Yes. A number of years ago, we made a recommendation--at the time when the CHST was still one transfer--to break out the health transfer and the social and education transfer. That, of course, was done three years ago, and we subsequently made a recommendation to break out the social transfer from the PSE. That was nominally done in the 2007 budget. We felt very strongly that--given the origin of funding for social services, and in particular, anti-poverty programming that traced its roots back to transfer programs after the Second World War and most recently in the Canada assistance plan--it was certainly, in terms of accountability, much better to break out the transfers in order to clearly track whether the actual level of transfer was sufficient to meet need in the provinces and programming in these areas.
These funds have been nominally divided. I don't think they've...[Inaudible--Editor]...as I understand it, in the 2007 budget. The analysis that we did at that time suggested the level of funding--including the formula to bring all provinces up to a single standard, a single per capita formula that's going to be introduced in 2009--for social programs is still less than it was when CAP was rolled into the CHST in the mid-nineties. Certainly we have ongoing concerns about the level of funding to support anti-poverty programming. We do think that the division has been important in that regard, to help us track and understand that.