Well, that was a very long-winded question, but let me see if I can answer it by being brief, for a change. Under the current arrangements, as a jurisdiction, there is no way for us to protect ourselves from the federal government withdrawing from any spending area. The family allowance is a universal program, but that is not in the Constitution. It is just a program that the federal government introduced at a time in history when they thought it was a wise thing to do, and politically, a very wise thing to do.
At this time, they are withdrawing from the full application of that particular program, for whatever reasons. The fact is, when you have no money, you try to limit your spending to only certain areas and I think that, in the final analysis, the federal government will do what it can to keep as much flexibility in its ability to spend or not spend as possible. My understanding of it is that, in the division of powers, we are extended some protection to negotiate intergovernmental agreements and bilateral agreements to protect ourselves from the situation that the Member is raising, and we do not have that now.
If the amendments are carried, then we, at least, have the option to negotiate agreements that will protect us from sudden changes of heart on the part of the federal government, at least to a certain extent.