Yes, I will side bet you any time, any amount you want.
We believe that like a house Canada is currently mortgaged to the tune of $531 billion. Every year the government borrows about $44 billion more to pay for things we cannot afford. The interest payments on this mortgage alone eat up one-third of our tax dollars and have led to increases in the tax burdens on Canadians and less money for social programs and left their economic fate in the hands of foreign creditors.
The time has come to start getting the books in order today. Pay down this mortgage and live in a home that Canadians can afford and enjoy.
Through you, Madam Speaker, to the members of the Liberal Party, I would like to take a moment to provide the building plan for that home. Start by laying out a foundation of reasonable spending, setting priorities on what is truly important. On top of this build the four strong walls of fair taxation, direct democracy, institutional reform and equal rights. Finally, protect all those inside the house with a roof of efficient and effective social programs and stop wasting money on needless frills like gold plated pensions, parliamentary travel, better known as MP tourism, and subsidies for business and special interest groups. I wonder what the Prime Minister and his group of premiers and his whole hoard of bureaucrats going to China will bring back in terms of dollars and cents on a business deal for this country.
The benefits of us owning a mortgage free home includes lower taxes, an improved economic climate and secure social programs. If the Liberal contractors cannot budget and build such a home, the Reform Party will.
We believe it is unfair to finance current programs at the expense of future generations, as mentioned by my colleague from Calgary North. The time has come for Canada's social programs to be financially self-sustainable.
We should democratize UI by having it administered by the employers and employees who finance it. Tighten the rules for UI qualifications so that the program reflects its original purpose as a temporary safety net for those who lose their jobs. Provide incentives to help people become less dependent on government. If UI and welfare equal minimum wage, why should people work?
Also the Reform party believes that our social program should be designed to eliminate all duplication of administration between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Not enough money is getting to the truly needy. I witnessed that personally on the campaign trail during the last election. I met individuals who had legitimate cases. Seniors who had a $55 or $75 cheque said: "This has to last me for a month". Yet they were refused or unable to obtain assistance because of the red tape while seasonal workers across Canada who earn $55,000 or more are using it to pad their incomes. This must stop.
Social programs should be based on family or household income and administered through the tax system. Old age security, for example, is not even mentioned. It costs $20 billion per year and is not funded out of anybody's premiums. It is given to everyone who turns 65 regardless of whether they need it or not. I have not paid one cent toward that program. I will become 65 in 15 years and I will get an automatic $365 per month. I do not know if I deserve that if I make more than $54,000 a year.
Social programs should be fair to all regions of the country and treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live. The Canada assistance plan for example costs $8.2 billion per year and matches provincial spending on welfare for the have not provinces.
What I am going to say in the following sounds tough, but we have to deal with the reality that if you cannot make your region economically viable in any way, shape or form, then taxpayers should not be asked to pay the bill. The money just is not there.
Before we get to that extreme we propose that the federal government decentralize the CAP by passing equivalent tax room to the provinces and let those closer to the provinces decide how the money should be spent. In earlier times people dealing with particular issues in a region were the people who knew the local conditions best. They knew which of their neighbours needed help most. Issues could be dealt with quickly and responsibly and people were directly familiar with their own budget constraints.
Perhaps it is time to push government programs and services closer to the people by placing them under the jurisdiction of the lowest level of government possible. Set basic federal standards, make it portable, make it accessible and give the provinces more flexibility in managing their own affairs. Maybe then we will see more grassroots or local solutions with effective results for the have not provinces.
A social dilemma has been created by the misapplication by this government and the Conservative government of the Keynesian economic theory. In a recession it is fine to borrow to stimulate the economy. In good times you have to pay back what you have borrowed. These past two governments have failed to do that. It is past time for governments to recognize the second half of that theory and start paying down the debt.
Not one member across the floor or in the separatists ranks has like us refused to take the MP pension. Nowhere in the report of the Minister of Human Resources does it say that MPs will lead by example and make the sacrifices that are being asked of all other Canadians. Not one minister has had the courage to go into his department and tell non performing employees: "You are fired" to old school bureaucrats who play the political game. But those bureaucrats have forgotten who they work for, the taxpayers.
If the government really wants to help Canadians help themselves then it should leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it. Taxpayers know how to spend and invest their money much better than the government. Do not tax people and redistribute the money. Leave it at the source. If people are allowed to keep the money they earn they would not need social programs from the government.
A 10 per cent cut for all families earning under $60,000 would leave more money for food, shelter and clothing and that should be the very objective of social programs.
If the government and the finance minister had the political will and the business acumen to lower overall spending, they could easily lower taxes. The handling costs of sending money to Ottawa for bureaucrats to redistribute back to the people as they see fit basically takes 30 to 35 per cent of the moneys out of the programs. This is an enormous impact on the efficiency of the programs.
Objectivity is required in the matter of social reform, not partisan politics as is being played out by the Minister of Human Resources Development.