Debates of June 20th, 2017

Statistics Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to a piece of legislation on an issue for which I have been flooded with correspondence from constituents. This is something that resonates for Canadians.

I want to pick up on something my colleague just said. He said the best thing about the bill is that it has helped him learn how to pronounce the word “statistician”. I agree that this might be the only good thing about the bill. There are many things about the bill that are much worse, and it may be that the parliamentary secretary is finally coming around to the opposition's perspective on this bill. Hopefully, by the end of my remarks we will have sealed the deal in getting the government to realize the problems and, having benefited from the pronunciation exercise associated with the debate, agreeing with us in voting down this legislation.

Before I get into more detail, I want to pick up on the parliamentary secretary's response to my question. One of the provisions of the bill is that it would establish the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the National Statistics Council. One might infer from the names that they are not that different from each other, and one would be correct. One has 13 members and the other 10 members, but when we do away with one council and replace it with another, that is a great opportunity to appoint 10 entirely new people, as if we would not notice in the opposition what is going on in that respect.

To get some clarification, I have to ask my friend across the way what could possibly motivate this legislative change, which effectively allows the government to do away with the existing council and then appoint 10 new good Liberals—I mean, good, qualified appointees—to this panel.

His response is quite revealing in its lack of detail. He tells us participation rates were uneven. Essentially, they did not think people on the council were as good as they could have been, so they have to completely change things so they can appoint a new council. Of course, we will be watching to see the extent to which the government uses this tactic. I really hope that none of the people on this new statistics advisory council were involved in developing the instrument for the government's electoral reform consultation.

There are some real problems with the government's approach to appointments in general and, I would argue, more broadly with its approach to statistics and how it considers science and information on a variety of issues, so I am going to take this opportunity to talk a bit about that as well as to talk about some of the specific provisions in this legislation.

The bill is partly seen by the government as an opportunity to try to push an important political message, which is that it really wants to associate its brand with evidence-based policy. We hear this rhetoric out of the government a lot. I think I speak for the entire official opposition in saying that we believe in evidence-based policy. We believe in data-driven decision making. For us, it is not just a slogan.

The member for Spadina—Fort York is heckling me again. I am sure he is preparing a great question about Ayn Rand again, which he is able to relate to all subjects in this place. I look forward to those comments, based on the member's extensive reading of that author.

If I could get back to my comments, for us as Conservatives, evidence-based decision-making is not just a slogan. It is not just something we want to put in the window. We actually look at the evidence and the details and we apply that information across a range of issues. If we look at the approach the government has taken across a range of files, we will see its total lack of regard for the evidence.

I will cite a few examples, because we have seen and debated examples in the House of the government not being interested in looking at science. The most obvious example of its complete disregard for evidence when it comes to policy-making is its approach to pipeline approval.

On this side of the House we believe that there is an independent process for pipeline review. There is an independent body, the National Energy Board, that collects data, conducts hearings in a reasonable time frame, and provides a report back. By and large, when the government gets a report from an independent consultative body like that, it should be listening. This actually accords with the rhetorical approach of the government.

An independent body is providing advice based on science. What is not to like? However, members of the government actually do not like that very much because, when it comes to pipeline approvals, they want to preserve the ability for the government or the cabinet—and they have clearly shown an intention to use that ability—to reject approvals that are made by independent, impartial, science-based decision-makers at the National Energy Board.

We have seen this anti-science approach when it comes to the northern gateway pipeline, an important pipeline project that would have provided market access for our energy resources, which was approved by the NEB with conditions. It was then approved by the previous government with conditions, and now we have a new government not only rejecting that but bringing in legislation to not allow tanker traffic out of northern B.C.

We know in that context that there is a great deal of tanker traffic off the coast of B.C. coming from Alaska. We have every reason to believe it is going to increase, and yet we have this unscientific—anti-science, in fact—decision by the government members. They are motivated by a political calculus that ignores the actual reality.

When we have the government coming forward with legislation, when the Liberals talk about the importance of science-based decision-making and of statistics, it is important to pose this question. Why are they not listening to the clear evidence when it comes to pipeline approval? Why are they not listening to that evidence?

I can give another example, and this is probably the clearest example of the government's disregard for good statistical methods. That was the Liberals' approach on the issue of changes to the electoral system. There was a process in place whereby a parliamentary committee representing all members of Parliament came back with some good recommendations about how the government could proceed with the implementation of something that was actually an election commitment. That reflected the fact that many Canadians had input into the committee process. Generally speaking, parliamentary committees only hear from experts. I do not think the committee did any sort of explicitly quantitative work, but it did a great deal of qualitative work gathering opinions of Canadians and hearing those perspectives. It came back with a recommendation that a referendum be done with respect to possible different electoral systems.

After that, because the government members did not like the result of what was a good process for engaging and consulting Canadians, they decided to come up with their own process, which was obviously from a statistical perspective highly suspect. It was to have an online consultation that gets people's feelings about things that might have some kind of approximate relationship to questions around electoral systems, but not actually ask the direct obvious questions. We could not ask people if they favour a system that is more proportionate or less proportionate, has certain kinds of possible outcomes, etc. It was generally about feelings and sentiment-based calculations, and through that process, the government decided it would not proceed with it.

This was an attempt, given that the first analysis of public perspectives did not seem to produce the results the Liberals wanted, to reorganize and contort and manipulate the mechanism of consultation to not ask explicit questions but instead to contort the process to try to ensure they had the result they wanted and in the end to justify a political decision, which at that point had probably already been made, which was to back away. This is another case where we see a real disregard for the process of science, of gathering evidence, of consulting with Canadians.

I should also mention that we have the government's disregard for the science when it comes to the risks associated with marijuana use, and we have the Liberals' decision to bring forward legislation to legalize marijuana in spite of the clear risks to young people, as I said, choosing an age that does not at all reflect the science.

The Liberals have been criticized by all kinds of experts for setting the age at 18, for example. There is a great deal of evidence that, even if we were going to legalize it, we should recognize that there are substantial risks and scientifically demonstrated associations between early use of marijuana, even relatively occasional use, and mental health challenges later in life.

That evidence exists, yet in spite of good advice from experts on this issue, the government again has shown that it does not take evidence-based policy-making seriously when it comes to pipelines, electoral reform, and now in this case, the issue of marijuana. We have a government that does not look at or listen to the evidence. Instead, it wants to try to twist and contort how it presents statistical information in a way that is based on a predetermined, preset political agenda. This might satisfy the Liberals' political calculus, but it does not accord with the kinds of principles, the kind of lofty objectives they frequently talk about.

By the way, every time we have a debate about science in the House, it is interesting to see the way the Liberals try to politicize the issues. I remember a case during question period where we had a member who has spent decades working as a scientist asking the Minister of Science a question. The minister said that it was good to see the member finally taking an interest in science. In fact, it was the member for Sarnia—Lambton, who has a long history of working and being involved in scientific development. It shows the very political lens through which the government views this.

Therefore, it is with that in mind, with the level of concern about the way the government uses these words and about its actual record when it comes to evidence-based decision-making, that we approach this legislation. It is legislation that contains a number of elements that raise big questions about what is actually going on and what the government is trying to do.

I spoke earlier, and I want to develop this point a little more, about a specific provision in the bill, which is this new council that the Liberals want to set up. The bill would establish a Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the National Statistics Council. I am sure what we are going to hear, and maybe members have already said this, is that there will be an open process for applications, anybody can apply, they will be evaluated dispassionately based on fair and neutral criteria, and they will come to the conclusion that in fact reveals that, well, the best people were former Liberal Party donors, cabinet ministers, or something like that.

The government's record with respect to appointments all the way along is very spotty. There are major questions out there about how the government actually comes to its appointment decisions. I think there are a number of examples that we could talk about that are fairly obvious. For instance, we had the government promising an independent process with respect to senators, and yet, strikingly, the senators that the government appointed are very much voting with government. How could that be? It is almost as if there was a political lens applied to those appointments. Just because the Liberals say something does not make it true. If we look at the evidence, the voting records of those appointed suggests certainly that this is not a dispassionate calculus based on some politically neutral criteria at all. They are trying to send that message even though it does not accord with the reality.

Of course, there is the fiasco in this place around the appointment of a new Commissioner of Official Languages. We had different messages given by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and by a witness at committee—I think the Commissioner of Official Languages appointee herself—saying essentially different things about the conversations that took place in the lead-up to the decision around that appointment. We had repeated questions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage about what conversations were had and how those decisions were made. In the end, it was always a deflection rather than a direct response to the question about that appointment.

However, the reality is that we had a provincial Liberal cabinet minister who the government intended to put in the position, which is a very important office and supposed to be an independent officer of Parliament. Obviously, that person took a step back when it was clear this was not something that was going to be accepted. However, it was not inevitable that would happen, and the government's consistent defence of that appointment decision obviously raises real red flags when we look at the fact that the Liberals are bringing forward legislation that would allow them to entirely reappoint this statistics advisory body.

With all these different appointment issues in the mix, this leads up to what is one critical position, the Ethics Commissioner. The Prime Minister has recused himself, supposedly, from being involved in the appointment of the Ethics Commissioner. However, he has given that power over to the government House leader, someone who clearly serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. It is hard to imagine that there would not be some kind of a conversation that would take place, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, especially given that there may have been conversations that took place around the Commissioner of Official Languages, and yet we had different things said in different places, by different people who were supposed to be part of that conversation, about what conversations actually did and did not take place.

There is a huge credibility problem with the government when it comes down to who it is putting in place for these appointments. When we look at a bill like this, it is worth asking who is actually going to be involved in the appointments. How can the opposition, as we look at this legislation, have any kind of certainty that, as the government gets rid of one body on the basis of what the parliamentary secretary called “participation rates” being uneven, we will see something quite different, and that we will see a body that will actually, in effect, increase the government's control of it.

The government can talk about independent bodies, groups, and agencies and oversight mechanisms all it wants, but then we have to look at how those are formed, who is putting them in place, and who is appointing those people to those positions. If we do not have confidence that the government is actually looking at merit, if it is clear, based on the past track record of the government, and I think it is, that it is only making these appointments or predominantly making these appointments on the basis of partisan criteria, then we cannot, at all, have confidence in the way in which that decision is going to unfold.

I do want to make an additional point with respect to this legislation, and that is that this legislation does not directly affect whether we have a mandatory long-form census. We currently have a mandatory long-form census, and that will not be changed either way with respect to this legislation. It is not necessary to pass it in order to achieve what clearly is a stated objective of the government, which is to have that mandatory long-form census in place.

Other provisions of this bill are evident but are not really the ones I have chosen to dwell on in my speech, but I do want to draw the attention of members to them nonetheless. The bill involves the appointment of a chief statistician during “good behaviour” for a fixed renewable term of five years. It does mean that once a chief statistician is in place, it is at least much more difficult for the government to remove that individual. It also, of course, brings us back to this question of how we can actually trust the government to make credible appointments, if we consider the track record of the government when it comes to those appointments.

The legislation also says that the minister will no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations. The minister will still be able to issue directives on sort of a broad scope of statistical programs, but it will no longer be up to him or her to dictate methods, procedures, and operations.

I have to say I do think the government has a very poor track record when it comes to determining statistical methods, if we judge from the way it organized consultations on the issue of changes to the electoral system. I certainly would not want to see the government manipulating those dynamics around statistical methods and operations. Again, we have observed what the likely problems would be if it were trying to essentially do the same thing that it has already done with regard to other statistical issues, and that is shape the way in which those consultations took place in order to achieve a particular outcome. The broad problem is still there, given the remaining authority and given the issue of appointments.

To summarize very quickly, the main problems that I brought attention to in the legislation are this.

First, we have seen the government's clear lack of willingness to take evidence-based decision-making beyond a slogan. It is clearly a slogan it repeats over and over. However, from the way in which it makes decisions, there is no evidence it is something it considers.

There is also the issue of the lack of credibility the government has with respect to appointments and the way in which those always seem to reflect a partisan criteria.

On that basis, we will be opposing the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The lack of real understanding of what happened in the appointments process was almost dizzying. I really cannot imagine anybody from the Conservative Party of Canada talking about appointments and credibility in the same sentence. It is amazing.

Being from Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, you would understand that if we were to do some research with respect to Peter MacKay's wedding party, we would find not one person in that wedding party who had not been appointed to a position by the previous government. They were all Conservatives and all lacked credibility in those positions.

Does the member not think that the process set up by the current Prime Minister was to make it open and transparent and to ensure there was credibility and understanding with respect to the issues with which the Liberals would deal in regard to the Prime Minister's appointments? This is all about making good appointments. That party over there has absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about appointments and credibility in the same sentence. Would he not agree?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Before the member agrees or otherwise, I just want to remind members of this. I appreciate and realize that some of the commentary is in good humour. However, I would ask members to try to keep it down to a reasonable level.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you. There was some good humour from the member across the way. I was expecting a question from my friend from Spadina—Fort York. However, the member for Malpeque certainly gave him a run for his money in the nature of that question.

Usually, this type of question shows the way in which the government is always trying to apply a very partisan filter when it comes to the way it does things. It thinks that the only people who should be appointed to these bodies are Liberals. That is clear from its record of appointments to a range of different bodies.

There is something the current government is doing that the previous government did not do. It will tear up a body and create, effectively, an identical body, with a smaller number of members. We know the government will then be able to make its appointments without the proper continuity in place, which we would have if we preserved the existing body.

Therefore, I encourage the member to take off his rose-coloured glasses when he looks at the actions of the government. We have already seen his leadership criticizing the House leader on her approach to the Standing Orders. If the member for Malpeque digs a little deeper into this, he will be able to show similar leadership and challenge the government on this issue.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's effort to present the Conservatives as the true defenders of evidence-based policy.

It is possible that the legislation we are debating this evening was motivated by the recent resignation of the chief statistician. However, the last time a chief statistician resigned was under the former Conservative government in response to its decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form census.

Therefore, could the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan educate us as to how eliminating the mandatory long-form census supported the commitment of the Conservatives to evidence-based policy?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friends from the NDP have a great interest in trying to convince the public that there is no real difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. If we ever had an NDP government in place, there would be a lot more than the chief statistician resigning.

It is fairly clear, looking at the track record and going back to my comments, that the government does not have respect for evidence-based decision-making. It has done a very poor job in applying the evidence that exists across a range of policy areas. It is trying to use the power that it has through legislation to control the appointment process and to reappoint people. That is what it is doing and that is what Conservatives are objecting to in our opposition of the bill.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of city council who had to endure the Ford brothers and listen to probably two of the smartest Conservatives who have ever had to speak about any issue, talk about facts and evidence, we often said in Toronto that when those two very proud members of the Conservative Party spoke, that—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Just call it the centre of the universe.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

The centre of intellectual Toryism, Mr. Speaker.

They never wanted the facts. What they wanted was the anecdotal evidence. What we just had was a long presentation of anecdotal evidence, which has no bearing in reality whatsoever.

I did not hear the member opposite even talk about what was in the bill. He talked about virtually every other thing under the sun, except for the bill with any great sort of specific analysis.

One reason we need the long-form census and we need to start gathering statistics and evidence so governments can make decisions is precisely because the previous government's editing and destruction of the census process left major cities in a very difficult situation. The City of Toronto was suing the federal government because there was no process to count people who lived in high rise buildings. In fact, it left high rise buildings out of the equation.

In the riding I represent, three-quarters of which is high rise and condominiums in the downtown core of Toronto, people were not even asked to be counted, let alone enrolled in the census process. As a result of that, federal programs, largely dispensed on a per capita basis, left huge swaths of our country unaccounted for in the calculations and therefore unfunded with respect to the acquisition of infrastructure money and social service dollars that would be delivered to a major city. The short-form census had a devastating impact on equality in the country.

Do you support a long-form census, do you support accurate gathering of information, and if you do, why are you not supporting this bill?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I hope the hon. parliamentary secretary is not asking if the Speaker does any of those things. I think he knows that when one uses the word “you” around here, one is referring to the Speaker. I would invite the member to remember to direct his comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the centre for intellectual liberalism for his question. He mentioned he cut his teeth in politics in Toronto with the Ford brothers. Their pedagogic influence is very clear.

The member said that I did not speak to the bill and then proceeded to ask a question that showed he did not really know the detail of the bill himself. We currently have a mandatory long-form census. Of course, the Conservative government never proposed to do away with the long-form census. While encouraging people to fill it out, we did not make it mandatory. However, the Liberals made the census mandatory again. The bill would not in any way change that reality.

I have spoken specifically about the provisions of the bill, changing the way in which the chief statistician is appointed, changing the powers the minister has with respect to statistical programs and procedures, and, yes, the abolition of the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council, replacing it with the National Statistics Council. The member's “the sky is falling” act is a little rich, but beyond that, it does not speak even to the details of the bill.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for his excellent understanding of the bill and the facts and stats before us today.

The rhetoric from the Liberal Party is often its commitment to statistics and evidence. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan referenced Bill C-45, which is the marijuana legislation. We know there is a lot of evidence and statistics that surround that legislation, which seems to have been completely disregarded when we look at the evidence from the medical community and its recommendations for proper age limits.

We also know other jurisdictions that have legalized the use of marijuana have experienced up to a 100% increase in traffic fatalities. Every year, 1,000 Canadians die due to traffic fatalities in Canada. It seems to me that will double with the proposed legislation. Why would the Liberal government—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Unfortunately, the question was a little longer than we had time for.

A very short answer from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two clear ways in which the marijuana legislation ignores the science.

First, it ignores the science around detection while driving. There is the presumption in the legislation that testing for impairment due to marijuana is, from a scientific perspective, as easy as testing for impairment due to alcohol. There is a fundamental difference in substances. One is fat soluble and one is water soluble, which means the mechanism for testing is much more complex and not yet established in the case of marijuana compared to alcohol.

The other thing, with respect to the science of marijuana, is the impact to young people, the risks, and where the age should be. I spoke about that again. Hopefully we will see improvements when it comes to committee.

Again, the initial drafting of legislation is another case where the government does not respect the science.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-36 with regard to the census. One thing we can be clear about in the debate on this legislation is it is critically important how we spend taxpayers' money. That is central to the census itself. It is no laughing matter, especially when we look at some of the people involved.

Shame on both the Liberals and Conservatives for their actions in regard to former chief statisticians. It needs to be identified as quite a serious situation. Munir Sheikh resigned under the Conservatives and Wayne Smith resigned under the Liberals. These are key resignations. These are chief statisticians who are respected across the planet. They were seen to have had their integrity compromised by being senior bureaucrats in an administration. They ended up being whistle-blowers. We know not just domestically but across the globe, whistle-blowers often become martyrs. They often become targets. They and their families are often affected for going public with something where they compromised their own personal well-being versus that of the state or the job they do. That is what took place with our chief statisticians.

It is important to remember who they are. Munir Sheikh, for example, was a Canadian immigrant from Pakistan who later on became a doctor of economics and worked in the Department of Finance for many years as a deputy minister, later becoming a chief statistician, and resigning from his position at Stats Canada. That was the first time I had seen a resignation like that in the 15 plus years I have been here. I had never witnessed someone take on the administration like that. That came about because of a number of things related to Stats Canada and how it was treated and valued.

Therefore, it is important to review what is so important about the Statistics Act and why it is so important for Canadians. A chief statistician is responsible for the overall act and the administration of it. The issues they monitor across the country are where, at the end of the day, taxpayers' money is spent. It is about income. It is about the labour market. It is education, housing, transportation, languages, persons with disabilities, citizenship, immigration, aboriginal peoples, and ethnicity. They even determine where to place a fire hall for municipalities. There was discussion today about high-rise buildings. We have seen tragedies with high-rise buildings, most recently in London. However, we have the necessary data accumulation on municipalities to do the proper planning for allocating resources, because Statistics Canada knows where the populations are. If we do not have that information, we not only could knowingly set ourselves up for failure but we could unwittingly do so, because we do not have that information.

It is similar with economic growth. The latest census of 2016 shows 35% of Canada's population now resides in the Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal areas. That is a significant concentration of human population for such a geographic mass as Canada. That also makes it very important for us to attract investment and innovation for other areas. The more vulnerable communities, related to not having proper statistical information, are smaller communities and smaller pockets of population. It is how housing is decided. I mentioned fire halls for municipal service. There is all of that, and even affordable housing and the cost of housing, which actually translates into economic development, where businesses decide where and what type of business they should grow here in Canada.

When I came here, I had previously worked as an employment counsellor for persons with disabilities and youth at risk and I was a city councillor in Windsor West where I represented one of the great parliamentarians for 39 years, the deputy prime minister at the time, the right hon. Herb Gray. As a city councillor, my area that he represented was pegged to be part of what is called the complete count. In Windsor West there were many new immigrants and we had a lot of issues related to language and culture, so our statistical returns related to the census were lower.

That meant that we were missing out on valuable data necessary for Mr. Gray to advocate for housing, language services, a series of things that were necessary for the production, value, and contribution of the citizens of that area because of the challenges. Because we had English as a second language growing as a concern, at around a 50% return rate for our census, we were missing out on those opportunities. We also had people who wanted to participate, wanted to do better things, but they could not.

We were one of four areas across the country, at that time, of the 301 ridings federally that did a door-to-door campaign to help people get enumerated for the census. There is a litany of reasons why that is important, but it affects the funding and the contributions. If we are coming from a community that does not have those things, as identified, it is hard to advocate for that.

It is not just about government services, it is also about businesses. Businesses use this information from labour market surveys not only to identify customer populations, but also to identify concerns about shortages of workers with certain skill sets. The information in the census is used to identify that for investment. One of the number one things we hear to this day is the fact that we are going to be short certain types of workers, whether it be engineers or mechanical workers, and not having the people to staff in those regions and not preparing other populations to either get that skill set, or having to import that labour versus educating Canadians and invest in education to do so. That affects a multitude of things and diminishes our middle class.

We did that in Windsor West. Later on as a representative of Windsor West in this chamber, I understood quite clearly the value of a clean statistical database for advocating for my community and also for this country. I became very intimate with how it works. About 50% of persons with disabilities are not working in Canada. Many have given up and are not in the system. l was part of a group that was able to include more persons with disabilities. I want to note that the good work of the public servants in helping access jobs for persons with disabilities during that time was critical. I am still grateful today because I know some people are still working and can use the job to get something else.

Ivan Fellegi, a chief statistician at that time, was under pressure to privatize our census. England, for example, had outsourced the collection of data to different third parties and Canada was outsourcing its census to Lockheed Martin. A campaign I was part of looked to protect Canadians' data from Lockheed Martin because many people had ethical concerns about Lockheed Martin collecting our data. It was an arms manufacturer predominantly based in the United States that produced weapons which were banned under Canadian law like cluster munitions and so on. It was collecting our data and not only that, it would store and implement the data. At that time, the U.S. went through the implementation of the Patriot Act. We discovered it was going to assemble this data outsourced from Canada in the United States.

Why that is important is because once the Patriot Act was implemented, the hard reality was that all our census data, personal and private information we thought was protected, was now susceptible to the United States. Under the Patriot Act, the way it worked at that time, and most of which still exists in this format today, is that if a court order was issued for information, the company could not tell the actual proprietor of that information that the information was actually being usurped and used by the American government.

It would have been against the law for Lockheed Martin to disclose to Canada that the information it gathered in Canada would be used. Credit card companies and others have faced some scrutiny since then. The Privacy Commissioner has piped in. From British Columbia, and other areas, there is quite a record on this. We fought quite hard to get that information to stay in Canada, which we were able to do.

Getting past that, we continued to have a fairly stable census, until the Conservatives came into power and created the voluntary national household survey. It was put out there as a cost-cutting measure, in many respects, and also as privacy protection for Canadians. Not having the bully of government telling people they have to disclose information or they were going to kick in doors, make people fill in the census form, or send them off to jail.

I remember the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka getting up a number of times in the chamber, talking about people being intimidated. The jail aspect was certainly the heightened element that received media attention from many facets for many months, more than a year. To this day, it is still one of the more laughable things ever pronounced by a minister in the history of Canada: that people were going to be locked up and have the key thrown away for not completing their census. The essence of it was really a side distraction, which worked.

The national household survey came back with around a 26% response rate. That 26% response rate meant that our statistics, which had been the envy of many industrialized worlds, were now a diminished response. We lost a significant portion of the reliability of that data to make decisions on income, labour market, education, housing, transportation, languages, disabilities, citizenship, immigration, aboriginal people, and ethnicity. All the intel on those things went down to 26%.

The other interesting thing about that is that it cost us an additional $22 million. We received a quarter of the results, paid an additional $22 million, and then it became very worthless in many respects. This is more the technical aspect of it that some people may not care for, but it is important. Think of the centrepiece of our census as a backstop for other labour market surveys, whether it be polling, labour market agriculture, labour market related to industrial development, or labour market for investment. All those different things would be targeted in smaller surveys, but the overall sample of the statistical census would provide some of the best statistical information. Poof, that was gone. All that continuum we had was basically disrupted by that introduction.

That is when Munir Sheikh, and I discussed some of his qualifications as an economist and a deputy at the Department of Finance for many years, resigned. He resigned because he could no longer do his job.

We pressed for changes and then the Liberals and opposition agreed with changes as well. I tabled a member's bill, as did a couple of other members, to restore the independence. This bill would do some of that. It would provide some of those elements, but it would not go far enough.

Wayne Smith, the latest chief statistician in terms of Service Canada, resigned because of that. He resigned because Service Canada has become a large, encompassing agency for intelligence and support services. The problem it has is that much of our census information that is used now has to flow into this information of shared services, creating an independence issue about the data falling in there, then getting data back and the use of it. This created quite a problem, and Wayne Smith has now resigned.

We now have the bill which will make Statistics Canada somewhat independent. I say somewhat independent, because overall it does fulfill the things I described in the first part of my speech relating to information gathering, creating the lineal information necessary for statistical information use, the gathering, and how it restores those elements. That is critically important.

We are very grateful we will have that, but it does not actually go the full nine yards, so right now we still have a situation where the minister can still make political decisions about the questions that are asked in the census. It still takes away from the scientific approach we would like to have, and the independence, because we do pay, and we do actually ask someone to come into this position. It is very much a sought after career position to have. If it is independent, we get some of the best in the world. We will still have the minister's control over that, so I worry about the fact we could have some politicization of it.

It has been mentioned, and there has been banter back and forth between the Conservatives and Liberals about patronage and the appointment process, but it is a serious thing to consider. We are just dealing in my neck of the woods right now, a patronage appointment, the Gordie Howe Bridge, and Dwight Duncan becoming quite controversial, because there is a partisanship past appointment and there are partisanship attacks, including Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the American administration, and so forth. I get the seriousness of that, and what is at stake there, but what I am worried about is, what happens next time? Now that this is enshrined in law, it becomes very difficult for us to get that independence.

The Statistics Canada Department is one of 42 agencies that are supposed to be at arm's length from the government, but unfortunately, with this legislation, it is still within choking distance. Yes, it is at arm's length, but a choking distance away. I am concerned about the fact we will not see that happening. Wayne Smith identified some of those issues and concerns.

We will eliminate the jail time. It will be completely eliminated, so it can no longer be a distraction, and in the future there will be no ability for the minister to say something that would make people run, or think about something different from what the real serious issue is, which is actually the increased cost, or the change of the census, which is important. There will also still be 92 years of census information before it goes public.

In his testimony, Wayne Smith said that Bill C-36 moves the Statistics Act substantially in the right direction, creates no new problems, but fails to fully address independence, the need for full quinquennials, mandatory census of population, or the modernization of the legislation to build a statistical system adapted to the rapidly evolving needs and challenges of the 21st century. He concluded that there is still work to be done. We proposed some amendments given to us in committee by Mr. Smith and others, but they were not taken into consideration.

We will be supporting this. It is a good step forward, but it is a missed opportunity. We get to hit a double instead of a home run out of this one, so we will take it. We advance the case, and most important, Canadians and the use of our money will be better off served with data that is reliable than not.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's intervention tonight brings me back to many discussions we had at the industry committee. I always value what he brings, in terms of passion and anecdotes. It is better than the humour and irony we were hearing earlier. The Conservative member could not have been serious with most of what he was saying about the previous Conservative government being good at statistics.

Statistics were being used as policy-based evidence, and we are moving toward evidence-based policy, I hope, with this legislation. We looked at how to determine the process to have statistics independent. We talked about the United Nations at our committee, and how it was writing principles that the OECD had adopted, so that we could do report cards nation to nation and know that we are operating under some similar principles of independence.

Professional independence in Canada was always a matter of convention instead of a matter of law. We are trying to move toward having independence as a matter of law, and we had some great conversations at the INDU committee about how we could that. Munir Sheikh was a great witness we heard from. He had resigned seven years ago over political interference in statistics. He was trying to be independent, but he found a lot of political interference.

When we are looking at the Westminster system, ministerial control has to go through the House of Commons. Major changes to census questions, or other critical questions have to go through the House. Would the member comment on where we stand with the Westminster system in this policy?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his contribution at committee. We actually have a well functioning committee, in many respects. When we look at this legislation, there were several meetings, and members agreed to it. His question is quite important, actually, because he does mention something I never did. He brought it up several times at committee, and it is the issue of the OECD and its level of standards.

Where we differentiate between New Democrats and Liberals is that the OECD's statement, that the former chief statistician said we should have as part of our preamble, creates a bit of a standardization or improvement to the Westminster system for accountability. He is correct, though. It is reportable to Parliament, via the minister, and the committee does have oversight. It is not that it has no control, but we have to make the political movement to get it here versus that of the chief statistician having the written element and expression in the actual legislation, so that it gives it a bit more teeth.

That is where we distinguish a difference. However, it is a good example of where we can achieve improvements. The committee had seven meetings on this topic, and despite our differences, at least we were getting this far. Perhaps, when we are done in this chamber, we can get some amendments in the future, if necessary.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the many efforts that my colleague, the member for Windsor West, has made advancing his own legislation to protect the professionalism, and the independence of the public service in relation to the census and Statistics Canada. I would like to hear more about how the member's efforts were received in this House and in the public service.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the ability to go back to this as I really believe that Wayne Smith and Munir Sheikh are public heroes, whistleblowers. I know that Pat Martin, a former New Democrat in this chamber, as members will probably recall, often had legislation to push whistleblowing, allowing public servants to come forward without feeling reprise, intimidation, and attacks on them or their families. We have seen, in this case, two resignations by individuals who tried to improve a public service and a public agency, one of 42 that Canada has.

My colleague is quite right with regard to the muzzling issue of scientists being the precursor of the previous Harper administration. It was quite well felt. When we talk to public servants right now, there is still an aversion, and we still have not seen a comfort zone returned, but I am hoping that culture has not. I guess it is how we want to manage things. I still see it with the Liberal Party administration that is currently here. It was different with Chrétien and his group at that time; however, there is still massive micromanagement taking place. It might have a happy face on it, but it is still taking place.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West spoke about shared services. In this modern age, technology advancements are pushing increasingly more businesses and governments to pool certain services together. Under this approach, costs are lowered, but more importantly, experts can focus on what they are really good at, and leave others to be the experts in their own field. Would the member opposite agree with that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree. It is a fallacy to assume that just because services are pooled that efficiencies are created. I would point to the Phoenix debacle, the payment system for public servants being a classic fail. In fact, hundreds of millions of dollars, about $400 million, has gone to just clean that up.

Shared services is becoming such an issue. Again, what we get out of Statistics Canada is a money maker in many respects. When we look at it, we sell the data that has actually been accumulated. Personal data and privacy is protected, but businesses and third parties, universities and others, purchase products from that. They are purchasers of those products, paying millions of dollars to buy them. What they have said is they like the independence of Statistics Canada as a preferred product, and they would pay for that service. We saw statistics erode, in terms of the usefulness, in terms of selling it to the business sector, and our profits went down.

For this issue, the gold star of statistic management and maintenance is the independence, away from shared services. It is well identified by all research and other capacities. It is also less adverse to risk, because it is not exposed to the greater population of contamination possibilities, versus that of it being more secure and safety-sealed in its own usage. Again, the customers who are purchasing the data do so because of its reliability.

Giving up that income stream for an ideological stance of just throwing it all together is not always the most efficient way of doing things. If that was always the case, just putting everything together, assuming that costs are going to be lowered, then we would not even have a small business.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague from across the way could give us some sort of clear indication as to how the NDP will be voting on this piece of legislation. I have always thought, in looking at the actions that are going to be following the passage of this bill, this as a positive thing for Statistics Canada. Even though I appreciate the member across the way might have a number of concerns, would he not agree this is, in fact, a step forward for Statistics Canada, and therefore the NDP would vote in favour of it?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the parliamentary secretary missed it. If he checks the blues, I said three times that the NDP would be supporting the legislation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that we were not able to agree on was the number of people who should be on the advisory board. I know the member for Windsor West had some definite ideas about that. Could he share them for the record tonight?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what would work better. We went from a larger number, in the 40s, down to a smaller group. One of the concerns I had, with this and similar legislation, is diversity. What I appreciated hearing from not only the minister but also the parliamentary secretaries and others along the way is that this new model proposes a smaller group. It might be open in the future if it does not perform for greater diversity, for regional elements, persons with disabilities, gender, and also to be more reflective of making sure that smaller and other regions are not left out. The government understands there is a sensitivity around that, and hopefully if the group does not perform, it will be forced into action sooner than later.