Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is saying so many incorrect, narrow and twisted things it is outrageous.
To say that our amendment to the amendment is threatening the accord on equalization is twisted. What our amendment to the amendment says is that we must go further than equalization, resolve equalization, but go beyond and examine all federal transfers.
The Minister of Finance, who prides himself on helping the agricultural sector, does not recall having made a commitment that he did not live up to when he was responsible for the Canadian Dairy Commission four years ago. He cut the $6.03 a hectolitre provided to dairy producers. It provided Quebec dairy producers with $120 million. He said he would raise prices accordingly to compensate for the losses. He never did. This man does not honour his commitments.
Today, he is talking nonsense. He just told my Conservative colleague that our amendment to the amendment is threatening the equalization accord. What equalization accord?
Two weeks ago I attended the first ministers' conference. They presented a convoluted position for reforming equalization. He says there is no agreement. Yes, there are agreements with the receiving provinces to make substantial changes to the equalization system based on all 10 provinces and a realistic view of property taxes.
This minister is talking nonsense, as the government did earlier, as the Prime Minister did during oral question period when he said this would be abdicating the federal government's responsibilities.
This is so wrong and warped that it is bad faith. It is bad faith. It reeks of bad faith.
I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he admit that he and the Prime Minister made promises?
They need to broaden the scope of the first ministers' conference and come better prepared than they were two weeks ago at the health conference, when the Prime Minister did not even know what he was talking about. They need to be ready to explain to the provinces the shameful surpluses that were accumulated not by good administration, but by making cuts to employment insurance, health and education. That is what you have been doing for 10 years. So much for your good administration and your surpluses.
While people have needs in health and education, there are surpluses here. Will he address the public's real concerns?