If people can make comments, I would like to make one as well.
I don't think there is anyone here denying the fact that the provinces are facing the brunt of a very high part of their budget going to health care. That's a given, and we understand that. We understand the need for restructuring health care as well. That effort is actually not something you can do with a snap of your fingers, saying we're just going to set ceilings. It's a major effort of restructuring, of redoing ways, of rethinking the ways we've been delivering health care in the provinces. The question is, how are we going to do it?
Before the idea was to actually have the federal government working with the provinces to actually try to achieve this change in mind frame, the change in the way of seeing things, and trying to find outside-the-box solutions to actually do it. By saying that we're going to set ceilings, without looking at the way the ceilings will be respected, is actually a problem. Because in the end, the cost of saving money will actually be depriving the system and the citizens of services that they have been receiving.
That's why I was asking the questions about when the decision was made and how the provinces reacted. My point is that the provinces reacted to the decision of the federal government to set that cap. Now they might very well be achieving it, and that's good.
In response to Ms. Glover and the request, I'd like to see that, actually. In the last five or six years.... But the money is not the only thing. If you can actually table this document, I'd like to know how the provinces were able to achieve it. What decisions did they make to do it?
There are some good initiatives that we can fully support, like the one in your hospital, for example. There are some other savings that are achieved by delisting and by basically cutting hospitals and transferring services to the private sector. Citizens are still paying for it; they're not just paying through their taxes but they are paying out of pocket as well.
If you are preparing this list of the growth in health care costs, I'd like to also know how they were achieved. That will have to be part of the document for it to actually encompass the whole situation. You cannot only talk about financial costs without talking about the way citizens are deprived of services or might be receiving services of lower quality than what they were receiving before.
That's the whole point of the line of questioning. I just wanted to set that out.