Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I believe she explained quite well the underlying elements of the throne speech. I wish she would speak again on this point, because she may not have had enough time to describe the consequences, for the citizens of this country, of this government's direction with respect to American policies and our participation in the missile defence plan. We do not know the costs involved, but we know full well that huge investments will be required, that it will cost a fortune.
The Speech from the Throne refers to substantial reinvestments in defence and security. All those plans are clearly outlined in the throne speech. Reference is also made to more dredging in the St. Lawrence Seaway, which, for the Americans, is not only a question of transport but also a question of security.
As far as costs are concerned, what is proposed in the throne speech is absolutely gigantic, and the amounts will be spent at the expense of health, education or transfers to provinces, in fact, at the expense of all services.
I hope my colleague will expand on how the public will be affected by the directions outlined in the throne speech. I would like to quote a short excerpt from that speech to show to what extent the federal government has withdrawn from services, particularly in the regions.
At page 17, the Speech from the Throne states:
A Canada where the benefits of the 21st century economy are being reaped fromcoast to coast to coast... But government has an essential enabling role.
Do you know what that essential enabling role is? It is not to invest in the regions; it is a role of moderator. We will only be moderators. We will go and tell people, “Do the development yourselves”. It is written:
This will be achieved primarily through the efforts of Canadians themselves.
Therefore, the federal government continues to withdraw from all services and from the regions. I would like to hear my hon. colleague on that.