Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech. It was full of compassion. She also argued that she had a monopoly on compassion, that the Reform Party had no compassion whatever.
I have been in this business of arguing over social and economic policies for over 30 years. We agreed a long time ago that discussions over who is more compassionate will lead nowhere. I assert herewith that I am more compassionate than that member and every member of the Liberal Party.
The issue ought to be not who is more compassionate, but what is a rational solution to the problem so that we can give real expression to our compassion. That is the issue. This is rhetoric which leads nowhere. This country is going down the drain and we have to have practical solutions to the problems we face.
I also would like to make a brief comment on the member's description of the consultation process. I sat through more hours of this than I ever want to think about and travelled more miles than I would like to.
Most of the time I found that the witnesses said: "I do not know anything about the budget making process. That is your business, but let me take the next 20 minutes and tell you why the money I have been getting from the government is the best way the money could be spent and why you must never touch my program". Others had been coached by the intellectual and political left and had patent solutions that were obvious demagoguery from lowering the interest rate, to taxing the rich, taxing capital.
The Globe and Mail had an editorial saying that this process was dividing the country into hostile camps. I have not got the same impression, that this was a fruitful exercise in the way in which the opposite member was talking about.