Finance committee  Mr. Ritz, if you'll permit me to discuss the issue of the $878 million that you just raised, I would appreciate the committee to understand that 85% of that $878 million is one-time money, one-time funding, which is a far cry from an annualized $800 million. The members are shaking their heads; I'd like them to show me the documentation that will tell this committee--

Finance committee  It is not an annual budget. About 60% of that money does not flow to the people of Saskatchewan through their provincial government, and 20% of that money goes to a corporate entity for a project that isn't even approved. I will document, then, in precision. We start with $878 million; of that, $250 million is through agriculture, which is Saskatchewan's share on a national basis.

Finance committee  That's what I'm speaking about, the dollars to Saskatchewan people. When the members of Parliament from Saskatchewan come home and say this is the best deal we've ever got, I think the members of Parliament from the Conservative government could say that to any province in the country.

Finance committee  Mr. Ritz, is there more than one way to keep a promise or break a promise? The fact of the matter is that a promise was made to the people of Saskatchewan by yourself, by others who campaigned in our province, and by your leader. The promise was that 100% of the non-renewable resource revenues would be excluded, for a benefit on an annual basis of about $800 million.

Finance committee  Mr. O'Brien did not make a promise to the people of Saskatchewan. Mr. O'Brien did not run for elected office in the province of Saskatchewan. My question is to our elected representatives in the national capital.

Finance committee  I see. I'd like to say that I'm going to try to meet the time schedule. I may have to complete this answer in response to a further question.

Finance committee  Clearly, the one step that has been taken is I think the recognition now that there is provincial ownership of resources. That's clearly been recognized. It has been recognized that 100% of those resource revenues, at least by option, should not be included. The most practical and tangible move forward is simply to eliminate this concept of a cap.

Finance committee  Let me first say to Mr. Goodale that we recognize progress was being made before the change in government, but it's not the progress we'd ultimately desire. The ultimate desire of the people of Saskatchewan has been to achieve an equalization formula wherein 100% of the non-renewable natural resource revenues would be excluded from the calculation.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Goodale, for the inquiries. I need to check with the chair. You folks seem to function on a little more disciplined time schedule than we do in our legislature. When you say six minutes, Mr. Chair, is that six minutes for the question, or for the question and the answer?

Finance committee  Thank you very much. I am in fact very, very pleased to be sharing this panel, if not with my colleagues from the provincial governments, with representatives of child care and early childhood education in our province and representative working people. I'm pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss the equalization reforms that are contained in the most recent federal budget and what they mean, not to the Government of Saskatchewan but to the people of Saskatchewan.