House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Excuse me. I apologize for interrupting the honourable member for Ottawa—Vanier, but I did not see the honourable member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Does she wish to deliver her speech now? Actually, it is the Bloc Québécois' turn. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot should therefore have the floor.
Pardon me, but the honourable member for Ottawa—Vanier may continue. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will have the floor after that.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I will focus on my new responsibilities as the official opposition's heritage and official languages critic.
I will share my time with the member for Mississauga—Erindale.
I believe that the Conservative government should offer a coherent vision of cultural life in Canada, a vision that does not neglect our cultural industries, our artistic institutions, our museums, our artists or our public broadcaster.
The Conservatives did not do that. In the throne speech there was mention of finally acting on copyright, but there were no details as to content or timing. Legislation had been promised before June 2006 on this matter and then before Christmas 2006. Now, 18 months later, we may get this legislation.
When the minister spoke yesterday, many were hoping to hear a few details on that and her thoughts on a number of other important dossiers in the matters of heritage. Yesterday there was not a word. There was not a word about our public broadcaster, not a word about reassuring Canadians as to whether or not the Reform dissenting opinion of the Lincoln report in 2003 still holds, which would have privatized CBC. There was not a word from the minister on that.
There was not a word about a museums policy. There was not a word about the museums assistance program. The Canadian Museums Association had been given a commitment that a policy would be forthcoming before Christmas 2006. Christmas came and went and it did not get that policy. Yesterday there was not a word.
The Prime Minister announced that the Government of Canada would finance the operational costs of the new human rights museum in Winnipeg, which is fine, but there is still a question mark as to whether or not the $22 million will be coming from an existing envelope or whether the envelope overall will be increased. My information is that it is from the existing envelope, therefore choking off the existing museums, so much so that they have to do fundraising, as has been reported, to make acquisitions. There was not a word about all of this.
There was also not a word about increasing the museums assistance program. In the last election the Conservatives promised to actually increase the funding to small museums across the country. Lo and behold, what they did instead was the opposite. They reduced the museums assistance program. There was not a word about that.
There was not a word about the exhibition transportation services for museums and galleries, which is very useful to the smaller galleries and museums. This will expire at the end of March 2008. There was not a word about that.
There was not a word about the portrait gallery. Many people have been asking about that. What is the policy framework within which the government will be making the decision as to where the portrait gallery should be located?
There was not a word about the television fund. Will it ever be A-based? Will it be indexed? What about funding for Telefilm and the National Film Board? Will they be increased? Will they be indexed? There was not a word.
There was not a word about festivals. There was not a word about where the minister is vis-à-vis the CRTC and Canadian content and foreign ownership restrictions.
Right now we have a situation where the government has, by executive fiat, which comes from the industry department and not from the heritage department, directed the CRTC essentially to let market forces dominate. Is the minister's silence consent as to this direction for Canadian cultural industries, Canadian television and film content? If it is, perhaps she should have said so yesterday.
Canada's cultural and artistic communities have not been given enough information. They do not know what to expect from the Conservative government. This is not unlike what happened when the federal government copied the Liberal Party's promise during the last election campaign to double funding for the Council for the Arts. As it turns out, that is not at all what the government has done.
The minister talked exclusively about official languages earlier, and that is fine, but she could have mentioned her other portfolio: Canadian Heritage.
With respect to official languages, she congratulated herself on having signed service and education agreements with all of the provinces. I should hope so, because by the time the government came to power, those agreements had already been negotiated and confirmed. All she had to do was sign them. The Conservatives can go ahead and take all the credit, but they really should give credit where credit is due.
The minister said that she met with the ministers responsible for la Francophonie a month ago. However, she failed to mention that these very ministers issued a press release demanding that the federal government renew the action plan that was introduced by its predecessor in 2003.
Let us talk about this plan. This begs a fundamental question: does the Conservative government intend to renew the plan? It found all manner of ways to avoid this word, avoid this specific commitment. What the linguistic minority communities across the country are asking for, and what the ministers responsible for la Francophonie across the country asked for, is that the action plan be renewed. In the Speech from the Throne, there is not a single occurrence of the word “renewal”. The government has chosen its words carefully.
The minister wanted to focus on the issue of official languages; we were hoping she would, because it is not clear. Would the plan be renewed for one year, two years, five years? It is not clear. How much money would be allocated? Not a word. Are we talking about broadening this action plan? A promise was made after many consultations with the communities. It was a matter of broadening the plan to incorporate programs for young people, women, seniors, culture and international issues. Not a word.
She did not talk about the setbacks we have had under her government either; the cancellation of the court challenges program, for example. As for the Official Languages Secretariat, which was a branch of the Privy Council, the government decided to transfer it to Canadian Heritage, when we know full well that a secretariat located in a central agency has a lot more influence and a greater ability to take action.
Were it not for the existence of this secretariat at the Privy Council when I was minister responsible for official languages, we would not have succeeded in getting language clauses in the early childhood agreements with every province. What did this government do? It relieved the Privy Council of its role in official languages and gave that role to Canadian Heritage. The communities are having a hard time getting their bearings. The minister could have said a few words about this, but she chose not to say a word.
As for the new round of budget cuts just starting, which her department is subject to, would the action plan for official languages be protected from these cuts this time? Not a word.
As for the Department of National Defence in this struggle to promote linguistic duality, and we totally agree that it is the role of the Government of Canada to ensure that the Official Languages Act is respected across the country, there is not a word. National Defence has given up and there is not a word on this from the government.
Nor was anything said about one of the Prime Minister's first actions when he came to power, informing us that he intended to cancel all early childhood agreements—the very agreements that had been negotiated and that communities were celebrating from one end of the country to the other. It is a major setback for these communities. The minister did not say one word about this.
There is not one word about the fact that, after they were elected, the Conservatives decided that the Commissioner of Official Languages, an officer of this House, would no longer report to the Prime Minister but would report to another minister. Previous governments had indicated the importance they attributed to the issue of linguistic duality and the official languages. They said that, in terms of the government, the Commissioner of Official Languages reported to the Prime Minister. In terms of his mandate, he obviously reports to the House of Commons, as he should.
However, even more disturbing, there is not a word about Bill S-3. When in opposition, his government supported the bill, which dealt with the last amendments to the Official Languages Act made in November 2005, when everyone was celebrating.
Where are the plans that were to come out of the application of Bill S-3? Where is the regulatory framework? Where are the consultations that will result in the regulations? Where is the cabinet committee on official languages, the ad hoc committee that has not met, as far as I know, for 18 months? What is the minister doing about these matters?
All I can do, as did the Commissioner for Official Languages in his first report, is criticize the Prime Minister and his government for not having backed up these lovely words with concrete action.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on an excellent speech. I really do hope that members on the government side took note of his speech. I know the former defence minister has, because all of us in the House could learn quite a bit from the hon. member's speech. He brought to light some serious omissions in the Speech from the Throne, omissions that deal with culture, the very essence of the fabric that is Canada, the definition of its heart and soul.
I want to ask my hon. colleague if he could expand on the repercussions of such omissions to Canadian society.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I should first of all correct my hon. colleague in that I was never minister of defence. I had the honour of being associate minister of defence and my colleague, Mr. Graham, who is no longer in Parliament, had asked me to look into the official languages application in defence.
The answer to the question is to be found in what others have said. When we look at the concerns expressed by ACTRA, by the Canadian Conference of the Arts and by la Fédération culturelle canadienne française following the Speech from the Throne, we see they have some grave concerns as to the absence of anything to deal with culture writ large, our cultural industries in the Speech from the Throne.
Yes, they acknowledge there is mention of copyright legislation which we have been waiting now for 18 months, either in industry or in heritage, as my colleague over there from Edmonton knows. The absence of where the government wishes to take or not to take Canada's cultural concerns is very much something that frightens people. There are a number of signals that have emanated in the past, as I mentioned one, from the Reform Party in its dissenting opinion on the Clifford Lincoln report about the role of a public broadcaster, wishing for the privatization of CBC. That has never been denied by the current government.
There are a number of concerns out there which the government had an opportunity to address in the Speech from the Throne and it chose not to. The question is still very valid: Is there something that the Conservatives do not wish to tell us? Perhaps in questions in the House or perhaps even better in committee, we can get some answers to these questions. They are fundamental to the well-being of Canadian identity in a continent where we are dominated by our neighbours from the south.
James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what the hon. member opposite was talking about with respect to copyright legislation. As he said, it was mentioned in the throne speech, so it will be a priority for the government this fall going forward.
He obviously knows that in a minority government situation like this it will require at least two parties if not more to come to a consensus on this issue. I am wondering perhaps if he would enlighten the House about some of the specifics that he and his party would like to see in such copyright legislation. Bill C-60 was introduced in the last session, but perhaps he could identify some of the specifics that he, as the critic, and his party would like to see in any such copyright legislation this fall.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, by the very nature of a minority Parliament, it is for the government to consult first and foremost. The government should reach out not only to the opposition parties, but it should include the opposition parties and reach out in terms of what our expectations are. Before that, it should reach out to the industry, and not just the industry side of that, because there is industry and there is heritage. There has forever been a bit of a dichotomy in heritage.
My colleague was not here during the last round of modernization of the Copyright Act which I think was Bill C-32 in the 35th Parliament. That is how far back it goes. It was complex and difficult. Compromises had to be worked out even in a majority Parliament. Imagine that.
My hon. colleague's question regarding a minority Parliament is that much more relevant. At the base of it all to ensure success first and foremost are consultations that are respectful and that lead to perhaps compromised positions which everyone can live with. I assure him and his minister that we in the official opposition are quite prepared to play ball in that field.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order, please. Before the speech from the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, I wanted to give the floor to another member, but she is not here. I would like to give the floor to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her maiden speech in the House. A member from the Liberal Party will then have the floor.
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to once again thank the constituents in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. They elected me on September 17 with a very clear mandate: defend their interests and demand that the government meet the five conditions of the Bloc Québécois.
We are against the Speech from the Throne. We think it represents another missed opportunity for the Conservative government to meet the repeated demands of Quebec, for which the Bloc Québécois set out five conditions. In other cases, the Conservative government is refusing to respond to demands based on unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.
My colleagues who spoke earlier explained very well the reasons my party is against the Speech from the Throne. Nothing in this speech gives me a reason to tell my constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that their demands have been met and this is what I am going to speak about.
First, on the issue of Canada's current combat mission in Afghanistan, it is completely unacceptable for the government to extend the mission until 2011. More and more people are saying that resources that should be invested in humanitarian aid and reconstruction are being invested instead in combat forces and that rather than being considered as allies by the Afghans, our soldiers are making enemies of them. It is reported that poppy production has never been healthier in Afghanistan. This proves that the mission objectives have not been met.
I am tempted to draw a parallel with the problems associated with marijuana production in my region. When a population is faced with the consequences of drug trafficking, there is only one way to fight the problem, and that is to involve the people, as the Bloc Québécois members have succeeded in doing in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, with the help of law enforcement authorities. Have our soldiers in Afghanistan succeeded in making the Afghan people their allies? The answer is no.
I personally know some of the soldiers from my region who are serving on this mission. I believe that they deserve our admiration because they are bravely risking their lives to defend the lives of others. But at the same time, at the very least, our soldiers need to feel that they are taking part in a mission that is really helping the Afghan people. That is why we must tell NATO now that the current mission will end in February 2009.
Second, the Conservative government is proposing to limit federal spending power only for new shared-cost programs, with the right to opt out with “reasonable compensation”. This proposal calls to mind the proposed social union, which makes it unacceptable to Quebec for a number of reasons. I will mention only two.
The first reason is simply that the government is not proposing to eliminate federal spending power, but limit it. Quebeckers agree that federal spending power must be eliminated. Quebec has been challenging that power for over half a century. Even after his government was elected, the Prime Minister repeatedly stated that he and his party would oppose federal spending power. Our party asked that the federal government promise to stop spending altogether in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. The throne speech does not come anywhere near that.
The second reason is that the Conservative government claims that it is responding to our demands, but in reality, it is referring to non-existent spending.
Indeed, the government wants to limit use of the federal spending power only in the case of shared cost programs. The fact is, most federal spending in areas of Quebec jurisdiction is not for shared cost programs, and there are fewer and fewer programs of this nature.
What we have seen in recent months under the Conservative government have been transfers that are conditional on federal priorities and therefore constitute interference, pure and simple, such as the new Canadian Mental Health Commission or the cervical cancer vaccination program. The federal steamroller continues to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. Clearly, the recognition of Quebec as a nation within a united Canada has in no way changed the federal government's desire to interfere.
Let us now discuss the Bloc Québécois' third condition, which involved specific measures to support the workers, businesses and regions suffering from the manufacturing crisis and the forestry crisis. With the help of people from the field, the Bloc Québécois had proposed some measures to modernize and revive the forest economy, thereby supporting the workers affected by the crisis.
My colleagues have probably already mentioned this, but it is worth saying again: 21,000 of Quebec's forestry workers have lost their jobs since April 1, 2005, and no fewer than 156 mills have ceased operations. The rising Canadian dollar has not helped things at all.
People sometimes forget that the crisis in the forestry industry can affect regions whose economies are not resource-based. For example, in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a heavy machinery manufacturer that supplied the forestry sector had to close its doors in 2006, forcing a lot of people to look for new jobs.
The rising dollar also led to the closure of two pork processing plants in my riding. Once again, many jobs were lost.
I am sure that my colleagues know just how hard it can be for a worker in his or her fifties to find another job, especially when several workers lose their jobs at the same time. We were hoping that the Conservative government would help these workers by creating an income support program for workers aged 55 to 64 who cannot be retrained and who were victims of massive layoffs, a program that would have helped them bridge the gap between employment insurance and their pension fund, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois.
We were also hoping that the Conservative government would use this opportunity to restore everything the Liberals cut from the employment insurance program. This would have given most unemployed people the benefits they are due for having contributed, along with their employers, to a fund that belongs to them. After all, the Prime Minister, too, used to criticize the Liberal decision to dip into the employment insurance fund.
Instead, we got nothing. Too bad for older workers and for forestry regions in dire straits. The Bloc Québécois thinks that is unacceptable.
I would now like to address the Bloc Québécois' fourth condition: respecting Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord by adopting a territorial approach that would recognize Quebec's compliance with the Kyoto targets.
The throne speech contained no surprises in that regard. There was nothing in it that would be good for Quebec or for sustainable development in general. My colleagues have already said a lot about this, so I will just add that the Conservative government is still trying to fool the public by choosing intensity targets over real results.
They have a lot of nerve, saying they want greenhouse gas emissions to increase at a slower rate.
The Bloc Québécois' fifth condition was that the government make a firm commitment to defending the supply-managed system for agriculture. We know how important this is to the producers of milk, poultry and eggs, products that supply a livelihood for many farm families in Quebec.
In the throne speech, the Conservatives only mention the “government's strong support” for supply management. This is a very half-hearted statement especially when we think of the statements by the Minister of International Trade. At a time when the concept of food sovereignty is increasingly taking hold of citizens in Quebec and elsewhere in the world, it is unacceptable that the Canadian government is not taking responsibility for defending supply management.
I could also have talked about the Conservative approach to justice, the creation of a single securities commission, proposals in the throne speech that run counter to the Quebec consensus or recognition of the primacy of the French language in Quebec, of which there is no mention in the throne speech, but I will stop there. I believe that there are enough reasons for us to vote against this throne speech.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I am sure the House would want to join with me in congratulating the hon. member on her first speech in the House of Commons.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abbotsford.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I by welcoming the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to this august chamber. I hope she has as much satisfaction in serving her constituency as I have had in my first 20 months in the House.
As time goes by, she will notice there are many opinions floating around this chamber and, as she knows, opinions are, at the very heart, subjective. They are our own feelings about different issues. However, from time to time, all of us make statements that allege certain facts. She made one of those, and I think she may be incorrect and I want to challenge her on that.
She had suggested that in Canada's role in Afghanistan, in trying to rebuild and reconstruct a fledgling democracy in Afghanistan, somehow Canada had failed to turn the Afghan people into allies of ours.
In fact, a recent poll last week indicated that a huge majority of the Afghan people were not only very aware of the role Canada plays in Afghanistan, but in fact support Canada's role there and want our armed forces to remain engaged in providing security and protection to the people of Afghanistan.
In light of that poll, which was done by a very prestigious Canadian polling organization, could she explain how she then would allege that the Afghan people were not allies of Canada? From my view, it is very clear—
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague opposite that Canadian soldiers presently in Afghanistan are on a combat mission. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is very important to advise NATO that we will withdraw from this mission in February 2009 at the latest.
I find it difficult to understand that the throne speech talks about extending this mission without discussing it in committee. In addition, when I stated that we should be allies of the Afghan people, I believe that one of the things that they expect from Canada is that we be effectively involved in the reconstruction of their country.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her first speech in the House and look forward to many more good speeches like that.
I would like to ask the hon. member what she would like to see in the throne speech regarding the environment?
As we know, the previous government had a green plan. The present government cut over 100 items. There was support for solar energy, wind energy, biodiesel, carbon sequestration, clean coal, cutting auto emissions and large final emitters. There were many projects. Some that the government cut were brought back, such as EnerGuide, but with less money and it is less effective.
Does the hon. member think that the throne speech was adequate in relation to the environment, and if not, what would she have liked to have seen in the throne speech?
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, by voting against the budget, the Bloc Québécois is opposing the measures announced.
However, I would like to point out that the Liberals are currently helping the government remain in power and, at the same time, are supporting the unacceptable components of the proposals in the throne speech.
The Bloc Québécois has stood up to denounce everything the Conservatives have failed to do with respect to the Kyoto protocol.
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the throne speech today. This is actually a great opportunity to respond to what the Conservative government has outlined for Canadians.
First, I do want to say that it is good to be back in the House of Commons. It is good to be back after so many Canadians have asked us: “Why was Parliament shut down for an additional month? Why were MPs not at their desks, in their offices, and in the chamber doing the work that Canadians expect them to do?”
I will be honest, during the summer I spoke with many of my constituents. I went door to door. I met with them at events, at my office and they all asked me this question. I really did not have any convincing response. I could not explain to them why the Conservatives decided to prorogue Parliament and delay the return of Parliament for an additional month.
If the Conservative government really wanted to do that, why did it not prorogue Parliament during the summer months? The House did not sit for over a month's time, so why did the government not prorogue Parliament during the summer months? No, the Conservatives wanted to delay Parliament. They wanted to lock out MPs from doing their work. They wanted to avoid answering questions about which Canadians expect to hear answers.
Many pundits gave us an answer about why this Conservative government is good at playing political games. It wanted to stop questions. It wanted to avoid questions. It wanted to appear that it had this new agenda. It wanted to create some hype and that is what it is good at: playing political games and posturing. But nothing serious for Canadians. The Conservatives are running on fumes. They have run out of ideas.
I would have expected the throne speech, after that delay, to come up with a new set of ideas, a new vision, an invigorated plan, and some kind of explanation for why the government prorogued Parliament. There was nothing. This was quite a disappointment. We would think that at least the throne speech would address the items that the Conservatives claimed were their priorities. We would think that at least they would have answered questions about their failed promises and their broken promises and unfulfilled promises. There was nothing.
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I am glad an hon. member asks me which ones. Let me begin.
By the way, I did not expect him to address the in and out scheme from Elections Canada. I did not expect that. I understand why the Conservatives would avoid explaining that in the throne speech. Never mind, we will be asking these questions and the Conservatives will have to answer these questions, not just to us and to Elections Canada, but to Canadians who want to know the answer.
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I do not mean to get on the nerves of the Conservatives. I am just doing my job here. I hope they can sit down and listen, and answer these questions.
Let us talk about the items that were priorities. The Conservatives falsely claim that they are the champions of accountability.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Yes, that is right, falsely claim. I am glad they are applauding. What have they done so far? Where is the public appointment commissioner? They promised to appoint a public appointment commissioner. They have not appointed a public appointment commissioner.
So far the government has appointed more than 2,000 people. Many of them are their friends and supporters. Where is the public appointment commissioner? What did they do the other day? They struck out the word “accountability” from their manuals. Is this what they talk about when they say accountability? Is this what they mean when they say “we are accountable to Canadians”. It is very transparent. This was the number one priority for the Conservatives. I would hate to see what they would do if it were not one of their priorities.
We want a public appointment commissioner. We want to make sure that these appointments are held in check and the Conservatives are accountable to Canadians.
Number two, they made a promise, and this is again one of their priorities, on health wait time guarantees. Where is that promise? Constituents in my riding are asking me and saying that health care needs support from the federal government. The federal Conservatives are absent. They said nothing about it in the throne speech. They have done nothing about it so far and they have failed Canadians.
The Conservatives did not explain in the throne speech why they raised income taxes. Why did they not explain why they raised income taxes? They raised income taxes. They reversed decreases that the previous government had implemented in the fall of 2005. That is very shameful.
What is even more shameful is that the Conservatives claimed they were reducing taxes. They are misleading Canadians. They have raised income taxes. All Canadians need to do is look at their income tax return to see that the rates have been raised by .5% from 2005 to 2006. That is shameful.
The Conservatives talk about having safer communities as one of their priorities. They promised to put 2,500 extra police officers on the streets, yet in the last two budgets there has been no fulfillment of that promise. My constituents are asking: if the Conservatives are really serious about crime, why are they not fulfilling that promise, why are they not reforming the judicial process? The Conservatives are just posturing. They are just misleading Canadians.
Let us talk about another priority that the Conservatives had in the last campaign: early learning and childhood education. They promised the creation of 125,000 extra spaces. Where are these spaces? Not a single space has been created.
There have been two budgets and it has been close to two years and they have not only not fulfilled their promise but they are not even talking about it in the throne speech. It is completely absent from the throne speech.
In Mississauga, there are more than 2,000 kids on waiting lists for child care spaces. The government cares nothing about that and has done nothing about that.
Let us talk about the environment. The Conservative government pretends to care about the environment, but what has it done so far? Nothing. It has cancelled Liberal programs, it has misled the public, it has misled the international community, and it has done nothing.
Do members know what the Conservatives are all about? They are about pretend politics. I read a letter in The Globe and Mail the other day written by one Canadian who has them figured them out. He wrote that the Conservatives were all about pretend politics and that Canadians were going to pretend to vote for them in the next election.
The Conservatives are all about rhetoric but no action. With regard to the environment, they failed Canadians and they failed the international community while everybody else knows that this is the number one challenge that our planet is facing.
What have the Conservatives done about infrastructure spending? They have done nothing. Mississauga has already been promised by the Prime Minister an additional $80 million to help in the rapid bus transit project last March. The money has yet to come. Our provincial counterparts have made that pledge and the money is there.
However, the federal government, because there was a risk of an election last spring, has yet to send the money. Many people in Mississauga are waiting for that money. We need infrastructure money. The City of Mississauga has been let down by the Conservative government. Do members know why? Because the Conservatives know they are at odds with the people of Mississauga. They do not care about the people of Mississauga. They do not listen to the needs of the people of Mississauga.
What about immigration? There is not a single word in the throne speech about immigration. Everybody knows that immigration is essential to the success of the future of our country. What did the Conservatives do? They ignored it. They have been ignoring it for the last two years.
They made a promise, by the way, in the last campaign about creating an assessment office for foreign credentials. What have they done? They broke that promise. They looked straight into the face of the Canadian public and said, “Sorry, we can't fulfill that promise”. Yet, in last election campaign, they exploited the angst and frustrations of many new Canadians and told them, “Don't worry. We're going to fix it for you. Vote us in.” And once they became the government, they have broken that promise shamelessly.
Our economy is facing a huge labour shortage. What is the government doing about it? Nothing.
Since I only have one minute left, let me get down to the point. Let me talk about how difficult it was to decide what to do about the throne speech. I explained quite clearly how the Conservative government has neglected the needs of Canadians. However, we have a priority. We have a responsibility to Canadians.
It is very tempting to bring the government down today, and I want to go to Canadians and ask them to kick the Conservative government out of office. However, we cannot act irresponsibly like the Conservatives. We have to be responsible, we have to be deliberate in our decision-making process and we have to be thoughtful. We cannot go on a whim of emotions and political posturing.
Since the throne speech has nothing binding to Canadians, we will sit down and wait to see what the Conservatives will do. However, next time there is legislation that we feel is taking Canadians in the wrong direction, we will be sure to hold the government to account and ask Canadians to be the judge.
I wish my colleagues all the best—
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Order, please. I thought that was a nice note, one side of the House wishing the other all the best.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Palliser.
Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, that was quite a dissertation from my friend opposite. I found it ironic that he would be wishing everyone luck in their campaigns, as though there would be a campaign in the near future.
Every member in the House knows that the Liberal Party exists only to wield power. That is all the Liberals care about. Everyone knows that if they thought they could win a general election tomorrow, I would be pounding in signs as we speak.
The Liberal position on tax relief, like their stance on most issues, has been less than clear. In 1993 the Liberals promised to scrap the GST. That was in their famous red book. I challenge anyone here to find a red book today because they have burned them all. Now they are opposed to cutting the GST, which the government proposed in the Speech from the Throne. The Leader of the Opposition has even talked about raising the GST.
Why will the Liberal Party not stand behind the government in our effort to lower this excessive and regressive tax?
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague has raised the issue of the GST.
First, the Liberals did not make a promise in the red book, as the hon. member said, but somebody did make a promise. When that promise was not fulfilled, Sheila Copps resigned.
I call on the Prime Minister to resign for breaking the promise on income trusts and let Canadians make their decision.
I call upon the Prime Minister to resign for breaking the promise on the foreign credential legislation.
I call on the Prime Minister to resign for breaking the promise to Atlantic Canadians.
I call on all government members to stand up for the promises you made—
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Order, please. Unfortunately, the member lapsed into the second person.
The hon. member for Hamilton Centre on another question or comment.