. Unfortunately, it did not do that. Therefore, we must judge it not on its words and not on its wishes, even though I sympathize with what the Hon. Member is telling us. I think we are saying the same thing. He has to recognize that he is out of step with the wishes of his

November 20, 1984

Government. His Government is taking a different direction from the one he is talking about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. The time for questions and comments on the Hon. Member's speech is now over. We will now resume debate.

Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of York-Peel, it gives me great pleasure to be able to enter the debate today on the Speech from the Throne. It is a little over two weeks since Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada outlined the broad measures the new Government would be taking in this session. The measures announced in the Throne Speech symbolize, I would suggest, a new day for Canada. They symbolize indeed a watershed in this nation's history.

Canada has now joined the movement which preceded us in Europe, the United States and Asia. Those who have grasped the significance of this movement will understand that it is a movement in which the vitality of free enterprise will again be allowed to flourish in this country.

The new Progressive Conservative Government has committed itself to fostering economic growth. As the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion, I and my Department have been given a tremendous responsibility in shaping the economic turnaround the Government has pledged to accomplish.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, since the Government took power some two months ago, we have been examining various government programs with a view to eliminating those that are no longer relevant and then fine-tuning those remaining to better serve Canadian needs. For example, the day after the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Wilson) economic statement was delivered in the House, we in our Department announced adjustments to the Industrial and Regional Development Program, adjustments designed to improve the program's efficiency, and focus assistance on innovation projects that will increase industrial productivity and help international competitiveness. They were designed to ensure that support is provided in areas of the country where it is most needed. We were able to do all of this, and we now anticipate that in the coming year, we will be expending 35 per cent more than was expended in this area in the current year. The acceptance of these changes by the business and working community of Canada convinced me that our new streamlined version has taken into account the concerns and priorities of Canadian business, and is one small step in the restoration of business confidence in Canada.

In announcing the changes to the Industrial and Regional Development Program, we have given instructions to give priority to those IRDP projects that emphasize R and D and the development of new projects and processes. We have asked that there be a targeting of funding to those areas of the country where it is needed most. At the same time, we have

The Address-Mr. Stevens

instructed the Department and particularly our regional offices to increase the non-monetary assistance that they provide to the Canadian business community. In this context, we intend to raise the profile of regional offices so that they become centres of information and assistance rather than simply centres for processing grant applications.

The regional offices have been directed to emphasize assistance to business and to industry in terms of expertise in identifying export opportunities and opportunities for import substitution. They will become centres for assistance in the fields of information, advice and co-ordination of various forms of support. To allow them to assume these added duties, we have streamlined the administration of IRDP by providing automatic eligibility for cases involving support under $100,000, provided the basis criteria are met. This is turn will reduce the bureaucratic burden and speed the processing of applications, thus relieving staff from much of the paperwork and allowing them to undertake more fruitful tasks for the business community.

The changes we have announced have the added benefit of reducing the forecast-and I emphasize the word "forecast"- expenditures of our Department by some $200 million a year in this and other programs, while at the same time maintaining the stated objectives of the Department that I have the honour to head at the present time.

Another area in which we will be active is industrial R and D, with a particular emphasis on the development side of that equation. Canadian industry must maintain its competitiveness on domestic and international markets by increasing its productivity and inproving, wherever possible, the quality of its products. Canadian firms must innovate if they are to remain competitive, grow and provide adequate employment opportunities in a world in which they are constantly being challenged by rapid technological advances from an expanding number of countries. One way of achieving this is for firms to make a far stronger commitment to research and development than ever before.

However, the ability to import technologies, apply and build on them is also of critical importance. Product, process and managerial innovations around the world are creating new products and reducing unit costs, yet there is considerable evidence that Canadian firms are slow to embrace and exploit them. We find a similar slowness in adapting Canadian research-in some areas research that is among the finest in the world-to the needs of Canadian industry.

Of course, this is not true of all industries. For example, I was recently asked to participate in the announcement by Northern Telecom of an $80 million commitment that company made to the development of new micro-chip technology. It is a development which will maintain Nortel's commanding lead in the world of digital communications.

Canada has no choice but to join the technological revolution to which I am referring. We must do so with vigour if we are to supply Canadians with the newest goods and services

November 20, 1984

The Address-Mr. Stevens

and if we are to be a part of an increasingly competitive world market.

Not only must we have more research and, particularly, development-as well as acquire and build on technologies from abroad-we must also focus on accelerating the diffusion of these powerful new processes. I believe the way to encourage this is through better information exchange, technology transfer and demonstration. This is an area in which I see our regional offices taking a much more aggressive stance, in particular, with reference to our small and medium-sized businesses. Too often the day-to-day pressures of maintaining current production, meeting payrolls, and completing government forms diverts the management of small businesses from the task of investigating new and better ways of operating.

By becoming centres of information on new developments, the regional offices can provide a much needed interface between the Canadian research community whether at the university, private or governmental level, or in searching out on the international markets research-driven technologies which can assist Canadians to remain competitive. This supportive role of government Departments and agencies is one that all Canadian entrepreneurs will welcome. For too long they have been harassed by the paper burden, the duplication and the demands of big government, especially the type of big government that preceded this Government. All of those measures are in support of the central theme of this Government, which is to get government out of the business community's hair and let it get on with the task of undertaking new initiatives and providing new jobs for Canadians.

On October 30, we announced the new management and new mandate for the Canada Development Investment Corporation. The new management has been charged with the responsibility of privatizing the assets of CDIC as quickly as possible and consistent with the concern for value of the Canadian taxpayer's dollar. Sound management of the portfolio as well as protection of the workers' interests has been included in our direction. Many people have suggested that our desire to privatize the CDIC member companies was hastily conceived. I have been in this House since 1972 and have witnessed the growth of Crown corporations. At the time they were brought under the federal umbrella, it was generally said that it would only be for a limited duration and that they would be owned by the federal Government in the strict anticipation that they would be put back into the private sector. I find it almost beyond belief when those self same people today ask why we are moving so hastily with respect to the possibility of privatizing some Crown corporations, the same Crown corporations which they themselves have consistently maintained they intended to put back into the private sector.

On November 5 I announced the new management and new mandate for Fishery Products International, the Newfoundland fisheries conglomerate which is owned jointly by the federal Government, the Province of Newfoundland and the

Bank of Nova Scotia. The intention is to make that firm, which is vital to the economy of Newfoundland, economically viable through sound business management and eventually to return it once again to private enterprise. Returning these assets to the private sector is not only better for the firms and their workers in the long run, but I would suggest the action serves as a further signal to the business community that the Government places ultimate reliance on the private sector as the source of economic growth.

Further announcements can be expected regarding the approach of Government to the general subject of assistance and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We intend to review the various support instruments which are available at the federal level to help small business, including the Federal Business Development Bank. We are well aware of the role played by small business in economic growth, particularly in the context of regional development, and of the fact that small and medium-sized businesses are by far the largest creators of new jobs in Canada. We will, therefore, take steps to ensure that federal support gives priority and is appropriate to the needs of this sector.

Another area of my portfolio in which I am taking action is in regard to the need to increase non-Canadian investment in Canada. In the near future there will be legislation which will provide long overdue changes to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It is our intention to transform FIRA into a positive agency for the encouragement of Canadian and nonCanadian investment so that investors throughout the world will get the message that Canada welcomes them and is willing to assist in their endeavours. The changes to FIRA will emphasize small business and will encourage partnership between Canadian and non-Canadian interests. No more will we hear the lament of investors who say that they tried but could not invest in Canada.

At the same time, we are convinced that by breaking down the barriers to international investment in Canada, we can once again convince Canadians to invest in their own country. As a Government, we are too painfully aware that Canadians are reluctant to invest in Canadian enterprises in spite of the fact that their level of savings is twice that of our American neighbours. A better investment climate will encourage Canadians to reverse this trend and once again invest in their own country, whether through direct investment or through joint venture with non-Canadian firms.

These changes, some of which will be immediate and some gradual, reflect the role of government vis-a-vis industry which underlines the Speech from the Throne. The role of government is not to take over but to support. The role of government is, first of all, to ensure an appropriate investment climate and then to act as a catalyst. The role of government is to intervene only where the achievement of national objectives is beyond the resources of the private sector.

It is difficult to forecast the future, but many of the studies which have measured the impact of the economic policies of the Government are truly optimistic. The policies put forth by the new Government are expected to increase employment

November 20, 1984

dramatically, to increase real growth and to increase productivity. Inflation and unemployment will be reduced, and there are positive indicators that the federal deficit and debt will fall. The key to these favourable impacts is the dual stimulation of business investment and the furthering of exports by Canadian firms. Together the two will help pull the Canadian economy back toward its potential.

The resources of government can be quite usefully employed in support of private sector growth, particularly in terms of export development, co-ordination of effort, achievement of consensus and provision of information. However, the resources of government should be employed to support private sector growth and not to compete with it.

We will not arrive at our objective overnight. There is no magic wand which can be used to reduce to zero the deficit we have inherited. There is no easy formula by which economic growth can be forced. To achieve national consensus on approaches to difficult and contentious issues will take much effort and considerable time. What is required is a consistent and persistent pursuit of agreed objectives, and I believe we have made a start in that direction. While work has already begun, lengthy and painstaking work and discussion is in front of us. However, I am confident that over the coming months the business community of Canada will come to realize that through sound fiscal management; through effective federal-provincial co-operation; through consultation with business and labour; and through consensus on major economic issues, the Government of Canada will do all that is possible to ensure the regeneration of private sector driven economic development in this country. In the process, the new business enterprises, as well as our existing enterprises in all regions, will not only survive but will thrive, thereby creating the employment and well-being which Canadians have a right to expect and which they were so obviously denied by a Liberal government which ruled this country for almost 16 years.

I am further confident that Hon. Members will be able to agree with me that when it comes to economic development, this Government, in the true sense of that phrase, means business.

Mr. Deans:

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statements of the Minister. I must say that this is perhaps the first time I have heard set out as clearly the economic direction the Government intends to take. Apparently, we are to use the resources of Canada to fatten the pockets of those who have much at the expense of those who have little.

I wonder if the Minister has considered the long-term implications of opening up Canada for unrestricted investment from wherever, at whatever time or in whatever sector the investor determines he or she might want to invest. Has the Minister seriously looked at what has happened in this country over the last 20 years? The overwhelming majority of private-sector corporations in Canada do little if any research and development here. They draw almost entirely on the research and development facilities of their parent corporations wherever they are located. In spite of the grant structure put in place by not only the Liberal Government that was here prior

The Address-Mr. Stevens

to the last election as well as the Government of Ontario and many other provinces, some of them Conservative, in spite of their attempts to hand over taxpayers' dollars in an effort to get research and development to be the focus of the multinational corporations, they failed on almost every single occasion.

[DOT] (M40)

What does the Minister believe he can offer that will get the major multinational corporations to locate their research and development facilities in Canada? What kind of guarantee is the Minister prepared to extract from those who are eager to extract from the Canadian economy, those who want to come in and invest, that there will be research and development facilities which will allow Canadians who have gone through the educational system to find employment in their chosen field?

Finally, how does the Minister reconcile the emphasis that he puts on research and development with his Government's actions? The Government, in its budget statement, slashed and cut, as is the Minister's penchant, in every single area of crucial importance in terms of research and development. How are we to believe that this Government has an overriding view of the importance of that particular element to the future of Canada when in fact the Government's own actions make it quite clear that it does not give a damn about research and development?

Mr. Stevens:

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I could say first of all that I sense a slight glimmer of hope for him. I think there is some sadness in his tone as to what in fact occurred over the last 20 years. He is taking an earnest look at it now, and I hope he remembers how often his Party came to the rescue of the Liberals when they needed that help to keep them in power.

When he describes what has happened in the last 20 years, he is undoubtedly referring to the fact that 20 years ago we had fewer than 500,000 Canadians out of work. Now, partly because of the alliance between his Party and the Liberal Party, we have almost 1.5 million Canadians out of work. That, I say to the Hon. Member, is totally out of the question. It cannot be tolerated, and it is time that those government policies, aided and abetted over the bulk of those 20 years by him and by his Party, were changed to allow a healthier economy in Canada so that Canadians can once again get the jobs to which they are rightfully entitled.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I sense a glimmer of hope when he refers to the changes that we anticipate for the Foreign Investment Review Agency. He of course must recall that that agency has been in place since 1972, and that much of the deterred investment in Canada, much of what has been denied Canadians in the form of non-Canadian investment, could have gone into job-creation industries in this country. I think he has a tremendous, if you like, past which he has somehow to explain to the Canadian public with respect to his Party's support of so many of these previous initiatives.

November 20, 1984

The Address-Mr. Stevens

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, after hearing the two opposition Parties demanding that spending and the deficit be maintained, I can only ask them: When will they learn the lesson? If deficits were the solution to our unemployment situation in Canada, we should be booming today instead of having 1.5 million Canadians out of work. So if we are making some earnest efforts to narrow that deficit, I would think he would be shouting hallelujah; at last someone is trying to get the economy back on a more satisfactory basis. Deficits have not worked. When are you fellows ever going to learn that?

Mr. Foster:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke glowingly about selling off the assets of CDC, and one of those assets is Eldorado Resources Limited. Does he really believe that he will be able to sell off a corporation like Eldorado Resources when the Government continues to give exemptions to the further processing of our uranium resource? There has been a policy in this country for some 10 years that we upgrade our uranium in Canada. The Government has gone to the expense of building a uranium refinery in Blind River and another one in Port Hope to upgrade these resources. That was done on the basis that the Canadian uranium being sold to the U.S. or West Germany or wherever would be processed in Canada. Now, as recently as in the last month and a half, the Government has given a further exemption to upgrading, and our refineries and upgrading facilities are operating at about one-third of capacity. Does the Hon. Minister really believe that you can ever sell off an industry which is operating at one-third capacity, and will he stop giving these exemptions to further upgrading in Canada, which is really taking jobs away from Canadians and giving them to workers in other countries?

The other question I wanted to put to the Hon. Minister concerned his reference to creating new business enterprises and getting the Government out of the business community's hair. There has been a policy in Canada for many years that the Department of National Revenue would give advance rulings on corporate mergers and partnerships. The Government withdrew that in October of this year after it came to power so that companies such as Algoma Steel and Tembec could not go ahead with important business developments. Why not clear that away? The Government has made some changes in the last week in that policy, but there are still three or four hurdles where the company has to make a proposal before a certain time and has to complete its deal by December 15. I think those requirements are unreasonable. If you are going to apply a grandfather clause to a policy like that, it should be wide open so that projects like the one by Algoma Steel can get under way. It would mean 700 jobs would be created and the Government would really be getting out of the business community's hair instead of creating this kind of interference in which the Government has been involved in the last couple of months.

Mr. Stevens:

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) let me say that he touched on the possibility of selling Eldorado back to the private sector. I

know that most Liberals have a very pessimistic streak about them, but I can assure the Hon. Member that he would be most encouraged if he knew the interest being shown with respect to the possibility of acquiring or buying Eldorado itself. In due course I think we will be very pleased to be able to tell him what actually is transpiring with respect to the privatization of that company.

He also referred to the moratorium placed on tax rulings with respect to the setting up of certain partnerships. Again I am rather startled to hear the Hon. Member defend this process, which was a boondoggle that the former Liberal government allowed to continue. It became a tremendous rip-off. Brokers were making hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars simply on the flushing of funds through corporate entities. I am startled that the Hon. Member would suggest that we should not have drawn back and said that there has been enough and we must put a halt to what the previous government tolerated, for whatever reason. If he checks the facts, I believe he will find that that was a very prudent move on our part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The time for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this Throne Speech debate, coming as it does so closely after the wonderful rendition and readings from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). I am also pleased to be able to participate as a result of the judgment and wisdom of the electors in my constituency who have now elected me some five times in a row both provincially and federally. I know it was a matter of some deep interest to certain members of the Conservative Party, particularly the Leader. I am glad to be able to come back and share with my colleagues our notions about how the country should or should not be governed.

The Throne Speech is giving us an opportunity to finally flush the wolves out of the sheep's clothing. I know that using the word "wolf' is somewhat sensitive to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and I apologize for it. However, the fact is that we have been given the opportunity for the first time to shear away-

Mr. Stevens:

Why are you shearing a wolf?

Mr. Axworthy:

We will find out more about the wolves in sheep's clothing this evening. We will leave that for the national television network to deal with.

My point is that we now have the opportunity in this debate clearly to come to grips with the differences between the rhetoric and the reality; between the honeycombed, wonderfully modulated, deeply versed words of change, confidence and consultation, and to what is really happening. It is totally different from all the public relations presentations we have heard since September 4.

November 20, 1984

We have heard much about the fact that the new Government is one that wants to restore confidence in the country. It is going about it in a very interesting fashion. First, it is doing so by breaking all the promises it made during the election campaign, so that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who expected those tens of thousands of jobs to come tumbling out of the system on September 5 are now finding that the reverse is taking place.

Mr. Stevens:

No.