We do not need that legislation, Mr. Chair, because we have all the legal authorities now required in existing legislation to do the things which that legislation speaks to. I guess we could pass legislation that is redundant, but I do not think everybody on the other side would be very keen on that.
In relation to the money being spent, the hon. member is right that the fiscal profile as it appears here goes down, because in fact for the numbers in the lead-up, for example, plan spending in 2003-04 includes a one time expenditure for the procurement of smallpox vaccine. We do not intend to carry that forward in 2004-05 or 2005-06. They are one time expenditures that do appear, for example, in 2003-04. The other thing I want to point out to the hon. member, for example, is new equipment in labs. Again, it is a one time expenditure and therefore as we ramp up one may see the numbers go up as we make those one time expenditures, but they are not continued in the fiscal profile further out.
The other thing I would say is that if Dr. David Naylor and others decide and we agree, for example, that one wants to move to a kind of national, CDC-like, public health go-to focal point, then clearly I would be going back to cabinet and I would be talking to cabinet about that. I would be talking to cabinet about the resource implications. Then it would be up to the government to decide whether or not it wished to proceed in that way and provide me with the additional resources.
I am sure, and I will be quite candid, and I have no doubt that I will be going back to cabinet after Dr. Naylor's recommendations and seeking additional resources to enhance our public health infrastructure. I think that will probably happen. Whether it is a CDC-like entity or something else, that will then be reflected in the out years.