Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-54, something we as Reformers would like to address in an enormous way and revamp.
The bill is to streamline OAS, CPP and UIC systems. It is essentially a housekeeping bill. I hope these changes will result in increased efficiency and increased targeting for those who most need it, decreased expenditures and less abuse in the system, something we in the Reform Party stand for very strongly. However, given the usual situation with this and previous governments, I am very doubtful that will happen.
Let me give some examples. The Liberal proposals in the bill are simply not financially sustainable. In 15 years or less, spending on social programs plus interest will consume 100 per cent of all federal revenues. I will get back to that a bit later.
The proposals in the bill do not address the long term fiscal reality of declining dollars to spend on social programs and the dramatic increase in the numbers of seniors expected in the next 15 years. This mindset occurs on just about every committee the Liberal Party has chaired. Never are the ideas of how we are going to pay for all the programs we ask for ever addressed in the majority of committees that we sit on.
The Liberal proposals are not targeted to the truly needy. The Liberal proposals do not eliminate the duplication between various levels of government, a logical choice where we could officially cut costs to provide more money for other programs and to decreasing the deficit and the debt.
We in this party support the following options proposed in the minister's paper, I must admit: moving the UI system closer to a true insurance program; starting to target assistance to those most in need; a voucher system for students to replace post-secondary education; an income contingent repayment plan for student loans which would put it on the legs of financial and
fiscal sustainability; and placing more responsibility on the province for welfare programs. The problem and the single most important and fundamental threat to social programs is continued deficit spending by this and previous governments.
We have been accused in this party of being the slash and burn party that does not care about the poor, the dispossessed, the wronged, and those in the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds. That is wrong. That is a fallacy that continues to exist in the public's mind. I will try to show the House, the government and the public what we really stand for and to put forth the only solution that will rectify these problems and save social programs for those who truly need them.
Currently the debt and the interest payments are providing less money for social programs. I will explain how this happens. It will ultimately result in the collapse of all the programs because there simply will be no money for them. Who will that hurt? That will hurt those who are most needy.
The problem, as I said before, is that as the debt increases the amount of interest on it increases. Currently a quarter of all government revenues is paid purely on interest. This serves no function whatsoever. A quarter goes to spending on government services and a half to social spending.
Social spending is almost $80 billion. As interest payments go up one or two things happen: they can either take away from social spending or other programs or they can tax more, which is absolutely ludicrous. The people in the country are taxed to the hilt.