Industry Committee on April 13th, 2017

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

—we were able to use, or we would want to use, that are not currently in the system—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Nuttall, we have a point of order, and I need to speak to the point of order.

Go ahead on your point of order.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a minister with us, Mr. Chair, and it's very important that our focus should be Bill C-36. When we talk about Bombardier, I think it is out of order. We want to make sure that the minister's time is well spent and is focused on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I would agree that we need to keep it within the scope of Bill C-36. That is the scope. When the minister comes for main estimates, that would be an appropriate time.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I realize that there's no debate on a point of order, so I will “point of order” and say something back.

It's helpful if you let me finish my question to determine whether it's within the realm of the item we're discussing.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

As long as it's not Bombardier—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

This is on Bill C-36—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Oh, as long as it's not Bombardier. Perfect. No Bombardier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We have another point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. A member is not to be intervening in the decisions of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

A member has not—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's what we're hearing right now, that a member, not the chair, is making decisions for the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

No—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, we are. We just had that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Members are allowed to bring up a point of order. It's up to the chair to understand that point of order. The question is—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Dhaliwal just set a condition on whether Bombardier is raised is his decision to make with regard to Alex's point of order right now. That's for you to decide, not for any other member on the other side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

If you will recall, the point of order was on Bombardier. As I explained to Mr. Nuttall, we need to keep the focus on Bill C-36, because that's within the scope of why we are here today.

Now, if you can relate Bill C-36 and Bombardier together, then....

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I have a couple of comments.

I think the minister is more than apt to be able to slap my question aside and doesn't need points of order.

Second, it was actually related to the item in terms of one of the things you pointed out, the changes to previous census information. To use Bombardier as an example, what information and statistics can you use going forward that perhaps weren't there in the past to be able to come up with a good decision-making process in terms of jobs—the effect on jobs, the effect on the economy, etc.?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Be very brief, please.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

The decision with regard to the repayable contribution for Bombardier is consistent with the program guidelines in the strategic aerospace defence initiative. We'd be more than willing to share those criteria around jobs, such as the 1,300 jobs that we were able to secure through that R and D investment. That's how we look at those kinds of investment opportunities. How do we strengthen the aerospace sector, how do we focus on research and development, and what kinds of jobs, good-paying jobs, can we secure? That's the data and the information we used.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here today.

You're correct that it was an unusual circumstance in 2011, but there has been a history of trying to make the census information statistically relevant to the nation for many decades. It is important not only for ourselves domestically but also internationally. It was undermined by an ideological drive to get rid of the quantification of that material. Hence, we had ridiculous arguments—and I see it's ending in this legislation—about putting people in prison, for example, and other extreme measures that were never undertaken but that usurped serious public discussion about the issue.

What has come about, though, is the serious consequence that two chief statisticians ended up resigning during the process. Both of those chief statisticians have presented in front of committee regarding this bill, and both have suggested amendments related to improving the independence of the chief statistician, which was the problem that created the 2011 situation.

I'm wondering if you and your department have had a chance to review those suggested amendments by the chief statisticians, the former ones who resigned. This was unique in Canadian history. I don't think we've had that before. It may be unique in the world. What is a commentary back to those chief statisticians who have presented testimony in front of our committee?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Could you, if you don't mind, specify which recommendations they brought forward that you'd like me to speak to?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'd like you to address proposed section 4.1 in particular, regarding the overall independence and making sure that no cabinet or ministerial decision that could be related to changing...and also the ability for them to speak in public so that chief statisticians do not feel influenced with regard to any commentary they provide. They have specifically called for amendments related to those things.