Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that intervention because it allows me to re-emphasize the point I was making. I am glad he started on a small list.
A great example is that the member would choose to sacrifice the thousands and thousands of poor who received the home heating oil grant for the administrative problems of a few people. That is fine. That is exactly why we want this list, to see what the opposition is willing to sacrifice.
The auditor general did suggest a number of areas related to spending. The two parties complaining about it have not elaborated on which areas to support. Some of the points the auditor general made related to the administration of those programs. If we are talking about programs relating to first nations, the poor, the environment, or heritage, it does not mean that those areas are bad areas to give money to; it means that their administration has to be improved. I do not have a problem with that. That is what the auditor general is there for. I have no problem with improving administration and saving funds.
I would be very interested in seeing a list from the members of the two parties who are talking about spending, such as the member has stated, with the exact items they would like to see cut. Then we can continue to debate.
I would also like the members of the Alliance to comment on regional funding. Yesterday one of the Alliance members suggested that regional development funding was one of the areas that could be cut.
We in the north have a transfer payment which is like regional funding. There is ACOA. There is western diversification. The whole country is covered, except for southwestern Ontario. Is the official opposition suggesting that we cut the money from the entire country except for southwestern Ontario? And I am not sure it is doing that well either.