Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.
Ever since my constituents from Berthier-Montcalm have asked me to represent and speak for them in the House, I have witnessed all kinds of manoeuvring on the part of the government.
Each time I have spoken in the House, it was solely to defend the real interests of Quebecers in my riding.
The throne speech, and all that goes with it, is an illustration of the governement's political manoeuvring that I have witnessed and about which I cannot keep silent.
It is always important for a government to take a clear position on political issues, and to state its agenda as honestly as possible, so that taxpayers have a good understanding of their government's vision. As far as the recent throne speech is concerned, taxpayers will have to wait to get a clear understanding of the government's vision, because it does not seem to have any.
Indeed, the throne speech not only leaves us in the dark, but it is nothing more than a bunch of empty promises; it is confusing and clearly lacking in substance.
One wonders why a throne speech was delivered. Those familiar with the parliamentary system will say that a throne speech was delivered because the session had been prorogued. Still, it is not clear.
Granted, the session has been prorogued, but the government, making the word prorogation meaningless, presented a motion to reinstate the bills just as they were before prorogation.
So, there was a prorogation, minus the legal implications of such a decision. Now, we have a speech from the throne that looks a lot more like an excerpt from the Petit catéchisme than a true speech from the throne, in which a government clearly states where it is headed. This throne speech lacks imagination to say the least.
Its vagueness is disconcerting. Yet, this government has been in office for over 28 months. Consequently, people had every right to expect more than wishful thinking. They wanted concrete commitments.
People wanted to know how the government was going to make our taxation system more fair. They wanted to hear about effective assistance programs for our defence industry conversion. They wanted to hear about eliminating overlap and waste. Above all,
they wanted to hear the government talk about a realistic and detailed plan to revitalize the economy and promote job creation.
Upon reading the speech from the throne, we can only conclude that the Liberal government did not understand what people wanted to hear. According to the very words used in the speech from the throne, the government will work, challenge, support, ensure. But, after two years in office, it is no longer time to ensure, work, challenge or support: it is time to act.
In the first two thirds of its speech from the throne, the government tells us a lot more about its mood than about anything else. Even staunch federalists, such as the Conseil du patronat, had no choice but to criticize the government for, among other things, its tendency to keep throwing the ball back in the court of the private sector when it comes to job creation.
However, as a Quebec member of Parliament, I was particularly surprised at the federal government's intention to remain involved in all major activity sectors, including those that come under provincial jurisdiction.
Upon reading the speech from the throne, it is obvious that Ottawa crowns itself as the great guardian of Canadian values and the protector of citizens against their own turpitude and that of their provincial government.
It has appropriated for itself the mandate of being the protector of the social union. Whatever our political opinion about the future of Quebec, it seems to me that in the last referendum, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, including people who voted against sovereignty, were of a different opinion. By acting in this manner, the government has shown clearly that it did not understand a thing about the claims of Quebecers.
I will give you a few examples. In the speech from the throne, it is said that the government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces. Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.
This approach is totally unacceptable for Quebec, for several reasons. First, the government has not indicated that it intends to withdraw entirely from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as has been requested for many years by the Quebec government. On the contrary, the federal government is confirming its right to interfere, albeit within a certain limit, which is that a majority of the provinces will have to agree to the establishment of new programs under certain conditions.
The provinces that do not agree to take part in the federal program will be entitled to financial compensation only if they establish an equivalent or comparable program. This is clearly a backhanded way for the federal government to keep control of programs and have its views and national standards prevail. Moreover, we simply do not know whether or not provinces that opt out will be fully compensated. The only purpose of this tactic is to isolate Quebec once more.
Further down in the throne speech, we read that the government will transfer to community based groups, municipal authorities and the private sector the management of the transportation infrastructure. Where do the provinces fit in that scheme? It is obvious the federal government is bypassing provincial legislatures in order to keep its control over community based groups, municipal authorities or private companies to whom it will transfer powers that were never its own in the first place.
The throne speech also says that the government is willing to withdraw from such areas as manpower training, forestry, mining, and recreation. The federal government says provincial governments, local authorities or the private sector will take on these responsibilities. It takes some gall to mention in the throne speech that the federal government is willing and ready to withdraw from areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
The government had already announced its intention of withdrawing from manpower training. This devolution was supposed to come quickly. But the new minister in charge has qualified that promise by suggesting it might take up to three years. It is still the old song and dance routine of the federal government.
But that was still not enough. The federal government had to be more arrogant towards Quebec. So, it will propose to the provinces a partnership in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to propose any partnership. It only has to withdraw from and stop interfering in areas where it does not belong. It is clear. It is easy. That is the message sent by the referendum held in Quebec last October. Also, a partnership means that the parties involved pool powers they actually have, and not that areas of jurisdiction are taken over and managed by the party with the greater spending power. That is surely not the changes the 50.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted No last October 30 were expecting from the federal government.
If the government had gotten the message, it would have stated in the throne speech that it was immediately withdrawing from every area of provincial jurisdiction.
Lastly, I have one more example of how the government has learned nothing from the latest referendum in Quebec. When the hon. Pettigrew and Dion and the Minister of Indian Affairs threaten Quebecers with a plan B, where the government would play hard
ball with Quebecers, they are really on the wrong track because Quebecers, who are on their way to sovereignty, will never bow to the threats made by these ministers.
What we want right now is for the federal government to at least abide by the Constitution it claims to protect and to withdraw from all areas where the provinces, including Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction.