Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about a philosophy of governing today. The philosophy is called incrementalism. I want to relate this philosophy to the social policy review.
To illustrate, I want to tell members a story. I know how they enjoy a good relevant story. There was a woman who wanted to buy a chicken so she went into a country store where the store owner had a big sign that offered lots of chickens for sale.
The store owner did not tell the lady that he really only had one scrawny chicken left at the back of the store. He offered to catch one of his many chickens and went back into the chicken coop. When he got there he banged a few walls, made some clucking noises and came back with his only chicken.
"That will be $5. Thank you very much". The lady answered: "That chicken looks a little thin. Do you think I could have a different one?" The merchant did not know quite what to do but he was a fellow with a fair bit of gall and a lot of nerve so he kept that stiff upper lip and went back into the coop.
He raised some dust and he hit a few more walls. He made some more clucking noises. He fluffed up the chicken's feathers, turned it around on the plate, took it back out to the lady and said: "That will be $10, please". The lady said: "I don't know. That one looks a little thin, too. I think I better take them both".
This is a great analogy to this social policy review that we are going through.
The Liberals during the last election made a great many promises. They said: "We have many chickens in our coops. In fact, all it will cost you is the election. Trust us. Vote us in and we will bring back your chicken". In fact, on October 10 last year the Globe and Mail quoted the Prime Minister as saying: ``Let me win the election and after that you come and ask me questions about how I will run the government''.
The poor taxpayer bought into the government claims. The taxpayer then said: "Okay, now we have elected you. Just go back into your coop and bring out a nice chicken for us. Let us see what you have". The minister went away and consulted with special interest groups, with his political friends and I suppose some other people and came back with a chicken for the taxpayer. This chicken has a name. Its name is "Agenda: Jobs and Growth". It is a book full of suggestions but it does not have any plans. It especially has no costing to its vague proposals.
Canadians took one look at this poor excuse for a chicken and said: "This is one mighty scrawny chicken. There is no meat on it. How are Canadians possibly going to get a meal from this chicken"?
Allow me to quote what some Canadians have actually said. The Vanier Institute on the Family said: "It does not show an awful lot of commitment by the government at this time to any one of the options put forth". The Caledon Institute of Social Policy said: "It is on the whole thin on specifics".
The Toronto Star said: ``It is surprisingly timid, vague and short of essential information. It does not contain a single proposal that could be described as original or daring''. The paper was panned by the premiers of B.C. and Saskatchewan and endorsed by only one lonely premier. The premier of Ontario called it an insult.
The chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce said: "It is a bit of a pig in a poke". Apparently, he likes the pork analogy better than he likes my chicken story.
Canadians have had a good look at this chicken now. As the poll on the weekend showed, they like the general idea of cutbacks, but they want to see some more specifics.
However the store owner, the Minister of Human Resources Development, has the same kind of gall as that other store owner. He is going to say: "Okay, another chicken you want, another chicken you will get". He will go back into his chicken coop, make some more political noise, fluff up the feathers of his poor old chicken and bring it out for the taxpayer to see. Do you know what? It will be the same old chicken only it will cost more through higher taxes.
The Liberals delayed this social policy review for nine months before bringing it out. They finally brought it forward and it says virtually nothing. Why are we surprised? It is not the Liberal way to say anything. It is the Liberal way to delay, to study, to talk and to talk and after much fanfare raise the taxes and take the tiniest baby steps toward any kind of resolution of all the problems we are currently experiencing.
I want members to know something. Initially, some taxpayers will accept the government's tiny incremental solutions because at least there is the appearance of change. It is only when taxpayers realize that they need both chickens for their pot, specific plans for social policy change and action on the debt and deficit, that the government will be exposed for what it really is.
What will the minister say when the bluff is called? He will be speechless. It is hard to imagine but I think he will be speechless. He will stand there with empty hands and empty pockets and say: "I'm sorry. All along we only had that one scrawny chicken. The real chicken is a skinny one. We have nothing to deal with the debt and deficit that is in fact destroying our social programs".
The Liberal government has ruled this country for generations. It has always proceeded in these careful half-step fashions. Mackenzie King was a classic Liberal. His words "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" are a perfect example of a Liberal statement. Liberals balance artfully on the fence, careful not too move too fast, careful not to offend. But while the Liberals sit and think and be careful, problems are building up like floodwaters behind the dam.
What are these problems? Examples are everywhere. Serious changes are required in the UI system, changes that Reformers have advocated for some years now. Restoring UI to a self-sustaining insurance type program, funded, controlled and administered by the workers and employers who use it.
For example, there is the new health care review. Change was promised a year ago, promised again in the spring, promised again this fall by a Prime Minister who last week found out that the provinces, health care's largest player, the player that Reformers say should have even more freedom to administer health care programs, will not even participate in this latest $12 million study. Imagine, $12 million and 22 more people to study and review the system for another year. Health care will be close to death by that time.
This goes across the board. The Minister of Public Service Renewal gave a speech a year ago telling the public service that change is coming, but do not worry we are still reviewing and studying. The GST changes are still under review. Tax reform is needed but under review. The $58 million royal commission on aboriginal peoples is delayed for another six months.
If there is no action in our year old social programs a year from now they will be in a far worse situation even if the economy continues to do well. Our debt will have grown in a year by another $40 billion. The likelihood that all will go as planned is small. Life is never ideal. We are in a position of tremendous risk.
All it would take is a slight downturn in the economy, a small jump in the interest rates, to decimate our social programs instead of managing the change now in an orderly fashion.
The government often accuses Reform of a lack of compassion, for wanting to act now on social program reform. Is it really a show of compassion to add another $100 billion of debt on to the country? Is it truly compassionate to force working Canadians to pay more and more of their pay cheques in taxes funnelled to foreigners, money for which they will never receive any kind of a spinoff however indirect, to force more and more jobs out of the economy as Canada becomes less and less competitive because of its debt, to gradually whittle away our civil service and our social programs because more and more must go to pay the interest?
The bank does not care if you have good food on your table as long as you are able to pay your mortgage. In the same way the world investment community could not care less if Canada has any social programs or government jobs or anything else, period, as long as we pay the interest on our debt.
Liberal incrementalism hurts Canadians and that is why Reform rejects their course of action. It is an act of compassion to swallow the tough medicine right now, to make the changes now from further reliance on the federal government and to greater rewards for personal initiatives, for a greater reliance on family ties and on local institutions in our communities, and then finally the personal freedom that can only come from a lower level of taxation.
That is why Reform says we need to balance the budget during the term of this Parliament. That is what we call tough love for our country.
What used to be a clear governing philosophy of incrementalism has even changed of late. Andrew Coyne of the Globe and Mail says of this government's proposals: ``Behind the generalities lurks a government that is scared to death. It is not the fear that inspires but the fear that transfixes the deadly paralysis of the rabbit in the cobra's gaze''.
I believe the Liberals are no longer even incrementalists. They are simply afraid to move, paralysed by problems on the one hand and the titillations of power on the other.
I suggest that it is time to have courage and seize the opportunity. I would like to quote a bit of Shakespeare just to lighten the atmosphere. It goes like this and it is familiar. I am sure Mr. Speaker knows it by heart. It states:
There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken in the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves Or lose our ventures.
The great floodtide of opportunity is flowing. The time to ride its crest is now. Change will never be easier than today but three more years of discussion papers and reviews may totally ruin our social system.
Liberals will forever regret passing up the golden opportunity to address these problems in last year's federal budget. They will regret passing up today's golden opportunity of economic growth and their party may well break up if the economy founders on the debt. Then a gale force wind will sweep political change over this land and the Reform Party, fully matured and mindful of the long term interests of the country, will be there to pick up the pieces and preserve the essentials of our social safety net.