May 15, 1984

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West) moved:

That this House is of the opinion that the Government of Canada can manage the economy in a way that would allow us to have lower interest rates than Canada now has and that we can have greater independence in interest rate policy despite the Government's failure to meet its commitment to so manage the economy.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion, of course, speaks for itself. In connection with the motion I shall quote a statement made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was in opposition and in an election campaign. On February 10, 1980, in an interview with a reporter from the Toronto Star, he said:

It is my belief we can manage the economy in a way that would allow us to have lower interest rates than we have now and I think we can have greater independence in interest rate policy.

Our problems then were the same as they are now. As a result of eight or ten years then of poorly conceived and poorly carried out Liberal economic policies, the Canadian dollar was under great pressure, interest rates were rising and the Government that had succeeded that Liberal Government was left in that position by the Liberal Government that preceded it. Today, of course, the Liberal Government succeeded itself: there was only an eight-month interregnum. We have had the problems in a much worse form in the four and a half years that Party has been back in power. At that time, out of opposition, the present Prime Minister said that it was his belief we could manage the economy in a way that would allow us to have lower interest rates and we could have greater independence in interest rate policy.

What does the Prime Minister say now, Mr. Speaker, when he is back in power and has been for four and a half years? What the Prime Minister says now and what the Government says now is entirely different. If we look at Hansard for May 10, 1984, page 3594, we find that the Prime Minister, in response to a question posed by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), said:

I take it from the Hon. Member's line of attack that he and his Party are now prepared to concede that when the basic rate in the United States goes up, it is

impossible for Canadian rates not to go up ... we cannot divorce ourselves from the American money markets.

That is the statement of the Prime Minister after he fooled the Canadian people, got back into power and has held power for the last four and a half years. He takes the position that when the basic rate in the United States goes up it is impossible for Canadian rates to do anything else.

At page 3592 of Hansard we find the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) giving that line as well in response to a question from the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). The Minister of Finance said:

-but the Hon. Member opposite should understand that interest rates in Canada are a direct reflection of interest rates in the United States.

We have all heard the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and all the other lackeys of the Government mouth the same line time after time in the last four and a half years. The Liberals say one thing to get into power, but once they are in power they take an entirely different line.

In passing, I might refer to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) who on February 7, 1980, on City TV, when asked: "Would you lower interest rates?", said: "Yes, I would". When asked: "Would you be prepared to resign your seat if the Government did not carry through on that policy?", he replied: "Yes, I would".

O)

Of course, we also know that interest rates rose from 14 per cent to 22.5 per cent during that period of this Government, but the President of the Treasury Board never once offered to resign his seat, much less resigned it.

I visited India as part of a parliamentary group two weeks ago. In that country they still have the class known as the "untouchables". In Canada we have a government which should be called the "unspeakable"-unspeakable because of the deceptions it practised on the people of Canada before it came to power and the disappointments it has offered them ever since.

Where is the Minister of Finance today? He is out job hunting. In the Toronto Daily Star of May 14, an article appeared entitled "Lalonde heading for France to seek interest-rate relief-and a new job".

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen

Liberal

Mr. Cullen:

You're a candid camera, John.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

We are not allowed to show in this Chamber that the Minister is looking for a new job, according to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). The so-called best and the brightest of this Government, the present Minister of Finance, is supposed to be their saviour.

May 15, 1984

Supply

What is he doing? He has bailed out with parachute half open on his way to Paris with his campaign manager, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), looking for a job as Secretary General of the OECD. The Prime Minister weeps because we do not support his quest. Of course we do not support his quest. Why should that record of incompetence and economic failure be foisted on the 24 nations which comprise the OECD? Why should we support the present Minister of Finance of Canada who now attempts to bail out, leaving 1.5 million unemployed people behind in Canada? Of course we do not support this nomination for that position, nor does the United States of America support it. Why not? It is because they know that the present Minister of Finance was a leader of the interventionism of the Government in the energy sector of this country. He along with the President of the Treasury Board was the ferocious guardian of FIRA from 1980 to 1983 which did so much damage here in Canada.

The Minister is headed for France to seek interest rate relief and a new job. How does he want to get interest rate relief? He wants to blame everything on the United States of America. That is his excuse.

In connection with this motion, we agree that there is no easy, overnight solution to bring down interest rates, but we are also of the opinion that the economy can be managed in a way which will allow us to have lower interest rates than we now have and which would allow us to have greater independence in interest rate policy. This will take time. The results of 10 years to 15 years of incompetence and economic mismanagement cannot be overcome in a day or a week or a month. Perhaps it will take six months or longer to reverse the woeful lack of confidence which now exists in the world and in Canada with respect to our economic management. It will take time to reassure Canadian and foreign investors that sensible government and sensible policies have returned.

In February, 1980, when the Prime Minister made that statement, the Canadian dollar was worth 87.30 cents in terms of the U.S. dollar, the prime interest rate was at 14 per cent and inflation was at 9.5 per cent, so that real interest rates were about 4.5 per cent. The Canadian interest rate was 1.5 per cent less than the U.S. interest rate. Today the Canadian prime interest rate is one-half of a percentage point less; it is 12 per cent compared with 12.5 per cent in the United States. However, today the Canadian dollar is worth roughly 77 cents in terms of the U.S. dollar. It has depreciated in value over those four years. I do not have the calculation of the percentage decrease, but it has decreased by over 10 cents in terms of U.S. funds. Our assets in Canada today are worth considerably less than they were in February, 1980, as a result of the economic maladministration of the Government.

In the interim we have had interest rates of 22.75 per cent in this country. The lowest interest rate we have had since this Government has been back in office for the last four and one-half years has been 11 per cent. It is now up to 12 per cent and will be going up again. The inflation rate is 4.7 per cent. Therefore, the real rate of interest is 7.3 per cent. That indicates the loss of confidence in this country and in this

Government; the fact that the real interest rate today is 7.3 per cent whereas four years ago it was 4.5 per cent. There is no confidence.

Why is there no confidence in this Government by those who have money to invest or by anyone else? The figures show it. There were 360,000 unemployed in 1968, 4.5 per cent. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) calls that full employment. We had that when the Liberals came to power in 1968. When the Government came back into power in 1980, there were 967,000 people unemployed, an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent. How good that sounds now! In April, 1984 the unemployment rate was 11.4 per cent. The number officially unemployed was 1,468,000. That record will show why there is no confidence in this Government or its economic stewardship.

Let me give the figures for the deficits we have had over those same years. In the 11 years from 1972-73 to 1982-83, the Government's deficits totalled $100.7 billion. The deficit started at $999 million. It increased every year except the year in which we were in power for eight months. In 1979-80, the deficit decreased from $12.2 billion to $11.4 billion. It started back up in 1980-81, totalling $12.6 billion. In those 11 years total Government deficits were $100.7 billion. Last year it was $31.4 billion. This year it is estimated it will be $29.6 billion. The Minister says that the deficits for last year, this year and the next three years will total $142.2 billion. In five years they will exceed by one and one-half times what they were in the previous 11 years.

We are told by the Minister that in the next five years he will have to go to the public markets to borrow $114 billion to help meet these debts, of which $109.1 billion will be used to pay interest debt charges alone. That is why the Canadian dollar is floundering. That is why there is no confidence. That is why the dollar is under pressure. We will have to borrow $114 billion for last year, this year and the next three years, and of that, $109 billion will be to pay interest on the debt alone.

We now borrow huge sums just to pay the interest on the debt. That is why there is no confidence. That is why we are in such economic trouble. That is living proof that greater and greater deficits are not the solution to our employment problems. They are not the solution to economic growth. They are causing our unemployment, the failure in economic growth and the weakness of the dollar. Until these ever-increasing deficits are corrected, this country has no economic hope.

Let us look at the warning from the Bank of Canada on March 20, 1980. This is reported in The Globe and Mail. The Bank of Canada warned the federal Government that its large fiscal deficit is discouraging business investments and holding back productivity gains in Canada. I quote from the article:

"The fiscal deficits absorbed savings that could otherwise be channelled by financial markets into financing the expansion of plant and equipment", the central bank said in its annual report.

In March, 1980 the deficit was $12.6 billion for that financial year, and that was the warning issued by the Bank of

May 15, 1984

Canada. Today the deficit is double that. Last year it was almost triple that amount. Therefore, the warning given on March 20, 1980 is far outdone by what has happened since.

Just in passing, what happened once the Government was elected? I will give several brief quotations. On May 9, 1981, the then Minister of Finance, the present Deputy Prime Minister, had this advice:

-the Government would not bail out individuals facing mortgage renewals or first-time home buyers trapped by circumstances.

He said that it would be wrong for him to give advice to individuals as to how to manage their affairs. This was said after the interest rate had gone up to 18 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Of course, once that gentleman was in power, he could not give advice to mortgage holders and others as to what they should do in view of the higher interest rates.

What did that same Minister, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, say on November 21, 1980, not six months after the election and after the Liberal Party had said: "Vote Liberal and oil prices will come down"? As reported in the Montreal Gazette, he said:

Canadians will have to accept a lower standard of living to adjust to the higher energy prices-

That is the attitude of this Government once it has been elected and will be in power for five years. The advice it gave after oil prices went up is that Canadians would have to accept a lower standard of living to adjust to higher energy prices.

Finally, the same Minister, on December 12, 1980, just six or nine months after the Prime Minister had said we could be independent of U.S. interest rates, said as reported by The Globe and Mail of December 12, 1980:

Canada has little control over interest rates, which have jumped 39 per cent since the federal Budget was introduced on Oct. 28, but thanks to steps taken by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Canadian rates are not locked to U.S. rates, he said.

He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. Either Canada has control over interest rates and it therefore can take some of the independent actions which he says were being taken, or it has not.

In that article the Minister is reported as saying that Canadian rates are not locked to U.S. rates. Today the Minister of State for Finance, following his master the Minister of Finance, says: "Yes, of course we are locked to U.S. interest rates". Yes, we are locked to U.S. interest rates, Mr. Speaker, because of the incompetence, lack of caring and imbecilic economic policies of the Government.

At the moment we are locked into U.S. interest rates. The question to be asked is whether or not we can unlock ourselves. Can we free ourselves? Can Samson break the chains? I say yes. We can break the chains of this dependency if we put into office a government that is going to change this tragic march toward ever and ever greater deficits. That is the only way it can be done, Mr. Speaker.

The situation cannot be changed through a refurbished Liberal Party, a Liberal Party that is like a boa constrictor

Supply

changing its skin. Mr. Turner is now in charge of the skinchanging operation for the Liberal Party. He is in charge of making the Party look different. We are told that the Trudeau caterpillar must be turned into the Turner butterfly so that the Party will have a new look. It does not matter what new look it has because, as I have just shown, we cannot believe a word members of the Liberal Party in this country say.

The net debt of the country at the end of March, 1984 was $150.9 billion, 38 per cent of the GNP. It will be $181 billion at the end of this year. Every Liberal Minister of Finance for the last 12 years has promised to reduce the debt. On June 28, 1982 the present Secretary of State for External Affairs said it all in his Budget Speech. I shall read from that speech as reported on page 18883 of Hansard:

Some say the Government should print more money. Others say it should let the deficit rip.

But that would fail miserably. Inflation and unemployment would get worse. Interest rates would rise even more. Canada would price itself out of world markets. Recovery would be postponed.

That was a painting of the consequences of allowing the deficit to go up. What did the Minister do? He let the deficit go up. He let the deficit rip and what he said would happen did in fact happen.

What else should we look at with alarm, Mr. Speaker? The weakness of the Canadian dollar is caused not only by the Government's internal deficits but by our external borrowing and our capital outflow. Equity grade capital is leaving the country and is being replaced by high-cost hard currency debt market borrowing abroad. This has been accompanied by a tremendous increase in the debt service burden of the country.

Every year since 1977, large capital outflows have made imperative Canada's hard currency borrowing abroad. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in the period 1977 to 1983 our cumulative current account deficit was $16.3 billion but our capital outflow or money that left the country totalled $50.9 billion so that we needed foreign borrowings of over $65 billion?

That is what has placed the downward pressure on our exchange rate and caused us to have huge foreign borrowings and high interest rates. We are losing low-cost equity capital. It is being replaced by high-cost debt borrowing. Let me cite the figures. In 1973 Canada has an external debt of $16.4 billion, which was 13 per cent of the GNP and 53 per cent of our exports. Today we have an external debt of $127.4 billion, which amounts to 33 per cent of our GNP and 118 per cent of our exports in any one year. During that period we have had capital outflows of $2.6 billion in 1977, $5.3 billion in 1978, $4.4 billion in 1979, $3.8 billion in 1980, $20.3 billion in 1981, $5.6 billion in 1982 and $8.9 billion in 1983. That is because of the hostility the Government has toward the investor, private and domestic. That is why this capital has left Canada.

Our interest payments outside of Canada have gone from less than $2 billion in 1973, which was about 5 per cent of our export earnings, to over $14 billion last year, which was about

May 15, 1984

Supply

13 per cent of our export earnings. That is why the dollar is under pressure and its value is down to 77 cents. That, in turn, is why we have the high interest rates which are choking off our economic recovery and putting Canadians in the kind of dilemma that the IMF described in its report, "Fiscal Policy in Major Industrial Countries", which was released this month.

The IMF pointed out the position of Canada in relation to the current value of national output. By far, the largest interest payments are those paid by Italy and Canada, equivalent respectively to about 9 per cent and 7 per cent of GDP. In the United States it is only 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent; the United Kingdom is the same. It is about 3 per cent in France and the Federal Republic of Germany. The IMF states that the presence of such large and intractable budgetary costs is a major obstacle to current efforts of most national authorities to reduce their fiscal deficits. The IMF says that Canada and the other industrial countries have an unwelcome set of options: one, to increase revenue sufficiently to cover the greatly expanded interest payments; two, to make equivalent downward adjustments in other types of public expenditure; or three, to permit the additional interest charges to be pyramided into faster growth of debt in the potentially vicious cycle of interaction between interest expenditure and indebtedness.

The third option is what this country has chosen for the 4.5 years of this regime and for the years from 1972-73 onward. The Government is permitting additional interest charges to pyramid into faster growth of debt in a vicious cycle of interaction between interest expenditure and indebtedness.

How do we know that? We know that simply by looking at the interest costs of the Government. Those interest costs this year will be over $20 billion-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired. He may have more time in which to make his remarks during the ten-minute question and answer period which is provided. Any questions?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

If there is consent, could I finish my remarks?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Is there consent for the Hon. Member to terminate his remarks?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a large subject and difficult to cover in 20 minutes. I will simply refer to the public debt charges. This year they will be $20.3 billion, which is 20.8 per cent of the spending of the federal Government on public debt charges alone. The Minister tells us that it will increase over the next three years to $24.7 billion in 1987-88, or 21.4 per cent of all government spending. Of course, that estimate is certainly far too low. If we have to spend 21 per cent of all revenue on interest, we cannot spend it on improving conditions for ordinary Canadians, we cannot spend it on improving social programs, and we cannot spend it on economic development. That is the dilemma in which this Government has now placed us.

In concluding, which unfortunately I must do quickly, what is the solution? I would like to speak for 20 minutes on the solution. The solution is the reversal of the economic approaches taken by the Government over the last 10 or 12 years in particular. We must overcome the deficit problem, which will certainly take, Mr. Speaker, four years or five years, I would think, by a variety of measures both on the revenue side and on the spending side. There must be tighter control of spending. There must be an increase of revenue. We must cease to intervene, as the Government has done, in the private side of the economy by welcoming foreign and domestic capital. FIRA, Mr. Speaker, should not be the Foreign Investment Review Agency. That implies that we do not want the foreign capital and do not need it, when today that is just what we need if we are going to have economic growth and more jobs. I suggest a change of name to the "Foreign Investment Reception Agency". Let us make it plain that we want to receive foreign investment, although there are certain areas where we may not want the foreign investment to go.

We must have privatization wherever possible; clarification of our own economic position, vis-a-vis the United States; a tremendous emphasis on export trade, and a restoration of confidence to Canadian investors. These are the people who are moving their money out and creating pressure on the dollar. Canadians who feel unwelcome to invest in their own country have been moving sums of capital out these last three years or four years in particular. We must make them feel welcome again, show them that we have a government which is going to operate on proper economic principles. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must have federal-provincial co-operation and partnership, not the kind of cold war and civil war which we have had in the last number of years.

This is not just a Conservative position, Mr. Speaker. It is a position which is adopted by half the candidates in the present Liberal leadership campaign. Mr. John Turner, the likely winner of course, wants to cut the deficit by $15 billion by streamlining social programs, eliminating redundant services and running a more efficient bureaucracy. He has lacked specificity. No one can persuade this gentleman to give us more details on how he is going to do it, so specificity is not his long suit. However, his intentions are good. His policies are ours. He would bring in, Mr. Speaker, a budget with the same principles as the Crosbie Budget of December, 1979 which this Government now regrets ever having interfered with because that was the start of the movement towards the pitiful economic position in which we now find ourselves.

An increase of 1 per cent in interest rates adds $885 million to the government debt charges. That is how important the interest rate increases are to our own Government.

I thank the House for allowing me several extra minutes, and in conclusion I say that we in this Party are of the opinion that the Government can manage the economy in a way which will allow us to have lower interest rates, that we can have greater independence in interest rate policy. We decry the

May 15, 1984

failure of the Government to meet that commitment. That was a commitment made by the Prime Minister who has reversed himself and swallowed himself, as he has done so often in the last four and a half years, with the help of all the Liberal leadership candidates who are now all out swallowing themselves as well.

We believe that can be done. It will not be easy, Mr. Speaker, but we can do it. If we had not been interrupted by a selfish, grasping Liberal Party, helped by its unindicted co-conspirators, the New Democratic Party, in December of 1979, we would have done it and Canada today would be that much better off than it is now.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any questions or comments relating to the remarks of the hon. gentleman?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
NDP

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse

New Democratic Party

Mr. Althouse:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member rightly accused some of the Liberal leadership candidates of lacking specificity in their solutions to the economic problems. The second item in the Hon. Member's program to reverse government policy was that there would have to be an increase in revenues which, 1 understand, means an increase in the amount of taxes collected.

I would like the Hon. Member to be a little more specific now and to tell us whether he is indeed talking about increasing taxes. If he is simply making a vague reference to increasing the size of the economy, could he tell us how he intends to approach that particular problem so that we can, in fact, have increased revenues? Where is the Hon. Member going to get the increased revenues? By which method?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

I tried to explain in my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, that one would have to look both at the expenditure side and the revenue side. The New Democratic Party always advocates tax increases. As a matter of fact, in this House in recent days I have heard the hon. gentleman's Party urging a speculator's tax, whatever a speculator's tax is. If there is such a thing as a speculator's tax, I suppose that could be looked at. However, the kind of revenue increases which we prefer to think of are the kind which will come naturally and inexorably from a better Government which gives confidence, which in turn results in economic growth. That will reverse the decline in revenue which we now see happening in the economy.

There may well have to be other revenue increases. One would have to be in the Government to be able to look carefully at all sources to see which would be most conducive to economic growth or the least damaging to economic growth. One would have to look to see what is the exact economic condition at the time. Are we going to be in government in a month's time? Or are we going to be in government perhaps not for another year? The hon. gentleman must remember that members of this Government can sneak and skulk in their offices around Ottawa. They do not have to call an election until March of 1985. I do not know what the economic conditions are going to be in March, 1985, although I fear they will be a lot worse than they are now.

Supply

Therefore, I cannot say now what I would do in March of 1985, not knowing the economic conditions in March of 1985. Will those Hon. Members opposite continue to cower in their offices, afraid to meet the electorate, afraid to go to an election, breaking all the parliamentary conventions, showing their lack of responsibility? Or will they call an election in June and let us take office in August? When will they choose to get out and let someone else get in? When I know the answer to that, I will tell the hon. gentleman with great specificity from where the revenue increases might come.

I am not like John Turner. John Turner knows that he is going to be in power by the middle of June. As soon as the Liberal convention is held, John Turner is anointed. The Turner butterfly takes over from the Trudeau caterpillar. He knows what the economic conditions are now. He can be asked properly and reasonably to be more specific. As a matter of fact, if the Liberal delegates were worth a darn, they would be pinning him down by asking: "What are you going to do?" They should be asking him: "What social programs are you going to streamline? What redundant services are you going to do away with? How are you going to be more efficient? You are going to be in office in June".

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

John Leslie Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Evans:

What would you do?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
NDP

Nelson Andrew Riis

New Democratic Party

Mr. Riis:

Mean and nasty things.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

And Mr. Turner knows what the economic conditions of the day are. Despite my burning desire to show more specificity, I cannot do it until I know when the hon. gentleman will call an election. Then I will be as specific as you like.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
LIB

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any further questions?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
NDP

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse

New Democratic Party

Mr. Althouse:

Mr. Speaker, I believe I am beginning to understand a slightly different meaning for the word "specificity" as a result of the Hon. Member's answer. Again, following up on an attempt to understand what "specificity" means, I wonder if the Hon. Member could clarify for us- since it was one of his criteria for reversing the current government approach-the matter of Canada-U.S. relations and restoring confidence among businessmen in Canada. That statement did not tell us very much. I wonder if the Hon. Member could take a couple of minutes to clarify and expand and, if possible, be specific as to precisely what sort of programs he is proposing to ease relations between Canada and the United States and to make businessmen feel welcome in this country. Perhaps the Hon. Member could also tell us just which areas of government policy are now causing businessmen to feel unwelcome and what sore spots exist between Canada and the United States which are hurting our economy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
PC

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Mr. Speaker, our relationship with the United States has, of course, improved a little since Mr. Hyde turned himself into Doctor Jekyll. We had the present Minister of Finance in his Mr. Hyde character role when he was Minister of Energy and brought in a so-called national energy policy

May 15, 1984

Supply

which imposed changes in the rules and taxation retroactively. That wrecked the oil and gas industry of Alberta and Saskatchewan and put this country back tremendously in the last several years. I remember in February of 1980 the Prime Minister promised to do the big projects. We have not had a bid project done since. The biggest project we have had was the elevation of Ann Cools to the Senate. That is the only big project we have had since. The oil sands or tar sands plant went out the window. The Cold Lake heavy oil project went out the window. The Labrador Hydro development went out the window. We have not had a big project since because of the NEP and these other programs.

Our relationship with the U.S. has improved a little. Mr. Speaker, when we eliminate the NDP from the House of Commons altogether in the next election, or reduce them to two or three Members, when the United States, the business world and Canadians generally know that there is no longer a possibility of a vicious coalition between the NDP, the socialist lunatic-fringe element of Canadian life, and the Liberal Party, and that we are going to be in office for five years and sensible economic policies are going to be applied, then, of course, there will be a restoration of confidence and better relationships between the U.S. and Canada. I am glad to see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is here because he knows how desirable that is. He knows how important the U.S. is to us for the marketing of fish products. He had the good sense to appoint my brother to the board of Fishery Products International Limited. He is now the interim chairman. I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries; he is almost non-partisan.

To get back to the question, I would like to see-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink
?

Mr. De Bane@

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say to the Chamber that I am very fortunate that Mr. Andrew Crosbie has accepted to act as chairman of that very important company which is going to be the engine of the fishery in Newfoundland. According to every person who works for that company, he is the most competent Newfoundlander.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 62-INTEREST RATE POLICY
Permalink

May 15, 1984