Thanks very much.
Mr. Purves, I realize we don't agree on a lot of things. I have to take great offence at your comment about misrepresentation.
If you look up the definition, it's providing fake or false information. I don't believe my comments about the use of vote 10 ballooning from past years traditionally being $3 million a year is false or misrepresentation. I hope you were perhaps using that word wrong.
I want to get back to the vote 10 issue. Traditionally it has been $3 million. I think you commented to my colleague, Mr. Aboultaif, about the use of it in a crisis response. I want to go back to the last world crisis we had financially in 2008. The vote 10 then, I think, only went up to about $8 million. Again, no government—Liberal or Conservative—had used this in the past to the extent that it has been used this year and last year.
The vote 5 money, which is contingency money, is where I would think such money should be coming from, not an inflated vote 10. I will state again that if the government tries to bring forward a $200-million, $300-million or $380-million vote 10 in the estimates again for the coming year, I believe the opposition will look to reduce it to the traditional level of around the $3-million mark as it has been used repeatedly.
Getting to vote 5, there's money in vote 5 for almost $5 million for Rideau Hall Foundation. Vote 5, “...to provide for miscellaneous, urgent or unforeseen expenditures not otherwise provided for...”. Rideau Hall Foundation has been funded for the last eight or 10 years by the government. I'm wondering how this $4.9 million, therefore, is considered unforeseen and urgent. Again, this should be Heritage Canada re-profiled over $5 million.
I bet you'll ask Marcia.