You're right to say that every change to equalization will necessarily bring a certain level of controversy. We saw it in 2006. You may remember Danny Williams, from Newfoundland, who rose against the formula. In Saskatchewan as well, the NDP government wasn't too happy with certain aspects of the changes to equalization.
I think that's the mandate we would give this group of experts. It has to be broad so that, instead of just trying something or gradually changing the system, we can really look at all the possibilities based on the Constitution, and make general proposals on various possibilities, even some that might go beyond the equalization program we're familiar with. Rather than just changing the formula, it would be a matter of telling people what the possibilities are. There are three or four options, the group could obviously recommend one, but it would be up to the government and Parliament to decide. However, it has to be a transparent process and experts have to take their time and really look at what's being done elsewhere.
We're often too “provincial”. I apologize for using that word because it might have a different meaning in Canada, but I think there are countries where things are done in a more effective or transparent manner than here. We have to look at what's being done in Switzerland or Australia, among others, and produce a real document accessible to all Canadians so we can take a step back and think. This is an extremely political issue. When we talk about money, it's obviously always very political.