Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his good comments about me, but I regret he is turning this debate into something it is not. We are debating budgets and not free votes or recalls. I am sure the hon. member knows that.
Yes, I said that the plan of reducing the expense is in effect. It was announced in January. The board took a decision on the global plan. Some decisions were taken on individual items and some are already in effect. Some are entering, for example, the July 1 householder. The restaurant section has not been decided on.
I said at the beginning that we had to adopt a budget. We had a deadline to prepare a detailed budget of expenses that the government wanted to introduce and have passed by the House according to the rules. There is nothing wrong. Next year we would show a reduction in expenses instead of what the member is proposing.
If I am correct, he is proposing to reduce the budget expense by $2.471 million. The difference between the member and I is that everything we accept is detailed. I do not know what he is counting in the $2.471 million. He should tell the House which items they are because the motion is on the House budget. He should do a service and tell us about them.
I thank all my colleagues in the 35th Parliament. We started in good will and displayed good decorum. We have done very well so far. However I do not think this is a case for a free vote. In an administrative way we do not know the exact effect of the plan I announced on a yearly basis. For this fiscal year, and being the author of the plan, I do not know exactly how much it will reduce this budget.
The member says that we should reduce it by $2.471 million. He should start by giving us the details. Did he check the figures with members of the administration? We enact policies but on a daily basis they keep the books.
From the beginning I have approached this issue on a non-partisan basis. If the member checks with his colleagues on the Board of Internal Economy who have been working with me on the matter, I am sure he will concur. The purpose here is not for each party to make political points. It is to make sure we save money for Canadian taxpayers.