Madam Speaker, let me say that I always enjoy my friend from Kamloops when he gets up in this House. Of course, he has decades of experience to tell us about the issues of the day and the issues of the past number of decades.
The fact of the matter is that when the New Democrats are in opposition as they were in British Columbia, and even when they were in government in British Columbia, they said that they balanced the budget.
Of course, after the election the balanced budget was not there. It was an aberration. There are some lawsuits that are going on regarding, I believe, some recalls.
When we had the New Democrats in the province of Ontario run in the election, they made all sorts of claims. They had a platform called “Agenda for People” that they tried to burn after the election in case anybody took them seriously. Of course, after one term they were relegated back to their traditional place.
My hon. friend has the best suntan on that side of the House, and I applaud him for it. That might explain why it may be half-baked, fully-baked. Let us just settle on the best suntan on that side of the House.
Further, let me suggest that when he uses some of his rhetoric, I sit on this side in my second term, thinking to myself that if we could get the time of their speeches cut in half, as a country that would make a significant contribution to global warming.
I have a question for the member. He tells the House that there are no poor people in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I do not totally accept that. I certainly hope that he can somehow prove to the House that is the case.
The member talked about intellectual honesty and consistency. Then he said that we have to give more money for health care because the Americans spend more money on health care. If he is going to introduce those countries as a model, he should stand in the House and say that those countries spend 2% to 3% less on health care.
I would like the hon. member to reconcile those two points.