Mr. Speaker, there really was no question so I will comment on the comment.
When one uses figures and says that the amount is over three years and which adds up to a large number, what is missed in the equation is what was cut in the years before. If so much has been cut to the point that one is operating with an inadequate amount and then something is thrown back in, it does not necessarily mean the full need has been met.
I was saying that the recommendations in the report of the standing committee certainly would have called for a larger amount than $175 million over three years. The minister's estimate was at least $700 million to start with.
There was less put in than would be determined to meet the need. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on that.