Mr. Speaker, on February 27, the federal government opened the second session of the 35th Parliament. At a point half-way through its mandate, Quebecers and Canadiens were expecting a throne speech that would give a little inspiration to this government, which seems to lack it, and a vision or, at least, some clarification as to its intentions.
I have rarely seen a stranger mix of clarity and vagueness. During the October referendum period, the Prime Minister had promised the people of Quebec major constitutional and political changes. The throne speech confirmed that we have, on one hand, a government without direction on the constitutional front and without any new ideas other that doubling the number of summer jobs for young people to solve the glaring unemployment problem.
Changes considered as being important during a referendum campaign have become mere cosmetic adjustments a few months later.
As I mentioned earlier, the throne speech is a mix of clarity and vagueness in what it says, what it hints at, and what it does not say. On the clear side first: fine, noble and generous principles are mentioned in the throne speech. On page 1 alone, for example, we find at least 12 words calling for generosity, compassion, altruism and openness. This is clear, but these are only principles. Is there anything clearer than principles?
Another example of clarity: when we are told that the federal government is prepared to withdraw from its functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining and recreation. On the vague side, and what is more revealing, is what the government does not say. He neglected to say that Bill C-111 had already announced the transfer of occupational training to the provinces.
Moreover, as the leader of the official opposition said, in its speech from the throne, the federal government has finally admitted that it has interfered, and still does, in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In the same breath, it undertakes to withdraw from certain areas and it even has the nerve to claim that it will turn over these areas of jurisdiction, which are not its own, to municipal governments or to the private sector. This is a strange way indeed of reversing policy.
There is something else that does not appear in the speech from the throne and it is the natural tendency of the federal government to centralize to preserve the social union of Canada-a new expression that evokes many future encroachments.
Strangely enough, the speech from the throne does not say a word of the fact that three other areas, namely forestry, mining and leisure, are also exclusive provincial jurisdictions. It does not mention that, besides those three areas, the federal government proposed in the failed Charlottetown Accord to withdraw also from social housing, tourism and municipal affairs.
Is my time already over, Mr. Speaker?
