Debates of Sept. 28th, 2010

Opposition Motion--Long form census

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question came from a minority voice.

Anybody who knows anything about the census and data gathering, including the former head of Statistics Canada, will say that if the long form census is not mandatory then we are not going to get the information we need, particularly from people who do not want to fill the forms out, such as those who are living on a low income and are too busy trying to keep body and soul together to bother with a form. If we make it mandatory, they are more likely to sit down at the kitchen table, fill it out, and get it in, so that we can get the information that we need.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax, Health; the hon. member for Davenport, Transportation; the hon. member for Yukon, The Environment.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate today, for their efforts in trying to inform Canadians as to their views and their parties' views on whether or not the long form census should be retained and maintained in its current form, that being, of course, a mandatory census with requirements to refer all questions back to the government, return the census in the form it was intended, under threat, however, of either imprisonment or fine.

Let me make one thing clear. The government agrees that the information gleaned from this type of census is necessary for the development of secure and sound public policy. We take no issue with that whatsoever. However, we do take issue with the manner in which this information is being gleaned from Canadians.

As all members of this place know, currently the Canadians who receive the long form census and who have received forms in the past are required to answer all the questions and return their forms to the government. If they do not, they are subject to fines or jail sentences.

We feel that this threat of fines or imprisonment is not acceptable to Canadians. We believe we have found a far better way to retain and gain all the information required, without threatening our Canadian citizens with imprisonment or fines. In other words, we think we have struck a proper balance.

The opposition seems to be suggesting that, if the census or the newly named household survey is not mandatory, the information coming back to the Canadian government will be suspect. I take issue with that.

I want to deal with both the reliability of the data and the compliance with these surveys. At committee, we heard a couple of interesting points, none of which has been brought forward in comments by members of the opposition.

In committee, a number of expert witnesses came to testify, giving their viewpoints on whether the long form census should be retained, or whether it should be discarded and replaced with a voluntary survey, similar to the option we have decided to favour.

The only witness who appeared before committee with any expertise in research surveys was a gentleman by the name of Darrell Bricker, the president of Ipsos Reid. During Mr. Bricker's testimony, he was asked whether Canadians, if presented with a voluntary survey, would respond in sufficient numbers with enough information for public policy development. Mr. Bricker's response was unequivocal, because he had done research surveys on this very issue. Mr. Bricker pointed out that his surveys indicated that over 80% of Canadians would respond voluntarily, if asked to do so, because they would feel that it was their civic duty.

Currently the opposition members are pointing out that under the current mandatory system 95% of Canadians have returned their surveys, giving the government information.

I would point out to one very interesting point that Mr. Bricker brought forward. This is an empirical point: Mr. Bricker stated that, if Canadians were asked on a mandatory basis to provide data, the reliability of the data would be suspect. In other words, the more strenuous the need to respond, the more unreliable the data.

Let me repeat that. The more strenuous the need to reply, the more unreliable the data. What that means is simply this: if Canadians are forced to respond to a survey, the data they give may not be accurate.

As Mr. Bricker pointed out, in the last census, which was conducted in 2006, 21,000 Canadians, when asked what their religion was, responded with Jedi Knights. That is not a surprise. Canadians are saying that, if the government is forcing them to answer questions that they consider to be intrusive and private, they are going to give an answer, because otherwise they might be fined or thrown in jail, but they are not going to give accurate information. In other words, “Screw you, government”.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry for the colloquial, but we have seen this in other jurisdictions in other forms. In Australia there is a mandatory election act and citizens are fined if they do not vote. The elections officer in Australia has stated time and time again that there are a lot of spoiled ballots or ballots that are ridiculous in nature, people voting for say the Rhinoceros Party, or the Marijuana Party, or the equivalent, simply because they are offended that the government is forcing them to vote. Therefore, they will put down an answer on the ballot paper, which is really irrelevant, frivolous in nature.

The same thing is happening here. The more strenuous the need to respond results in the more unreliable data. Mr. Bricker went on to say that over 80% of Canadians who said that they would respond on a voluntary basis would then end up in a situation where their data that would be provided to the government would be reliable and accurate. Since our plan is to send out roughly double the amount of surveys from years past, the results will be simply this. In all probability our government and future governments will receive more information from more Canadians and it will be more reliable. It is a win-win situation.

The opposition seems to suggest that if we change the mandatory aspect of the census, the data will be less and it will be less reliable. In fact, the opposite is true. We will receive more information from Canadians and it will be more reliable in its nature, which will allow our government and future governments to develop sound public policy. There is an old saying, which we are all aware of, “garbage in, garbage out”. That is what seems to be happening now. If the information we are receiving from the mandatory census is flawed, then the public policy responding to that will also be flawed.

I am sure all of us in this place want to see sound public policy developed to benefit all Canadians. I do. I do not think there is one member in this place who does not agree with me on that. However, we want to come up with a method that provides accurate information to the government so when policy is developed, it can be developed in a fashion that is also sound.

Let me repeat this once again. According to Mr. Bricker, and extensive surveys that have been done beyond Mr. Bricker's, if we ask for information from Canadians to be provided on a voluntary basis, over 80% of Canadians will respond voluntarily, resulting in more accurate information being provided to the government. Since we are doubling the amount of surveys being sent to Canadians, it is logical to expect the results are going to be more information and more accurate information being provided, resulting in more accurate, sound public policy that will benefit all Canadians.

The issue before us is very simple. The changes we are suggesting and we are planning to implement are not some knee-jerk reaction because we are afraid of the government's invasiveness and the coercion of governments into the private lives of Canadians. That may be part of it, but also we are attempting to change the system to allow our government and future governments to develop sound public policy, with more accurate results coming in from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The results will speak for themselves. I look forward to engaging in debate over the course of the next few minutes with my colleagues opposite to defend this position.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I note my colleague is relying for his position that mandatory censuses would supposedly result in worse information and supposedly that we cannot rely on the information we have had from Statistics Canada over many years. He is basically trying to deny that is of any value, which is nonsense. However, he is relying for that assertion on the statement of one pollster.

Mr. Bricker may or may not be a statistician, I have no idea. I expect normally when someone is a pollster, they have some experience with statistics. However, would my colleague agree with what the mayor of the Halifax regional municipality said? Mr. Peter Kelly, who wrote to the Minister of Industry on August 16, said:

The mandatory requirement for people to complete the long form census results in a validity and comprehensiveness of data that is not likely to be achieved under a voluntary system. Statisticians argue that with a voluntary survey, certain socio-economic groups may be less likely to participate, which skews the results of the survey and calls into question the reliability of the census information.

He is saying that as opposed to just one pollster, statisticians generally are of the view that the mandatory system actually works better and provides better information. Does the member disagree with the mayor of the Halifax regional municipality?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I definitely disagree with His Worship. With all due respect, the mayor in question does not engage in scientific research surveys on a regular basis. In fact, in listening to the comments in that letter, they are basically talking points that I have seen before, issued by others in the opposition. All that is happening is the head of a municipal government in my honourable colleague's riding is basically parroting the comments made by some of the people who oppose our changes to the long form census.

I also point out that Mr. Bricker in his testimony said that this was not just his opinion. This was empirical evidence shared by many other researchers throughout the world. They are not just suggesting, but providing solid empirical evidence that data based on a mandatory requirement is less reliable. He also suggests that the 80% is across the board, affecting every demographic group. It is not going to be unrepresentative of certain circles.

For the benefit of my colleague, I want to also read a letter that is very germane to this conversation. I have heard comments during the day of debate, where members, particularly from the official opposition, have said that there has really been no question that the mandatory census in years past has been well received. In other words, there have been no complaints.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. parliamentary secretary can continue his letter after the next question.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary who just spoke that he gave just one example. He talked about a person he spoke with who participated in an opinion poll. He seems to have confused an opinion poll with a scientific survey. We ask people how many bedrooms they have in their houses because we want to know if they are living in poverty with a certain number of people. That is the kind of factual data they do not want to know. It is unlikely that poor people will respond to a voluntary survey.

How can he know in advance that equal proportions of all segments of society will respond to a voluntary survey?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I point out for my hon. colleague from the Bloc that is his opinion. The information provided by our expert witness at committee was not merely an opinion. It was based on statistical realities. It is empirical in nature.

I will return to what I was about to say before, particularly for the benefit of my friends in the official opposition. In 2006 the industry minister received a letter from a member of Parliament. I want to read it because it is very brief. It says:

I have received a few letters of complaint from constituents concerning the length and detail of the 2006 census.

They are primarily concerned with the great detail of personal information they are required to fill out and therefore the potential invasion of privacy.

I share this constituent's concern and would appreciate an explanation as to why these details are needed...

Who wrote the letter? It was the sitting Liberal member for Richmond Hill.

All day we have heard from the official opposition members that there are really no complaints with the current form of mandatory census taking. In effect, they know there are. Members of their caucus have written this government complaining about the intrusiveness and the invasion of privacy. We share those concerns among many others.

I point out for my friends in the official opposition that they should take heed of the advice and the concerns of one of their members before they stand and try to defend the indefensible.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, on September 18, I stopped in my community of Sturgeon Falls, which is a small community. About 40 people were present. They talked to me about their pensions. They talked to me about their health care. They talked to me about a lot of things. However, they did not talk to me about the census.

Another place I went to this summer was to the committee hearings for the census. I listened to the member's speech at the committee. I understood that he said that expert after expert supported the government's position on the long form census, but I want to—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. parliamentary secretary has a little less than a minute to respond the question before I call the vote.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, just to correct my hon. colleague, my hon. friend from the NDP probably was not listening intently, which surprises me because most often those members do. I said that there was only one expert who appeared at committee who had expertise in research surveys. He unequivocally stated that the information he provided to the committee was accurate in empirical nature.

I will ask my friend opposite this. When he was on his listening tour throughout his riding, did he hear comments about the gun registry and how disappointed members in his constituency were that the NDP turned its back on rural Canadians and supported the long gun registry?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until tomorrow following government orders.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you were to seek it, if you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad), a private member's bill tabled by the member for Vancouver South.

The bill would amend the Citizenship Act to provide that a child born abroad to or adopted abroad by a citizen employed outside Canada, in or with the Canadian armed forces, the federal public administration or the public services of a provinces be considered like a child born in Canada.

I should say at the outset that New Democrats support the bill. We hope it passes this stage and we look forward to discussing it further at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

In recent years, Parliament has spent some time on trying to fix the provisions of the Citizenship Act. We have seen great concern about this law over the years. Problems with the 1947 Citizenship Act in particular led to many Canadians, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians, losing their citizenship. These lost Canadians, as they are called, were and are folks who, any reasonable person would agree, are indeed fully Canadian but because of the peculiarities of the law were excluded from citizenship.

Bill C-37, debated and passed in the previous Parliament, went some way to correcting these problems. However, some problems still exist, as the subject matter of the bill before us today attests.

The Lost Canadians Organization, headed very ably by Don Chapman over very many years, has done incredible work on these issues. They describe the current situation this way:

While Bill C-37 solved the citizenship problems of hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose citizenship had been taken away from them by the arcane provisions of the 1947 Citizenship Act, it also created a new problem of statelessness in children who are born abroad after April 19, 2009, to Canadians who themselves were born abroad.

What this means is that Canadian citizens who were born abroad, called the first generation born abroad, cannot pass on their citizenship to their children if those children are also born abroad. Hence, the second generation born abroad rule, which came into effect in April 2009, has already started to create serious problems for Canadian citizens who do not realize that their children do not qualify for Canadian citizenship.

New Democrats, while supporting the bill before us, believe that it does not go far enough. It is clear that Canadians working in some capacity for the government, in the armed forces or the diplomatic core for example, should be able to ensure that Canadian citizenship is passed to their children, born while they are working overseas, in exactly the same way it would be if that child had been born here in Canada.

There should be no discrimination against children of Canadians who are serving our country overseas, but why the limitation imposed in this bill? Why does this bill not apply to the children of Canadians studying overseas or to those of Canadian journalists working in another country or to those Canadians who work in international aid and development.

What about the children of Canadians working for a Canadian company offshore? Surely these Canadians continue to make a significant contribution to our country by their overseas service. Why should their children and grandchildren be subject to different criteria for maintaining Canadian citizenship than children born here in Canada or than children born to folks serving the government or the armed forces.

This is especially true of children born to Canadians overseas who risk statelessness. This can arise due to the laws of some countries which do not confer citizenship status on children born in that country as we do here in Canada. We must always ensure that no one is at risk of being stateless and our laws must never contribute to someone being or becoming stateless, but we also risk creating statelessness by not allowing a child born to Canadians overseas the ability to pass on their citizenship to one of their children who was also born outside Canada. This must be fixed.

My colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina and the New Democratic citizenship and immigration critic, has identified this problem. That is why she has also tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-397, to resolve this problem. Her bill would end the second generation citizenship cutoff for all children born abroad to Canadian parents.

These changes are crucial in today's world, a world that, thanks to the ease of travel and globalization, is much smaller than it once was, and a world where it is increasingly common and even necessary to work in a foreign country.

Canada is strengthened by the experience gained and the work performed by Canadians overseas. We should be encouraging such activity, not putting in place barriers to it. Ensuring that the children born to Canadians working overseas have Canadian citizenship in exactly the same way that children born here would address one such barrier.

The member for Trinity—Spadina pointed out an interesting aspect of this situation when she spoke to the bill. She noted that in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, and perhaps other provinces, pregnant women have sometimes been sent to U.S. hospitals to give birth because of the lack of space in Canadian neo-natal care units. She wondered if these families knew that because their child was born outside Canada, that there would be a limitation on their child's ability to pass on Canadian citizenship to his or her child if that child were also born outside Canada. She wondered if people knew that their grandchild could potentially be stateless given this situation. Surely this is not an acceptable risk in these particular circumstances.

Some people would doubt the attachment to Canada of Canadians who live and work overseas. While there may be some who find Canadian citizenship convenient, we would be wrong to assume that is true of the vast majority of those who are affected by these circumstances.

We must also ensure that we do not enshrine different classes of citizenship in our laws. Canadians must not be punished because they chose to work overseas and their children and grandchildren must not be punished because they happen to be born outside Canada. There must not be two types of Canadian citizenship: one for those of us born here and one for those of us born elsewhere.

It may be necessary to consider ways to ensure attachment to Canada for individuals who spend considerable time away from home but that is a far different project than putting arbitrary limits on citizenship.

The NDP has made it clear that we will seek amendments to this bill at committee that would ensure it addresses the situation of all children born outside Canada to Canadian parents, not just those born to members of the Canadian armed forces or who are directly working for the Canadian or provincial governments.

To paraphrase what the member for Trinity—Spadina said in her speech, no child should be left stateless because his or her father or mother, or grandfather or grandmother, chose to become an aid or development worker and do good work outside Canada. No child should be left stateless because his or her parents or grandparents decided to work as journalists overseas. No Canadian mother working overseas should be forced to travel home to Canada, interrupting her family and career just to have her baby in Canada to preserve that child's full citizenship rights.

This bill is a start and it provides an opportunity, which is why I will support it. I hope other members will do the same.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver South for introducing this bill that covers an area that has not been properly addressed in the Citizenship Act.

Ensuring that public servants' children and Canadian armed forces children are able to transmit citizenship is an important aspect of this bill and I strongly support it.

We should also restore citizenship to some people who lost their citizenship because they were born outside Canada, and this should be effective as of the date they lost it, for the reasons covered by the bill introduced by my colleague from Vancouver South.

I am happy to know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration supports the principle of this bill and that he would like to see it sent to committee, so that changes and amendments can be made to make it enforceable and practical.

Children of our public servants and members of our armed forces should not be penalized and prevented from transmitting their Canadian citizenship, simply because they were born abroad. Many of these people have no choice but to be working abroad when their children are born. These are not choices they make willingly. When someone is sent by their government to be a commissioner in a Commonwealth country, they must go because it is their duty to do so.

In fact, it was an international trade commissioner, Howard Cummer, who worked in Singapore in 1979, who brought his children's case to the member for Vancouver South's attention. Because they were born in Singapore while he was posted there, they could not transmit Canadian citizenship to their children because their jobs had taken them abroad as well. Their children will therefore not be Canadian citizens.

It is important for Canada to recognize the services provided by its public servants, be they diplomats or soldiers, and even if it is our provinces that send them abroad to carry out certain duties on behalf of their government. They should be covered, and we have to make it possible for them to transmit Canadian citizenship to their children.

The goal of this bill is very reasonable, and we can amend it to make it even more relevant. I think that Bill C-467 deserves our full support, and I believe that we can count on the government's support for this.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier introduced Bill C-443 which addresses the broader issue of Canadians overseas. It deals with the fact that there are a number of Canadian citizens working abroad for the United Nations or its agencies and for NGOs and, heaven knows, we fund them through CIDA, so it would perhaps be a good idea to eventually look at their circumstances when they have children abroad and how their citizenship could be transmitted to their children in the future.

I commend my colleague from Vancouver South for bringing this forth and hope that we can count on the support of the House to pass it.