Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this process when this side of the House and the champions in our communities came forward to say that this was completely wrong, this approach, there was a promise of a clean slate, the removal of an income means test as the philosophy, and yet that did not come forward. The Minister continues to say that the saving grace of this Supplementary Health Benefits Plan is to take from Peter to pay Paul.
What is stopping the Minister from doing a thorough analysis when we constantly hear about how much data and work they’ve done today? The one thing that can be the true factor for all of the basis of this discussion is the analysis of what it would cost to include this additional group called our working poor. No one wants that to happen. Why does the Minister keep defending every other topic under the moon, under the sun, under the heavens, other than dealing with that one question of why don’t we do that analysis and get it before this House so that we can have a true and thorough debate? Thank you.