Navdeep Bains

[Public Works and Government Services, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and his parliamentary secretary need to get their stories straight.

Last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works denied that any sort of deal had taken place between Public Works and Minto Developments for the former JDS Uniphase site, only to be contradicted by the Minister of Public Works who confirmed that a letter of intent had in fact been signed.

Did the parliamentary secretary give the House bad information or is he just out of the loop?

[Health Partners International, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to present recognition certificates to over 50 volunteers from Health Partners International.

Since its inception in 1990, Health Partners International has donated over $180 million in medicines, vaccines and medical supplies to help improve the health of adults and children in over 100 countries.

Health Partners International transcends all ethnic and religious boundaries. It has shipped medical products to regions all over the world. It was there for Pakistanis, following their horrendous earthquake. It was in Southeast Asia, following the devastating tsunami in 2004. It was in Guyana after it suffered major flooding.

Filling Pierre Elliott Trudeau's dream to provide Cuba with much needed medical products, Health Partners International has also established a program that brings medical supplies to Cubans.

On behalf of the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South, I would like to thank Health Partners International for helping heal a hurting world.

[Public Works and Government Services, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservative government has been in office it has repeatedly misled the Canadian public.

The Minister of Public Works stated yesterday that he would promote fairness, openness and transparency in the bidding process and yet we find that the Department of Public Works has reached a $600 million agreement with Minto Development after the company submitted an unsolicited proposal.

Is this a case of Conservative hypocrisy or is this what happens when we have a minister who is not accountable?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that when it comes to investments in our cities and our infrastructure, our track record is impeccable. The gas tax transfer to municipalities was an historic deal where we linked federal funding to municipalities directly to ensure they could meet their strategic investments. We had funding for transit initiatives. We had a GST rebate for municipalities. We had a strategic infrastructure funding program as well. I think the member is a bit confused or disillusioned with this concept.

The previous Liberal government over the past 13 years made sound investments into transit and infrastructure. If we were in power we would continue to do the same thing as well.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate one fact. We increased personal income taxes to offset this decrease of 1% in the GST. I have spoken to many retailers and they have made it crystal clear that they will not pass on the savings to consumers.

With respect to child care, that is a fair comment. The last time I checked and after speaking with my colleagues I was reminded that the child care agreements were signed with the provinces. We had a framework. Not only did we sign with them but we provided them with funding.

I would like to remind the hon. member that it is crystal clear that Canadians have two options. They can have an early learning national child care system that was signed with all the provinces and territories, and funding was in place, or we can give Canadian parents $100 a month to raise their children and tell them to fend for themselves. That is not a Canadian value nor a Canadian tradition. That is not the Liberal Party's way.

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Vancouver.

On May 2, the Minister of Finance presented the budget to the House of Commons. I will state from the outset that I cannot support this budget because it lacks the vision, the imagination, the creativity and, more importantly, the leadership that Canadians are looking for. This budget is not in the best interests of Canadians, but more importantly, in my opinion as a representative for Mississauga--Brampton South, this budget is not in the best interests of my constituents.

Since June 2004, I have had the honour and privilege of speaking to many constituents in my riding of Mississauga--Brampton South. I have maintained an ongoing dialogue with them through various means: householders, via the Web, discussions, town hall meetings, and meeting with my constituents at events. Also, as a resident of Mississauga--Brampton South, I know their concerns. I know their priorities. I can confidently say that this budget does not represent their priorities or mine.

I will articulate what our priorities are.

The constituents of Mississauga--Brampton South want to see commitments made to improve the infrastructure that is causing gridlock. This budget fails to meet that need.

My constituents also want to see the government commit to building the foundations of a national early learning and child care system, which was started under the previous Liberal government. Again, this budget fails to meet that need.

Lastly, my constituents want to see significant investments made in post-secondary education. Once again, this budget fails to meet that need as well.

Mississauga--Brampton South is a dynamic and robust region and is growing at a very rapid pace. The local economies are thriving. The population growth in these two urban centres is outpacing the average population growth in the rest of Canada.

Unfortunately, the construction of more roads, more lanes and upgrades to highways has not been able to keep pace with the population growth. This is causing an enormous amount of traffic congestion and slowdowns. For example, what used to be a quick eight minute drive from highway 403 to highway 407 along Hurontario has turned into a 30 minute crawl. Trust me: when trying to get to my constituency office it is a very painful drive and that is on a good day.

However, this is more than just a matter of gridlock. At its core, this is a quality of life issue. Mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and daughters and sons are spending more time on the road and less time with their loved ones. Fortunately, there are a few local initiatives under way to help reduce gridlock and modernize the public transit systems. Unfortunately, the government has failed to deliver any such commitment in the budget for these very important initiatives.

The AcceleRide system in Brampton and the bus rapid transit system in Mississauga are two very innovative initiatives to improve public transit systems in order to promote local use of an efficient and quality public transit system. A first class and convenient public transit system will motivate more residents to ride the bus to work instead of clogging up the roads with their cars, but in order for commuters to want to use such a system, it must be beneficial for them. The modernizing of these systems would include lane widening, transit signal priority, and the purchase of new vehicles at an estimated cost of $280 million for AcceleRide and $270 million for the BRT.

The Government of Ontario presented its budget last month and has committed to providing $95 million for AcceleRide and $90 million for the BRT. This represents one-third of the funding. This is not the first time I have raised this issue in the House of Commons, so the government is fully aware of the issue. It has failed to deliver for the residents of Mississauga--Brampton South. Not only has the government failed my constituents, the residents of my particular riding of Mississauga--Brampton South, but it has failed all constituents in the greater Toronto area.

The next budget issue I would like to talk about is child care. This budget has also failed to deliver on the child care needs of my constituents. Learning is a lifelong venture. It is important that children under the age of six receive the proper care and education they need. It has been clearly demonstrated that early learning provides a foundation that kids need to succeed as they develop into adults.

The majority of households in my riding cannot afford to have only one parent working. It is therefore necessary that the government respect those parents who have decided to enter the workforce. It is about respect, plain and simple. In many cases, where there is only one parent, an extra $100 a month will not substitute a month's salary.

It does not make sense why the government would abolish such an important national system for the sake of a few extra votes. Creating a national child care system is, I believe, our generation's medicare. If Lester B. Pearson had given Canadians $25 a week and called it health care, would that truly have been a health care system? Our health care system might not be perfect, and I acknowledge that, but it is an institution that Canadians rely on and are grateful for.

In March, the finance minister of Ontario announced that no new child care spaces would be created in Ontario as a direct result of the new government's commitment to scrap child care. The province has maintained that it will need to spend the last $63.5 million of the instalment of federal child care funding to maintain the 14,000 spaces over the next four years. This equates to zero new spaces for my constituents.

Presently, in Peel region, only one in nine children under the age of six have access to licensed child care. Over 600 families are on waiting lists for child care spaces in Mississauga alone. Residents of Mississauga--Brampton South were looking forward to the creation of new child care spaces and now there will be none. This is not progress. this is not the wishes of Canadian parents. This is unacceptable.

I want to talk about post-secondary education: Last year I served the previous prime minister as his parliamentary secretary. I was given the opportunity to travel the country to visit several universities and colleges to engage with students. I also visited high schools and elementary schools in the riding talking to students and parents about the essential needs and importance of a good quality education. As many students turn from secondary to post-secondary education, they require the government to help pay for tuition and to provide them with some debt relief.

The government has an important role to play but the budget does nothing to address post-secondary education. As we move forward as a country, an educated workforce is essential for Canadian companies to compete in an innovative and international global economy. How are our students to compete with students from China or India when the government does absolutely nothing to even consider education to be a priority? How will we create a strong, knowledge based economy?

The Liberal Party had a platform in the last election to give up to $6,000 per student over four years to help pay for their university fees. The government's plan is to give students $80 for textbooks. That is not a vision; that is a sales pitch.

After looking through the budget, I see the same theme repeating itself over and over again. I see a lack of vision, a lack of creativity, a lack of imagination and, more important, I see a lack of true leadership.

I have talked about the budget very clearly and I have outlined three key areas. I will once again reiterate those areas: first, a lack of investment in post-secondary education; second, a lack of investment in early learning child care; and third, a lack of investment for transit. However, that is not all. The government has increased personal income taxes at the cost of reducing the GST, again misleading the Canadian public. It has failed to address climate change and, more important, how can we as Canadians look at ourselves in the mirror when we fail to address the needs of Canadian aboriginals?

For all those reasons and the reasons that directly affect my constituency, I want to make it crystal clear again that I cannot support the budget.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the heads up. I want to capture the essence of the comments made by the member. This will really summarize it. I saw a quote yesterday which I would like to reiterate with respect to the accountability act. “The accountability act is the toughest piece of anti-corruption legislation ever tabled in Canadian history”. That was a statement made by the President of the Treasury Board on April 11, 2006. However, if we look at the comment made by Justice Gomery, he said, “Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively and emerge from this inquiry free of any blame”.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the question is alluding to the notion of the spirit of the accountability act and its incorporation in the accountability bill.

I said earlier that the concern I have is that this is a bill that is lengthy in nature. It lacks a coherent message and does not have a logical flow. Various sections have been excluded. Parts of the Access to Information Act and the recommendations that we made in committee have been excluded and will be put forth in a separate bill that will be going forward to a committee.

My concern is that we had extensively debated those issues. More important, not only did we debate those issues, but we had the full support of the Conservative Party and the Conservative members that sat on the committee with me.

I do not see what has drastically changed now that the Conservatives are in power. Why do they no longer want to pursue those changes and recommendations that we made in committee? We exhausted all possible avenues to the best of our ability. We consulted with the Information Commissioner and took his considerations into account as well. We came to an agreement on some of the changes on which he made recommendations. All that has been done.

I do not see any further value added by taking that particular component of access to information to the committee. Something we have to seriously consider when this bill goes to committee is that we might need to incorporate it to further strengthen accountability.

I have said before that the Liberals have taken a leadership role on accountability. We have done tremendous work on accountability. I look forward to working with the government in making sure that we continue to strengthen accountability and make sure that Canadians have trust in public institutions.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the maiden speech by the member for Newton—North Delta. I also thank him for allowing me the opportunity to share his time.

I stand today to speak to Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability. It is a mouthful but more simply put, the accountability act.

I want to state right from the beginning that I do support accountability. I support the notion of enhancing accountability and transparency in government because I believe the drafting of legislation can help to restore the public faith and public trust in our institution and in our democracy.

Accountability is an issue that I take very seriously and that is why it is disappointing that the government has decided to put forth an omnibus bill that includes over 300 clauses when the material in the bill could very easily have been split into three or four bills. This would have allowed us a more thorough examination of the issues. Instead, we have to deal with it in its entirety.

I do have issues with the bill in terms of the fact that I find it extremely convoluted, poorly organized and it does not really have a logical flow. Nevertheless, I am here in my given time to address some of my concerns and voice some criticism of the bill. However I do support the essence of the bill.

I will touch upon a few areas, the first one with respect to reforming the financing of political parties and third party financing. I also want to touch upon the role of the Ethics Commissioner, respect for that office of Parliament and, more important, cooperating with that office of Parliament. The next area concerns the Access to Information Act. I also want to discuss some issues on which the government has backtracked. I want to discuss the issue of government appointments and the government's poor judgment on those appointments. I find a bit of hypocrisy on the part of the government in protecting whistleblowers. I do again question some of the monetary incentives that have been built into the bill.

I must also highlight, however, that the bill is a reflection of many years and an initiative that was put forth by the previous Liberal government. I would like to commend the government of the past for building the foundations for the discussion that is taking place today.

As I enter into the debate around accountability, I must also point out that the Conservative Party, led by the Prime Minister, has lost a great deal of credibility on this subject in the past three months and I will demonstrate that throughout my remarks.

The first area I want to touch upon is reforming the financing of political parties and third party advertising. The Conservative government wants to reduce the influence of organizations and corporations that can be exerted through large donations. I want to remind the members, especially government members, that it was the Liberal government under Bill C-24 that brought about meaningful changes to the many donations for unions and corporations from unlimited amounts to $1,000 for a corporation or a union and $5,000 for an individual and put limits on the influence of third party advertising during the election campaign.

The accountability act, however, does not, in my opinion, which I think many people share, reduce third party election spending and actually strengthens third party influence. I do want to note that there seems to be a bit of concern about the current Prime Minister, who was a former member of a special interest group, the National Citizens' Coalition, and the fact that he has not opposed all efforts to put limits on third party advertising. I would question his integrity and his intent when it comes to this section of the bill.

The other area that I would like to touch upon is strengthening the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. It is important that the bill wants to strengthen the role of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and integrate the role of the Senate and the House ethics offices into one office and to introduce a new conflict of interest act. I would remind the current Conservative government that it was the Liberal government that created an independent Office of the Ethics Commissioner. It was the Liberal Party that full cooperated with the Ethics Commissioner and the work that he was trying to achieve.

We should look at the track record of the Conservative government. I alluded to this earlier in my remarks and I will, from time to time, remind the Conservatives of their distrust and disdain for the Ethics Commissioner.

Last year the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics held a confidence vote on the Ethics Commissioner. The Liberals supported the office but the Conservatives did not. When the Ethics Commissioner announced that he would investigate the role of the Prime Minister in convincing the member for Vancouver Kingsway to cross the floor, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to show that he supported the work of the Ethics Commissioner and yet he worked to undermine the Ethics Commissioner and declared that he would not cooperate.

I do have some reservations. The Liberal Party has clearly demonstrated its ability to respect the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and we look forward to the changes but it would be imperative for the current Conservative government to follow suit.

The third area I want to examine is strengthening the Access to Information Act. The Prime Minister has another credibility issue with regard to access to information. During the election he promised to implement all of the recommendations made by the Information Commissioner. Now that he has a chance to act on this, the Conservative Party has decided to take the Access to Information Act out of the accountability act and to table a draft bill and a discussion paper that will be discussed in committee.

I find it a bit ironic to have this thick document, this bill that contains a vast array of issues to the effect of reforming the financing of political parties, banning secret donations, strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner and so forth, and yet when it comes to access to information, they want to have a separate bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do have concerns with respect to the logical flow of the bill.

In November 2005 the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was chaired by a Conservative and pushed for a vote that endorsed the Information Commissioner's bill. I do not see the issue here. Why are all those changes not incorporated in the bill? Again, this backtracking is an area of concern that I have as well.

The other area I would like to address is making qualified government appointments. Again, the government wants to make a uniform process of appointing agents and officers of Parliament by ensuring they are based on merit. Again, it was a Liberal government in our past 13 years that had parliamentary committees empowered to review the appointments of heads of crown corporations. We brought forth transparency and it was increased even in the selection of Supreme Court justices. The Access to Information Act was extended to include 10 key crown corporations.

I do want to question the Prime Minister's judgment on appointing an individual by the name of Mr. Morgan to oversee political appointments and to end patronage. I see a great deal of hypocrisy in this. He wants to reflect a Conservative pledge of making appointments based on merit and yet the individual has clearly shown bias in his remarks and that he is partisan. I again have deep reservations and concerns with respect to this component of the bill.

I do not want to remind people, but it is important for those listening to CPAC to know that it was the current Prime Minister who appointed an unelected individual to the Senate, contrary to the commitments that he made for a department that oversees $10 billion worth of spending.

The area I want to touch upon next is the protection for whistleblowers. We completely agree with the strengthening of the whistleblower protection. It will give the public service direct access to the public service Integrity Commissioner to report wrongdoing, which is excellent, and a new independent tribunal with the power to order remedies and discipline. Again, we agree with that in spirit as well.

I want to remind the Conservative government that it was the Liberal Party that made it easier for whistleblowers to come forward. It was the Liberal Party that brought forth meaningful legislation to protect whistleblowers. I fully support granting protection for whistleblowers but my concern, and this just boggles the mind, is with the offer of a monetary reward for ethical behaviour. It is counterintuitive. It just does not make sense. People who come forward are individuals of integrity and ethics. They are not looking for a $1,000 reward to provide additional incentive.

I want to remind members in the House that, yes, we are talking about accountability and it is important legislation which I support in spirit, but it was the Liberal government that had many accomplishments when it came to accountability. We took on a leadership role and we are glad to see that the Conservative government is following suit. We look forward to working with the government to further strengthen accountability measures. It was our Liberal government that set up the most sweeping inquiry in modern political history. We brought dramatic reform to political financing laws in Bill C-24, to which I alluded, and we proposed whistleblower legislation.

We brought in Canada's first independent Ethics Commissioner. We brought forth clear conduct guidelines for public office holders and proactive disclosure of hospitality and contracts over $10,000 on a website. These are all major reforms when it comes to accountability that were brought forth by the Liberal government.

I am glad to see the Conservative government has followed suit. I look forward to working with members in committee to strengthen this bill.

[Public Transit, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Conservative government to support public transit initiatives in Mississauga and Brampton.

The projects will cost an estimated $280 million for the AcceleRide system in Brampton and $270 million for the BRT initiative in Mississauga. These initiatives will make our public transit systems more efficient and attractive to our commuters, which in turn will help drive the local economy.

The Government of Ontario has fulfilled its commitment to upgrade our transit systems by providing Brampton with $95 million and Mississauga with $90 million.

The Liberal government in the previous session showed its support for Ontario by delivering $1.9 billion over five years in gas tax revenues for sustainable funding for our roads, transit and infrastructure.

On behalf of the residents of Mississauga--Brampton South, I would like to urge the Conservative government to include funding for GTA transit in the upcoming budget.