Debates of Jan. 29th, 2015

Opposition Motion—Annual First Ministers' Conferences

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, and for the benefit of my NDP colleagues, I would like my colleague to comment on the chronology of the meetings under Liberal governments.

They happened on December 21, 1993; July 18, 1994; June 20-21, 1996; December 11-12, 1997; February 4, 1999; September 10-11, 2000; February 4-5, 2003; January 30, 2004; and November 2005.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's dates speak for themselves. When we had those types of meetings taking place with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, we were able to achieve a great deal, as I have made reference to, whether it was the health care accords, guaranteed payments, the Kelowna accord, or building relationships. There are many positive things, no doubt, that would have taken place at every one of those discussions.

Liberal prime ministers were not intimidated or afraid in any way in terms of meeting with the premiers. Liberal prime ministers, and Brian Mulroney as well, saw the benefits.

By meeting with premiers, one can make a difference. If one does it right, good things can happen. It is something we will continue to commit ourselves to. As the leader of the Liberal Party has said, we are going to be meeting on an ongoing basis with the premiers, because we believe in a strong Canada.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member's leader today supported placing a price on carbon, a carbon tax, on the people of Ontario. He said that should happen across the country.

Manitoba currently does not have a price on carbon. It does not have a carbon tax. Does the member support his leader in placing a price on carbon, a carbon tax, on the people of Manitoba, or was this just another bozo eruption from his leader?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, well, that says a lot in terms of the very last comment the member made. The issue we are actually talking about today has--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am remiss. I should say that the “bozo eruption” was quoting the Liberal member of Parliament for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member, but I do not think that is a point of order. However, I would say, as members do know, that when we get into these characterizations of other hon. members, we are usually going in a direction that is never helpful to the decorum in the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any humour in the comment by the member.

Having said that, the leader of the Liberal Party has put a very important motion, through the Liberal critic on the issue, on the floor today. It is all about first ministers meetings, where the Prime Minister has a responsibility to meet with premiers to develop that national agenda and build on the consensus. That is what the debate is all about now.

I know that the Conservatives have little things here and there they would like to be able to talk about, but it is important that we be relevant to the issue before us. I would suggest that the member reflect on many of the speeches that have been given and maybe suggest to his Prime Minister that he should be meeting with our premiers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are only two minutes remaining in the time provided under the business of supply for this afternoon, but we will resume debate with the hon. member for Mississauga South for about two minutes.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I would like to focus my comments, as brief as they must be, on Ontario and the Premier of Ontario, who has publicly called on the Prime Minister to meet with her to discuss Ontario's woes. I would like to mention the things she may want to talk to our Prime Minister about.

As we know, and as has been discussed today, when our Prime Minister believes there are pressing matters to be discussed, he does hold a number of meetings. We have heard about the over 300 meetings he has had with premiers.

As I was listening to the debate today, I wondered what the Premier of Ontario would want to talk to the Prime Minister about.

Perhaps she might want to discuss the misguided Ontario pension plan, for example, which really is just an additional payroll tax that would benefit contributors after 40 years of regular contributions. I am hoping that I do not have to work another 40 years, but if I do, I will receive a pay-out from the Premier of Ontario's pension scheme. This has uniformly been decreed to be a complete waste of an idea and a terrible tax on small business that will drive away investment from our businesses.

The premier might also want to talk to the Prime Minister about her failed green energy program, which has led to higher power bills for homeowners and small businesses, and is also driving investment away from businesses in Ontario.

She might want to talk about Ontario's $12 billion deficit, which is so large that we just received another credit downgrade in Ontario.

I am hoping that perhaps the Premier of Ontario can give our Prime Minister an idea of the kinds of things she would like to talk to him about. I for one would be interested in knowing what those agenda items might be.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Monday, February 2, 2015 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I am disappointed to see an end to this debate, I believe if you seek it you would find consent to see the clock at 5:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 7, 2014 consideration of the motion 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.

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are glad that the previous debate is over and that this will be a much quieter period of time.

I am very pleased to rise, both as the representative of the people of York West and the Liberal industry critic, to lend my support to Bill C-626.

I would also like to congratulate my great colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his leadership and perseverance on a matter that is really of the utmost importance to all Canadians.

This is a perfect example of how science does matter in politics. Certainly there are those of us on this side of the House who understand the short-sighted actions of this government when it comes to census cuts. Bill C-626 would go a long way to righting many of those wrongs.

I think most would agree that in order to run a country that is fiscally prudent and socially responsible, which I know is very difficult for the government to understand, governments have to use real science and collect reliable data from the people they hope to serve. That is precisely what Bill C-626 is about.

The bill seeks to restore Canadians' trust in Statistics Canada by strengthening the political independence of the chief statistician over matters related to data sources, methodology, and professional standards.

Politicians need to focus on politics and leave scientists and statisticians to do what they do best. Muzzling and stymieing them serves no one.

In simple terms, Bill C-626 seeks to re-establish the role of internationally recognized best practices for official statistics in guiding the work of StatsCan. This reliability issue strikes to the heart of this discussion and many other discussions like the one we had today.

Census data allows governments to understand and become more aware of vulnerable sectors in Canadian society that require addressing. It allows governments to plan how and where to deliver services such as health care and education. If the information available is incomplete, skewed, or faulty, the ability of governments to respond effectively to the needs of Canadians is directly impacted. We are already seeing that on a daily basis.

The Liberal Party is committed to evidence-based policy. In order to develop this evidence-based policy, we must have access to reliable and trustworthy data. This is the bottom line and it is the spark that led to Bill C-626 being drafted in the first place.

The government's ill-fated 2010 decision to cancel the long form census was short-sighted and driven by a misinformed ideology again, but true to form this government plunged forward regardless.

Replacing the long form census with the national household survey has already compromised data quality and means that the data cannot be reliably compared with earlier census data. Worse than losing the ability to track population trends, the national household survey will cost taxpayers $22 million more than the census would have. This will not save even one penny for the public purse. Instead, the government is spending more than ever for incomplete and unreliable data.

Perhaps this back-of-the-napkin approach can help to explain why the Conservatives has been so hard-pressed to balance the books. Perhaps it is time to hire a real economist to help them out? In contrast, Liberal Party remains fiscally aware and committed to evidence-based policy.

So what does all of this mean from a public policy perspective? How would Bill C-626 help us to serve Canadians better? Put simply, in order to develop effective, evidence-based policy, governments need access to reliable and trustworthy data, but that is no longer the case and this government cares more about partisan advantage than about helping middle-class families, seniors, and students to get ahead.

Experts agree that the cancellation of the mandatory long form census has damaged research in key areas, from how immigrants are doing in the labour market to how the middle-class is faring. It is also making it more difficult for cities to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.

Sadly, the impact from the loss of the long form census extends far beyond Parliament Hill and the federal government. Everyone from planners and researchers to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce agree that the government has no idea where to credibly spend taxpayer dollars to best deliver key programs and services.

Worse yet, as the available data become more and more outdated, the problem will get worse. Unfortunately, we have seen the government's economic incompetence, but now the dearth of information promises to compound Conservative fiscal ineptitude even further. Yet again, Canadians of tomorrow will suffer because of decisions the government has made today.

Allow me to be clear. The government's decision to cut the long form census will have an impact in every single community in Canada. The switch to a national household survey has created difficulties in determining income inequality trends, housing needs, and whether low-income families are getting adequate services. I do not think the government cares an awful lot about any of those, though. What this means for a resident living on Jane Street, or Islington Avenue, or Hucknall Road in my Toronto riding is that they will potentially not receive vital government services in the years ahead, because no one will know what they need.

The people living in my riding and every other riding are expected to continue working and paying their taxes, but the government is taking steps to ensure that they will not get the help they need and deserve. Some may have trouble seeing the connection, but we are already witnessing the negative impacts caused by the lack of a mandatory long form census. This will only get worse in the years ahead. Broadly speaking, lack of reliable information has inhibited research on inequality and on identifying winners and losers from economic growth, research into understanding the national problems of the have-nots in the economy, and research into how best to help local government services.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose network represents 200,000 businesses across the country, knows this. The chamber is publicly calling on the federal government to restore the mandatory long-form census. I join it in that call.

Yet again we are seeing a government that is entirely out of its depth. It does not understand science, it does not understand long-term planning, and it does not understand the economic impact of its decisions. It only understands what is politically expedient for it to do.

The government may try to blame others, as it does every single day, for its woes, but this issue demonstrates that the government is out of its depth and struggling under its own incompetence.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act.

Canadians expect their government to make informed decisions in order to put in place effective policies and programs. This government has been consistently committed to collecting reliable statistical data, while ensuring the privacy rights of Canadians are respected. We have a robust statistical program that governments, municipalities, associations, businesses and researchers rely on for their work.

Statistics Canada is one of the most highly regarded statistical agencies in the world. It participates in close to 200 international groups, including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD. The agency is often asked to play a prominent role on committees and it is viewed as a strong leader in terms of data quality and management of its statistical programs.

The amendments to the Statistics Act that my colleague across the floor is proposing would have a negative impact on the governance of Statistics Canada, the timelines of data collection and the work that has already been done to alleviate undue burden on Canadians. These changes would be costly to taxpayers and would reverse the strides already taken to ensure the statistical program upholds the privacy rights of Canadians.

The bill proposes to change the method for appointing the chief statistician, shifting the responsibility from the Governor-in-Council to other players. This would blur the accountability of the chief statistician, who is currently appointed in the same manner as other deputy ministers. This government believes in ensuring that the lines of accountability for Governor-in-Council appointments remain clear and transparent. We cannot support a proposal that seeks to impose a separate process.

The bill also seeks to make the chief statistician ultimately accountable for the overall statistical program, including decisions regarding content for the census. This change would disrupt the important balance between the advisory role of expert officials and the accountability of elected officials of Parliament.

When Canadians are asked to provide information on a mandatory basis with legal ramifications for not responding, it is elected officials who should decide the question to be asked. It is elected officials who should be accountable for the content of these surveys as they are responsible to Parliament and ultimately to all Canadians for the overall statistical program. Furthermore, the chief statistician already has a wide range of legally mandated responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the statistical program and to maintain a high standard for protecting the privacy of Canadians.

The bill also seeks to impose unrealistic requirements on Statistics Canada by forcing the agency to comply with ambiguous international best practices. Statistics Canada already follows international standards when they are in the best interests of Canada. Instead, what the bill proposes is to bind Statistics Canada into adopting international practices that may not be suitable to our national context and that may go against the agency's better judgment.

The bill also seeks to force Statistics Canada into publishing all surveys. That is over 350 surveys annually in the Canada Gazette. This would significantly increase costs to taxpayers and add red tape to what is currently a streamlined and transparent process. Statistics Canada already publishes its surveys online and where mandated to do so, publishes questionnaires in the Canada Gazette. To legally bind Statistics Canada into putting all surveys into the Canada Gazette is an unnecessary, burdensome and costly proposal. Statistics Canada's ability to respond to data users and their need for timely information would be severely restricted.

The bill also seeks to turn back the clock and demand that Canadians answer detailed questions about their private lives by reinstating the long-form census. The proposed changes to the bill will legally compel Canadians to answer these intrusive questions. This government has already taken numerous steps to ensure that we collect necessary, reliable date, while reducing the undue burden on Canadians and protecting their privacy.

We have ensured that particular census questions, the ones that help to enumerate the population, to calculate transfer payments, and to make informed policy decisions, remain mandatory, but certain other questions that have been determined to be intrusive and challenge the privacy rights of Canadians are now voluntary. It is this government's view that no Canadian should ever be forced to answer detailed questions about their personal lives with legal recourse if they fail to respond. For that reason, we do support the notion of removing jail time penalties for Canadians who do not respond to mandatory surveys.

Unfortunately, the bill would not even properly address the issue, as it would leave jail time penalties for other sections of the Statistics Act.

This government believes that no Canadian should ever face the threat of jail time for failing to fill out a survey. Nor should Canadians who refuse to disclose certain data face the same penalty. A jail sentence is a penalty meant for real criminals, child predators and terrorists, not for elderly citizens who fail to respond to mandatory surveys.

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, both for those who refuse or fail to respond to all mandatory surveys, not only for the consensus. I would encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-625, as it would ensure Canadians never have to respond to surveys under the threat of jail time.

Canadians deserve a world-class statistical program that collects reliable data and is properly accountable to Parliament. This government will work hard for Canadians to ensure they continue to get just that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on this bill today. Bill C-626 concerns the Statistics Act and Statistics Canada.

I am glad to follow on the heels of my colleague on the government side because, frankly, the government has such a sorry record of denying science, ignoring evidence and silencing experts with whom it disagrees. It is more prone to ideologically based decisions rather than evidence based decisions, and the evidence of it stifling science is just proof of that.

Many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park have contacted me. They are very concerned about the impact on the quality of the statistics in Canada and their impact on the important social programs that we deliver in Canada. They include everything from immigration and refugee policy and labour statistics, right down to whether we will charge fees for certain programs in local communities across the country.

The bill we are debating today follows on the heels of bills from two NDP colleagues during the government's time, my colleagues from London—Fanshawe and Windsor West. They introduced similar bills. It really comes down to the fact that the New Democrats believe in good data. We believe it is essential to have good data to make government work. Having good data allows a government to effectively target and evaluate programs in order to improve service quality and lower the cost of the programs we deliver.

The NDP fought tooth and nail to prevent the Conservatives from eliminating the long-form census. The NDP believes that the long-form census must be restored in order to provide social scientists, governments and business with the data they need.

Here is a brief bit of history. The modern census was created in 1971. It was taken every fifth year until 2006, and it included some very short, basic questions, such as age and marital status, as well as some longer questions on housing and socio-economic factors. Response to the census was mandatory, and it carried penalties, including fines and possible imprisonment, for failing to respond or knowingly providing false information. This was to ensure the integrity of the data, so people filled it out completely and accurately.

In June, 2010, the Government of Canada quietly announced that it would be eliminating the long-form census without any consultation with stakeholders, the users, or even government agencies, and it replaced it with a voluntary survey, the national household survey. This created a huge uproar from municipalities, researchers and others, including the chief statistician, who ended up resigning when the long-form census was replaced.

In the past, these mandatory surveys typically had a response rate of about 94%. That is a very high response rate. In contrast, the voluntary survey has a response rate of 68%. That is a lot of missing data. We are finding that rural communities are especially under-represented. There are also certain parts of the country out west, east and north, as well as first nations communities, and some very low and high-income people not filling out the census.

Under the mandatory census—and I remind my Conservative colleague across the aisle about this—not one person has ever gone to jail for not filling out the mandatory census. This census had a 94% response rate. There are a couple of people who refused to fill out the form because they disagreed with certain government policies and it went to court, but they were not convicted. Someone else received mandatory community service as a result of not filling it out, but not one person ever went to jail.

The Conservatives eliminating the long form census to avoid mandatory prison sentences was completely irrelevant. It is a red herring.

It seems as though the intended consequence is that we would not have reliable statistics telling us that in fact inequality in Canada is rising. We do not know the level of labour force participation on first nation reserves. We cannot tell where social programs would be best implemented and be most effective because we cannot get proper, accurate, up-to-date data.

Other countries have tried to eliminate their long form census. None has replaced it with a voluntary census, as this government has done. That is a big waste of money right there. The U.S. tried it, but found the data so unreliable it went back to the mandatory census. What do they know that these guys are ignoring?

We are finding that not only are the data unreliable and the results poor, but it also costs more than a mandatory census did. That is unbelievable. These guys are such bad managers. The Auditor General has reported that the national household survey, their voluntary survey, cost $30 million more than the mandatory census, not including the $22 million that was spent to switch over to the new format. These guys are great at spending money, at losing money and wasting money for nothing. That money could have been more effectively invested in creating jobs, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in helping young people and taking people out of poverty. I do not know what makes these guys tick.

It is not just New Democrats who are criticizing the government on this. In the Report On Business in today's The Globe and Mail there is an article by Tavia Grant. She says:

The cancellation of the mandatory long-form census has damaged research in key areas, from how immigrants are doing in the labour market to how the middle class is faring, while making it more difficult for cities to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely, planners and researchers say.

She also references in the private sector the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose network represents 200,000 businesses across the country. It is publicly calling on the federal government to restore the mandatory long form census. We have been saying this all along.

She also goes on to say:

It’s now tougher to know whether free programs, such as swimming lessons or skills training, are being offered in the most high-need communities. It’s more difficult to plan subsidized child care. And there are now “huge gaps” in the ability to understand health trends in... [populations].

It is affecting city finances, because cities have to spend extra money to buy data privately, rather than having access to good-quality, more cost-effective public data. The government is downloading. It makes no sense.

Let me just conclude by saying that New Democrats believe that good data is essential to make government work. We also believe in science, unlike our counterparts across the aisle. We believe that good data allows government to effectively target and evaluate programs and thus improve the service quality while lowering costs.

We fought tooth and nail to prevent the Conservatives from eliminating the long form census. We believe the long form census must be restored to provide social scientists, governments, and businesses the data they need.

We also believe that the world is not flat. It is round, and we believe that greenhouse gas emissions are being created by the activity of people in the world. We know some really good scientists who could help our counterparts on the other side understand these things.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it seems to me that the Conservative government is nurturing a simplistic and outdated image of the society in which we live.

It thinks that modern society is exactly like a little old-fashioned town where everybody knows everybody and the local economy is based on exchanges between buyers, producers and sellers that are all the same size and nobody has more power than anybody else. The market is truly free and unfettered, with no distortion of competition. Everybody is on an equal playing field. The market and the economy are efficient.

In this imaginary society, everything is out in the open and people get the news by word of mouth. There is no need for statistical data to paint a picture of one's community. Problems are simple and so are solutions.

However, the society we live in today looks nothing like the Conservatives' notion of it. The infrastructure is complex. Even small towns are linked together within administrative regions that provide increasingly complex services, including health services, to the people.

People in the same region do not necessarily all know one another. To paint a picture of an area and its needs, we need to be able to collect data, often with the help of sampling techniques. In other words, we need to take a census of the population. To analyze long-term trends, we must collect data consistently over a long period.

For the data to be accepted by the public and used as a basis for decisions that are truly democratic and in the public interest, the public must be of the opinion that the data are accurate and were not compiled somewhat artificially in order to influence public debate and promote the political, economic or socio-cultural interests of one group of citizens over another.

In a complex, modern world, statistics are our collective lens. They allow us to see a reality that otherwise would be invisible to us, invisible to democratic decision makers. When the government decided suddenly to eliminate the long form census, it broke a piece of that lens. It distorted our view of how things really were.

There is perhaps no more convincing an example of how the government's sudden decision to end the long form census has compromised informed decision making in the interest of community than the case of David Hulchanski. As an aside, the government claims to care about community, but its decisions in fact undermine the community interest.

As theToronto Star has pointed out about the Hulchanski case:

This is one of the first documented cases of the damage done by the Conservative government’s 2010 decision to scrap Canada’s mandatory, full-length census.

David Hulchanski is a pioneer urban planner who dedicated five years to create the “the most sophisticated tool to track urban poverty ever devised”. The project used 531 census tracks to discern changes that had been taking place over time in the city of Toronto. I hope my colleagues from that area are listening carefully. Through his research, Dr. Hulchanski discerned that the assumed demographics of Toronto had changed over time, that areas of poverty had gradually moved from the centre of the city, which was becoming gentrified, to the city's outer rings.

These findings were somewhat counterintuitive, but they led to the conclusion that most of Toronto's social service agencies were in the wrong place.

Using the same methodology, Mr. Hulchanski developed maps for Montreal and Vancouver. According to the Toronto Star:

He secured funding to expand his project to Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary and Chicago, waiting expectantly for the 2011 census so he could move forward.

Just as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council approved his seven-year grant, [the President of the Treasury Board] dropped the guillotine.

Without the accurate data that the long form census provided, his methodology was “useless”. Not easily discouraged, Mr. Hulchanski tried to patch together other indicators, including income tax files, real estate data, municipal and school board records and the like, but these were insufficient to allow him to realize his statistical objectives.

Then he attempted to use the national household survey, which proved to be a dead-end. In fact, using the survey, his results contradicted the patterns that emerged in the long form census data. That, no doubt, was because the household survey was plagued by high non-response rates.

Sadly and ironically, Mr. Hulchanski's work ground to a standstill, except outside Canada in Chicago. So it was Chicago, not Toronto, that would ultimately benefit from the Conservative government's decision to kill the long form census.

In closing, I congratulate my hon. colleague for this bill. Because of his educational and professional background as a nuclear physicist, and later as a financial trader, he understands the vital importance of accurate information as the basis for effective decision-making. He is also someone who respects the institutions we have built for ourselves here in the northern half of the North American continent.

Colleagues will remember that in 2013, he was chosen by his colleagues in the House as the parliamentarian who best represented his constituents. The member for Kingston and the Islands does not let blind and emotional partisanship inhibit his search for truthful answers to the challenges we face as a nation. He brings through the bill that same ethical spirit to his vision for Statistics Canada, which should be free of political interference so that data can be gathered accurately and in a consistent manner, allowing us to draw comparisons on the state of our communities over time so that we can observe meaningful trends in the evolution of our great country and be able to make wise public policy decisions that can make Canada even greater.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act. The amendments that my colleague is proposing would have serious negative implications on the governance and accountability of Statistics Canada, the timeliness of the data collection, and the privacy rights of Canadians. This government has taken several steps to ensure that we collect reliable statistical data while maintaining the privacy rights of Canadians at the highest standard. We are committed to safeguarding this balance and we are prepared to defend it. The amendments being proposed would increase costs to taxpayers and impose an undue burden on Canadians, one that we have already eliminated. It is therefore impossible for our government to support this bill.

There is, however, one proposed amendment to the Statistics Act that we do agree with, and that is the removal of jail-time penalties for Canadians who do not fill out mandatory surveys. We are pleased to see that members of the official opposition and the third party recognize the need for this important change. Unfortunately, the proposed amendments in this bill do not go far enough. While the bill seeks to remove jail-time penalties for Canadians who do not fill out mandatory surveys, it does not speak to jail-time penalties that exist in other parts of the act.

When Canadians are asked to respond to surveys about their private lives, there should not be the threat of jail time if they do not comply. This government believes that when Canadians participate in a survey, whether as individuals or as representatives of an organization, they should not have to answer questions or divulge administrative data under the threat of jail time.

That said, this government has a strong record of being tough on crime and standing up for victims. We have committed to re-establishing Canada as a country where those who break the law are punished for their actions, where jail time is proportionate to the crime committed, and where we stand up for the most vulnerable victims. We have brought in many initiatives to ensure that victims remain a priority and that Canadian families from coast to coast to coast can feel safe in their communities. We have ensured that combatting serious crimes and protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, such as children and the elderly, remain top priorities. Our justice system should put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals. Canadians expect criminals to serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes. Our government will continue to work to ensure that violent criminals face serious time.

That brings me to my point. Jail sentences are meant for real criminals—terrorists, child predators, and murderers—not for Canadians who fail to complete mandatory surveys. To threaten elderly census protestors with a jail penalty if they do not comply with a survey or if they do not release administrative records makes light of a punishment that we believe should be treated very seriously.

Canadians value the census and understand that their participation is crucial. Canadians know that their responses help to enumerate the country's population in order to define electoral boundaries and calculate important transfer payments. In 2011, the census response rate was 97.1%. Canadians understand and value supporting the collection of reliable data so that we can make informed policy and program decisions.

However, this government believes that no Canadian should have to respond to a mandatory survey or release administrative records under the threat of jail time. Instead of the bill before us that only goes half way, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London has brought forth Bill C-625, which would remove jail-time penalties in all parts of the act for those who refuse or neglect to fill out surveys or do not grant access to their administrative records.

This government has already made strides to ensure that Canadians are no longer forced to answer questions that challenge their privacy rights. This government has worked hard to find a balance between collecting reliable statistical data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. We have found that balance and we are committed to maintaining it.

I would encourage my colleagues to support the changes proposed in Bill C-625.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-626, an act to amend the Statistics Act. I am pleased to enthusiastically support the bill.

I would like to thank the critic, our MP for Parkdale—High Park, for her work on this and also the staff who worked diligently on this and other files, including Florian Olsen, Stéphanie Haché, and from my office, Andrew Cuddy. They did great work in helping us understand the bill, and helping us with our speeches and procedures in the House.

I would also like to extend kudos to the member for Kingston and the Islands for bringing forward Bill C-626. It has been great to work alongside him in trying to make science, social sciences and hard sciences, better in this House. I am really sad that he is not going to be standing in the next election, because I think he has made a good contribution to Canada. I wish him well in his future endeavours and thank him again for putting this forward and allowing us to vote on it.

From my reading, this is a very good bill, which would bring back the long form census and empower the Chief Statistician. It would remove, as we have heard in speeches, the possibility of imprisonment for failing to complete surveys, which I think is something the British probably brought in when they were doing the survey census way back when, for tax purposes and that type of thing. Perhaps the mandatory requirements in those bills are past their day. However, I notice that there are still provisions for fining people if they do not complete these surveys, and I think that is something we have heard the Conservatives will be trying to change. I hope they at least make some incentive for people to fill out these surveys.

The bill put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands is very similar to bills we have put forward in the past, notably Bill C-346 by our MP for Windsor West. Therefore, of course, we support Bill C-626, and I think all Canadians, with the exception of those sitting across the aisle, would support strengthening our most important data source for planning and business purposes in this country.

Good data is essential to make the economy work, as census data provides social scientists, governments, and businesses the information they need to make good policy and business choices.

The NDP fought to prevent the Conservatives from eliminating the long form census and bringing in the national household survey in 2010. However, the Conservatives went ahead, without really any consultation, and now we are feeling the effects.

If members look up their community in the census and look at the statistics that are provided with the national household survey, up in the top right corner, members will probably see a little yellow triangle that warns that the data is questionable. It is there for almost every community across Canada. In fact, I just pulled up Burnaby, and the non-response rate in Burnaby was almost one-quarter of the people. It means that statisticians do not have the kind of data they need to make accurate projections. Burnaby is not a big community, just 220,000 people. It should be fairly easy to collect information there, but because of the changes that have been made, now we do not know whether the information is credible.

In fact, the national household survey that has now replaced the mandatory long form census survey has caused quite an uproar. It not only had municipalities and researchers upset, but just after it was introduced, the chief statistician resigned.

I hang around with statisticians, and they are very dedicated to their jobs. They are not political people. In fact, scientists get quite nervous when partisan politics are brought in. Therefore, when a chief statistician resigns, it shows us that something very significant has happened, which was something he did not feel he could put his name to. In fact, I think if members asked any statistician in this country, they would see what a grave error the Conservative government has made.

There are very good reasons for complaints. When we had the mandatory long form census, we had a 94% response rate. This is a high enough rate for us to accurately say every five years what was going on in each community in Canada. Now we have a 68% response rate. I think a lot of people at home probably are not getting closer to their televisions wondering what that means, but it is very important for ordinary Canadians.

Local government is an area that I have studied in the past. I am just finishing a text book on local government in Canada. There are 4,000 municipalities in Canada, but now more than 1,000 of them do not have any census information.

I used to work in the planning department of the City of Vancouver. One of my jobs was to take the census information to create profiles of communities to show how age groups and ethnicities had changed. This allowed planners to say, “We need new facilities there”, or allowed businesses to say, “Maybe this is a place where we should locate or move”.

For thousands of communities across Canada, this information does not exist. We are basically back to the 1800s in planning where new facilities should go and where businesses need to locate. If a Tim Horton's is looking where to put the next Time Horton's, the first place it would go is to census information to find out where the market is that will buy its product.

For a lot of communities in Canada, that information does not exist any more. When companies go to the Election Canada website to pull up the statistics sheet, a little yellow triangle will now show up in the right-hand corner. That undermines their confidence in their ability to predict where they should locate their businesses. Over the long term, this will have very serious economic impacts. I really think the Conservatives should reconsider this and vote in favour of the bill to ensure that we do not fall behind the international community.

If they continue along this path and keep removing these kinds of requirements to report our statistics accurately, there is some potential for international ramifications; for example, we have to provide the International Monetary Fund and World Bank accurate unemployment numbers and those types of things. I hope they do not start tinkering with the labour force survey, as was suggested a little while ago, because we may very well get kicked out of these international organizations if we start acting like North Korea in how we collect statistics. It is not a very good idea.

In Saskatchewan, over 40% of communities have no census data, and because the Conservatives want to stick with this as we move forward through the next census-taking, once again, another 40% of communities in Saskatchewan will have no census data for more than a decade. If we think of the population that is exploding there, especially first nations, there will be no accurate census done. When we are trying to plan for education, where to locate schools and perhaps where to close schools, and all of those types of things, we are making our local planners fly blind. That is a huge mistake. More than 25 per cent of communities in Yukon, Newfound and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Alberta do not have accurate information either. This is a real problem.

Nowhere else in the world have they done this. In the U.S., the Americans tried it and immediately reversed course because it damaged their economy.

We debate the economy a lot here and hear a lot of rhetoric, but what is really important is that we base our economic projections, locally, provincially, and nationally, on the best data we can get. Unfortunately, this data source, our most important data source in the country, has been destroyed by the Conservatives who say they are protecting basic rights to liberty or whatever. We can do that in other ways, but messing with this census was a big mistake. I think the Conservatives will pay the price. This is what we hear from people on the ground who say they would like to get information about their community but cannot get it. They get angry hearing that the Conservatives abolished this for no reason.

It is not just municipalities, it is not just businesses, but it is also social scientists who are concerned about this. I think this move adds to the Conservative war on science. Not only do the Conservatives muzzle scientists, not only have they fired over 4,000 scientists from the federal rolls and cut a billion dollars billion from science funding, but this is also just another knock against intellectual work in this country. I really think this is building up to something. People have written books about this accumulation of attacks on knowledge and science in Canada.

Again, I would like to applaud my friend for bringing this forward. I definitely will be voting for the bill.

I would also like to call attention to my efforts to bring in a parliamentary science officer, an independent officer of the legislature, perhaps an auditor general for science, who would protect science and give us good, accurate advice on whether these types of actions are something we should be doing and ensure that we are making science-based policy decisions in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you very much for your time today and, again, I congratulate my friend on a very good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this year is the 350th anniversary of the first census done in what is now Canada. We have been doing a census for centuries here in Canada.

I want to thank my great colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, for his thoughtful remarks. I also want to thank all the people from across the country who have communicated and spoken out about the issue of the long form census over the last few months.

I want to start by addressing the criticisms of my colleagues from the Conservative caucus.

The Conservatives claim that Stats Canada would be required to publish information on more than 350 surveys a year in the Canada Gazette and that this would be burdensome. This is not at all the intent of the bill. The legislation would only require publication of a minister's order, and then only if the order was with regard to the technical, scientific, or professional guidelines established by the chief statistician. I believe that this is a misreading of the bill, but I would be happy to address any concerns of the government and support appropriate amendments in committee.

The government also says that changing the manner of appointing the chief statistician would blur the accountability of the chief statistician and that it would prefer that the chief statistician be treated like any other deputy minister, as he is currently. The point here is that the Canadian people must trust that StatsCan is providing unbiased, unvarnished information and is not unduly influenced by the government of the day. Is this a real problem? The chief statistician resigned in 2010 in order to protect the integrity of Statistics Canada. My bill would ensure that the chief statistician was still accountable to the minister. However, if the minister wished to use his prerogative to overrule the chief statistician on technical or methodological matters, he could. He just would have to do it in the public eye, that is, in the Canada Gazette.

The government also opposes the bill because it would allow the chief statistician to choose the questions. I am happy to compromise on that. That is not central to the bill, and I am happy to compromise on that.

The government is also worried about Canada having to adhere to international standards for official statistics. In fact, it is the other way around. Canada played a significant role in establishing the United Nations “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics”, which members can look up on the Internet. We are actually telling the rest of the world how to do official statistics.

The government also says that the bill does not go far enough in eliminating the threat of a jail term. My bill would eliminate a jail term for refusing to fill out the census truthfully. There are other mentions of jail terms in the Statistics Act, but they do not concern individuals filling out the census and are outside the scope of the bill, so this is not a relevant criticism.

Moreover, since the government brings up this issue, the Canadian people have to ask why the Conservative government chose not to eliminate the jail term itself. It is only one line. In any one of the government omnibus bills we have had in the past few years, the government chose to not eliminate the jail term. This contradicts what the government has said tonight.

People are worried about coerciveness. There is a cost to getting good information. We have to spend many hours and fill out forms and give the government a lot of information when we file our income taxes. We have a duty to pay taxes so that our government can protect us and can strive for values like justice and equality of opportunity. Filling out the census is the same. It is doing one's duty to one's country.

On the question of privacy or intrusiveness, I would submit to Canadians that the Conservatives cannot be counted on as guardians of privacy. For example, one threat to privacy is all the electronic and online surveillance that is going on. StatsCan asks us where we work, then locks up the information. It only releases aggregate numbers. Other groups may know who we sent an email to last night or what website we visited, and we were not even asked.

Given that the voluntary national household survey cost $22 million more than the long form census, how can good Conservatives vote for a voluntary survey that costs taxpayers more and provides poorer data? How can good Conservatives vote to kill the long form census when the Conservative New Brunswick premier said that it is now harder to measure the results of money spent on fighting poverty?

The fight over this bill is a fight over the soul of this country. It is a fight over whether Canadians should collect information about ourselves so that we may have solid evidence with which to govern ourselves wisely.

Let us vote for a competitive country where public health, business investment, economic management, and local government service delivery is done in a smart, informed, and efficient way. Let us vote for a country where we assess social programs using real data and know how to cut the ones that are not effective, where collecting solid data is not about bigger government or smaller government but smarter government. Let us vote for a country that does not accidentally look more middle class and equal than it really is just because of poor statistics. Let us vote for a country where knowledge and wisdom guide us, where we acknowledge our civic duty to provide information for the common good through informed governance.

Let us bring back the long form census.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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