Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries that the government had better soon decide whether it is going to fish or cut bait. He should stick around; he may learn something. Here we are in 1994. We have an overtaxed worker and we have a frustrated taxpayer, all of whom depend on us to relieve them of their concerns.
I listened to the comments today. A Liberal member suggested that because they were in office the economy was growing and we were doing well. Let us imagine how the worker in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or elsewhere across the country thinks about the rhetoric in Ottawa. His pockets are empty. He is overtaxed and he is frustrated. It is abysmal that they can stand here and talk about how well we are doing.
We are not doing well, folks. We owe $40 billion. We have a debt load of $530 billion. We cannot delay any longer the implementation of a tough budget. We often talk about the baby boomers versus generation x , the next generation so labelled after us. To some extent the generation of baby boomers has been a fairly unrealistic group. We have overspent the last 20 years. Now we are whining about the fact that we have to cut. That is exactly what is going on across the way. They are whining.
We in this party have the courage to come up with a plan. That is exactly what we are doing and what we are going to proceed with. They can whine as much as they like. We are right and they are wrong. It is as simple as that. I think fish or cut bait should apply not only to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but to everyone sitting across the way.
One of the jobs I have in the Reform Party is to look at regional development grants. That is what I want to talk about today. Many of my colleagues have spoken about areas in their expertise, in their portfolios, but regional development grants are of particular interest. They represent about $1.3 billion. We are advocating the phase-out of regional development grants.
ACOA is one of them. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has a budget of about $376 million. I spoke about blueberry research the other day and a Liberal member commented. He said: "I am sick and tired of hearing anti-Atlantic Canadian comments coming from members of the Reform Party".
That is clearly not the case. Regional development grants are located in Atlantic Canada through an organization called ACOA, in western Canada through an organization called West-
ern Economic Diversification, and in Quebec through an organization called FORD-Quebec. FORD-Quebec has a budget of $437 million each year of taxpayers' dollars to give out in its area and Western Economic Diversification has $452 million.
A taxpayer sits in his home and says: "I am going broke. The taxes are more onerous every day. How am I going to survive?" And the government says: "That is okay. We cannot look at these programs because they are regional development programs and we best know how to spend your money". That is basically the way it is.
These agencies have about $1.3 billion to know how best to spend taxpayers' money. I will go through some of the ways in which they spend the money and give some examples later.
The concept of regional development grants, as I understand from the government, is that it wants to support and promote opportunity for economic development and to foster development of entrepreneurship. That is an interesting one. A fellow who was given the entrepreneurial award of the year in one of the regions had six or seven grants from a regional economic development organization. I do not know what the Liberal concept is of an entrepreneur, but to me it is somebody who does not live off the taxpayers' dollars, who does not get any grants whatsoever. It is somebody who has done it on his own. He is not counting on government. They are not fostering the development of entrepreneurship in regional development grants. It is not happening. That is contrary to the concept, but the award was good.
One concept is to increase the rate of new business formation and another is to improve the competitiveness of small and medium sized enterprises. We have done a lot of research into regional grants. How does one improve the competitiveness of a small or medium sized business in an area when the government comes along and says: "Just a minute. You want to update a motel. Here is $67,000 for you", and the next motel says: "Wait a minute. What about me?" The government says: "There is none for you; this is going to be a competitive world".
He walks away with $67,000 profit from the taxpayer. It goes out of the taxpayer's pocket to somebody else. That does not improve competitiveness and is why we have to start eliminating regional development grants. I am sure we will have a great debate on this matter, because that is not the way the government thinks.
The concept of entrepreneurs does not include government handouts, at least where I come from. If we ask businessmen in my community what an entrepreneur is, they will tell us that it does not include government money.
We all know that Canada has a serious problem. We all know the Liberals are facing a $40 billion deficit. They are overspending each year. We know they have to cut it. They know they have a $530 billion debt and the interest on that debt is increasing by the day, by the hour, by the second.
What are they going to do about it? They are going to close the gap. They are going to get it down to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. That is around a $26 billion a year deficit. Imagine going to the bank, paying our bills on more and more debt, and the Liberals are saying: "We are going to look after that, folks. We are going to bring it down to about $26 billion a year". That is insufficient.
Over a short three-year period let us look at what we will have. We could look at four years or over the whole mandate. We are adding to the debt load in excess of $100 billion.
Who will pay for it? Our children will. If we think of nothing else in the country, we have to think of the little ones behind us. We have to think of the ones in university who are wanting to get out and get jobs. Jobs are stifled by business being overtaxed and by debt load. We have to give them something to look forward to. It is time to make some tough decisions. We know they do not like zero in three. We know they do not like to fish or cut bait, but we know they have to deal with the problem.
The average taxpayer uses a litmus test when he hears about giving a grant to any organization. A civil servant from the Department of National Revenue knocks on the taxpayer's door and says: "The motel down the street needs $67,000 to upgrade its facilities. Would you give us $3 out of your pocket to do that?" The individual would wonder why he would give him money out of his pocket and would ask: "Does he not make a profit? If he does not make a profit should he be in that business? I do not have $3 anyway so I really have to borrow it".
What will the individual say? He will say: "No, I need that money. I am not going to the bank to borrow it and give it to you". That is exactly how the taxpayer feels.
The government has taken it upon it itself to make the decision on behalf of the taxpayer to give out the taxpayer's money to projects he does not agree with. I only have a minute so let me mention a few: $38,000 to acquire fencing and improve a go-cart race track; purchase of equipment for a luxury tour and outdoor recreation, $15,000; purchase and renovate an inn to higher quality; acquire office furniture and computer equipment; construct a two bedroom cottage; and to refurbish an existing cottage. If we ask the taxpayers they will say: "No. If you want that then you earn your own profit and you upgrade your own facility".
I would love to say more but I am out of time. It is time to fish or cut bait over there.
