My goodness, Mr. Speaker. My honourable colleague is the chair of the committee. He has been active in the budgetary process for two years. He knows full well that is not the way in which we do things. The social envelope, Mr. Speaker, and I have said on frequent occasions when we did, our budgetary exercise was reduced only 1.5 percent. In fact, we put more money back into the social envelope through re-profiling of dollars later on after the budgetary exercise was completed a year ago. We are not prepared, even though it is done in other jurisdictions, to say out of the liquor fund we are going to put x amount of dollars towards a specific preventative program when it has to go through the budgetary exercise, through the planning stage and through the committee process and is assigned the appropriate priority which I think this government has clearly demonstrated. And through it reduction program because, as I said earlier, we only reduced the social envelope 1.9 percent. The answer would be no, I do not think that is the way we would do business. I am surprised my colleague would ask that question given his experience, depth of knowledge, as a chair and active opponent in this House of the economic ills of the under privileged, etc.