Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's speech. While I do not question the sincerity with which she spoke, I do question her understanding of some of the essential elements associated with block transfers to the provinces.
I am quite surprised she would be against this measure taken by the government because it essentially addresses some of the concerns she cited in her speech.
I will be extremely specific on this issue because sometimes facts, figures and proper statistics are missing in debates in the House of Commons, particularly when they originate from the opposition.
As a result of the new transfer we are able to support programs like APPORT. Because of the restrictive nature of the Canada assistance plan, prior to this transfer we were not able to do that.
SUPRET, a work income supplement that preceded APPORT, was rejected under CAP. Now because of the new arrangement with the provinces that could be supported. The Quebec sales tax refund and various social services provided in schools were submitted for CAP cost sharing during the 1970s. These were rejected because they did not meet the CAP definition of welfare services. These are just some of the examples.
The hon. member must understand that by having the Canada social and health transfer we are responding to the call by provincial governments to build in the type of flexibility that speaks to co-operative federalism, something the hon. member should reflect on.
Has the hon. member taken the time to clearly look at all the issues, at all the programs rejected prior to the establishment of the Canada social and health transfer? Will she reconsider her position and applaud the government for this excellent initiative?