I would like to welcome the witnesses.
Earlier, Dr. Eyolfson asked you whether it would be appropriate for the federal government to make targeted investments to increase care. If that improves the situation, fine, but if it means the government has to make cuts elsewhere in the health care system, is that really desirable?
You talked about all the issues earlier, including the fact that health care funding hadn't increased in line with population growth. You talked about a loss of 3,000 beds. Should money be injected into the system to keep 35,000 beds, or should there be targeted investments determined by the federal government, which doesn't know the needs of the provinces on the ground?
There's currently a health transfer trend where the federal government tells the provinces that it will give them money, but that it will decide where they should invest it, as if it had the necessary authority to determine that. You're on the ground, and you see what's happening. The federal government is telling the Conservatives that immigration has no impact on service delivery, that it isn't right to say such a thing, and that they're trying to stigmatize people who come from elsewhere. You told us earlier about the problems related to that. It's important to treat the people who come here with dignity.
Who has the jurisdiction to decide where the money should be invested, then? We say that it's the people on the ground who provide the care. That's the issue that's emerging from our work: The federal government wants to decide everything and tell the provinces where to invest the money it gives them.
What's your reaction to that?