House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was regard.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for raising her request for an emergency debate. I am prepared to grant her request, and pursuant to Standing Order 52(9), I am happy to have the debate begin at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment tomorrow.
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I request unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to return to presenting reports from committee?
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in relation to a motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 21, 2016, entitled “Wild Atlantic Salmon in Eastern Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I want to thank all members of the committee, and certainly our analysts work worked very diligently, as well as our clerk.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Geng Tan Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 would introduce the requirement that the new council's work be done in a transparent manner. It would also require that the council make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.
The new council's membership would also be much smaller and more focused compared with that of the existing council. The council would consist of a chairperson and up to nine additional members who would be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure. The chief statistician would also be a member of the council.
Unlike members of the current council, all members would be paid. The pay level would be fixed by the Governor in Council. Members would also be entitled to be paid any reasonable travel and living expenses incurred while absent from their ordinary places of residence to perform their duties under this act.
Given the reduced number of members compared with the current council, there would not be any additional costs associated with the new council.
Establishing the new Canadian statistics advisory council in the Statistics Act, as proposed under Bill C-36, would be beneficial in at least three ways.
First, it would strengthen the accountability of Statistics Canada, which would balance the increased independence secured under other suggested legislative changes.
Second, it would increase the transparency of the council's work, thereby increasing its own accountability in addition to that of the minister and the chief statistician.
Third, it would publish an annual report on the state of the statistical system, including the quality, relevance, accessibility, and timeliness of the data it would produce. This is particularly important given the critical role statistics play in evidence-based decision-making.
The statistical information produced by government must be high-quality and responsive to stakeholder needs. Otherwise, it will not be trusted, nor will it be used. Businesses, governments, non-profit organizations, the research community, and the public rely on the integrity and accuracy of this data.
Statistical information helps us better understand ourselves, our past, and our future by providing information on our economic, demographic, social, and environmental situation. As such, it is essential that statistical information be impartial, reliable, relevant, accessible, and timely. In essence, it must be of the highest possible quality.
The new Canadian statistics advisory council would play an essential role in ensuring that Canada's statistical system continues to be one of the best in the world.
This government is committed to ensuring that its decisions are evidence-based and reflective of the needs of businesses, institutions, non-profit organizations, and Canadians.
To meet this commitment, we need quality data. That is why we reinstated the mandatory long-form census, and that is why Bill C-36 is so important.
Together, the legislative amendments proposed to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence will ensure that Canadians can rely on and trust in the official statistics produced.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, although we appreciate the effort that was put into drafting this bill, I want to ask my colleague if he does not think it would be a good idea to listen to what was said by Canada's chief statistician, who recently resigned. He said that there are problems that this bill does nothing to address.
The budget cuts at Statistics Canada over the past several years have had serious consequences. I think it is very important to be able to evaluate all of our markets using statistics. In order to do our jobs properly, we should at least listen to what the former chief statistician has to say.
Geng Tan Liberal Don Valley North, ON
That is exactly the purpose of Bill C-36, Mr. Speaker. In this society, where there is such a high pace, data is so critical, and we have to make decisions based on the accuracy of data and in a timely manner. This is why we have given the chief statistician the authority and have made the position very independent. We even introduced a fixed five-year term for the chief statistician so he could work independently, based on the evidence and the studies, and not under the influence of other political tendencies.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to correct a previous discussion regarding the Phoenix pay system by my friend from Winnipeg North and also from the member for Windsor north.
I have worked on this probably more than anyone else in the House. It is very clear from the Gartner report, as well as access to information reports that have come in, that the Liberal government knew there were issues with Phoenix and went ahead with it anyway. Therefore, to blame it on the previous government is incorrect.
Regarding the new bill, the past president of Statistics Canada quit in a disagreement with the Prime Minister about shared services, specifically stating that having to go through shared services infringed on the independence of Statistics Canada.
I would like the member to explain this very clearly because it is not in the bill. Where is the government going to go? Will Statistics Canada servers be with shared services, like other government agencies, or will it be going it alone? I would like clarification, please.
Geng Tan Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that we would give independence to the chief statistician. We will also reduce the size of the board. We are bringing in more experts and giving them pay, so they become more dedicated in terms of time, energy and the quality of the decisions.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, while New Democrats are happy to see measures that would promote independence of the chief statistician, as usual with the Liberals, the devil is always in the detail.
I am not sure how having a five-year term that is renewable makes people more independent than having essentially a career long term. I am also not sure when a Liberal government in its previous incarnation started the privatization of statistic service, handing over control of data to private organizations. When we get to committee, I think we will have a lot of very detailed questions.
Is the government open to additional measures in the act to ensure that the chief statistician is actually independent and the privacy of Canadian data is protected?
Geng Tan Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 proposes to make some changes to make our Statistics Canada more independent and ensure that its decisions are made based on the evidence and the studies. We also make this process more transparent.
Bill C-36 proposes that the new Canadian statistic advisory council will produce an annual report on the state of its job. Canadians will have access to review its work and to make comments.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this very important legislation. Many listeners, or members, will recall that there was a campaign commitment by the government just prior to the election. We said that we believed in Statistics Canada and the fine work done by it. There are a multitude of reasons why it is so important to our nation.
We made a commitment to bring a higher sense of independence and to provide assurances to our chief statistician in an effort to see a stronger Statistics Canada and a more independent approach to dealing with what was so critical when it came to the gathering of information in order to see good, sound policy decisions being made. Therefore, it is a good day in Ottawa. We see another commitment that is being fulfilled by this government. We have consistently talked about the issues of transparency and accountability, the importance of information and science-based decisions. We have heard a lot about these types of things from the Prime Minister. Today we have before us yet another piece of legislation that advances the election commitments we made to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-36.
It is important to point out right at the beginning some of the things the bill would do. When I talk about reinforcing Statistics Canada's independence, I am talking about things such as assigning authority to the chief statistician to make decisions on a number of things, such as statistical procedures, methods and professional standards employed for the production of statistics, the content of statistical releases and publications, the timing and methods of dissemination of statistics that have been compiled, and the operations and the staff at Statistics Canada. We are looking at increasing the transparency around the decisions and directives, all of which are in the legislation we are debating today. We are also appointing the chief statistician during good behaviour for a fixed renewal term of five years. I am very much aware of the concerns of the New Democrats, and we look forward to them presenting those concerns at committee.
The legislation deals with the creation of the Canadian statistics advisory council, and makes some changes which the Conservative Party across the way has expressed some interest. Again, we look forward to seeing this bill go to committee to hear in more detail with respect to this, as well as listen to possible amendments being brought forward.
It is important to recognize that we are removing the penalty of imprisonment, while retaining financial penalties. As a member of Parliament, I have often heard, “If you don't fill out the form, the Government of Canada will throw you in jail.” This is one of those things that is probably long overdue because it never really happened in reality. I think it might have happened once over the years, and it was likely because of the individual wanted to protest it by going to jail. Therefore, it is good to see that aspect being removed.
We are removing the requirement to seek consent for the transfer of census-related data to Library and Archives Canada, 92 years after the taking of the actual census. In the bigger picture, with respect to the way we have evolved, that is a positive initiative.
There would be a number of technical amendments made, such as modernizing the language to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistics and information, correcting errors in the wording of statutes, and so forth.
I have already had the opportunity today to ask a number of questions of others.
I have always recognized the important and critical role Statistics Canada plays, whether it is with respect to governments at the national level, the provincial level, municipal level, school division level, and non-profit groups and private groups. A great many stakeholders have a huge interest in what we are talking about and the type of mandate and legislation that provides the guidance that is absolutely necessary for us to continue to be proud of Statistics Canada well into the future. This legislation would be a step forward.
It is important for us to recognize that Statistics Canada, and the public service that has made Statistics Canada what it is today, is virtually recognized around the world as a professional organization that knows how to get it right. When the previous Harper government changed the mandate by saying it no longer wanted the long-form census done in a mandatory fashion, people were quite disillusioned. They could not understand why a government would make such a decision. The Liberals indicated that we would bring back the long-form census. I look at from a practical point of view. Often there is a difference in approach in dealing with Statistics Canada, but I want to raise the issue of why we need it from a practical perspective.
Prior to getting involved in politics I was quite involved in community revitalization. I was on a western revitalization board. I was on a housing co-op board. Having strong and sound information and statistics was really important. I can remember community profiles. Municipalities still invest a great deal in community profiles. The type of information that community profiles draw upon often comes directly from Statistics Canada. It is the things that really matter in deciding what sort of program is needed in a community that would allow it to be safer, or an area that needs a bit more attention with respect to revitalization than another, or getting a better sense of the economics of that particular community, such as what types of stores might be necessary. There is a litany of things and when broken down into those small communities, it really makes a difference to have accurate information. There is no other organization like Statistics Canada. It is second to no other organization that I am aware of, not just nationally but in the world, with respect to providing critically necessary information. That is talking strictly at the community level.
At the national level, we can talk about how important it is to the provinces that Ottawa gets it right with respect to everything from population numbers to demographics to transfer payments. Many provinces are have-not provinces and they are dependent on those social transfers or equalization payments. Those billions of tax dollars are absolutely critical to the provinces to assist them in ensuring they get it right. Imagine the importance of health care and long-term policy development in health care. Imagine knowing where our senior population is based and being able to predict how to provide sound health care policy that could see access centres opened up, certain types of home care services delivered, all of which are dependent on good, sound statistical information for both long-term and short-term planning.
By making Statistics Canada that much more independent in the way it operates, by providing the type of support this government has provided in legislative and moral support, it will assist Canada and the many different stakeholders to make good, sound, solid policy decisions which would be to the betterment of all Canadians. That is why I would encourage all members of the House to get behind the bill. Let us get it to committee, because it would be good for all of us.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from my friend from Winnipeg North again.
I have two quick questions with respect to the member's speech and this legislation. Maybe I misheard, but he seemed to imply that the previous government had done away with the long-form census, which I am sure he knows is not the case. A decision was taken for it not to be mandatory, and we can debate that decision, but I am sure the member would want to at least be clear about the facts with respect to it. There was no desire to do away with the long-form census.
Also, I want the member to explain the rationale for that one aspect of the bill where the government essentially is doing away with an existing committee and replacing it with a different committee providing oversight. It is not clear to me why we are switching from one committee to another. A good point was raised by the New Democrats with respect to the smaller number not as effectively facilitating those opportunities for regional representation. It is the sort of thing where it makes people raise their eyebrows and wonder what is going on behind the scenes. I wonder if the member could reflect on that as well.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from across the way. I enjoy his interjections in the House and I anticipate there will be a good number of them in the coming months.
Having said that, the member is right that the Harper government did not get rid of the long-form census, but he needs to recognize that the Conservative government did make it non-mandatory. The criticism of the Harper government back then was very extensive, from virtually every sector and every stakeholder that understood the importance of the census being mandatory.
If the member across the way were to reflect on it, I am sure he would not suggest that it should be non-mandatory. By making it mandatory, we will have better information.
As I tried to illustrate in the limited amount of time I had, that information is very critical for all levels of government, not to mention the non-profits, the private sector, and many other stakeholders that are in need of the type of information we know Statistics Canada can provide, as long it is afforded the right tools, and one of those tools is a mandatory long-form census.
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how not having the census be mandatory in the past impeded historians, genealogists, scientists, and many other researchers, and how implementing Bill C-36 will benefit researchers in his community and across Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that when these long-form surveys are sent out to Canadian residents, depending on the numbers and the draws, and I am not a stats person per se, a certain percentage will get that long form.
If a significant number of people in certain areas chose not to fill them out, it would have a profound negative impact on the overall collection of information. It could create a bias for a number of different reasons. I wish I had the time to expand on those biases. At the end of the day, it would not give the best type of information that we require. That is what Canadians and others have expected of Stats Canada. That is why it was great to see the census being made mandatory once again.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Winnipeg North admitted he is not good with stats. I think if the Liberals were, we would not be sitting on a $30 billion deficit this year.
This is the same question I asked previously about Shared Services. Wayne Smith, the highly respected past head of Stats Canada, who had been there for 30 years, quit specifically because the government would not address his concerns with Shared Services. He wanted StatsCan to go to a separate server. Is the government going to have StatsCan on a separate server or keep it on Shared Services? If it goes to a private server, how much is the cost going to be?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to confuse the member. I am a big fan of using and reviewing statistics. They are incredibly important. They enable us to make good, sound policy decisions. The member raises some concerns and I would highly recommend he detail those concerns and bring them before committee. It would be most helpful. If the member chooses to speak to this legislation, maybe he could expand on his point.
I assure the member that the government is open to looking at what opposition members have to say on ways to improve legislation. A number of members have brought up the issue of why it is a five-year term appointment. I served in the Manitoba legislature and independent officers usually are fixed-year appointments. To indicate why it is five or six versus four could be a good question for the member to present at committee. I do not have the specific answer at this point.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and address this important legislation.
It is good to be back in this place. Maybe I am the only member who thinks this, but when I am away on the long breaks, I do kind of miss the House of Commons, so it is good be back and speaking again.
Before I proceed to discuss this legislation, I hope members will indulge me with a few brief remarks on the events of the weekend.
Canada as a nation is defined by unity in the midst of our diversity, and an attack on one person or one community is an attack on all of us. Indeed, we must respond and we have already responded together across faith lines and across party lines, and that response has to continue.
Details remain unclear about the motivations of the attackers, but in whatever sense, I think we know that this terrorist attack which targeted the Muslim community in Quebec seeks to undermine our unity. I have already seen comments by those who want to blame this on our commitment to pluralism, and this is precisely what terrorism seeks to do: to undermine our values and our sense of solidarity. Terrorism does not just seek to take life, it also seeks to undermine our way of life, so today we must continue to stand together, fight back, and downgrade and defeat radical violent extremism in all of its forms.
I also want to extend my well-wishes to those across the way who have been affected by the cabinet shuffle. We know that in the current government, there are those in cabinet and there are those working hard to join it. Therefore, congratulations to those who have succeeded.
In particular, I want to extend my best wishes to the former foreign affairs minister. The member has been relentless in his service to Canada. Of course, given my interest in the foreign affairs file, we have had a chance to cross swords quite a bit over the last year and a bit. I know the member is intelligent and deeply thoughtful. His vision for foreign policy was one with which I passionately disagreed, but it must be said that he did articulate a vision for Canadian foreign policy which reflects his values, and it was a vision he developed with sincere motivation. Perhaps more importantly, his ideas about the commitment to the idea of a unified Canadian nation have stood and will stand the test of time. I wish him very well in whatever next steps he takes.
I look forward to debating with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, although I was hoping that the member for Winnipeg North would get that position so that he would be travelling more and I could finally catch up to him on the word count.
Today we are debating Bill C-36, which is an important piece of legislation about the Statistics Act. The government introduced this legislation on December 7, so we see that we are moving along relatively quickly with the debate and discussion on this. Certainly, it contains some important measures that we are looking at. We have heard different and thoughtful arguments from members throughout the House today. I will start by reviewing some of the substantive content and also what appear to be the objectives of the bill, which I will react to and discuss.
I will say at the outset that my objective in rising today is not to speak definitively for or against the bill, but rather to raise some issues that I think require discussion and consideration in the context of this legislation. Following that, I intend on listening to the ongoing conversation that happens on this legislation and evaluating some of the pros and cons going forward.
With that in mind, certainly for those who are watching or perhaps reading the transcript of the debate afterward, I look forward to hearing substantive feedback from my constituents and others on how they see this debate proceeding with respect to this important legislation.
When most people hear that we are talking about the Statistics Act, they might imagine something fundamentally dry and technical. Of course, there are technical aspects to all legislation that we deal with in the House, but the bill before us is very practical and important for the collection and use of statistics in the real world. Indeed, it is the kind of information gathered by government, the way that the gathering of this information is overseen, and the way that information is shared and used that can influence research, which then touches on every aspect of our lives.
Before being elected, I had the honour of working for an opinion research company. Being involved in this process first-hand I saw all kinds of different ways research and statistical information impacts all sorts of practical aspects of our daily lives.
We live in a world today of big data. Every aspect of our lives is influenced by data, from the choices and prices we see at the store to the social outreach activities of religious institutions. These things are often informed by all kinds of complex calculations involving data.
Certainly, with the advent of the Internet and then of social media, there is more data out there about the world, as well as about us, than would have been imaginable even a short time ago. This use of data has many positive impacts for our lives. It also raises lots of different kinds of questions that perhaps were not at the forefront of our public conversations, again, a relatively short time ago.
The role and approach of government in the collection and use of statistical information is a critically important and very interesting discussion, especially if that information interacts with other data sets that are collected privately. The information gathered by the government can be used as a basis for weighting other kinds of data, everything from social research to medical research, to market research, to political polling. I generally believe that the government should stick to doing the things it does best, but gathering important baseline data is certainly one of those things, and there is a very important role for government involved in that.
As I mentioned, my prior life of working in the private sector, as the vice-president of an opinion research company, involved using data gathered by government as part of the benchmarking for the various research initiatives in which we were involved. The use and also, by the way, the misuse of data, which we often see in the context of politics as well, shapes and will continue to shape many different aspects of our regular daily lives. Of course, the government does not just gather data for the use of others. It also conducts policy research that shapes its own decisions, and I will return to that insofar as how this legislation might interact with policy research as well.
Here again, we can see both the use and misuse of data. I think we would agree in principle, notwithstanding the possibility of misuse, that governments should always try to base their decisions on the best available information and be diligent about identifying and utilizing opportunities to actually gather that information.
With that general introduction about the importance of this area, let me return to the specific provisions of the legislation we are talking about.
Bill C-36, introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in December of last year, proposes amendments to the Statistics Act with the government's stated objective of strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada. Part of what we are evaluating is whether it actually would succeed in those objectives, and there are some other things that are, at best, tangentially related to that identified objective.
Under this legislation, we would have the appointment of a chief statistician for a fixed, renewable period of five years, removable only for cause, as identified by the Governor in Council. It also assigns to the chief statistician the powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. The minister would still be able to issue directives on statistical programs, but would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations.
The chief statistician might require that any directive given be made public and in writing before acting on that directive. Therefore, there is still the opportunity for the government to direct a particular statistical program, but there is a level of independence within the general ambit of that in terms of the chief statistician being able to define exactly what kinds of operations, methods, and procedures make the most sense in that context.
This may perhaps not be the direct intent, but the legislation also means that the chief statistician might have authorization to make decisions about where the data is housed. This raises, of course, another set of questions in terms of what this means for the practical use of data.
The chief statistician, in the context of methods, procedures, and operations, would have authority to develop questioning within surveys. That is quite a bit of flexibility to be held independent of the government, and there is a discussion to be had about what the role is for the elected government in terms of the development of those things versus an independent officer like the chief statistician.
I raised this separate issue in questions and comments a number of times. The bill would establish what it calls the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the National Statistics Council.
The new council would comprise 10 members. This council would advise the chief statistician and the minister and focus on the quality of national statistical systems, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of statistical information that is produced. As well, as part of its responsibilities, the council would be required to make an annual public report on the state of the statistical system.
The question I would ask the members of the government, and maybe we will hear an answer to this soon, is just what motivates this replacement. This is an opportunity to appoint new people to this body. It would be important, if the government felt there was a need for something new to exist, for it to develop some arguments about what was wrong with the old model and new about the new model. It is the sort of thing that needs to be explained, and so far, I do not think it has explained what the objectives in mind are.
The other thing to note, which has been raised by other colleagues as well, is that the existing National Statistics Council being replaced by the Canadian statistics advisory council has representation from 13 provinces and territories, hence the number of members. We can presume that the new council means that three provinces or territories would lose representation. Again, this speaks to the question of why we are moving from one council to another. Those of us participating in the debate are asking legitimately why this is happening.
The bill no longer requires the consent of respondents to transfer census information to Library and Archives Canada, and that is a point of important discussion in terms of whether that consent should be required. It also repeals the penalty of imprisonment for every survey except the mandatory short-form census. As members of the government have said, I think this particular provision is a common-sense change, that people not be imprisoned for failing to fill out the long-form census. This was a concern we had when we were in government and that we spoke about; again, not doing away with the long-form census but moving back on those mandatory provisions, with a concern about some of these issues, for instance the possibility of imprisonment.
It is worth underlining, in the context of the discussion about mandatory versus not around the long form, that the bill does not change whether the long-form census is mandatory. That specific element is not affected one way or the other by specific provisions of the bill.
Those are the different details we are debating. Some of them have a clearer rationale than others, and hopefully, over the course of this debate, we will hear a little more about those rationales.
On the question of independence with respect to methods, with respect to the types of questions we are being asked, there is an important discussion to be had here, because on the one hand, it is important for the government, which is elected by the people, to be able to get the statistical information it needs to answer policy questions that they feel are important and need to be answered. On the other hand, it certainly makes sense to have experts defining what methods make sense for achieving those objectives.
That is generally the model that is envisioned, but we could also imagine a case where a minister might have an opinion about the kind of method that was most suitable for getting certain kinds of data. We could also imagine possible problems with that.
In the context of this debate, we should think about the government's experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website, because it was an example of the government wading into what it claimed was an exercise in research, in gathering Canadians' opinions. However, we know that there are horrendous problems with the kind of survey that was developed and the way it was developed. It did not actually ask clear, direct questions in terms of people's opinions about specific issues. It did not get clear feedback from people, and there was ambiguity about whether people had to actually give their information or not.
This, perhaps, speaks to the importance of having independence when it comes to developing statistical surveys because it really looks like MyDemocracy.ca was developed, clearly, with certain objectives in mind by the government, which is to obscure the information, to not actually do what seems much more natural and straightforward and obvious, which is to ask people questions about their opinion.
There is a worry, when it comes to an elected government being involved in information-gathering, that there is a loss of independence and that the government seeks to use its desire for certain policy outcomes to obscure the collection of information.
Over the break, I had a constituent write to me about his experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website. It speaks to some of the problems with statistical information, so I want to share what he had to say. His name is Mike, and he said I could share his name because I think this is important information.
He wrote, “I live in Sherwood Park and I received a card to fill out the survey at MyDemocracy.ca. I went to fill it out and ran into a major issue. I spent a bunch of time and when I got to the profile section, which states that it's entirely optional, it would not let me proceed. I called the number and spoke to someone. He told me that it was a failsafe to ensure it was filled out, even though it is optional to fill out that portion, and he suggested that I could put in false information if I did not want my real info in.”
He continues. “This is insane and defeats the entire point of the survey. For a federal government employee to suggest putting false info in is unbelievable. It's clear this a skewed survey. At the end of the day, my opinion was not registered, and something is wrong with that. The deadline for this survey is December 30. I received this card yesterday, December 7. The fact that the government sent this out at the busiest time of year, with only three weeks to contemplate it and with a major flaw that eliminates certain people's responses, is a major problem. Most people will not take the time report this problem. Who knows how many people's opinions have been excluded. This survey has no validity now. I cannot adequately express how troubling this is and makes me wonder what the federal government's real motivation is. Further to the above, the survey questions are very repetitive, and they basically ask the same questions two or three times.”
That is correspondence that I received from a constituent about MyDemocracy.ca. Of course, it is correspondence that has important implications for the electoral reform discussion, but it also has important implications for our examination of what the relationship should be between the elected government and those developing statistical tools. It speaks to the fact that we have a government here that is, I believe, trying to set up a system for gathering information that is designed to produce the kinds of outcomes that it wants, rather than engaging in a more serious, sincere consultation or survey to figure out what either those who want to participate in giving us information think or what a representative sample of Canadians think.
This speaks to the importance of independence. On the other hand, would the change to the Statistics Canada Act actually affect this kind of ad hoc, one-off policy research the government might choose to do?
Maybe we should look at saying that, specifically, when the government has these kinds of political objectives in mind, that is where that independence would be critically needed so we do not run into this sort of false research exercised by the government when it is trying to get specific outcomes it wants in order to justify a course of action that it has already identified. That is not meaningful research. That is certainly not meaningful consultation.
Another point I want to make, just on reflecting on the content of the bill, is that we would be changing the council that provides oversight to the activities with respect to statistics. Again, the old council was the National Statistics Council, or NSC, and we would be moving to the Canadian statistics advisory council.
There is a possibility that this is actually a tactic that compromises independence because it opens up an opportunity for the government to appoint an entirely new council whose members, presumably, would all be appointed by the government, which might not be as effective in exercising oversight as the existing council, with the existing people, with the existing infrastructure that is in place. That transition would create an opportunity for the government to appoint a wholesale group of new people.
Again, we have yet to hear from the government some degree of explanation or rationale with respect to what the objective is, what it would be trying to achieve with this new council.
To summarize, the ongoing discussion on the bill before us is important. There certainly are some important objectives here, but there are also some outstanding questions about what the real objectives are and whether some of these changes would actually achieve the objectives that the government has defined. I look forward to that continuing conversation.
David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation
Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to ask my first question in this role.
I will take a moment to express my sympathy for the victims of the terrorist attack in Quebec City last evening. Our hearts and souls go out to all of those people affected by it.
I would like to ask the hon. member for a bit more clarification on the matter of the long-form census. I think he is technically right, but maybe he has missed an important element of the facts.
It is true that the mandatory long-form census was not eliminated by the previous government, but the Conservatives did make the political decision to render it non-obligatory. Then, and this is the part that perhaps this bill would hopefully correct, they tried to pass off that decision on Canada's chief statistician and say that he was in agreement. However, he said that he was not, and he effectively resigned over the matter.
This is the part that I think the hon. member is missing. This is what the bill is trying to correct, to increase the transparency and make governments responsible when they do issue that kind of political directive. I would ask the member to comment on that.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the premise of the member's remarks, he said that I am technically right. Well, there is only one kind of being right, and I am glad he acknowledges that everything I said about the mandatory long-form census was correct. The fact is there was no intention and there never was a plan to do away with the long-form census and it never happened. In terms of that, he should acknowledge, as I said, the bill would not change any of that with respect to the mandatory long-form census.
Again, it has come up in discussion and it is sort of approximately related that one thing the bill would do is repeal the possibility of imprisonment for those who do not fill out the survey. I am glad the government has at least come along with us that far in terms of realizing that incarcerating someone is not an appropriate response to someone choosing not to fill out or perhaps forgetting to fill out the long-form consensus. That at least is a step toward proportionality.
The objectives in a lot of the bill are important, but it is just a question of whether or not the provisions realize the objectives.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about statistics in general and the census, I would like to talk about a problem I am seeing in my riding. I wonder whether my colleague is facing a similar problem.
The census is done in the summertime, in early spring, in May. Along with the census there is also an agricultural census, and all agricultural businesses must participate. This happens at the worst time of year, since that is when farmers need to be sowing their fields and getting ready for summer.
Does the member think that that is the best time to encourage census participation? Since we are talking about the census and statistics, should we not try to find a solution that allows farmers to participate more fully, and make sure that it does not happen at a time that is really difficult for them, since it only makes life harder?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do have the honour of representing a constituency with a significant farming community. It is not a majority of the population in my riding, but it is certainly a vital part of the community.
The member makes an excellent point about the timing of the agricultural census. I certainly think that is an issue worthy of ongoing consideration in terms of looking at possible alternative times when that could take place.