Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed with the member's remarks and those of some of his other Liberal colleagues. Often we hear, particularly from that member, the tone that this is a partisan opposition motion, that it is dilatory and terrible. It is a sort of hyperbolic political rhetoric.
We all engage in political rhetoric here, but by and large this is an opposition party that tries very hard to be principled, co-operative and objective. We support nearly half the government legislation that comes to this place. I have in my hands the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, almost all of whose recommendations are reflected either directly or more or less directly in the supply motion before us.
Recommendation (a) to reallocate resources is an expression of the recommendation of the finance committee. I will quote from page 26:
To the extent that new spending on security and defence could lead to a deficit, the government must balance this new spending with spending cutbacks elsewhere.
Regarding the recommendation to increase security spending, there was not a specific number in the report. We are suggesting one based on solid research we have done. It is a good point for discussion.
Regarding reducing the EI premiums, the finance committee suggested a different way of doing so, but it is there.
Elimination of the capital tax is in the finance committee report.
The selling of non-priority assets like Petro-Canada and Hibernia is in the finance committee report.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to actually read the finance committee report and see that virtually all of these recommendations are there.
Finally, he is wrong. We have always advocated an increase in defence expenditures--