Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by our colleague and I think he has not grasped certain elements of the political situation.
First, can he admit that, since 1993, funding has been cut by $33 billion? Even though the provinces were counting on this amount to balance their budgets and provide public services, they never received this $33 billion.
The member talked as if happiness was the absence of misfortune. I would like to say that we cannot operate on that basis in a society.
The first question I would like him to answer is this: Does he recognize that his government has acted indelicately, in a way that is inconsistent with the spirit of federalism in which two governments should respect each other's jurisdictions?
Second, can he stand in his place and tell me where it says in the Constitution Act of 1867 or 1982 that the federal government is authorized to intervene in health care? Would he be prepared to put his seat on the line on the constitutional jurisdiction of his government to intervene in the area of health care?
Some $80 billion will be spent on health, whereas the federal government has no business there.
If our colleague wants to help out his neighbour, there are areas where the federal government can act. Liberal members are like one long film we might call The Silence of the Lambs : always agreeing with what the government does.
In terms of employment insurance, the government could improve the situation of the unemployed. With the banks, it could pass legislation on community reinvestment. But it did not—