Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member's passion. The goals we have in the House for the well-being of Canadians across the country are the same. However, it is logical and proper to examine the programs that are supposed to get to the results the member wants to see and to examine whether those programs are in fact delivering the well-being they were intended to deliver.
I have quoted experts that have examined the program who note that it is riddled with inefficiencies, inequities and unnecessary complexity. In some cases it is actually harming the citizens it is supposed to help.
The member will be glad to know the policy of my party is to increase equalization payments to her province. We would argue, largely because of the mismanagement, inequities, inefficiencies and perverse consequences in many of the well intentioned programs visited upon her province, that it is one of the four provinces at this point in time which is in inappropriate economic situation in a rich country like Canada.
It is utter nonsense to somehow suggest that we cannot logically and clearly examine a program and point out its inefficiencies and inequities because somehow this is a slur or criticism of the people who receive the program. The programs are administered by the federal government. We have a responsibility to make sure they are well administered. There is no responsibility on the part of the people who are receiving the program for the inefficiencies and inappropriate measures of the program.
We should have an honest and open debate about them without being accused of somehow taking unfair positions against certain Canadians. The whole point of this debate is to achieve and move toward fairness. I hope we can do that in a thoughtful and considered manner.