Though they were often vague on details, policy forums during the campaign forced the candidates to state their views on key issues

June 18 1984


Though they were often vague on details, policy forums during the campaign forced the candidates to state their views on key issues

June 18 1984



What would be your top priority as Prime Minister?

Do you believe the government's $30-billion deficit should be reduced?

What relief can you off to Canada's 1.5 million unemployed?

John Turner

To restore national confidence so business and consumers will be willing to invest and spend again, thus creating new jobs.

Yes, by 50 per cent over the next seven years. But any immediate, drastic cut would be needlessly cruel because it would create added unemployment.

In the short term I would co sider a job corps for your people. Over the longer ter I would encourage sma and medium-sized busine through tax reform. And would help workers retrain meet technological change.



Job creation.

I think the current deficit is manageable. I am not in favor of balancing the books for balancing the books' sake because it would cause too much suffering.

There is no magic solutio Unemployment will be r duced gradually through eo nomic growth, an atmosphei of stability and throuç retraining programs f workers.



To achieve full employment within five years.

That is not one of my priorities. In fact, I would be prepared to let the deficit rise temporarily to get the economy growing and to create jobs.

I am the only candidate wh has set a target of full en ployment. This can b achieved through voluntai price and wage restraint ar through tax incentives to stin ulate new business.



Fighting unemployment, especially among young people, is my short-term priority. Over the longer term our most serious problem is adjusting to technological change.

I don't think there needs to be a drastic reduction, but I do support a gradual decrease.

I would stimulate job creatio in the private sector by shif ing toward a tax system the encourages investment. W need better apprentices! and training programs.



To maintain our economic viability as a nation.

I'm not too alarmed at the deficit. I think we can handle the current level.

I think we need to revamp ou unemployment insurance pre gram to channel funds im> job creation. I would involvi business and labor in a nev economic development boa-' to help set goals and plan th future.



Restoring the sense that government is the servant of the people. That means respecting the public desire for an end to the arms race, for a healthy economy, fulfilling jobs, a sensible tax system and the defeat of the Tories.

Yes, by a combination of economic growth and a rearrangement of spending and consolidating various support programs through a guaranteed annual income. It cannot be reduced by Tory-style budget cutting.

The development of sma* business is a key to creatine permanent jobs. Govemmew should make the tax system more favorable to investors ensure our workers have needed skills and promote sectors with growth potential.



I would appoint a woman deputy prime minister in charge of renewable resources—forestry, fisheries and agriculture.

Not until everyone is back at work. I would be prepared to live with a temporary increase to fight unemployment.

I would fix the level of interest rates to restore business conti dence. I would implement an agri-food strategy that could provide 350,000 new jobs by 1990. And I would launch a massive retraining program for workers.

Though they were often vague on details, policy forums during the campaign forced the candidates to state their views on key issues

low would you reduce inflicts between Ottawa nd the provinces?

Do you favor freer trade with the United States?

Would you maintain all Canada's universal social programs?

What is your position on capital punishment?

y understanding the proveces' priorities better and by flowing them room, within leir own jurisdiction, to exerise their legitimate powers.

ome conflict is inevitable. I ave demonstrated that I am ¡ conciliator but I will not buy >eace at any cost. In the final inalysis the national interest is »aramount.

propose a new national ecolomic summit bringing together all levels of governnent, plus business and labor, 3 establish national economic goals through co-operation, ■sot confrontation.

Yes. Almost 75 per cent of our trade with the United States is already tariff-free, but we should pursue further sectoral agreements.

I am for free trade in principle, but when our trading partners use quotas and nontariff barriers, we have to fight with the same weapons.

The federal government should ensure that regional interests are engaged fully in our national governing institutions.

The federal government must be stronger. We've dealt off far too much of our financial capability to the provinces.

Only in selected sectors. There are many dangers in putting all our eggs in the American basket.

I do not think free trade with the United States would be tremendously helpful. Sectoral free trade should be approached very, very carefully.

By implementing policies that recognize regional diversity as a source of strength, by working with the province so ,vhat their policies complement major federal initiatives and through reform of the House, such as free votes.

I will avoid confrontation, if possible, but I will not back down on issues. The key is always a fair but firm hand in Ottawa to establish minimum standards of excellence.

It might be worth examining on a sectoral basis, but not as a general principle.

I am committed to the principle of universality for all existing programs.

The traditional safety net of universality has to remain.

Yes, unequivocally.

Personally, I oppose it and would not want to reopen the debate in Parliament.

I oppose it and would not wish to reopen the debate in Parliament.

Yes, I think our security nets have proved how good and useful they are during the recent recession.

Canada's prosperity and Canadian jobs depend on international trade. Trade liberalization is in our self-interest. As an initial step I would pursue the negotiation of sectoral free trade with the United States.

The United States is a great free-trading nation until something happens to it, then it rushes immediately for controls. Any action taken toward freer trade must be through bilateral agreement.

Yes. There is no need to reexamine the universality of our social programs.

Medicare and support for the elderly should be universal and other income support programs should be restructured. My recommended guaranteed annual income would allocate scarce resources more effectively.

I personally oppose it and will do everything possible to prevent its reinstitution. But members of Parliament must be allowed to vote freely.

I personally oppose it but would allow a free vote in Parliament.

I'm against it and I see no need to reopen the debate in Parliament.

I would most certainly maintain all our universal social programs.

While I abhor capital punishment, if it could be satisfactorily demonstrated to be an effective deterrent I would reconsider the issue in light of that evidence, while studying the effectiveness of other possible deterrents.

The problem of lawlessness will not be solved by the taking of lives. I have never made it a secret that I am against capital punishment. I would allow a free vote in Parliament on this question.