Debates of Oct. 28th, 2004

Supply

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the member shed some light on the fact that over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen a significant drop in transfers to the province, to the point that some of them are finding it very difficult to deliver those very important programs on which communities rely?

Back in the early to mid-1990s the federal government changed the Canada Health Act into the Canadian Health and Social Transfer Act. All who watched that knew there would be a subsequent $7 billion reduction in the transfer to provinces. This created a huge imbalance in my view. This is now beginning to play itself out in terms of the deterioration of health care services and community services in every province.

This is a very timely debate. I am pleased have the opportunity to participate in it and to ask the member to comment on the--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two components to transfers from the federal government to the provincial governments. The first is tax points. Tax points this year were $17.13 billion. Those tax points have not changed. That room is available to the provinces and if they move their tax shares up and down, that is entirely within their provincial jurisdiction.

Tax points were not touched during the mid-nineties when there were changes to the arrangements between the federal government and the provincial governments. There was a brief period of time in which cash revenues did go down. That has been more than restored. With the fiscal accords entered into this past September, we have $74 billion on the table over 10 years, a very--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley East.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East to speak to the motion proposed by the hon. members of the opposition. As proposed, the motion calls upon the federal government to recognize the existence of a so-called fiscal imbalance in Canada.

For the record, I fully reject the notion that a fiscal imbalance exists between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is a fact that Canada is one of the most decentralized federations in the world and while some provinces have a much greater income than others, we have a system of equalization payments to ensure an even and balanced distribution of wealth across the entire country. That is why the Prime Minister met this week with provincial and territorial counterparts to modernize the equalization and territorial financing formula.

The new equalization formula will increase support for the provinces and territories by $33 billion over the next 10 years. Only last month the Prime Minister and the provincial and territorial leaders reached a historic 10 year plan to strengthen health care.

The health care deal gives the provinces and territories exactly what they wanted and needed, a predictable long term source of revenue so that each jurisdiction can plan to spend health care dollars according to their own priorities. In total, the federal government will provide $41.3 billion over the next decade.

Furthermore, the federal government is working with the provinces on a new deal for municipalities. Canadians have made it clear that they want their communities, towns and cities to be great places to live, be safe, have affordable housing, good public transit, clean air and water, and abundant green spaces. Working with the provinces and territories to increase local revenues, the government will make available a portion of the federal gas tax over the next five years.

In 1993 the federal government faced the daunting task of eliminating a massive deficit that left little room for either the federal or provincial governments to manoeuvre in any direction. However, now that the federal government has been a responsible manager and reduced the deficit, and made it a thing of the past, we have an opportunity to work on a number of social challenges in effective partnership with the provinces and territories.

We have a good example in the national child benefit. Even when the federal government was fighting the deficit, the federal government established this program.

By 2007 the national child benefit will deliver $10 billion in yearly support to low and modest income families for their children. That is not to say that there is not much more that needs to be done to help families help their children. The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care, a system based on four key principles that parents and child care experts say matter.

As our society ages, Canadian families are caring not only for young children, but increasingly for elderly spouses and grandparents as well. Again, the federal government recognizes the vital role of Canadians who care for the aged or infirm relatives or those with severe disabilities.

That is why the throne speech made it clear that we intend to improve the existing tax based support to these groups. However, our action and investment agenda, reflecting real needs by people, does not end here. We have to do more to ensure that Canada's prosperity is shared by the aboriginal people, the first nations.

Yes, we have made progress but for these communities it is overshadowed by unacceptable gaps in educational attainment, in employment, and in basics like housing, clean water and in the alarming incidence of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

I have highlighted a dramatic and demanding range of obligations and opportunities for federal action and investment. There is another action agenda that we must not overlook which falls fully under the federal responsibility. In today's world we face both potential threats to security and growing demands for us to provide assistance on the international stage.

In April of this year we introduced Canada's first ever comprehensive national security policy which will ensure a more focused and integrated approach to securing our open society.

Enhancing Canada's security means that we have to invest more in our military as part of defending ourselves at home, in North America and in the world. Canada will never be the biggest military force, so it must be smart, strategic and focused.

That is why our government will be increasing the regular forces by some 5,000 troops and our reserves by 3,000, so that they may be better prepared and equipped to meet the challenges. I know that many in the House will champion further new investments in the months ahead.

It seems to me a convincing case that there are many real obligations and opportunities that have concrete claims on federal resources. There is one last core issue I want to contribute to our consideration today, our aging population.

We are rapidly reaching the point, many see it as 2011, where the baby boom generation will move from workers to retirees. This has significant implication for our future fiscal planning. It is in looking ahead to this and other challenges that our government has set out the objective of reducing the national debt to 25% over the next 10 years from the current 40% it is today. We are doing this to free up future resources, including reducing debt charges, so they will be available when they are needed for aging Canadians.

It is this type of prudent planning that Canadians expect and deserve of their federal government. That takes me to a very critical issue. We must be careful not to assume that the current surplus will remain the same. Within the ever changing economic environment, this is not possible. This is simply unwise and a false assumption.

Let us remember that while we have achieved seven consecutive federal surpluses, they follow 27 years of federal deficits which generated a huge national debt that still consumes more of the federal budget in interest payments than any other single spending item. Let us remember that by the mid-1990s about one-third of every dollar the federal government spent was borrowed money.

We face spending pressures not just today, but pressures that can grow as demographics and economies evolve. The best way to prepare for these pressures is to apply a prudent, balanced perspective on our current finances. It is this prudent, balanced perspective, based on solid evidence rather than wishful fantasy, that leads me to challenge the concept of a fiscal imbalance.

Yes, we must assist our provincial partners in areas of national concern and we are doing that. Our bottom line commitment to providing funding where and when needed has been made compellingly clear in recent weeks on health care and equalization. In planning these investments our government has made sure they can be delivered within the fiscal framework of balanced budgets. To do otherwise is foolish as we would return to unsustainable spending and destructive deficits.

Deficits are the surest way to jeopardize the long term economic health of every level of Canadian government. Canadians will not tolerate that risk. Canadians want careful considered investments in economic and social policies that will make us a more prosperous and secure country. These can be done through productive and positive debates instead of irresponsible claims of a fiscal imbalance.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the hon. member's presentation. I congratulate her on her first speech in the House of Commons.

It is quite interesting that she talked about seven surpluses. I have been in the House for that period of time. She said it was prudent planning but it was actually foolish planning. The government kept cutting money from where it was supposed to go. It kept raising taxes. If the government wanted to raise taxes by 6%, it actually raised them by 3% and then claimed there was a 3% tax cut. Those surpluses have been done on the backs of Canadians. Canadians have been sacrificing. That is not prudent management.

Let us look at what has happened. There is a crisis in the health care system. That is why the government had to give money for health care. There is a crisis in our cities with regard to their infrastructure. That is why the government is now planning to give them fuel tax rebates. Let us look at our military. The member said that the government is planning to invest more in the military.

It is the same government that has been in power since 1993. It is the same finance minister. The member cannot say there is no connection between that finance minister and the government. The government's record is not as good as she wanted to make it look in her speech.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I did hear a commentary on how badly the Conservative government mismanaged the finances of the country which led us into a $400 billion debt and a $42 billion deficit. It was the finance minister and the current Prime Minister who cleaned it up.

It is prudent for a person to balance their chequebook. Debits cannot overshadow credits. If that is the case, then we will not be able to provide any programs for Canadians.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. I would have liked to hear more about practical solutions from him, because that is what we are looking for in terms of fiscal imbalance.

Unfortunately, he did not say much about such practical solutions, and I will give him a chance to do so. In fact, according to the speech I heard, we are dealing here with an argument imbalance rather than a fiscal imbalance.

The choice that needs to be made is that of improving the lot of people out there, whatever the region they live in. With regard to mine, Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, I can tell you that people without jobs were truly robbed. And furthermore, the robber had accomplices. This fraud, which has in fact turned into a robbery, cannot be remedied with words or argument that cause us to fall into rhetoric whereby, according to the speech I have just heard, all is well and good.

All is not well and good. Ask the men and women back home who have no jobs and you will realize that there is a fiscal imbalance, that it hurts and that it hurts every day.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there was unparliamentary language used again. I do not think the government stole any money from the EI fund. One, it followed the instructions of the Auditor General. Two, there has been a $7 billion increase in equalization payments. Three, the government under the Prime Minister when he was minister of finance gave the largest tax cut in recent years. That is prudent management. It has not put a stranglehold on anyone.

The Quebec minister of finance wrote the report and he deemed it appropriate to make tax cuts totalling $1 billion. If a province does not have revenues to balance its expenses, I really do not know how the federal government can be blamed for it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Health; the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, the Firearms Program.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I will share my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

We are dealing today with the opposition motion introduced by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am very pleased to take part in the debate on this motion. Before being elected on June 28, I was the parliamentary assistant to the member for Joliette, who was the Bloc Québécois critic for finance. Consequently, I am particularly aware of the fiscal imbalance. I worked very hard, not on the fiscal imbalance itself, but on the file. I would really like the government to work on solving the fiscal imbalance, but this is not the case.

If you will allow me, I will read the motion. I see, with the speeches that we hear from members on the other side of the House, that they did not fully understand what this motion was about. I would really like them to understand it correctly. Since I usually read quite well, they should get it:

That the House regrets the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at the First Ministers' Conference on October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to recognize the existence of a fiscal imbalance in Canada and that, to this end, the House ask the Standing Committee on Finance to strike a special subcommittee to propose tangible solutions for addressing the fiscal imbalance, and that its report be tabled no later than June 2, 2005.

This is very concrete. The Bloc Québécois has always been careful to propose concrete solutions in this House. We are criticized for all sorts of things. However, instead of proposing far-fetched ideas, we present concrete solutions, and this is one of them.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We are rigorous and responsible.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We are rigorous and responsible says the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Let us do a bit history here. My father was a history teacher in Victoriaville, and I have always been interested in what happened in the past. We talk about mistakes in the past, but we should avoid repeating those mistakes. This is something that members opposite should understand.

It was 48 years ago already that the Tremblay commission proposed that federal and provincial authorities agree on a new distribution of tax fields to reflect the needs of the public and the public administration and to respect the spirit of federalism and of the Constitution. That was in 1956. To this day, we wonder what is going on. Since that time, Quebec has always asked for independent revenues to meet its obligations. It is still not the case.

In 1964, the year I was born—I did not want to say my age, but so be it—another federal-provincial conference was held, and Quebec asked for greater access to personal income tax to fund its needs. Lester Pearson and Jean Lesage came to the following agreement, and the current government should use it as a model: the federal government withdrew from certain shared-cost programs, with full financial compensation. When we talk about financial compensation in this House, we often refer to the issue of tax points. This is what we mean. Ottawa should lower its taxes to create more tax room for Quebec, so that it can fund its own programs. It is as simple as that. What was true in 1964 is still true 40 years later.

This is what is unfortunate. Considering all that happened with these commissions, it seems to me that the government should have learned. After all these years, it should have understood and solved these issues. But this was not done, far from it.

What is fiscal imbalance? There are revenues in Ottawa. We are talking about $60 billion surplus since 1997-1998 et $166 billion by the year 2015, according to the Conference Board, which is certainly not a sovereignist organization. Ottawa has too much money for its responsibilities, while Quebec and the provinces do not have enough to fulfill their own. We are talking about a combined deficit of $68 billion by the year 2015. These are the figures given by the Conference Board.

While it is difficult to understand such big numbers, we can reduce the whole picture to a more local perspective. I will tell you later what fiscal imbalance means in my riding.

If the Liberal government does not understand this definition, we can always read what the dictionary says under “imbalance”. I called my assistant a little earlier and asked him to read for me what the brand new “Petit Robert” that we have here in our central source in the House of Commons was saying under “imbalance”. We can all have a copy in our office. I do not think that it costs anything. We have that privilege. The members can go get one. I encourage Liberal members to do it. The dictionary talks about disparity, distortion, lack of proportion, inequality.

The Prime minister prefers to talk about financial pressures. The dictionary does not mention that expression under “imbalance”. However, if that can make him happy, we can talk about “financial pressures”. For us, it is the same thing as fiscal imbalance. Anyway, what really counts is that the Bloc Québécois succeeded in having the expression “fiscal imbalance” added to the Speech from the Throne in the same sentence as “financial pressures”. It is like six of one and half a dozen of the other. It is really the same thing. We are very pleased that the Prime Minister recognized it then. However, he does not seem to want to recognize it again.

As I was saying earlier, I would like to say a few words about the fiscal imbalance with respect to my riding. In my riding, there will be a shortfall of roughly $28 million a year until 2007-08. Imagine the positive impact an additional $28 million a year could have on health and education in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska. We could do the same calculation for each of our ridings.

Too bad the member for Beauce has left. He blew up at my colleague earlier and said we were making things up. I am sure that if the people in Beauce knew there was a fiscal imbalance of roughly $30 million a year, he would not be so proud and use such fiery language. He has been representing the Liberal Party for a few years now. Too bad he was re-elected; we were close to winning that riding. I doubt people would be very proud to hear their MP utter such nonsense in this House.

He is grasping at straws if he is has to blame former PQ governments to make his argument. He should be telling people, the unemployed, that the fiscal imbalance in his riding of Beauce amounts to $29.9 million a year until 2007-08. I invite him to do so. He could make this calculation during the next break week, since everyone knows that a break week is not a week of vacation. We go back to our ridings to do work.

In Quebec, apart from Liberals in the Outaouais, everyone agrees that there is a fiscal imbalance. The three parties in the Quebec National Assembly, all the provinces in Canada, all the opposition parties in this House, everyone, except the Liberals, accepts and understands that there is a fiscal imbalance. We do not accept it, but we understand that there is a fiscal imbalance and we are asking that it be corrected.

On March 17, 2004, in the Quebec National Assembly, a motion was passed unanimously:

That the National Assembly demand that the federal government recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance and that on March 23, 2004, it adopt budget measures to counter the effects on provincial finances.

A few minutes later, during a press briefing, the Prime Minister of Canada stated that Quebec would not get one more penny in the March 23 budget. I have to admit that, this time, he kept his word, unfortunately.

Members opposite boast about the health agreement, but we should hasten to add that we can hardly talk about an agreement on equalization. Just ask the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador what he thinks. They suggest with great pride that enormous progress has been made in health care. The health agreement has not been bad for Quebec, but figures should be put in perspective. It gives Quebec about $500 million more this year out of an annual health care budget of more than $20 billion. This is just 2.5%. But we still have a major step to take, and that is to sort out the fiscal imbalance.

The federal government still has impressive fiscal resources, compared to those of Quebec and the other provinces. In the last fiscal year, it ran a $9.1 billion surplus, and we know that, in the current year, the surplus could reach $12 billion. It is up to its neck in surpluses. Federal health transfers, the fiscal imbalance and equalization are closely related issues.

To conclude, the federal government should make a commitment to improve the equalization formula soon to make it fairer and more generous, something it did not do on October 26. That is our request. The federal government should not take back through lower equalization payments what it gives in transfer payments.

Business of the House

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among all the parties. If you seek it you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, a take-note debate pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 shall be held on the subject of providing assistance to victims of hepatitis C.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the permission of the House to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the enlightening speech by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois and was sympathetic to the points he raised from an intergovernmental point of view.

Speaking on behalf of the province of Manitoba, does the member share my view that one of the most serious problems with the current equalization strategy is the government's persistent dishonesty in estimating budgetary surpluses from year to year and the difficulty that provinces have in doing any long range planning if they cannot believe the numbers they are told by their own minister of finance of the federal government as to what they might be able to expect at year end in terms of transfer payments to the provinces?

Does he find in his own home province of Quebec that it is very difficult to do any long range planning without knowing whether there is stable core funding coming from the federal government? Would he agree that something has to be done about the estimating process so that we know what the surplus will be from year to year?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his relevant question. Indeed, this is a serious problem and, once, again, as with the fiscal imbalance, everybody agrees.

Concerning the calculation of equalization, it should, first all, be done on the basis of the 10 provinces rather than of 5 of them. I have with me some information that might be of use to my colleague.

The assessment done by the federal government to arrive at the amounts given at the equalization meeting is whimsical. The federal government considers $9.510 billion its basic contribution, because it appears in the budget for 2004, only for the year 2004-05. In addition, the federal government then considers any discrepancy from that amount as new money, whereas as early as 2005-06, it adds $1.390 billion to that base—what it calls a base—to bring the total amount to $10.9 billion. By taking the difference year after year and by considering that to be a contribution—we are talking from $1.39 billion in 2005-06 to $4.8 billion in 2013-14—the federal government ends up saying that it will increase its contribution by $28.7 billion over the next 10 years.

There is a hitch, however. That is because a group of independent experts was created whose role it is to examine how the statutory equalization payments should be divided among provinces in 2006-07 and beyond. However, the Prime Minister has not seized the opportunity offered by the conference to address the fiscal imbalance as a whole and, also, we know, he did not have the political will to meet the needs of the public. He chose instead to meet the needs of his caucus, which was accusing him of having already given too much, and to continue with the financial strangulation of Quebec and the provinces caused by fiscal imbalance.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first of all call to your attention the extraordinary perseverance of my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska, who still has hopes of getting this Liberal government to see the light. Unfortunately, on this issue as on many others, what we are witnessing is the arrogance of a Liberal government which once again sees itself, and only itself, as being right.

The Liberals arrogantly tout the sale of Petro-Canada shares as a great success, forgetting that they left Desjardins Securities in the dark. They have the arrogance to boast about surplus estimates which are out by almost 500%. They have the arrogance to be alone in their refusal to recognize the fiscal imbalance.

A lot has been said about intrusion into Quebec jurisdictions. Now, what might be the effect of fiscal imbalance on such intrusions?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank my colleague. This is indeed a serious problem and my colleague for Rivière-du-Nord brought it up earlier. She spoke about the Léonard report, which is very relevant in this regard.

The problem is that the fiscal imbalance gives the Prime Minister of Canada a way to step up the intrusions. Furthermore, it has been estimated that 44% of federal spending is intrusive. This is nothing short of catastrophic. Spending has burgeoned, half of it intrusive, in areas where it should not go at all. That is the problem.

To do away with this problem would be simple: correct the fiscal imbalance. If each government stuck to its own sphere of activity, there would no longer be a problem.

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day in the House of Commons, because the Bloc Québécois has presented a motion on the fiscal imbalance. I will not read the motion again. The Liberals have heard it, but whether they have listened or not is another thing, as they insist on denying the evidence, correcting the facts, correcting a fundamental injustice.

What is fiscal imbalance? It is the realization that the basic needs of people and families are not being met, whether for health, education or whatever. These needs remain unmet because a huge surplus is concentrated in Ottawa, while the needs are in the provinces and in Quebec.

The provinces and Quebec are being impoverished bit by bit, and the funds are instead often being misspent, spent inefficiently, or used to sell a government that is centralizing and ineffective. Now we are seeing the abuses, just as we did with the firearms registry, the sponsorship scandal and the Canadian unity fund.

The attitude of this government reminds me of Harry Potter's cousin, for those who are literate. This cousin took everything that belonged to Harry Potter, just like a spoiled child who takes everything from his brother, all his toys, clothes, even sometimes the food from his plate. I am sure that no one likes to be treated like that.

Ideally, we would like to be a respected brother country to the United States, to Canada, to France. This country would not have to put up with the spoiled child who, rather than meet his own obligations, prefers to spend money on what are really the other's obligations, to spend unwisely, and still to keep huge amounts for himself.

It is unbelievable. We see that this year Quebec will get, in all, $800 million. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has talked about fiscal dyslexia, because the forecasted figure for the surplus was $1.9 billion when it was really $9.1 billion. If we had had a share of that surplus in Quebec, we would have got $2 billion. When we are told that they are giving us $800 million, we have to remember that there is another $1.2 billion we are not getting.

The government will say that it is putting the money toward the debt and that this will be good for our children. But the reason people are often cynical about politics is because the federal government is crushing the provinces and Quebec under a huge debt, accumulating and hiding surpluses, refusing to hold debates on their use, and proposing complex equalization formulas that give practically nothing more to the provinces and Quebec.

Often, when a policy cannot be explained in simple terms, it is because it is not all that it is made out to be. People can smell a stunt being pulled with the equalization. The average is calculated using five provinces instead of ten. Certain figures are factored in and adjusted. Indexation or no indexation, an injustice remains an injustice.

That is what the Minister of Finance has planned and announced. This does not address in any way the basic fact that Ottawa has a huge amount of money to fulfil obligations which are, all in all, limited, while there is very little money for provinces struggling to respond to the needs in health and education.

The Government of Quebec has been forced, by lack of money, to cut a program designed to provide libraries in Quebec with new books. This affects our children, their education and their ability to learn that the world has changed. In many instances, geography books date back to before the cold war. That is a disgrace. And the reason for this is because the money is in Ottawa. The fiscal imbalance is such that the provinces cannot afford to fulfil their important obligations, and neither can Quebec.

It is not financial pressures but a total imbalance that is creating inequities and having a concrete impact on the voters of Beauport—Limoilou among others. I think of the single parent families which get together every week in the northern part of Beauport, in my riding. These get-togethers have a cute name, Matinée frimousses, and are an opportunity for these families to share on various topics.

They are too rich to qualify for some social programs and too poor to make it on their own. So they share amongst themselves. These single mothers need a helping hand. But what happens? Programs like child care do not get implemented and every year we lose enormous sums of money in parental leave.

It is not possible to create a program that helps these families balance work and family life, because the money for that, too, is in Ottawa. It is being poorly spent and sometimes wasted in a scandalous manner. We see it every day in oral question period. And in the end, what do we have? In the end, we have an imbalance that affects families directly. The problem is not in the structure, whether provincial or central. It is in the duplication and intrusion, using money that does not belong to Ottawa, but to Quebec and the provinces. It is a shameful thing and it hides behind all kinds of complicated mathematics and tricks to fool the people of Quebec.

My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska presented clearly, in black and white—he also quoted the Conference Board, which is not noted for being a sovereignist organization— forecasts of the fiscal imbalance for the provinces, that is, their growing deficits, compared to the surplus of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. I do not know how many members there are on the other side—

[Some hon. members]

One hundred and thirty-five.