Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to what is indeed a very good question.
The hon. member used the word that our prebudget suggested trashing the social programs. Those were the words he used. There is a huge difference between trashing something and replacing it with something better. There is a huge difference between breaking down a house and leaving a hole in the ground and breaking down an old house in order to make room to build a new and better one.
If we were to analyse what the Reform Party is proposing for social programs, it is proposing a better system. We believe in individualizing social security so as to do away with all of the problems which arise when UIC and social security are competing.
The poor person on UIC or social security has to refuse a job at $8 an hour because if he or she makes a little money in effect they are taxed 100 per cent on it. There is a tremendous disincentive to taking a part time job because of the loss of benefits. If that were individualized according to our plan, then the individual could take a part time job, supplement their income and use their personal retirement and their personal security plan only as needed to top up in order to meet the needs of the day.
If the member would like to take the time to do the arithmetic on it, I would be pleased to sit down and help him with this. If he were to do the actuarial math on how the money grows, if he were to look at the employer's and employee's contributions he would see how they grow. He would see how quickly the total benefits substantially exceed what can be given through a bureaucratically driven and inefficient UIC program. Perhaps then the member would have a different view of what it means to replace a social assistance program that is not working with one that is logical and defensible.