Debates of Nov. 7th, 2014

Energy Safety and Security Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would seek concurrence to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census)

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

moved that Bill C-626, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, as members may know, this debate has been rescheduled three times because of events out of our control over the last couple of weeks. We are used to mixing up our schedules, but that also means that my family's schedule has been rescheduled three times, so I would like to thank my family, staff, and volunteers for taking care of that. I would also like to acknowledge my wife, who has volunteered quite a number of hours to this project. I would also like to acknowledge the outpouring of support from across the country we have had in the last little while.

Today I rise to present my private member's bill, Bill C-626. It is a bill that reflects the belief that people must have trustworthy information about themselves to govern themselves wisely.

Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said in his recent speech to the United Nations:

...vital statistics are critical.

You can’t manage what you can’t measure.

We parliamentarians should aspire to safeguard the integrity and quality of fundamental information about the people of Canada, whom we endeavour to serve. Is that not what we seek when we pray at the beginning of each day in the House of Commons: Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all, and to make good laws and wise decisions?

However, the quality of national statistics has been compromised. In 2011, the voluntary national household survey replaced the long form census. Researchers have publicly called that survey worthless.

What are some of the effects? In May 2014, the Progressive Conservative premier of New Brunswick said that the elimination of the long form census makes it hard to track the outcomes of the province's poverty program. That is, it is hard to figure out what New Brunswick got from the money spent to help the poor.

National household survey data were too meaningless to be published for 25% of Canada's towns and cities because of low response rates, rising to 30% in Newfoundland and Labrador's and 40% in Saskatchewan.

All levels of government and the private sector have been handicapped by bad data here in Canada. What is worse is that the one mandatory long form census forms an essential anchor that is needed to adjust for errors in many other voluntary surveys. We have lost that data anchor.

Why is the voluntary national household survey so poor? The problem is that certain groups of people tended not to fill out the voluntary survey. Rural residents, single parents, one-person households, renters, the very rich, the poor, and younger people all tended not to complete the national household survey. The result is a biased and misleading picture of Canada and Canadians. This is what scientists call a systematic error. A systematic error, unlike a random error, cannot be corrected by sending out more census forms.

This systematic error is eliminated if everyone who receives a long form survey fills it out. Not filling out the long form census is a disservice to the country. That is why filling out the census should be considered a civic duty.

In 2011, the government went ahead and sent out more voluntary surveys to compensate for the lower response rate. This inflated the cost of the census by approximately $20 million, but it gave us poorer information. Avoiding such waste is another reason we should restore the mandatory long form census.

More importantly, making business and investment decisions and managing the economy and the affairs of the people all require trustworthy information about the people. That is why, just this past summer, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce passed a policy resolution calling for the restoration of the mandatory long form census. That is why, in 2010, groups such as the Canadian Association for Business Economics, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Toronto Region Board of Trade opposed the elimination of the mandatory long form census.

Let me say this again. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association for Business Economics, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conference Board of Canada, and the Toronto Region Board of Trade want the mandatory long form census.

Let me give an example of the value of the census. Suppose one wants to know how educational attainment and income are related. One could get data on education from graduation records. One could get data on income levels from tax returns. However, if one wants to know how a person's education is related to income, one has to ask the person both questions at the same time. One has to survey people. This sort of question is very important for provincial government policy, and that is why the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec protested the elimination of the mandatory long form census.

The government said in 2010 that it eliminated the long form census because some people believed it was an intrusion into personal privacy. In its “Final Report on 2016 Census Options”, Statistics Canada considered the use of a virtual census based on using administrative data the government collects in the course of normal operations and in other surveys. Indeed, some countries, such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, manage to do this and have no census.

In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen in August 2014, chief statistician Wayne Smith said, “Could we actually, without bothering Canadians...[b]e able to obtain the same level of accuracy or better than the current survey-based census?... [W]e’re probably two censuses away before we could do it”.

Is this the long-term plan of the Conservative government? Could it be that the government is only guilty of being too hasty in eliminating the long form census before its replacement was ready to be implemented? The answer to that can be found in the same StatsCan report, which noted the following about the virtual census:

...this approach requires both a population register and a universal personal identification number. Neither exists in Canada....

What might life be like with such a universal personal identification number? It would be a number people received at birth. They would use it for education, health care, driving or gun licences, paying taxes, voting, reporting change of address, or banking. All their vital information could be in a single database, catalogued by universal personal identification number. That is what happens in countries with no census.

Most Canadians would agree with Statistics Canada that there are serious privacy issues with a virtual census. Letting Statistics Canada take a snapshot of them every five years, as it has done for decades, is not as risky as having all their vital information tethered for life to a universal government ID. For decades Statistics Canada has done an excellent job of protecting the privacy of individual Canadians who fill out the long form census.

To summarize, the Conservative government knows that the long form census is less of a threat to privacy than other national data-gathering systems in use today.

Bill C-626 would also give new responsibilities to the chief statistician so that the work of Statistics Canada was not unduly subject to the political imperatives of the day. In 2010 the industry minister claimed that Statistics Canada itself suggested the replacement of the long form census with the voluntary survey and that Statistics Canada and the chief statistician supported the government's move. In the wake of this statement, chief statistician Munir Sheikh resigned from his post, issuing a public statement, explaining:

I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.

It can not.

Under the circumstances, I have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister.

Munir Sheikh later elaborated on his resignation, explaining that a critical issue was the fact that StatsCan was subject to significant interference from the government of the day. He has since gone on to say:

...in my mind the most serious consequence of cancelling the census, is the loss of trust in Statistics Canada to be independent of government interference.

Bill C-626 seeks to protect the integrity of StatsCan so that Canadians can trust that their data are produced according to strict professional considerations, including scientific principles and professional ethics. In describing the duties of the chief statistician, Bill C-626 would remove the phrase, “under the direction of the Minister”, and instead would require the chief statistician to establish and publish guidelines, on technical and methodological matters, based on international best practices.

Indeed, Canada helped codify some of these best practices in a document called the United Nations “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics”. The bill also gives the chief statistician the duty of educating the public, consulting stakeholders and choosing census questions.

Under Bill C-626, the minister may give orders and the chief statistician is still accountable to the minister, but if those orders fall within the scope of technical or methodological guidelines, the orders must be published in the Canada Gazette.

Because the chief statistician is granted additional duties and independence, Bill C-626 requires that he or she be chosen in a way that safeguards the credibility and integrity of the office. For that reason, the bill establishes a process similar to how officers of Parliament are chosen. There is extensive consultation with stakeholders by appointing a search committee composed of senior representatives of the civil service, the statistics profession and the Canadian research community. There is also consultation with the leaders of all official parties in the House of Commons, because the chief statistician should be credibly non-partisan.

Finally, Bill C-626 does not enshrine the latest form of the long-form census into law. Instead, it acknowledges and makes allowances for new sources of data or methods of data collection in the future, methods that must maintain or improve the quality of data, but may be less intrusive or less costly, all the while protecting people's privacy.

Bill C-626 eliminates the threat of a jail term for failing to truthfully answer the census. Instead, it replaces it with a fine of, at most, $500. People who guard their privacy so much that they will not fill out the census will not face a jail term.

I want to re-emphasize that Canada's mandatory long-form census is less of a risk to privacy than the national statistics systems of other countries who have no census, and instead rely on administrative data tied together by a universal personal identification number.

Data about Canadians is continually collected, analyzed and stored by public and private organizations, probably more so than if the mandatory long-form census still existed. What is the difference? When Statistics Canada collects, analyzes and stores data, it works very closely with the Privacy Commissioner. Statistics Canada is accountable to the public as it does its work through this elected House. With the mandatory long-form census, Canadians are, in a sense, getting the best information for the lowest cost in risk to privacy.

I will end by talking about duty. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that Canada has the financial capacity to protect us from foreign threats and to offer all of us equality of opportunity, thus we have a duty to pay taxes. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that our justice system is accepted by the people as legitimate and fair, and thus we have a duty to serve on juries. As Canadians, we have a duty to ensure that trustworthy information is available so that we may govern ourselves wisely for the benefit of all. This is the duty to respond to the census.

For the good of Canada, may responding to the long-form census again be recognized as a civic duty. May the House vote to approve Bill C-626 at second reading.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this very important private member's bill before the House. Certainly, on the New Democratic Party side, we will be supporting the member's bill and sending it to committee. When the government was in the process of cancelling the long-form census, we fought hard against that decision.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he sees as some of the implications for policy-making, at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels, of not having adequate data.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many implications related to governments at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, not knowing about the people whom they are supposed to be protecting and taking care of.

The whole north end of Kingston, for example, is a lower-income area. All the data in that area about education levels, aboriginals, immigration levels or household income were suppressed because not enough people returned the national household survey. Therefore, when we do not know where the people are who need services, we have a harder time locating the services and determining the quantity of services that need to be delivered. This repeats itself across the country because it is the federal government that is abdicating its responsibility.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands referenced the national household survey a couple of times in his remarks today. That survey provides much of the data that planners need for their public policy planning. He also referenced that some countries collect data through new or different means. I am wondering if he could comment on the national household survey perhaps learning from some of the international approaches beyond just the long form.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say two things. With regard to the national household survey, researchers who have analyzed the data have discovered that it is of very poor quality. The income data revealed by the national household survey, because it was compared with the tax data, has been called worthless.

With respect to the planners, I would say urban planners are probably the most supportive group when it comes to the mandatory long-form census. There are five countries in Europe, as I mentioned, that do not have a census but have a different system. The problem is that everybody there has a universal personal identification number and the Privacy Commissioner is dead set against that. There are definite privacy risks. If we were to implement such a system, I would recommend that this country have a very serious discussion about the privacy implications because I am not sure Canadians would feel comfortable with that.

The safest thing to do in terms of privacy is to continue what Statistics Canada has been doing for decades, which is to have a mandatory long-form census done every five years. Stats Can works very closely with the Privacy Commissioner and is accountable to the public. As it does its work, as it asks questions and gets information from people, Stats Can is accountable to the public. There is a lot of information gathering going on across this country that is not accountable to the public.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his efforts in putting together the bill. It is quite commendable.

I recollect that a few weeks ago there was a Globe and Mail article supporting the hon. member in this bill. It seems to me it feeds into a lot of other media commentary from pretty well right across the spectrum, left, right, up, down, whatever, that supports the hon. member's proposal. I wonder if he would comment on the media support that he has received for his proposal.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to read a very strongly worded editorial in The Globe and Mail today supporting the restoration of the mandatory long-form census and denouncing the actions of the government four years ago. I should mention that the writers of that editorial seemed to assume that the bill would fail and be voted down by the government.

Therefore, I offered to the government earlier in question period the possibility of a compromise, where it could choose a couple of questions from the census that the people who thought the census was intrusive most complained about. I think researchers would be happy with this compromise if we could take out a couple of questions. If the government could be happy, maybe we could reach a compromise. That is the sort of thing that we in Parliament should be doing more of. Therefore, I hope the government will perhaps take the time to address that idea.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-626 and its proposed amendments to the Statistics Act.

Our government is committed to balancing the need to collect reliable statistical data, while protecting the privacy of Canadians and reducing costs to taxpayers.

Canadians expect their government to put in place meaningful statistical programs that provide the information needed for governments, businesses, municipalities, associations and university researchers, while reducing the response burden and cost to taxpayers.

This government understands the importance of collecting reliable data in order to make informed decisions. We are not, however, prepared to force Canadians to give detailed private information to government officials at a great cost to taxpayers.

As with all activities across government, Canadians deserve to see clear lines of accountability in the programs their government puts in place. It is the government's responsibility to ensure these programs respond to the needs of Canadians. The amendments my colleague across the floor is proposing would negatively affect the governance and accountability of Statistics Canada and the timeliness of data collection. They would be costly to taxpayers and would reverse steps the government has already taken to alleviate this burden on Canadians.

This bill attempts to change the method for appointing the chief statistician, shifting part of that responsibility from the Governor-in-Council to other players. This government is committed to ensuring clear lines of accountability for all Governor-in-Council appointments.

These amendments would blur the accountabilities of the chief statistician, who is currently appointed like other deputy ministers. Canadians expect accountability in government decisions, and we have continued to make appointments in a fair and consistent manner.

The bill also attempts to shift decision-making powers from the minister and the Governor-in-Council to the chief statistician with regard to the overall statistical program.

The bill would see the chief statistician rather than the Governor-in-Council deciding on content for any census. Any questions that are asked on a mandatory basis, with legal penalties for non-compliance, should be approved by our elected officials. The change my colleague is proposing would upset the current balance between the advisory and implementation role of officials and the decision making accountability of the minister to Parliament.

Moreover, the chief statistician already has a broad range of powers and responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the statistical program and to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. The proposed changes will strip accountability away, changing what is already a robust and balanced process.

The bill also unrealistically would commit Statistics Canada to adopting ambiguous international best practices regarding data collection and ethical standards and guidelines. Statistics Canada already employs international standards when these standards are suitable to the Canadian context. To prescribe the adoption of international best practices in law would not give Statistics Canada the flexibility it needs to apply best practices, ethical standards and guidelines that meet Canadian values and norms.

The bill also seeks to mandate the publication of all surveys in the Canada Gazette that meet the same ambiguous international best practices. This is an unnecessary and unrealistic requirement as Statistics Canada already publishes detailed information on all surveys on its website. To force the publication of over 350 surveys per year would significantly increase costs and red tape associated with surveys and reduce the timeliness of data. This obligation would grind Statistics Canada operations to a halt, would increase the cost of operations, and would seriously limit its ability to respond to user needs for data in a timely manner.

Bill C-626 also attempts to reverse the important decisions this government has made to reduce the burden on Canadians and to protect their privacy. It prescribes that all Canadians be forced to respond to a long form questionnaire and also defines the parameters of such a survey. This would be a regressive step as it would legally compel Canadians to respond to all census questions however intrusive.

This government has already taken steps to ensure that certain census questions, the ones pertaining to establishing the population, calculating transfer payments and determining government policy, remain mandatory. The government has also decided that other questions are unnecessarily intrusive and a breach of the privacy of Canadians.

The bill fails to respect that balance and seeks to reverse these decisions, compelling Canadians to answer mandatory questions with legal recourse if they fail to comply. Therefore, these aspects of the bill cannot be supported.

Our government committed to removing the jail-time penalties for Canadians who refused to participate in mandatory surveys. The bill before us would partially accomplish this, yet it does not go far enough in removing this threat. When Canadians respond to surveys about their private lives, they should be able to do so without the threat of jail time. They should be able to provide their responses without having to face the threat of jail should they choose not to answer private questions.

Canadians expect their government to be tough on crime and to stand up for victims. Prison sentences are penalties meant for criminals—murderers, drug traffickers, and child abusers—not for people who do not comply with mandatory surveys or who fail to provide administrative data.

As promised during the last election, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has brought forward legislation that would go further in removing this penalty. I would encourage my colleagues to support that bill when it comes forward for debate.

This government takes the statistical program seriously and has taken many steps to establish a fair balance between the collection of relevant data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. Statistics Canada has long been one of the world's most respected statistical agencies, and Canadians deserve an institution that continues to remain at the forefront of its field.

This government will continue to work hard and ensure that statistical programs remain relevant and cost-effective while respecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-626, an act to amend the Statistics Act, regarding the chief statistician and mandatory long-form census. As I said in my question to the member, New Democrats will be supporting the bill and look forward to discussion at committee, if the Conservatives will agree to support the bill.

Over the years where this conversation has been happening in the House, the New Democrats have been consistent that we support the maintenance of the mandatory long-form census. We think it is an important document in terms of evaluating government programs and services and providing information for all levels of government when they are developing programs to address social policy issues. We believe that this form does need to be restored in its 1971 format.

I heard the member opposite talk about how effective this national household survey was. Let me read into the record some of the problems with it.

Mandatory surveys are typically used when taking a census due to high response rates. The mandatory census response rate was approximately 94%, whereas the voluntary national household survey response rate was 68%. Rural communities were especially under-represented, causing Statistics Canada to withhold data on 1,128 communities. In Saskatchewan, over 40% of communities have data of such low quality that it will not be published. This figure is over 25% in the Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta. Voluntary surveys typically also have lower response rates for visible minorities, including aboriginal people and women.

Although many of us do get called at home for polls and surveys, and so on, I would argue that some people will respond to voluntary surveys and some will not. Therefore, the voluntary survey approach that the government has taken has failed to provide the kind of year-over-year comparable data that is very useful in terms of developing policy.

When this discussion was happening about cancelling the long-form census, there were outcries from across the country from all kinds of different organizations, academics and governments. I want to read something from 2010, prior to this decision taking effect. An op-ed by the C.D. Howe Institute was called “Cancelling the 2011 Census Long Form: Libertarians Take Out the Wrong Target”.

It is an interesting article because the focus is the fact that this kind of information gathered year over year allows citizens to hold their governments to account, and it gave a couple of very concrete examples of this. The C.D. Howe Institute said:

...the case for the long form is still strong. Not just because the voluntary survey will provide a less reliable picture of how Canadians live and work but because Statistics Canada's information—much of it based on the long-form census—is an essential tool for Canadians seeking to ensure that the state's use of its vast powers is effective and benign.

Take education. Most Canadian students receive instruction in public schools, and virtually all follow a curriculum, write tests and accept certification mandated by governments. Census information is invaluable for judging how well these systems work. C.D. Howe Institute research on aboriginal education, and on how students at particular schools do compared to what neighbourhood characteristics would predict—key tools for parents and taxpayers to demand better performance—would be impossible.

Or immigration. Canada's economic and social success is intimately linked to the economic and social success of new arrivals. Alarmingly, the average experience of immigrants in the Canadian labour market is deteriorating. Long-form data brought this problem to light; other long-form information on education, language and country of origin can help us address it.

The state plays a huge role in Canadian health care: Good information on personal and neighbourhood characteristics can help us know if we are healthier or sicker as a result. It redistributes income on a colossal scale: The long-form census can reveal much about the successes and failures of these programs. In all these areas, good information helps Canadians hold their governments to account.

Many critics of the decision to drop the census long form are talking past the people they need to persuade. Mandatory collection of such data is intrusive. The information it yields is imperfect. The question is whether we should put up with the costs and defects for the sake of the benefits—among the most vital of which is empowering Canadians with knowledge about how well, or poorly, they are governed.

For those who want government to do less but do it better, good information is indispensable. If the census long form is gone for good, libertarians will have won the wrong fight.

I thought that was a very interesting, telling article, because what we have seen from the current government is a continuing erosion of the ability of not only parliamentarians but other organizations to gain access to information. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been forced into courts at times in order to get information to determine whether the government's figures are accurate.

It seems there are many who are saying that despite the potential for intrusion into Canadians' lives, that type of information is essential in determining how effectively government is operating. Therefore, a government that talks about openness, transparency, and accountability surely would want to make sure that the information is there to allow Canadians to determine that it is in fact open, transparent, and accountable.

With regard to the long form census and its impact on aboriginal communities, The Globe and Mail published an article in 2013. The article is headed “The lost long-form census means shakier insight into aboriginal issues”. This is what it says:

Canada’s public policy concerning aboriginal peoples continues to be perplexed, and the country needs more rather than less significant and reliable information about their lives and circumstances; many communities are afflicted by social problems. Consequently, the loss of the mandatory long-form census is acutely felt in Statistics Canada’s National Household Survey on First Nations, Métis and Inuit, which was released on Wednesday.

Several passages in the NHS allude to the difficulties of assembling solid statistics about aboriginals. The understandable ambivalence of some members of aboriginal communities about Canadian institutions can lead to a reluctance to answer census questions; a legal requirement was a real help. As Statistics Canada rightly says, “the characteristics of those who choose to participate” may – indeed probably do – differ from those who refuse, which undermines the information value of the survey as a whole.

I have an article from Dr. Janet Smylie, who talks about the importance of the long form census. I will not be able to read all of this document because I know I will be running out of time, but in it she indicates that the “social data systems in Canada are extremely deficient” with regard to aboriginal peoples:

We all know that First Nations, Indian, Metis, and Inuit health and social data systems in Canada are extremely deficient. We also all know that capacity (especially Aboriginal HR capacities) and infrastructure issues are a real challenge. We also all likely agree that historically and currently there have been/continue to be challenges in the way that Statistics Canada has interfaced with Aboriginal communities.

This said, the long form census is one of the key tools that we do have to understand the size of our populations and assess the conditions in which our peoples live, including the level of social disparity.... Without it our current data systems, weak as they are, will be severely disabled. While there are many problems with the national surveys run by Statistics Canada, including the APS and ACS, all of these surveys required the long form census to develop their population based sampling frame. For non-Status Indian, First Nations/Status Indians living off-reserve, Metis and Inuit communities the impacts of no long form census will be devastating, as this is the primary source of social and demographic information for our communities--and in most situations the only source, since we are otherwise hidden in the large majority of data sets. For example, the recent studies that demonstrated life expectancy disparities (including for the Inuit disparities of infant mortality in Inuit inhabited areas of up to four times those for non-Inuit inhabited areas) for First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples would not have been possible without the long form census.

I know that in the past much of that long form census data has been used to shape policies with regard to health care, with regard to housing, with regard to education. With the loss of that data comes a major concern that the absence of good information will allow decision-makers to make up policy based on ideology rather than information.

One of the things I am hoping the member who proposed the bill will be open to at committee, if it gets to committee, is to look at the fact that gathering information on a year-over-year basis that would allow for comparability is not specifically included in the bill.

Any of us in this House who have tried to deal with estimates and with the changing formats in which they are presented know how critical it is to be able to look at historical data. We can look to see if there have been trends or changes and we can see if programs and services are having any kind of impact through some of the legislation and programs that have been developed.

I am hopeful that perhaps the Conservatives will see the light of day and allow this bill to go before committee so that we can hear testimony from witnesses, possibly amend the bill, and reinstate the long form census in Canada.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-626, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), introduced by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to develop the best possible policies for the governance of our nation. We also have a duty to adjust our way of doing things and adapt our public institutions to society's progress. Our society is growing, both in terms of population and institutions, and we also want it to grow economically.

As society evolves, the policies that govern it must also evolve. Developing the appropriate policies requires an ever increasing degree of expertise and information.

As we go through our own renewal, we in the Liberal Party strongly believe that progress is critical to our public institutions and the democratic process. We believe that the holders of this expertise, whom we need to listen to rather than stifle, must be actively consulted. This expertise comes not only from Canadians all across the country who experience these realities, but also from scientists and specialists from every area that we choose to focus on.

The information, which is getting increasingly complex, comes primarily from reports, think tanks, experts and studies. The people we represent deserve to have us consult a greater variety of experts to ensure that we are best equipped to develop the policies that affect them. That is what we call evidence-based policy.

My colleague's bill is entirely consistent with this approach, which I wholeheartedly support. Since this government came to power, it has been opposed to the idea of developing evidence-based policy. While Canadian society continues to evolve and progress in terms of novel ways to access information and to develop commercially and intellectually, the government is trying to slow us down and limit the flow of information. The government has decided that information and its purveyors—such as scientists, the media, academics and even charities—are enemies. What does it prefer over evidence-based policy? It prefers politically based policy.

That is exactly what the government was trying to do when it abolished the long form census. Let us look at the merits of this census compared to the National Household Survey, which the government tried to use to replace the census in 2011.

First of all, one of the Conservatives' main arguments for getting rid of the long form census was the associated cost. In that regard, the verdict is clear: even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the administration of the 2011 survey cost $30 million more than the previous census.

The next issue is the government's oversight or the oversight it permits. Another one of the Conservatives' populist arguments was that abolishing the census would counter the surveillance of Canadians by major federal institutions. This argument alone must be assessed by weighing the loss of privacy against the collective good to society of the census.

Before discussing this issue, I would like to point out the extent to which this government, whose surveillance agencies are busy spying on Canadians here and around the world, is inconsistent. It does not hesitate to share Canadians' confidential information with Revenue Canada, other departments or even other countries. This government refuses to establish parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies. That is another example.

Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to tell Canadians that they are overly concerned about their privacy. Canadians do not ask questions about that, whereas the government does not hesitate to snoop on them without their knowledge.

Statistics are very useful. In order to understand why I believe we should bring back the long form census, we must understand the usefulness of the data collected. I already mentioned that not only the federal government, but also the provincial and municipal governments need reliable data to develop sound policy. The government cannot afford to base its policies on bad data.

For example, we need to know where in Canada people speak certain languages, especially French and English, in order to know where and how to provide services to Canadians. It is not just governments that need these data. The data are used by businesses to identify potential markets and by labour to assess job opportunities. When deciding how to manage their growth or provide their services, NGOs need to know who really needs their services and who can contribute.

Academic researchers, who shape our understanding of society and demographic or sociological phenomena, must also be able to refer to reliable data on the Canadian population. I have not even touched on the main value of the long form census. It is the anchor for every other study conducted by Statistics Canada and any other organization on the Canadian population. It is absolutely crucial to the reliability of every other study that is based on it.

In a completely ironic turn of events, the 2011 national household survey, which the government tried to use as a replacement for the long form census, used the data from the 2006 census to adjust its results.

If there was any need for another argument in favour of reinstating the long form census, the 2011 national household survey certainly provided it. Despite the hard work of experts at Statistics Canada, that study was terribly unreliable and in no way indicative of what we are capable of producing. The reason for that is quite clear. Because the study was voluntary, not enough people participated. Participation was about 65% and as low as 0% in some communities and for some groups. My colleague's bill aims to reinstate that anchor, the long form census.

Since time is running out, I wish to conclude by saying that I commend the thorough process followed by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, in fine-tuning his bill. The bill went through many versions and was improved at every stage of the consultations with, for example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as the member just said in his speech. The member also heard criticisms of the original legislation, particularly concerning possible prison sentences, which are no longer part of this bill. I wish to congratulate him on that.

That is how a consensus is built around a bill that is needed and that Canadians deserve. We must move forward with this bill if we want to have a reliable statistical base in order to better understand the population we represent, to develop more sound, thoughtful policies, and to provide services that will meet the specific needs of Canadians. If we want businesses to be able to recognize and take advantage of opportunities, if we want to understand the impact of our policies on Canadians, if we want to know the people who elected us to represent them and if we want to better serve them, we need to know these statistics. That is what Bill C-626 proposes.

We are quickly approaching 2016, and the brave staff at Statistics Canada will have to get to work soon to restore their pride and joy, the long form census, and to strip it of any political interference.

In closing, I congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I also urge my other colleagues from all ridings to vote in favour of Bill C-626, because this is what Canadians deserve.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-626 and the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act.

First and foremost, the government has consistently been committed to balancing the need to collect reliable statistical data while protecting the privacy of Canadians and reducing costs for our taxpayers.

Many aspects of the bill would negatively affect the governance and accountability of Statistics Canada, the timeliness of data collection, and would force Statistics Canada into adopting standards and practices that may be unsuitable for the Canadian context. Moreover, it would increase costs to taxpayers and impose an unnecessary burden on Canadians that has already been lifted. For these reasons, it is impossible for this government to support the bill.

Our government committed to the removal of jail-time penalties for not filling out mandatory surveys. The bill before us would partially accomplish this; however, the bill does not go far enough. While the bill seeks to remove the threat of jail time for Canadians refusing to respond to mandatory surveys, including the census, it would not remove this threat from other portions of the act.

We believe that when Canadians respond to surveys about their private lives, they should be able to do so in complete confidence, without the threat of imprisonment for failing to comply. We also believe that when Canadians take part in the survey, whether as an individual citizen or on behalf of an organization, they should never have to respond to questions or provide administrative data under the threat of imprisonment.

This government has committed to being tough on crime and has brought forward many measures to meet this commitment. We have also made standing up for victims a priority, to ensure that Canadians feel safer in their communities. We have worked to combat serious crimes, protecting some of the most vulnerable members in our society against harm and abuse.

We believe that our criminal law should be focused on actual criminals and should reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. Prison penalties should be reserved for criminals, drug traffickers, murders, and child abusers, but not for people who fail to comply with mandatory surveys or fail to provide administrative data. It is just like the Liberals: they want to turn law-abiding Canadians into criminals, either through this bill or with what they tried to do under the long gun registry.

There is no utility in threatening jail time for Canadians who refuse to fill out surveys, especially when this disciplinary measure has scarcely been enforced. There is only one individual in the history of the census who has ever been sentenced to custody for failing to complete a mandatory survey. In all other cases, which are few in number during each census cycle, the penalty of a fine or community service has been sufficient.

Canadians understand that their participation in the census is important. Their responses are necessary for establishing the population of the country, which is information that we need to define electoral districts and determine transfer payments involving billions of dollars to the provinces.

Canadians value the census, and this was no more evident than in the response rate of the last census in 2011, which was 97.1%. This highlights Canadians' commitment to helping us collect the information that we need to inform policies and programs right across the country.

However, it is this government's view that no Canadian should ever face the threat of imprisonment for refusing to fill out a census or a mandatory survey, or for refusing to grant access to administrative information. This is why, in keeping with our election promise, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has introduced Bill C-625, which proposes to remove the threat of jail time for all forms of data collection.

It was this government that stood up for Canadians and made the necessary changes to the census so that no Canadian would ever feel forced to answer intrusive questions that challenged their right to privacy. It was this government that worked to find a balance between the need to collect reliable, relevant data and the obligation to protect the privacy that Canadians value.

We have taken numerous steps to ensure that fundamental information, the information that is so important to Canadians in communities across the country that it must remain mandatory, continues to be collected.

The government has also decided that Canadians should not be forced to respond to detailed questions about their private lives, and has since adopted the national household survey. This survey provides a better balance between collecting reliable data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

This government has the utmost respect for the right to privacy that all Canadians deserve, and we believe that when Canadians participate in mandatory surveys, they should be able to do so without the threat of imprisonment. Prison is meant for criminals, not for those who do not comply with mandatory surveys or fail to provide administrative data.

The current bill would not take the issue far enough and would not remove the unnecessary imprisonment threat for all forms of data collection.

I would encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-625 when it comes forward for debate and vote against Bill C-626.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Pontiac to resume debate, I must inform him that he will only have three and a half minutes for his speech.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is okay if I have only a few minutes. This is an important subject, and I am pleased to have the honour to rise in the House and support such a bill. I must congratulate my colleague who introduced this bill in the House.

Before becoming an MP, I was a researcher. I did research at a federal research council, and I know the importance of research. I also know how important it is to have research that is independent from the government. That is why I applaud this bill. We must provide all federal government researchers and statisticians with independence and the power to tell us the truth on various aspects of things.

By the way, I deeply regret the loss of the long form census.

This was a tool that researchers had that was very valuable. I saw, in my former career, several researchers use it to very good ends. It allowed us to track some major demographic trends in our country. It allowed us to track income inequality, what was going on with aboriginal populations, with aging, with the challenges of many Canadians.

Unfortunately, perhaps, it was a tool that was too useful in criticizing the government and perhaps that is one of the reasons why it disappeared.

I have no disagreement with my former colleague who spoke about making criminals out of people who do not want to fill out forms. There is no doubt that, on that point, I agree. However, what is more important here is really the issue of the independence of the chief statistician and the independence of researchers in this country to speak truth power, to do the research they do.

The long arm of the government should be shortened with regard to the control of what people can research. That control can be done tacitly and it can be done explicitly at different levels. One of the tools the government has is the conditions under which money comes to these research councils and to Statistics Canada. In that way, the government can force research to go in a certain direction. That is truly unfortunate because we do need curiosity-driven research in this country. We never know when researchers will find something that is of extreme use to our country, and they can only do that if they have the greatest amount of latitude to research what it is that they think is important.

There are several works written in the past that at the time they were written were ridiculed. We could say that Darwin was ridiculed at the beginning of his findings. Today, we realize the degree to which that particular book on the origin of the species has been fundamental in our understanding of the human being and of the evolution of life on this planet, but at the time it was ridiculed. That was curiosity-driven research. At the time, he had a patron and he had money, so he was allowed to research the way he wanted to.

Fundamentally, I fully support the bill. I think it would be a good addition and a breath of fresh air for the research community.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Pontiac will have six minutes for his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, so the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:15 p.m.)