Mr. Speaker, first, let us not forget that, historically, in 1984—the act was passed in 1985 but was introduced in 1984—the Canada Health Act was declared valid. It was declared constitutional not so much because of its five principles, but because of the spending power issue. It is because the federal government has such spending power that the Canada Health Act exists.
If there were no spending power, constitutionally, one cannot be sure that the Canada Health Act, with the five principles that we know, would have withstood a court challenge.
I want to tell my colleague that if the provinces have different health care systems, it will be the provincial governments that will be accountable to the voters. If voters in Nova Scotia feel that the health care system in place in their province does not meet their expectations, they can choose a government that will do a better job in that regard. I do not think that it is constitutionally and politically desirable that this be a federal responsibility.
Is my colleague not concerned? Over the last few years, what role has the federal government played with regard to health, apart from anything that has to do with the military, the approval of drugs and quarantine? It has destabilized the provinces.
On page 28, the Romanow report recognizes that this situation is not desirable. We must move toward a situation where the Government of Canada honours its constitutional obligation, which is the allocation of financial resources.
Regarding health plans, regarding the delivery of health care and the role of regional boards, I am sorry but this is not the federal government's responsibility. It is a fact that has to be accepted.
Does it mean that we cannot be sorry that Newfoundland and Quebec do not have exactly the same health care system? Perhaps we should be sorry, but not to the point of wishing for the federal government to interfere in areas that, once again, are outside its jurisdiction.