Alex Nuttall

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are using a form of scientific method. It is political science. They are really not basing it on any evidence they gather with respect to data, except polling data. This is a serious concern. If we look at the material we are speaking about today, this is where the data is collected. This is where all the information is brought together, delivered to the government, delivered to Canadians, and, through that, decisions should be made. Unfortunately that has not been happening.

I would not want to see the government then cook up the advisory committee to determine what evidence it will see down the road.

I certainly agree with the member. I would call on the government to actually do what it has said with respect to following the science.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly like to echo the member's congratulations to our lobby coordinator.

The proof is in the pudding. I feel like I am on a food thing today; I might be hungry. If we look at the innovation minister's appointments to the advisory council on innovation, one of the individuals heads up MaRS in Toronto. From what the Liberals have talked about, this place will receive funding for the new supercluster innovation fund the federal government has brought forward.

The government appointed an advisory council and that advisory council was full of Liberals who also sat on a place that was hoping to receive funding. Then the fund was created for $950 million, of which they would take advantage. That is the type of thing we have seen from the government so far. It is a complete conflict.

Do I believe that will continue? Probably. That is one of the reasons we need to ensure the minister commits that this new advisory council will not go down the road of Statistics Canada, where it has gone through with the advisory council on innovation.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I get the member's point, but the reality is that some facets of government need to be maintained for democracy's sake, and this is one of those. The institution that gathers the data, that interprets the data, that delivers the data to the House of Commons, to Canadians, to the government, needs to be seen as completely separate from that government. Certainly this is my point of view.

The question was about the benefits of bringing those services together, IT services across the board. What the member has heard in my speech is this. Other governments with very similar democracies to our own, in fact ours is based on one of them, did not proceed for this specific reason. We need to maintain the objectivity. We need to maintain the separation between church and state, between those who gather the data and those who use the data.

That message needs to be heard by the Government of Canada. This is not a situation where it is just about savings. The reality is that data, if it is done properly, can provide far more savings in the end than just this shared service.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-36 regarding Statistics Canada and some of the changes that are being proposed.

As a member of the industry committee, now known as innovation, science, and economic development, I have had a large opportunity to study the bill and ask questions of witnesses. We received testimony in person and in written form.

If the bill is proceeding, Conservatives certainly have some concerns. Those concerns stem from the activity of the Liberal government to date. The government has essentially said one thing and done another. It has to do with appointments and the narrative that was proposed in terms of an objective government. We have not seen that coming from the government benches to date. I would like to go through that over the next few minutes and outline where some of these concerns lie and what we need to do to ensure they are dealt with in the future.

I try to start every speech regarding a government bill with a reading of the government's throne speech because I believe it is a good measurement to determine whether the government is reaching its mandate or following the belief system it put in front of Canadians some 18 months ago. It states:

Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.

They want to be able to trust their government.

And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.

Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

The problem is that what we have seen, whether out of the government as a whole or out of Industry Canada, and the innovation minister specifically, when it comes to appointments, they are not non-partisan. They are in fact some of the most partisan appointments we have seen to date. We can look at whether we are changing the 30 individuals currently on the advisory committee and reducing that down to 10, or we can even look at the actual members who have been appointed to the innovation council by the innovation minister to date.

I looked at who was appointed to the innovation council, and it is quite striking. When we look at the 10 individuals who were appointed to the innovation council we might think one is a Liberal donor, or maybe two. However, we would be wrong. Maybe it is three. No, five of the 10 individuals appointed to the innovation council are Liberal donors, and many of them have donated time after time.

At committee, we tried to take this on, to understand what the criteria were to appoint members to this council, or any other advisory board, by the industry minister. Unfortunately, these were shot down and we were unable to truly look into them.

As we look forward to this new committee of 10 individuals, we must also take into consideration the regional distribution. Currently, there are up to 30 members. They represent the 10 provinces and the territories. Unfortunately, there are going to be three of those 13 that will not have representation anymore. Obviously, this is a major issue.

Regional distribution on these advisory committees is essential. It is essential because the questions we may be asking, or the information we may be looking for, is different. We have a very diverse, broad, and large country. The questions we may want answered in Newfoundland could be different from those in British Columbia, they could be different from those in Ontario, and certainly the territories probably strike their own set of questions they would like to see answered and data they would like to see brought together.

The innovation council was not the only council that was cooked with Liberal donors. We also had the Advisory Council on Economic Growth from the Minister of Finance, and obviously, we had the official languages commissioner, Madeleine Meilleur, which we saw play out in the media over the last few weeks. Certainly what we have seen to date is a government that is not afraid to put Liberals into the mechanics of government to cook the pie. The reality is, if the Liberal government bakes the StatsCan pie, it can then just feed it to the Canadian people.

There is a concern that we do not have enough separation between the Liberal government and the StatsCan job, which is going to be based on the change to the advisory council and the changes that would be brought through in this piece of legislation.

The question is what possible damage could be done based on partisanship and partisan appointments. The answer is clear. In the framing of questions, if the questions themselves and the data being requested were of a partisan nature, they could be used to influence the debates within this House and influence legislation coming forward from the government. They could be used to influence the public. The reality is that we need a complete and utter separation between the two. Unfortunately, what we have seen from this government to date is that it is not willing to hold a non-partisan tone when it comes to these types of appointments.

I will give a couple of examples. The most glaring is electoral reform. There were the questions asked by the government and the way they did it, this partisan approach to gathering data. If that type of mentality is taken into this new advisory council, I think it spells a lot of trouble for our Parliament, for StatsCan, and certainly for Canadians.

On pipelines, what questions and data could be requested and used in certain ways to influence the debate in this House? The opportunities to influence the outcome of debates using StatsCan are endless.

Certainly, when we go to tax policy and economic reform, we can see the opportunity for a partisan advisory council to influence the outcome of what is happening in this place, which would inevitably influence Canadians across the country, and not in a way we would be hoping for.

Innovation and StatsCan have had a couple of run-ins since the government took office. To be fair, one of them started prior to the government taking office. That was with the resignation of the chief statistician, Wayne Smith. Mr. Smith did not believe that StatsCan should be rolled into Shared Services Canada. He believed it so strongly that he in fact offered his resignation, which was eventually accepted by the Prime Minister.

I was reading a story a while ago. I remembered it and thought I should bring it to the House today. It is from the CBC, quoting Mr. Smith:

“I made clear that if I did resign it would be with the intention of making public my concerns. So that was my last desperate bid, I guess, to persuade the government to sit down and talk about this. Didn't work,” Smith said with a smile.

I really like that quote.

The reality is that we have an objective chief statistician saying to the government—both the previous government and the current government, so I do not want to be seen as partisan—that this is not going to work for Stats Canada. Unfortunately, that was not listened to.

It is interesting because Australia and the United Kingdom both had changes to IT services, and the goal in all three countries was to save money by bringing all of the IT needs within the different government departments to a single place and obviously find savings, efficiencies, and a better and more effective way to deliver services. Those two jurisdictions, however, opted out. They determined it was not the right way to do business for their statistics agencies, for two reasons. Number one was objectivity. They wanted to maintain the separation between Stats Canada, which provides the data to those governments, almost the same type of objectivity we are asking with the appointments process. Second, they wanted to ensure that there was a quality of service for Stats Canada because at any point a failure of the IT support services can result in lost data, and lost data obviously results in bad decision-making or the potential for bad decision-making.

On that note, there is another quote that Mr. Smith made on this exact subject in the same story:

If you can't process the data, if we're constantly being interrupted by failures of equipment, then it's going to take us more time to get the labour force survey out, more time to get the consumer price index out.

Mr. Smith saw that there was a huge potential issue with the changing of the IT services and the potential for it to hurt Stats Canada. I am a big believer that good data leads to good decision-making. The more data we have on the important pieces and the priority pieces of any piece of legislation, any pieces of decision-making that a government is making, the better. If we have the right data, we will make the right decisions, unless partisanship comes into the equation, which is what we have seen happening a lot to date.

I also wanted to talk about privacy because there are some changes to privacy in terms of the census and information, the release of that information, when that release takes place, and how it takes place. We need to recognize that privacy is a freedom. It is a very integral freedom to our democracy, to us as individuals, as citizens. These changes are interpreted by some Canadians as an attack on their privacy, even if it is after they pass away. They do not want that information being disclosed or used for governmental purpose.

Privacy is an interesting item because it is the protection of ourselves from others in society and it is certainly the protection of ourselves from an overbearing government. I can understand that mentality because we have seen in the last 18 months the government that is willing to go from the cradle to the grave, that is willing to step into almost any area of a person's life and legislate. I can certainly understand and identify with those who are concerned about the changes to privacy within the bill.

When we were going through testimony at the innovation committee, we had the opportunity to ask many individuals and the newly appointed chief statistician to testify. There was a constant narrative that the objectivity and the freedom of Stats Canada was integral. It spoke directly to the integrity not only of the individuals who worked in this department but the integrity of the data being received by government departments.

As we are continuing to look forward and we are approaching the time when we will vote on the bill, it is important we call on the minister to appoint individuals to this advisory council who do not have any political leanings, who have not stepped into the political process. If that means those individuals are not Liberal donors, great. At the end of the day, Canadians need to believe in the processes the government puts in place to appoint its councils.

We can look back at the words I use from the throne speech upfront, “They want to be able to trust their government”. We have seen the way the government operate across the board, whether it is commissioners, or it is the advisory council by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and these have not been objective, non-partisan appointments. They have been incredibly partisan.

I am open to any questions that come my way, but I will call on the minister to proceed with objective, non-partisan approaches to appointing members of the new advisory council.

[Foreign Investment, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Norsat sell-off, the Liberals are betraying Canadian interests. Contrary to what the Prime Minister says, this is a threat to our national security and that of our closest allies. Red flags have been raised in Washington, but not in the Prime Minister's Office here in Canada.

When will the Prime Minister put the security of Canadians before the interests of his friends in Beijing?

[Young Entrepreneurs, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to share some news with everyone about how a young entrepreneur was shut down.

A young girl named Lily, who lives close to my riding, was enjoying family time with her father. The two built a lemonade stand together. Lily's plan was to sell lemonade to her neighbours. The five-year-old started off doing just that, selling lemonade, but soon decided to give it out for free, along with water to passing dogs. That was until the government told her that they would be fined, and they had to shut it down.

This is yet another example of government crushing entrepreneurialism and community-building. Lily represents the job creators of tomorrow, the future of this country, and I stand today to recognize Lily and encourage this budding entrepreneurial spirit.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, June 16th, 2017]

With regard to grants and contributions, including loans and loan guarantees, for research and development, since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such grants and contributions including (i) the recipient, (ii) the date, (iii) the amount, (iv) the type (grant, loan, etc.), (v) details on if the contribution is repayable, (vi) the project description, (vii) the address of recipient, (viii) the electoral riding where recipient is located, (ix) the number of jobs expected to be created from each grant and contribution, (x) the number of jobs actually created from each grant or contribution, if available?

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it is cash for access. Obviously the government does not understand that Canadians do not want a government that is going to sell access to its ministers, access to its decision-makers, access to all parts of its infrastructure to those who are looking to gain. Canadians want a government that is going to do what is best for its people, and the Liberals are not going to find that through consultations at $1,500 fundraisers; they are going to find it through speaking with regular Canadians and working on their behalf.

I know my time is coming to an end, so I will end with this: going forward, we are demanding that the government put these ethical issues aside and focus on Canadians, not its own coffers.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I love talking about my feelings in the House of Commons, so I will continue to do that.

In terms of what is happening in Ontario and what has happened in Ontario, all we have to do is look at is the Green Energy Act and those companies that are reaping the benefits of what I will refer to as corporate welfare and the donations that are attached to those back to the Liberal Party in Ontario. Yes, it did start under Dalton McGuinty and it continued under Kathleen Wynne, and today it is continuing under the Prime Minister of Canada and his staff.

What Canadians expected was a government that was going to put them first; unfortunately, what Canadians got is a government that is putting its own coffers first.

Enough is enough. Enough of the politicians looking out for politicians. We need a government that is going to look out for Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, June 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to stand and address the Commons today regarding the political financing rules and changes to those rules here in Canada.

Political financing has obviously become a hot topic in the government, a topic that has been marred with suggestions of cash for access, of preferential treatment for those who attend fundraisers. Obviously it is important to the Canadian people to know that every Canadian is seen as equal under the law, every Canadian is seen as equal by their government, but that does not seem to be the case as of today, because what we have seen is minister after minister, including the Prime Minister himself, engage in activities related to fundraising for the Liberal Party of Canada that have caused members of the public, members of the opposition, and members of the media to question whether that is in fact the case.

The government has been accused of selling access to ministers who are key decision-makers and creating a quid pro quo environment, an environment in which, if one wants to influence the outcomes of government decision-making, all one needs to do is donate to the Liberal Party of Canada.

That is the same Liberal Party that makes up the government and literally determines the future of our country and its policies.

It is seen as a trade. One person can have influence if they provide grease to the Liberal wheels through big donations or through many donations or through hosting fundraisers.

The irony here is that the Prime Minister and his government outlined their expectations for the conduct of the government, its ministers, and in fact the Prime Minister himself through several tabled documents. In the mandate letters the Prime Minister gave out to each of his ministers, he required all of the ministers to maintain relationships with stakeholders related to their portfolios that were not only above reproach but seen to be above reproach.

The Prime Minister also produced a document called “Open and Accountable Government”. Here he went one step further than just the outlines provided in the mandate letters. The general principles were these:

Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries must ensure that political fundraising activities or considerations do not affect, or appear to affect, the exercise of their official duties or the access of individuals or organizations to government.

This further reiterates that it is not just a question of whether there is influence occurring but also of whether it is perceived that there is undue influence occurring because the individual has preferential access to said minister.

A second principle was this:

There should be no preferential access to government, or appearance of preferential access, accorded to individuals or organizations because they have made financial contributions to politicians and political parties.

Again, this just reinforces the principle that the Canadian people need to not only know or see that there is no undue influence but also need the government to provide the image that there is no undue influence occurring because of some sort of financial donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.

A third principle was this:

There should be no singling out, or appearance of singling out, of individuals or organizations as targets of political fundraising because they have official dealings with Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, or their staff or departments.

If we are looking for examples—and I will not say this happened—perhaps seeing people who were looking for court appointments buying tickets to a fundraiser with the Minister of Justice would appear to be just that. Perhaps seeing Chinese businessmen who were looking to do business in Canada meeting directly with the Prime Minister would appear to be just that.

The Prime Minister's own documents iterate that there needs to be not only no undue influence but the appearance that there is no undue influence.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will share my time with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

The Prime Minister also tabled the throne speech. This throne speech, entitled “Making Real Change Happen”, went even further, because it not only talked directly about fundraising but also about the narrative, about the ideals toward which the government would strive. I would like to compare some of the statements within the throne speech to what we are seeing happening with political financing in Canada with the Liberal Party today.

The throne speech states, “Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.”

I am not sure that the Canadian people would agree with the things that the current government is doing differently or with how it is doing things differently. The previous Conservative government had very high standards for its ministers and its parliamentary secretaries. The former prime minister demanded that his ministers strictly follow these guidelines for both ministers and parliamentary secretaries so that no conflict of interest would result from political donations. Those members could not attend fundraisers related to their own portfolios.

The current government is doing the exact opposite, confirming conflicts of interest by encouraging its ministers to take part in cash-for-access fundraisers. I could be wrong, but I do not believe this is what the Canadian public had in mind when “real change” was offered as the Prime Minister's slogan.

The second sentence that I would like to outline from the throne speech is “They want to be able to trust their government.” How can mom and pops back home trust a government that is selling access to ministers, possible access to decision-making, and access to wealth through that decision-making? The actions of these ministers breed further distrust between politicians and the public and sow the seeds of doubt that politicians do not in fact have the best interests of Canadians in mind; they have the best interests of their own political fortunes.

The third is, “And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.” I can guarantee that there is not a single Canadian in this country who thinks the most important matter to deal with today is the fundraising prowess of the Liberal Party of Canada. I know what Canadians are worried about. They are worried about jobs. They are worried about how they are going to put food on the table, how they are going to take care of their families, and what their future looks like.

Canadians are worried about a ballooning deficit: how are my children going to be able to afford to live in 10 years, in 15 years? How are they going to be able to repay the debt? How are they going to be able to afford university and college? How are they going to be able to take on the inflation that is likely coming down the line?

They are worried about rising real estate prices: how are we going to be able to afford to find a place to live?

The Liberals are worried about fundraising. Unfortunately, that is not what the Canadian public is interested in.

It is interesting, just 18 months after this throne speech, how far we have come, because the next paragraph, after saying “focused on the things that matter most”, says, “Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.”

After just 18 months, this throne speech is no longer worth the paper it is written on, because the most important things to the Liberal Party today are these: where are they going to find the money, how are they going to use it, and who can they exploit to encourage more money going to Liberal coffers?

This bill does not go to the place it needs to go. The government needs to stop what it is doing in terms of providing cash-for-access events for ministers with stakeholders within their portfolios. Today, we as Conservatives are calling on the government to stop this practice and move forward.