House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs still has not committed to make his new veterans policy retroactive to include all soldiers wounded since 2006.
The men and women of our armed forces in peacekeeping missions put their lives at risk daily, but the government is only offering lip service.
It is a simple question. Will the plan be retroactive to 2006, or will it exclude the veterans who have returned from the battlefield in the past four years, yes or no?
Greg Kerr ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the member for her question and assume she will want an answer equally as long as the question, at least.
I do want to point out that we are all very proud of the announcement that was made just a few days ago on behalf of the very important veterans issues that are before us. I know the opposition shares that enthusiasm and support for these initiatives.
Certainly, we look forward to the discussions that will take place that come with the legislative process in which all members will get a chance to contribute in the coming weeks to make sure these extremely important initiatives get out to the veterans as quickly as possible.
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, this government does not hesitate to spread misinformation to try to justify the absence of a tendering process for the F-35s. Claiming that that model was chosen by the previous government, the Prime Minister is completely misleading the House, because the deals reached with Lockheed Martin did not constitute a promise to purchase.
That being the case, how are we to believe the Prime Minister when he says that Quebec will get its fair share of the economic spin-offs, when he is manipulating the facts?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, let us review again what took place here. There was a very extensive and rigorous U.S.-led competition that took place between 1997 and 2001 under the previous government. There were two bidders. A competitive process resulted in a prototype aircraft. It was the Liberal government of the day that signed on to the joint strike fighter program in 2002. Following that extensive competition, the F-35 Lightning II was selected.
Since that time, we have now committed to move forward with the MOU to purchase the F-35 which will benefit the Canadian Forces and the Canadian aerospace industry--the Canadian aerospace industry--not one province.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, today the member for Edmonton—Strathcona released a study that shows the oil sands are a bigger environmental disaster than the Conservatives want to admit. Mutant fish, first nations health problems and increased toxins in the water have been linked scientifically to the oil sands. We need to regulate this pollution, start credible monitoring and expedite promised health studies, but the Conservatives continue to do nothing.
Will the government take off its blinders when it comes to the oil sands and start putting the health of northern Canadians first?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend goes too far, even by the standards of this place.
Clearly, we have to be the most environmentally responsible producer of all forms of energy in this country and that includes the oil sands. To that end, we are taking very specific steps in response to the scientific criticism that has been made about the existing water monitoring.
I have met with Dr. Schindler who authored those reports. I have met with the premier and the minister of the environment of the province. We have initiated a federal panel of federally appointed scientists, the leading scientists in this country on water monitoring. They will ensure that we have a state-of-the-art world-class monitoring regime in place, and if we do not, we will ensure we have one.
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, again yesterday the Leader of the Bloc Québécois went too far. In the newspaper Le Devoir, when talking about the vote on the long gun registry, he quoted the prime minister as saying, “We do not like this decision that was made democratically and therefore we will not implement it.” The leader of the Bloc continued, “That is not the action of a democratic government. That is the action of a dictator.”
I would like the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec to tell us what he thinks of this statement by the Bloc, which is again looking down upon people who live in rural areas.
Denis Lebel ConservativeMinister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, once again, the strong-willed Bloc leader has outdone himself in the art of rhetoric, as did his colleague who just spoke. If we used his logic, he and his colleagues would have had to abandon their sovereignist option because, on two occasions, Quebeckers have democratically refused to break up Canada.
Is it dictatorial to continue to push that option? Come on. The reality is that opposition to the ineffective gun registry has never been so strong and its dismantling has never been so close. The February 2007 headline in Le Devoir sums it up: “The Bloc Québécois is turning up its nose at the regions.”
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' treatment of our veterans is unacceptable.
It is increasingly obvious that this government uses our veterans for its public relations but ignores them when the time comes to defend their interests.
Why is the minister refusing to answer a simple question about retroactivity?
Why is he willing to treat injured soldiers returning from the battlefields of Afghanistan like second-class veterans?
Greg Kerr ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is the same question, so I will try the same answer, maybe a little louder.
The fact of the matter is that there was a lot of ground to be made up from the previous government when it made all those cuts to the veterans program. A lot of initiatives have been taken in recent years. One of the biggest took place in recent days, which in fact addresses a lot of issues that were front of mind to the veterans.
The fact is that $2 billion is committed to our veterans in the coming years. I would think the members opposite would cheer that and say, “Good for us. Let's get on and support these most important people in our society and let's stay tuned to what is going to happen in the coming—”
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, the cultural exemption, which excludes cultural products from trade, was hard won at the NAFTA negotiations. Yet in the current negotiations for a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, the EU is finding the cultural exemption clause too broad and is attempting to dilute it.
Does the government realize that any weakening of its position would send a very bad signal to the United States, which could be tempted to challenge this provision of NAFTA?
Gerald Keddy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, in this time of economic uncertainty, our government is working to open new doors for Canadian business and to help create jobs. An agreement with the European Union has the potential to give a $12 billion boost to the Canadian economy and increase bilateral trade by over 20%.
We will continue to work closely with all the provinces and territories. We are pleased to have found a way to directly involve them in the negotiations. They are participating in the negotiations in areas that fall, in whole or in part, under their jurisdiction. We will continue to look forward to a positive outcome to these negotiations.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, as I rose yesterday on a point of order regarding the Conservatives' misrepresentation of my voting record on Bill C-391, I am rising again today because, of course, the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin also did that.
This is not a subject of debate. This is a subject of the record of this Parliament for the voting that took place in an orderly fashion on Bill C-391 at second reading, where I voted clearly in one fashion, and also on the motion that was in front of this House on Wednesday evening, where I clearly voted again in a fashion. I stood in my place. This is part of the record of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on this and I would ask the hon. members to withdraw their comments.
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I can reiterate for the record exactly what I said just not so long ago here. It is true; he voted one way then and then he flipped and he voted the other way. I simply said, “20 coalition MPs who originally voted to scrap the long gun registry bowed under the pressure from their Ottawa bosses,” and if he wants me to be more specific, their leaders, in other words, and voted to keep the wasteful long gun registry.
There is every bit of truth in that and I am not sure what he objects to in that statement.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
It does sound to me like a dispute as to facts. Arguments about who was voting which way can be settled by looking at the record where there is a recorded division. I would have thought it would be quite clear from that. But I am not sure what the point of the hon. member for Western Arctic's objection is here, given the statement that has just been made.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Mr. Speaker, part of the purpose in putting forward a point of order is to ensure that disorder does not remain in the House. When we have a situation where the Conservative Party is using the voting record in this fashion, we are getting into a situation where there is disorder in this House because the actual record of the House is being impugned.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I will again examine the statements made yesterday, but it does not sound to me as though the record is being changed. It is just being reflected upon. Of course, reflections on events that happened in the House do happen from time to time, and I do not think they are necessarily out of order.
As indicated to the hon. member, I will look at this in greater detail to see if there appears to be a breach of the rules of the House.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, presented to the House on Wednesday, September 22, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the motion. I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
This is very important. We are coming to a crossroads in our history. The motion calls for the reinstatement of the long form census. It is a very critical part of Canadian culture, society and business. What has taken place has been a debacle with regard to scrapping the long form census and replacing it with a survey in which the data will be skewed.
Universally, there has been outrage about this from all sectors of society. When we have the Chamber of Commerce all the way to the Canadian Labour Congress agreeing on something, then we know there is a problem. The Minister of Industry did a disservice to the House and to Parliament by introducing this change at a time when the doors of the House were closed over the summer.
I want to start by acknowledging that this will be the second time the New Democrats have fought to save the census. Back in 2004, we raised concerns when the Liberal government of the time brought forth a contract with Lockheed Martin. Through freedom of information requests and a series of different information gathering, we were able to determine that the government would privatize this, which it did. It cost more money and it also made sure it created a problem. In 2006 I warned the government of the day that there would be a problem. The information would be gathered and compiled outside of Canada's borders, which made it vulnerable to the patriot act.
What ensued was a campaign to have that information gathered, assessed and stored in Canada, where it was done, to ensure that there would be greater privacy protection for the census. That cost Canadians more money as well because of the ideology of privatization.
With this census, the Minister of Industry said, during his testimony at committee in the summer, that he had worked on this for months. He did this at a time when the doors of Parliament were closed. We reconvened the committee to hold hearings on the issue, at great public expense. Ironically one of the meetings was totally unnecessary, but the Conservatives wanted to make a point and it cost us more public money to have a brief meeting.
We had testimony from experts from all across the country, experts who looked at this issue quite seriously. They noted that if we can't count our nation properly, if we can't have the proper information, we would not only lose this census, but, more important, we would also throw away the hundreds of millions of dollars that we had spent on the previous census, because there would be no comparable data.
That has a major impact. It has a major impact on the francophone community. It has a major impact on housing issues. It has a major impact on municipalities. It has a major impact on businesses that rely upon this information.
It is almost embarrassing to watch the Minister of Industry in the House of Commons when he tries to defend this. He says that the opposition wants people to be put in jail if they do not fill out the mandatory census, because that is one of the penalties. Ironically it is the Conservative government's policy. It has been in power for four years and it has not changed that, so it creates this straw man. To suggest that we will lock people up, that Dog the bounty hunter will go to their doors, knock them down and drag them off to jail is absolutely absurd. It is not true. It is almost pathetic to see the Minister of Industry's response on this issue being solely based on that. It is embarrassing to watch because it is not real.
It has been clear that this party and the other opposition parties do not agree with that. Many experts do not agree. In fact, nobody has ever been arrested and locked up for not filling out the census. That is the government's policy. It did not change it. For the minister to use that is purely pathetic.
The second argument the government tries to use, with fearmongering, is related to the fact that some people feel the census violates their privacy. There is a big privacy conspiracy hatched by the minister. One of the first things I did was call the privacy commission and I talked to the deputy minister. I found out there had been very few complaints over the years. In fact, they had a 25-year working relationship with the privacy commission and Statistics Canada. That relationship was described as excellent working conditions.
What came to light, and it is important to note, is the census that the minister was saying had a privacy issue and was a problem, had to pass a Board of Internal Economy audit and a privacy audit with the Privacy Commissioner. The work has already been done. The complaints were not coming in. In fact, the office works on a regular basis to improve it.
What is critical about the census is getting accurate information from Canadians from all different economic and social backgrounds so we can use that information for our economy, for our culture and for planning our future. The census is important. It was brought in many years ago. Egypt, China, all developed countries do a census. People want to plan for the future. How can we do that?
We know what ends up happening with a voluntary census. We found out that during this process, Statistics Canada had run some tests on the minister's plan for a voluntary census and it showed that Canadians would not respond to this. The minister wants to increase the number of people who will get the census and voluntarily respond. He is going to bother more people. Supposedly the census is a problem, yet the minister is going to send it out to more people across Canada. On top of that, the minister's own little scheme is going to be a $30 million expense. It is going to cost Canadians more money to get the census on their doorstep, yet the test drive model failed.
We will get skewed data as a result of this. Interestingly enough, all the statisticians and experts agree that we will lose information on the lower and the upper income brackets. This will affect everything from social housing to transit, a whole series of things for municipalities. This is an absolute debacle when it comes to public planning and the use of taxpayer money.
Of the over 3,000 contacts to the minister's offices, through a freedom of information request, we found out that only a few hundred supported the minister. Over 90% of those individuals who called said that they disagreed with the minister's plan to pay more money to get a worse census and to throw away the data that we have accumulated over the last number of years. That is important.
As the Conservatives were doing their privacy fearmongering, as they were threatening people with jail, they were also saying that ordinary Canadians were the ones who did not want it. They were saying that the elite wanted this census, but they were not even paying their fair share, suggesting that a number of different research branches, a number of different municipalities, a number of different businesses were not paying the proper amount for the census and that they were freeloading on the public purse.
It turns out that the vast majority of the people who were complaining, over 80%, were just ordinary citizens who were concerned about our changing society, concerned about not having the proper information. They want to participate in this and not have a plan that will cost more, will get worse results and will cost them more in the long run.
I want to touch briefly on the fact that I helped with the 2000 complete count census in Windsor West. One of the reasons for the complete count was we were one of the few places that had door to door campaigning to increase the response rate. It is because it is a multi-cultural community. Windsor and Essex County is the fourth most diverse in Canada. The area has a lot of individuals who speak English as a second language. There are a lot of newcomers. There is also a university and a college, so we have a transient population of students, depending upon where they are in their careers. We are also a border community where people are active on both sides of the border.
We found we had poorer results in this area, so a plan was paraded for three ridings in Canada, and Windsor West was one. We worked with the multi-cultural community. We worked with many organizations. We increased that number. Why was that important? So we could plan the necessary services.
This is not just an issue related to poverty and health. It is also related to the economy, because we can actually plan out things, such as skill sets. That is critically important when we look at an area like Windsor West where there is a high unemployment rate. We have been hit hard by these economic times. We need to have that statistic information to plan and try to turn things around.
That is why so many experts are pleading with the government not to spend the money but to do the census the way it was actually designed. Do the census the way that it went through the privacy audit, when it went through the Board of Internal Economy audit. It has been through all of those different things that have now provided it a good stable base to get out the door. Do not print more censuses. Do it the way it was done before so Canadians will have the stability that is necessary
The government in all its candour and attempts to appease even tried at one point to misrepresent the chief statistician in this matter. The Chief Statistician stepped down during this process. That is terribly unfortunate. One of the most important things is we have some independence with this position. I believe this position should eventually be hands-off.
The government has a record of interfering in third party government agencies. There is no doubt about it. This is one where somebody stood up and said that this was wrong, that it would be wrong for the operation he was leading and for the men and women who served him diligently every day. He could not stand there with any credibility as a scientist and maintain his position anymore. The person then left and now we do not even have a chief statistician in place, as the government tries to run through the census really quickly. That is really sad.
Once again, it is like divisive wedge politics, trying to scare and spook on different things that are outside of facts. That is why we have seen so many people really upset about this issue and that is one of the reasons we think it should be returned. Quite simply, turn this around now.
The motion calls upon the government to cease its behaviour, stop and go back to what we have been doing. It is prepared, and Canadians need to know, understand and appreciate this. The census, in the old form, is ready to go. It has been audited and it can be done properly to gain the information necessary.
If we do not do this, the back door of all of this will be the Conservatives being able to cut measures for the weak and most vulnerable. This is really what it is going to be about. We will lose out on a series of studies and important measures that prove some of the important social measures that are necessary for a country. We know the government is not necessarily interested in doing some of those things, but it is still the responsibility of a government to know who is in the country, how they are, how they are doing, what their behaviours are and what the trends are.
As well, it is important for our economy. When we have businesses that will no longer be able to appeal to this information in a reliable fashion, it will undermine our competitiveness. There is no doubt about it that productivity and planning will suffer and we will lose investment as well.
A key component to all of this is at least having some type of a landmark, a picture, a frame of what a country looks like and what a country needs to do to go forward. Unfortunately the Conservative government is interested in neither.
We call upon the House to pass this motion. We call upon the minister to reverse his direction and to listen to the non-partisan experts who have inundated him with calls. Listen to Canadians. The government made a big to-do about the registry and voting with our constituents. When over 80% of those who called in as individuals are opposed to the minister, and it was in the thousands in a few weeks, the government should listen to them.
If the government wants to do what is right and does not want to be a hypocrite, it should listen to those people who have taken the time to say that they want to do this, instead of this madness plan where we will spend $30 million sending out the census to more and more people. More money will be spent on advertising, and we know the Conservatives are fond of that. There will probably be some billboards, a number of TV ads and a whole series of things, all to try to convince people of what we know scientifically does not happen, and that is when there is a voluntary census, the response rates do not go up.
Ironically, the government has not changed the law on the short form census. There is actually still prison or jail time for that. We had testimony in front of our committee. The agricultural survey is still mandatory. In cross-examining a witness who was a farmer, he complained about the fact that the census was too long. He had to take a couple of days off to file it out. He had to get an accountant and pay for that as well. It turns out he was talking about the long form agricultural survey, which the government is still maintaining.
At the end of the day, he did not appear too upset about the fact that this is still something he has to do. It is contributing to Canada. His concern was the cost. However, nothing changed for him in his world. It was all counter to the arguments that the government was putting forth. In fact, the government had a hard time finding witnesses who would come forward to talk about this issue. It was fairly interesting. It even brought radio personalities in, which was fun to a certain degree, but at the same time it was not the type of testimony that we would expect. In fact, the witness wondered what he was doing there.
I find it particularly strange that the minister would be working behind the scenes on this, that he would be scheming about doing this, and then when the House closes, take the first opportunity to go out with this and try to actually prevent the proper channels of democracy from working. We had to reconvene the committee itself and that cost taxpayers more money. Apparently the Conservatives are quite comfortable with this type of an atmosphere and this behaviour. We have seen it again this week.
I would say that it is the wrong way to do it. If we are going to try to create an environment with all the huff and puff about creating a Parliament that works, taking it easy and working in a more collegial way, why would the government start that off by basically trying to sneak something through the back door, especially something so important? We need to have those issues examined.
I think this is very important for Canadian society. If we are going to lose out on this particular census form, we are going to lose an opportunity to reverse a trend that we have seen with the government. I would hope that it would see things through and reinstate the census.
Many Canadians would simply just move on from this and would accept it. They do not want to have the additional information put forth to them at more cost, another $30 million, and they do not want to lose out on all the information that was necessary for this to go forward in the past and be able to compare that data.
In conclusion, I am hoping this motion is going to be passed in this chamber and that the government is going to live up to it. The Prime Minister at one point said that there was a moral and ethical responsibility to pass motions in the House of Commons. He has not lived by the mantra that he had often proposed when he was in opposition. I am hoping that the government reverses this, we work together and just move on.
There is a lot of stuff that we have to do in the industry committee. There is a lot of other information and bills that we have to press on. I certainly want to move on, but at the same time, if the government wants to kill our census and destroy some of the things that the census really helps to evolve, then it is going to have a fight, and we are going to stand strongly by it.
We have done it in the past with the Lockheed Martin and New Democrats will do it again with this particular issue.
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Windsor West, who made a very eloquent speech, particularly when he alluded to the fact that no harsh measures, no coercive measures, had been taken regarding the long form census in the past. I think it was important that he point that out.
I note also that the long form next year is going to be sent to many more people and that each one of us will have one chance in three of receiving it at home instead of one chance in five, as was the case previously.
I would like to ask the hon. member specifically on the issue of coercion in filling out this long form, if no coercive measures were used in the past, what is the difference between being actually honest by calling it voluntary now where before it was called compulsory, when no coercion was used?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also sat on the committee hearings.
Nobody has been locked up in jail, but there have been cases where it has had to be impressed upon people to compile and finish their census and that, at the end of the day, a fine was possible. It is unfortunate if some people do not see it as their civic duty to do that.
I would ask the member to look at his own departments in terms of the industry department that test drove this and it failed. It failed miserably. We know that when we send out these voluntary census forms, the response rates range from 10% to 20% and for the mandatory long form census, it is 95% because people know it is something they have to do and there is going to be some type of penalty there if they do not do it.
If my memory serves me correct, one of the statisticians who testified said that they averaged it out and for a couple it will be once in every 50 years that they would have to fill out the long form because of the time period, the life expectancy and so forth. So likely in a lifetime, the long form will have to be filled out one or two times at best.
I say to the member, his own department proved that it would not pass and experts across the country already know that the rates are lower when it is voluntary.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for his views on two areas where the Government of Canada has particular responsibilities that cannot be devolved through any other order of government. I am dealing with matters concerning the aboriginal communities and matters dealing with official language minority communities.
First, I will deal with the aboriginal communities and I will couple that with the concept of honour of the Crown by which the government is obliged to consult the aboriginal communities in any way, shape or form in decisions that might affect them. I did attend both sessions of the industry committee. We had one representative from the Inuit community and we asked that person whether or not there had been any consultations from the government vis-à-vis its decision to scrap the mandatory long form census and the answer was obviously no, there had not been any.
Would the member care to comment about the importance of the mandatory long form census and the information it yields to the ability of the Government of Canada to do what is right for our aboriginal communities?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an important one especially in aboriginal communities. He is correct. I believe it was the Métis who testified, but they represented a broad band of aboriginal organizations and were very much opposed to changing the census. The honour of the Crown is a good point to bring up and I am glad the member did so because there is a level of respect that we should already have, that is automatic.
The minister knew that he was going to do this several months in advance and had been working on it even when the House of Commons was sitting. He never bothered to actually consult a population that we know historically in Canada has had several challenges. There are several major issues going on with government relations and programs already that need to be there at the table. For them not to be consulted is clearly an insult at best. It is sad that we still have not learned enough to respect those agreements. When it comes to housing, fresh water, a whole series of things are going to be very important in a census, particularly for aboriginal populations.
These are issues where we know there have been tragedies and basically, in my opinion, a disrespect has been paid. How is it that in Canada we still have some of these conditions of squalor on some of our reserves? That is unacceptable. Many of us would like to see that changed and one of the ways to change that is to ensure that the census provides accurate and proper information so that we can advocate for those things. The census is scientific. It is done through a lens of science as opposed to opinion and that is what is critical for this measure.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question concerning first nations, Métis and Inuit. I have certainly had letters, emails and other correspondence from Inuit, first nations and Métis. The Métis nation raised a particular problem. They indicated that their problem was more serious than any other aboriginal people because the federal government had no administrative database for Métis as it did for first nations. So for Métis, they are going to be even more severely impacted by the fact that the government did develop policies as a result of the long form census, but there is simply no other database that captures some of the issues confronting Métis.
I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that not only are first nations, Métis and Inuit going to be severely impacted by the destruction of the long form census in its current form, but also the fact that these groups are far less likely to complete a voluntary long form census.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is critical and brings out another angle of the debate that is important to note, especially when it comes to aboriginal populations, Métis and others.
When we do scientific research on those groups and populations, other surveys and measurements are used, but to reinforce them to be more scientific, especially ones that are voluntary if they are research projects and so forth, they are compared to the non-voluntary census itself to make that data more significant, powerful and accurate.
The risk that we are taking is not only to lose the census data regarding the volatility that will now come forth, but we are also risking all the other surveys and measurement tools that we are looking at through social programs, economic issues, environmental planning, civic planning, and all those other elements out there.
That is one of the reasons the business sector is so concerned about this. When it produces those elements, that is what the backstop is. The backstop is the mandatory Canadian census form which produces good data for business and social planning by incorporating other types of measurements in our society.