Madam Chair, the hon. member asked me a question concerning compliance and monitoring infractions. He also asked me a question regarding funding. I categorically reject the 14¢ argument of the provinces. If the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve goes to the Department of Finance or the Department of Health website, but I direct him to the Department of Finance website, he will find there our presentation of the federal government's total contribution to the funding of health care in this country. It is not 14¢. The range could be anywhere between 36¢ and 42¢ of every dollar for health care.
The hon. member asked, is that fifty-fifty? He must understand the nature of the original arrangement. It was not fifty-fifty in terms of all those things on which the provinces spend money today. That was never the original understanding. We must go back to first principles and understand what the original cost share agreement was about and what it applied to. Mr. Romanow sets that out very clearly in his report.
The hon. member was kind enough to raise this question. He was talking about the provinces and monitoring. I want to make it plain to everyone here this evening that Health Canada's approach to resolving possible non-compliance issues emphasizes transparency, consultation and dialogue. Issues are resolved through consultation and discussion, based on a thorough examination of the facts.
It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense as opposed to becoming confrontational with provinces. It should not be necessary to withhold dollars, as we have had to in certain circumstances, and thereby deny provinces money. The approach we would like to take is to work with a province in a collegial and consultative fashion, determine whether the allegations of problems are real and if so work with the province to investigate and determine how the problem can be dealt with. However, if at the end of that a province does not cooperate or if we think there is still a problem, we will withhold dollars. We are withholding dollars right now, for example, in the case of Nova Scotia. We have withheld dollars in relation to other provinces at other times.
I worked with my provincial and territorial colleagues on a dispute avoidance and resolution mechanism. This mechanism can be used in situations where a province and the federal government cannot agree through negotiation and consultation. That dispute resolution mechanism can be put in place to resolve a dispute with a panel of third party experts. It is a tribute to how well we all work together that the dispute resolution mechanism has not been used to date.