Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. His depth of knowledge on economic issues is obviously only exceeded by his height.
The fact is that economic policy takes years to have meaningful impacts. I cannot explain an international phenomenon. For instance, the U.K. is enjoying one of the most unprecedented levels of economic growth as a direct result of Conservative policy. Unfortunately Conservatives simply try to help by providing sound economic policy but sometimes the benefit falls to a government that has failed to catch on to implementing sound economic policy. It takes years of vision to put in place the fundamentals for an economy to grow.
I was not referring to my own opinion about this issue. I was quoting The Economist , a pretty good magazine, which costs about $172 a year to subscribe. It is to be considered. If I felt the Conservative Party of Canada could influence the opinion of The Economist , that would be considerable for the fifth party, which would also bode well for where we will be in four years, which I suggest will be the side the hon. member is currently sitting on. The Economist magazine stated specifically that much of the credit for deficit reduction goes to the passage of time and to the successful reforms implemented earlier in the decade. It was not early in the decade in 1984. It was early in the decade of the 1990s.
The fiscal drag has been offset by falling interest rates and record exports boosted by an undervalued Canadian dollar to a consistently prosperous America. I would like to know where the hon. member stood at that pivotal time in Canadian history on such issues as free trade.
The government now talks glowingly about Liberalized trade. One day it signs an agreement with Chile. Another day it is one with Israel. However it still does not bring down interprovincial trade barriers within Canada.
When the members opposite speak about consultation, who benefits from consultation around the country, listening to Canadian taxpayers spending copious quantities of quid and then ultimately implementing policies completely opposite to those expressed by Canadians? Perhaps it would have been better not to have done that. Maybe we could have invested that money to pay off the debt or reduce taxes.
Don Blenkarn as finance committee chair actually consulted with and listened to Canadians. The Conservative government had enough vision to implement the views of Canadians and to ensure those views were reflected in policy which led to the more recent unprecedented growth of the Canadian economy.
Reference was made to payroll taxes. There are times when payroll taxes need to be increased, for instance during times of recession when the economy needed sufficient EI funds. There are times when it is required.
Liberals do not recognize it, but Keynes was actually right in terms of government spending during times of recession to bring a country out of a recession. If they listened to Keynes a little further—they probably did not get to that chapter—Keynes also advocated paying down the debt when the economy was growing. Now is the time to pay down the debt.
I may have introduced the member to some facts he was not previously introduced to when I told him the Conservative government reduced income taxes as a percentage of GDP from 14% to 13% between the years of 1989 to 1993, only to see them hiked under the Liberal government since 1993.
Let us be perfectly clear. We created the environment which led to a fiscal dividend. We are very proud of that contribution. We are looking forward in four years to adding further to Canadians competitiveness by being on the government side of the House.