Due to the nature of those threats, the Programme should support coordinated public health measures at Union level to address different aspects of cross-border health threats, building on preparedness and response planning, robust and reliable risk assessment and a strong risk and crisis management framework.

Health should not be considered as a budgetary adjustment variable, and preventive health measures should not be regarded solely as expenditure, but also as an investment which may reduce expenditure.

STATE OF HEALTH IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS "THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, welcomes the Commission's report of 19 July 1995 on the state of health in the European Community; notes that, as the report was prepared before the accession of the new Member States, no information on them is included; notes with satisfaction the Commission's intention of submitting regular reports on the state of health; emphasizes the need for cooperation to this end with the international organizations responsible for public health; considers that the preparation of reports containing comprehensive and accurate information on health status, determinants of health and health-related activities throughout the Community provides a way i ...[+++]n which to help improve public knowledge and understanding of major health problems in the Community and of the action and programmes being undertaken at Community and Member State levels; considers that these reports should provide useful information to be used in the planning of measures to be undertaken at Community level as well as for the evaluation of those already being carried out; agrees to consider further, in the context of the Commission's proposal for the adoption of a programme of Community action on health monitoring, inter alia: - the objective and format of future reports; - the sources of data to be used; - the frequency of their publication; - how they might be used as a basis for determining priorities for Community action".

The coexistence of different national penalty systems is compatible with the smooth operation of the internal market only in so far as the measures are capable of ensuring both fair competition under equitable conditions and protection of the general interests (in the fields of health, safety, protection of the environment, etc.) covered by the common rules.

The reason why we have to work to ensure fairness in the employment insurance system is that in many cases, workers are going through hard times, and not just in the last few months.

We recommend, more specifically, that Treasury Board and the departments consult bargaining agents at the national and departmental levels with respect to changes to staffing levels, workforce adjustment measures and the effects that these may have on members of the designated groups; that Treasury Board, as the employer for the federal public service, issue a directive to all departments to take employment equity into consideration when carrying out any changes to staffing levels and workforce adjustment measures; that specific mea ...[+++]sures of accountability be put in place to ensure that Treasury Board and the departments are accountable for any disproportionate negative impacts that public service cuts have on members of the four designated equity groups; that the government reinstate the long-form census or, at the very least, include on the short form the questions that provide data for employment equity; that the government reinstate the funding for the PALS; and that HRSDC continue to administer it.