The universality is actually, I think, one of the key parts of the equation that you're trying to debate right now.
We would certainly agree that there's a need for child care. However, under this bill, the definition of universality seems to fit the nine-to-five type of role. As we know, that is not reality. There are people who are doing double shifts, who are working evening or night shifts and things like that, both men and women, whether they be single-parent families or whether they be both working outside of the household and so on. I don't see under this bill how that question is fully addressed and allows true universality.
On your second question regarding the cutting of funds, one of the things that come to mind with that is whether the federal government is in the business of child care and whether it is a federal or a provincial jurisdiction. I know that question has actually been up here within some of your debate. I don't have the answer to that question, but I think that is part of the answer to the issue you're discussing.
On the issue of money being transferred to the provinces, our preliminary research at this time indicates that if we go back the last number of years under different governments, there has been a great deal of money transferred from federal to provincial governments under the CHST and now the CST. I think accountability is one of the factors that needs to be drawn into there--is the money going where it was intended to go? That is really for you as government and opposition parties to finalize and debate that part of it, I believe.