Sorry, I'm just going to interrupt you because I only have five minutes and we are familiar with the interim federal health program. That is actually where I'm going with my next question, so it was a perfect segue.
A recent report by the Wellesley Institute entitled “The Real Cost of Cutting the Interim Federal Health Program” has outlined issues and recommendations for the interim federal health program. Their assessment is that the changes in the IFH have had negative effects that Minister Kenney assured us would not happen. The information collected in their assessment indicates the following:
...the new system creates confusion, lessens access to health care services among vulnerable populations, leads to inconsistency in care across Canada, and results in poorer health and avoidable illness for refugees and refugee claimants.
This is from the report itself.
As you mentioned in the main estimates, how can CIC ask for additional funding to support their interim federal health program, which as you mentioned right now provides temporary health care for refugees, while stakeholders are reporting how many people across the country are actually suffering from the cuts?
My question is, weren't these cuts made so that the moneys spent on the program wouldn't increase? So now we're trying to spend more money on the interim federal health program, but actually are providing less service and there are more cuts to the services being provided.