Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois had to say. He asked several questions which I think should be answered immediately.
He asked who is saying social programs are inefficient. The Auditor General has said social programs are inefficient. I want to give the member some quotations from the Auditor General's 1994 report in which he says rising social program use and high repeated use suggests that social programs may be creating long term dependency among some users.
The Auditor General also says these social programs create disincentives to work when benefits from social programs compare favourably to earnings from jobs. He goes on to say employers and employees may be using unemployment insurance to support short term layoff strategies.
Another point the Auditor General makes is that interaction among social programs may result in programs working at cross purposes to each other. One of the other things he says is unemployment insurance may be a factor in Canada's rising level of unemployment and the lower level of outputs that result.
The Auditor General has said we need to take a closer look at this.
My colleague then said this is an idea that rich people and Reform MPs have thought up. My colleague seems to think these are just our ideas. I do not think he has any idea of how the Reform Party works and how we arrive at our policies and principles. The very principles and policies we are discussing here today as Reformers have been brought to us by the poor people of Canada as an alternative to protect them.
I would like to point out to my colleague how a grass roots party works. The idea we are debating today started with our members, not with our leader and not with a group of academics working on some government funded ministerial task force of some kind. Some of the best ideas that come forward come from the grassroots people, not from some top down, antiquated, political, bureaucratic system of some sort. The member should listen very carefully because these are not ideas that we have hatched in the back rooms of some office.
I cannot understand where my colleague from the Bloc is coming from. For a party that wants the provinces to have more control, I do not believe he would argue with what we are discussing today. He is supporting more federally run, big, social programs. We are saying they should be decentralized even to the point where local associations and individuals would have more control over their affairs.
One of the advantages of an RPSP is that there would be a lot less involvement of this big government in our lives. Taxes could be substantially reduced as individuals, local associations and charities would assume more responsibility for their lives in the communities. I believe this knew social order he alluded to
would have a positive effect even on reducing crime. He should take a closer look at what we are suggesting.
I do not have a lot of time today to go into this, but there are other areas, such as higher education, where we could look at this concept. I will give a personal illustration. I have four children. I did not feel that when it was time for them to go to university or whatever institution they chose that I would have the wherewithal to send them there. Therefore, I laid a little bit aside every month when they were young. It was not very much. It was equivalent to the family allowance given by the government at that time.
That small amount of money has grown to the point where now that they attend university, this RRSP type of saving pays for almost half of their education. The hon. member may not know, but I do not come from a wealthy background.
The plan could be applied in so many areas. Poor people could actually provide for their children and provide more security for themselves.
This country is in need of a major overhaul. The very idea the member suggests is unacceptable. Our country is not defined by our social programs, as many members are suggesting. I do not think Canadians can relate to the concept that we are Canadians and what makes us different from other countries in the world are the social programs we have.
It is individual initiative, responsibility, sharing and co-operation. It is the charities we set up. It is caring for our neighbours and our communities. It is the freedom, the strong families and values we have established, the personal assistance we give to each other, not some great social program. That is what has built up this country.
Thirty years of Liberal social engineering took away the personal responsibility. The very fabric of our society is being destroyed and the morale of the people is being broken.
I would like the hon. member to comment on what I have said. Does he not agree the government has failed miserably in running social programs? If he does not agree with our suggestion, what better suggestion does he have?