Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to engage in debate with the member and his colleague sitting next to him.
It is just a difference of opinion.
If there is a proven science for cervical cancer, I am definitely for it. I think we had it included in our prebudget report.
I think additional funding for foundations was also in our report.
I have no problem with providing money for post-secondary education, but the problem is in the way it is delivered.
The past Liberal government was accused of swimming in surpluses. Now the present government has been given the same opportunity. The first thing it should be doing is reducing income tax. We heard that from every type of group imaginable during the prebudget consultations. I do not see why that cannot be done. That is the first step.
The other step is on post-secondary education. Sure, we should be breaking it down, but that still does not help students. This is going to help unload some of the obligations, but this is not going to help students. We heard from student groups that once students have graduated they have problems with debt. There needs to be direct help.
There are a lot of good things in the budget, but that does not necessarily mean that the budget overall is a positive budget, so I still cannot support it.