My point is that when zero provinces have requested it, one province has actively said they don't want it, and then for the first time in 100 years the federal government thinks this is a high priority for provinces to have a power that they do not want, it's not a real motive. The real motive, I would say, is to attack refugees on both health care and welfare, and it's pretty obvious.
I'd like to ask Mr. Showler a follow-up question. I think one other witness, Ms. Go, talked about the legal side. You are a lawyer, so as a follow-up to the earlier question you had on legal matters, the courts clearly knocked down the health care initiative, saying it was cruel and unusual, and the federal government has to retract on that.
Do you think that there can be a similar court finding that this, for some reason, is unconstitutional, or can't be done, or is illegal, and that the federal government will have to retract? It may not because it's not doing anything except changing jurisdiction. If there were such a case, how would it come? Would it have to be through an appeal by someone to a court? How could this unfold from a legal point of view?