Debates of May 5th, 2022

Online Streaming Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House once again on behalf of the great people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I will begin my speech in this debate by considering the background of the bill. There is a disturbing trend happening under this NDP-Liberal coalition. They do not seem to respect the democratic process, and they do not seem to be interested in protecting it.

Among many other examples, the most recent is the passing of Motion No. 11 to give themselves the power to prematurely shut down Parliament. They do not even pretend to use COVID as an excuse anymore, but they also do not like it when the Conservatives mention that it is long overdue for them to remove restrictions on members, their staff and regular citizens from entering this place or from travelling within our own country, insinuating that they are supposedly undesirable Canadians.

Leaving those things aside though, we are here to debate yet another attempt by the government to extend its overly controlling approach to online content that people can access or publish. That is the problem with Bill C-11. The vast majority of it is a near carbon copy of its predecessor, Bill C-10, with the exception of some minor changes surrounding user generated content. To debate this legislation properly, we need to fully understand how we got from Bill C-10 to Bill C-11.

Let us refresh a few memories here. Originally, Bill C-10 had a section which excluded user-generated content from its scope. At heritage committee, that was suddenly removed. This threw the door open for the CRTC to regulate nearly anything on the Internet. The government faced severe opposition to this and rightly so. At first, it might appear that the Liberals learned something from all the embarrassment, but sadly, if we dig a little deeper, it is clear that they have not.

What is even more sad is that the NDP has sold out and is going along with it. Section 4.1 is back in Bill C-11, but it is now accompanied by section 4.1(2), which allows for an exemption on the previous exception. This creates a loophole for the CRTC to regulate any content that either directly or indirectly generates revenue. In other words, the CRTC can regulate nearly anything on the Internet.

At the heart of the bill is the lurking threat of expanding censorship. It is only a matter of time, as this new opening moves through the process of bureaucracy. We must carefully consider more than the bill in front of us as it exists on paper, otherwise we will move too close to Big Brother for comfort, and it will turn out to be just as toxic as a reality show, but without any of the entertainment value. I hope bad jokes will remain safe from censorship as well.

Liberal members, along with their neighbours in the NDP, may say that this is not the intention behind the bill. If it is not, I will remind them that good intentions can still pave the road to a very bad place, and that is why Conservatives keep on saying and trying to remind them of. We are doing our job as the official opposition because it is our duty to point out any harmful risks in legislation so Parliament can make better decisions on behalf of Canadians.

This is what every MP should keep in mind. When I took my oath of office as an MP, I swore to defend the Constitution and the fundamental rights of every Canadian. Every single MP did the same thing. We are all under that same obligation. It is entirely possible to fix the problems with the bill while achieving what the NDP-Liberals say it is supposed to do. There should absolutely be a level playing field between smaller Canadian broadcasters and larger streaming services. Canadian content creators have something unique to bring to the table, and we all want to see them in the spotlight. No issues there. We are happy to pass this part of the legislation that supports Canadian producers.

However, where it goes too far is that it is unnecessarily wrong for government to control what people can or cannot access online, and ironically, what type of content Canadians should or should not produce. It is extremely irresponsible to ignore the warnings we have received. Before we know it, it could completely get out of hand. If the NDP-Liberals want to deny it, they should explain to Canadians how they are leaving room for it to happen without closing the obvious loophole.

It is a failure of due diligence and there is no excuse for it. Canada stands in a long tradition of free expression. We are admired and envied around the world for a heritage of free speech among many other freedoms. For centuries and over the years in our lifetime, we have seen it practised in newspapers, letters to the editor, and people just simply writing letters to their elected officials.

Today, we all express ourselves on the Internet as a free space. We can post our opinions. We can access information and engage with other people around the whole world. We have done it as citizens, and we do it as members of Parliament communicating with our fellow Canadians. Right now, it is easy to make posts and videos with our thoughts on all kinds of issues, and it all could be subject to regulations. Bill C-11 fails to provide safeguards for our freedom as we know it.

The government could eventually control what everyday citizens post online. This is what Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, had to say about Bill C-10 in the last Parliament: “[It] doesn't just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That should catch all of our attention. The former CRTC vice-chair warned that this legislation is toying with a fundamental right. He is in a position to understand better than some how necessary freedom of speech is for a democratic process to remain intact.

Citizens must always be able to disagree with their governments openly and strongly. We are eroding this right so the government, through the CRTC, could have the ability to regulate what it does or does not like to hear. Quite frankly, it does not like to hear the dissent from the opposition. That said, Bill C-11 would not only give us a paternalistic government, but it might also create practical problems in the area it claims it would help.

Currently, anyone could pull out their device and head over to YouTube, where they can access any content they would like, whether it is kitchen renos, how to fix car problems or content posted by friends, family or people around the world. It works well enough for now, but with the government involved, the CRTC might decide to dictate what content people should see when they search for something specific. While government mandated algorithms analyze how Canadian the content is, what someone is looking for might get pushed to the back of the queue of their search results, if it simply does not pass the test.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, someone could be trying to renovate their back deck, and the helpful video from a YouTuber they saw a little while ago is not so easy to find anymore, because maybe the best creator did not happen to be Canadian. Instead, they are flooded with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I see there are some parliamentarians who are either eager to ask questions or are trying to have conversations across the way. I would say that, if they want to have a conversation, to please take it out of the chamber. If they are wanting to ask questions or make comments, it is not quite time yet.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, they are trying to censor me already. It has already begun.

Instead, when looking up that video, they are flooded with videos about beavers and maple syrup, while where they really need to be is on page 27 of the search results to find the video of the guy giving the advice they need to build a deck, who is maybe not Canadian. This would all be because the government thinks it knows better.

Again, we do need to support the creators and the content that is made in Canada. Nobody has any issue with them. We do not need a band-aid solution to do it. What is most needed from the government is for it to take advantage of every opportunity to build and support our entertainment industry so it will be competitive and successful in the marketplace. We need more and more talented Canadians who can make it here, and that is what happens when our entertainment industry has a good foundation from a strong economy, but I wish us good luck with that, underneath the current Liberal government.

With Bill C-11, we are talking about government overreach, censorship, higher entertainment costs and half-baked solutions. Most concerning of all, we see the NDP-Liberals would be giving the CRTC power to regulate not only what Canadians can see online, but also what they can say. They could also try to decide what it means to be Canadian in our video searches or elsewhere.

Bill C-11 is dangerous, it is ridiculous and it just does not make any sense. On behalf of my fellow Canadians, I will continue to stand up and I will continue to defend their rights alongside my fellow Conservatives. It is the right thing to do, and we can only hope the NDP and the Liberals on the backbench will stand with us and make sure this bill gets due process and accomplishes what it should actually be trying to accomplish.

Before I finish, I have a subamendment. I would like to move, seconded by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

My understanding is that when a member sits they are ceding the floor.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member had some time left, so he caught himself in time.

The subamendment is in order.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I can assure this member and all Conservatives that nobody is more interested in preserving the content they create in this House than I am: the content that they give me to put out on social media. If I thought for one second that user-generated content would be impacted by this bill, I certainly would not be in favour of it.

I would like to point out to the member that there are several sections in this piece of legislation that explicitly preserve user-generated content: sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3(a), 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3(3).

I am curious. This is a simple question. Has the member read the bill, and he has read those sections in particular?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, if the member actually listened to my speech, I referenced section 4.1 and section 2, because part of this bill is the same as the previous bill. It adds onto it, which does not actually help the issue. One of the primary issues that we had in the last Parliament with the bill was section 4.1. I alluded in my speech that there are sections of the bill that we would support, because there are good things in this bill.

Again, the member opposite wants to be the czar of the future ministry of truth, so it is not surprising that he would ask some questions without actually paying attention.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a great deal about the importance of dealing with disinformation. One of the ways to do that is through our local media, which is interested in what is happening in the community and reports on local events in a factual way. Local media is essential.

Back home in Quebec, these local, independent and community media outlets are calling for this bill. Obviously we must ensure that this bill can evolve because technology evolves quickly. We must ensure that this bill does enough to encourage our local, community and independent media.

I am proud to say that where I am from, there is a fine co‑operative, La Voix de l'Est, that has turned itself around. In addition, the radio station M105 is an example of co‑operative radio.

All these media outlets are calling on us to modernize this act. It is high time, since 1991 is starting to be a long time ago, as others mentioned.

Does my colleague recognize the important role that the local media plays in fighting disinformation?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, disinformation is going to be one of the biggest issues presently and going forward. We have all been bombarded with it a lot over the last number of years.

The member also touched on another very important piece. That was about the small papers, our local community papers and local groups that actually do real journalism. I think that is what we need to get back to. The problem I see with a lot of government legislation going forward is that the supports do not actually line up with supporting the small-town papers and small community papers. As we go forward, we are going to start to see more and more of those little papers be wiped off of the planet. It is going to be the big digital platforms, the CBC and others, that are going to be dominating the space and getting rid of all these other little pieces and maybe even a company like TikTok. She is absolutely right.

I think, though, that we have to find ways to better support those small papers and do better for them going forward.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been very entertaining this afternoon. The Conservatives are saying that Canada is going to be turned into North Korea, and now my friend is saying that the Liberals are going to stop people from watching deck renovation videos.

I did agree with the hon. member about the need to fight for the fundamental rights of every Canadian and how governments control what people can do. I noticed that the cover of Le Journal de Montréal today had a picture of 39 Conservatives who are against the rights of women to make choices, and the member's picture is in there. I would like to ask him if that is disinformation, or if his—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, this obviously has nothing to do with the debate. From someone who is absolutely pro-choice, who has two daughters and would fight, always, for their ability to have the right to choose—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is more a point of debate.

I am going to allow the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I did not finish my question, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did ask for a short question, and the hon. member has been providing a lot of feedback.

I will allow two seconds for the question so that we can get to the answer, because there are only 37 seconds left.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a simple question. The member's picture is on the front page of Le Journal de Montréal, with 38 other Conservatives who are against abortion. Is it a real picture or did they make a mistake and is that disinformation?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty fascinating that the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc have been the ones talking about that issue. We are here focused on the bill that is before us today. We are not focused on that; we are focused on this. At this point in time, we need people to stay focused on the debate at hand, instead of using these distraction techniques and playing cheap political games.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11 the online streaming act.

The last time any changes were made to the Broadcasting Act, I had just met the man who would become my partner and husband, the father of my four children. It was 1991, and I was 14 years old. That is saying something.

Like my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, I watched Fraggle Rock and I was a big fan. I also grew up with Passe‑Partout and Pop Citrouille, which were outstanding children's programs in terms of their quality and diversity of content.

It is precisely so that young people can have access to content of this quality on the platforms they use today that I am pleased to see Bill C-11 move forward in the legislative process. This will give creators the funding needed to showcase their creativity at home and abroad.

Over an hour ago, I shared an experience I had with a certain streaming service, which, despite my selecting French as my preference, offered me only American, British and Korean productions. In some cases, I could not even get the French translation, even if it was only through subtitles. I had to search for quite a while to get productions from Quebec, France or French-speaking Africa.

By improving the discoverability aspect, Bill C-11 will help ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians have easier access to content from their communities, their creators and their artists.

My colleagues talk about the importance of allowing big foreign companies to play their role and respond to consumer demand. In some aspects of the economy, I would tend to agree with them. However, when it comes to culture, I cannot agree. We must not let a foreign culture decide for our own culture.

In the case of Quebec and Canada's francophone communities, it is totally illogical to let foreign companies with no ties to francophone culture make decisions and act like they know francophone culture better than francophones do. This is modern-day colonialism and imperialism, nothing more and nothing less. The aim is to make an entire population believe that its culture is not important, that it has less value than another.

My colleagues have also compared the current situation with the Internet to the situation 25 or 30 years ago, when the Internet was not as widely available as it is now. My colleague from Edmonton Riverbend was correct in saying that people used to access Canadian productions via the radio and television. Now they go on the Internet. That is true.

I would like to remind everyone that it was the radio that enabled people to discover music of all genres in French, English and, in my case, even Innu. This meant that we had access to a variety of music. It also gave listeners a chance to discover new artists.

Quotas at the time gave people an opportunity to discover Quebec and Canadian artists, which is a great thing. It was not always perfect, of course. I remember at one time, when I was working in radio, we had a Brian Adams record that did not count toward some of the quotas. Those who worked in radio will be familiar with the little circle, and one of the quarters was not filled in because the record was produced abroad. Because of that, it was not considered a 100% Canadian product, so it did not count toward the quotas.

Are there are improvements to be made? Most certainly, but that does not mean we have to slam on the brakes and do nothing. On the contrary, proposals have been made and agreed to. I am sure there are other proposals to be made now and in the future, but we have to make them. Unfortunately I have heard few proposals from the official opposition. I have heard a lot of opposition, but not much in the way of proposals.

Is it right that it is easier for francophones to access Korean content than their own? Let us be clear. Out of curiosity, I went and had a look at some of the things that were recommended to me. I liked the plots, I liked the sets and I liked the costumes. My natural curiosity led me to discover another culture. Why do we not offer that sort of thing here? We should be giving people here a chance to discover homegrown artists, both francophone Quebeckers and anglophone Canadians, and showcasing them around the world. Bill C‑11 would allow that to happen.

Having high-quality content in our language is important. Non‑francophones could probably do what I did with the Korean shows, in other words, watch shows that were made here, discover Quebec artists and become interested. These days, curiosity is cultivated. That is probably what my colleagues feel like telling me. Today, to cultivate curiosity and interest, it needs to be easy to access high-quality shows and content. That is what Bill C‑11 does.

Some will tell me that those who want to access francophone culture just have to do what I did and go look for it. I find that attitude rather alarming. Why should I have to go look for expressions of my culture when others never have to look at all in order to have access to expressions of their own culture? These people who feel like telling me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I must interrupt the hon. member, who will have three minutes when we resume consideration of this bill.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

moved that Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to my bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.

The bill addresses the root cause of the tensions and disputes between the federal government and the provinces, Quebec in particular, and that is spending power. The federal government has given itself the power to tell Quebec what to do in its own areas of jurisdiction, under the pretext that it is transferring money to the province.

Canada is supposed to be a federation. In a federation, the two levels of government are equally sovereign, but not in the same areas.

Section 91 of the Constitution confers powers on the federal Parliament and section 92 confers powers on Quebec and the Canadian provinces. Federal spending that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction calls into question the division of powers and Quebec's autonomy. That is what spending power is. It is the power to tell the other what to do in areas that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction. Respecting Quebec and its autonomy is not a partisan game in Quebec, and this is not new.

It was during the creation of the welfare state, as it was known, when the government started developing various social programs, that tensions arose.

During the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, Quebeckers clearly picked a side. They looked to the Government of Quebec to develop the social safety net, and they expected Quebec to be completely free to do that without having to take orders from Ottawa. Quebec Premier Jean Lesage's campaign slogan was “Maîtres chez nous”, masters of our own house, and that is what he was talking about. That is also what the great constitutional talks—Victoria in 1970, Meech Lake in 1987 and Charlottetown in 1992—were all about. In fact, that is what prompted me to get into politics.

When English Canada got itself a new Constitution without Quebec, I decided to make the leap. When I ran in 1984, I ran because I wanted us to be masters of our own house. It is for that same reason that I am now introducing Bill C‑237 38 years later.

The bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways.

On the one hand, it provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn.

On the other hand, Bill C-237 adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program. This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example.

If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn. The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It can be comparable, but it does not have to be the same. There is no requirement to respect standards or criteria or to allow interference in our affaires. We have a fair amount of control in this kind of relationship. That is not currently the case under this government or under previous governments.

Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that applies only to Quebec. This amendment would exempt Quebec from the application of criteria and conditions set out by Ottawa in the Canada Health Act.

The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs. It is talking about a series of so-called national strategies, which we understand to mean “dictated by the federal government”, in such areas as mental health, seniors' health, reproductive health, pharmacare and dental care.

The federal government does not develop any services and, in fact, it would not be able to do so. The federal government does not deliver any services either, as it knows nothing about them. It will just transfer the responsibility to the provinces so they will do the work in its place. It is going to hire them like subcontractors, and it is going to use its spending power to tell them what to do.

Fifty years ago, Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”. Today, his son is saying that the state has its place in every room in the house, which is unacceptable to us. Our house is Quebec, and we do not want Canada deciding on the decor and furniture.

As I was saying, it is not a partisan issue in Quebec. I would like to quote Benoît Pelletier, Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs in Jean Charest's government, the same Jean Charest who is a Liberal in Quebec and a Conservative in Ottawa. It would be difficult to be any more transparent.

Benoît Pelletier said, “I have a great deal of difficulty in reconciling the values underlying the Canadian federation with the idea of a federal spending power that is in no way subject to the division of powers.”

The Séguin commission on the fiscal imbalance said the same thing: “The 'federal spending power' displays a singular logic in that the federal government intervenes every time in a field falling under provincial jurisdiction without having to adopt a constitutional amendment.”

The current government of François Legault, which was elected on an autonomist platform, is still calling for jurisdictions to be respected. Between autonomist François Legault and Jean Lesage's “masters in our own house”, it is very clear that Quebec does not want the federal government to tell us what to do in areas over which we have exclusive jurisdiction.

This is not a constitutional matter. It is, quite simply, a jurisdictional matter. The federal government does not manage the health care system and knows nothing about it.

In March, the Bloc leader held a press conference to demand that the federal budget include an increase in health transfers, with no conditions attached. He was accompanied by the entire Quebec health care community: unions, physicians' federations, various health care professionals, everyone. These people, the backbone of the health care system, are all asking for the same thing, and that is a boost in transfers, with no conditions.

These people make the health care system function, together with the Quebec government. The last thing they need is the federal government coming in and telling them what to do. This consensus goes far beyond the political parties in Quebec; it includes the entire health care community. I would like to reiterate that all the provincial premiers are unanimously asking for the same thing. That consensus is reflected in Bill C-237.

A few weeks ago, the Speaker ruled that my bill requires a royal recommendation. In other words, the House can vote on it at third reading only if the government agrees. We still have second reading, committee and report stage, which gives us several months to convince this government, which, I remind members, is a minority government.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, we want to be masters in our own house to the extent possible.

The Conservative Party campaigned on a platform of respect for provincial jurisdiction. The NDP had its Sherbrooke declaration, which supported Quebec's right to opt out. Together, the three of us can move Bill C‑237 forward. Today, I am calling on these three parties to do just that.

My people built a unique society on our part of the continent. Our distinct nature is evident in our language and our culture, but it is much more than that. Quebec has the highest rate of female labour market participation, the most advanced family policy on the continent, the best wealth distribution and the lowest poverty rates. Almost 80% of the population belongs to the middle class, compared to under 75% in the rest of Canada. How did we make that happen? We did it because we were free to do it. That is all there is to it.

The federal government wants to use its spending power to replace our freedom with conditional freedom. It cannot recognize the existence of a nation while simultaneously wanting to control it. Everyone here rejects that brand of paternalism toward indigenous nations, whose right to self-government we recognize. I expect the same level of respect for my nation, the Quebec nation.

That is why I urge all members to support my Bill C‑237 so we can have a little more mastery over our own house.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I totally disagree with the member's legislation, and I will expand on the reason why shortly.

My question for the member is this. Would he apply the same principles with respect to health in other jurisdictions? For example, the Province of Manitoba would often put conditions to the City of Winnipeg on issues that the City of Winnipeg is fully responsible for. With respect to education, we have school trustees and they are fully responsible for education. Would he apply those same principles to those jurisdictions?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer is very simple. It is well established in the Canadian Constitution that education and health are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Manitoba has full authority in education and health, as does Quebec. The federal government needs to stop meddling in these areas of jurisdiction.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the dean of the House, for his speech. It was interesting to hear him talk about the time when he first got into politics. Here we are in 2022 still having to demand that our areas of jurisdiction be respected.

This week I attended a summit on the dignity of seniors. I asked a question in the House yesterday about the importance of increasing their purchasing power, but beyond that, everyone at the summit was calling for health transfers. It is about time we took care of our health care system, our seniors and Quebeckers. Everyone agreed that we need to stop arguing and stop accepting transfers with conditions. They were clear that we need transfers without conditions.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

That is exactly what I said in my speech. Quebec's entire health care community, like every premier in Canada, is calling for health transfers with no conditions because it is the provinces that manage the hospitals, that organize them and the work. The role of the federal government is clearly stated in the Constitution. It consists solely of transferring money to the provinces so that they can provide quality health care services. Seniors in Quebec and everywhere are calling for this. The entire health care community, including doctors, unions, and health care workers, is calling for transfers with no conditions.