Madam Speaker, these are questions and comments and mine will probably be a comment.
The hon. member is our critic for agriculture. Even those of us who are on the finance committee whose job it is to study this bill and the equalization plan have great difficulty understanding the formula and how it is evaluated.
I would like to comment on the issue of lotteries. The member is looking at the bottom line. According to the bottom line of this bill, when it is passed it is projected—and we got these numbers from the finance department officials—that the equalization payments for Manitoba will go down $37 million. That is the number the member quoted quite correctly.
However, it should be pointed out that because of the lottery component, if the member would look at the sheets, which obviously he has not had an opportunity to examine, in the breakdown per tax component, Manitoba loses about $50 million because of the gaming component. It is in the tables. This means that instead of going down $30 million, $50 million is due to lotteries. Instead of going down, Manitoba would have had an increase. Manitoba went from an increase situation to a decrease because of the lotteries. The total lottery impact is some $50 million.
My other comment has to do with respect to the formula and evaluation. How does one compute the potential of a province to gain lottery revenue? That is how the equalization formula works. It would be very subversive if actual income was used.
As the Conservative member from the east has explained, when a government gets new revenue, it does not like to have that taxed because there is 100% clawback. The same thing is true here. How would it be evaluated?
I would like to give one of my other colleagues a little more time so I will very gently shut down and add that as a comment. It really does not require a response from the member.