Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued with a debate on whether or not things can happen if the government does not pay for them. I am of the belief that they could happen.
When I was a youngster, which was many years ago, decades ago, there was very little government programming. Yet, when there was a need in our community, it pulled together. We helped voluntarily, sometimes at an expense and sometimes only the expense of time. I know I learned from my father and my mother that when someone was in need, we reached out and helped them. I believe in that principle. That is why I personally get involved as much as I can in the lives of individuals who are in need.
I think there is a difference in philosophy here. That is, for example, if one says if we do not fund the women's group, which the hon. member mentioned, then somehow the government is against them. That is a false assumption.
Also, I distinctly remember that the Liberal government, when it was in power, denied women's groups. I will mention specifically REAL Women. That group was not eligible for funding. Why were the Liberals against those women?
Personally, I would not even lay the accusation that the Liberals were against women with the kinds of ideas that that particular group showed. However, the Liberals did not fund them.
Why does the opposition now lay the charges at us that somehow because the government does not fund a particular group, that the government is against them? That is a false assumption.
I would also like to say that if it is true that the National Action Committee on the Status of Women represents, as it claims, all the women in this country, then all that group would have to do, and I think there must be at least 8 million adult women in this country, that would be my estimate, is have each woman donate a dollar. Then the group would have $8 million. This would be more money than the group could ever spend.
I think if people really believe in the Status of Women then they would fund it. I have had a number of women on different occasions say that the Status of Women does not represent them. I say that is their choice. Why should these women through their taxes be obliged to support a group that does not represent them?
I know I have gone on a rambling scheme here. I want to assure the member that simply because the government does not think the taxpayers should be funding a certain segment of any group, that the government is automatically against that group. We feel that the taxpayers should not be funding that group.