Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat incredible that the hon. member opposite would speak about members on this side of the House not being in favour of reducing government spending.
As the hon. member would know if she had read the last three budgets, or would recall if she thought about it, we took unprecedented steps in the three budgets we have presented as a government to reduce government spending to its lowest level in many years as a percentage of the gross domestic product; in fact, soon to its lowest level since the late 1940s.
I know that the hon. member opposite and her colleagues would like to see government spending go down even more. They have this small problem of telling us how that would happen without having an unfortunate negative impact on this country without leading to the kind of meanness and nastiness that my hon. colleague, the secretary of state, referred to.
The government will continue to stand alongside Canadians. It is not going to stand aside and out of the way. We are going to stay in the game, helping and working with Canadians.
The kinds of spending reductions we have achieved have been done in a reasonable, realistic and compassionate way, but not without impact and not without cost.
It is incredible that the members of the third party stand up day after day telling the government to cut further because it does not affect anybody.
As to the questions which were asked, I am going to respond in the following way. The hon. member asked some questions and then proceeded to answer them. I am going to ask her who would benefit most from the proposal that is in the motion before us. I would just note that it is proposed to be a tax credit. There is no indication that it is a refundable tax credit with the result that people without income would not benefit and it would not be available to them.