Do you not see a dichotomy between what you would like to see in the act and reality? For example, the government cannot say that it is giving $100 to a province or territory, but that this money must be spent on a particular program. The federal government cannot impose this in any legislation. We have seen and heard it for years.
When you talk about guaranteeing resources, it becomes a constitutional problem, potentially. I imagine you realize that. If we ask for or include in a piece of federal legislation the requirement that federal money earmarked for education be absolutely dedicated, we are interfering with provincial jurisdiction. Do you see the distinction? In any case, that's how I see things. Perhaps someone can correct me.
Basically, I agree with you. There must be at least one item in the act that requires accountability. You already know that money is going to the provinces to ensure that—