Bonnie Crombie

[Office of the Prime Minister, October 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in just 18 months the Prime Minister's temporary chief of staff is required to return to his role at Onex. The conflicts of interest are obvious and endless, but in addition, the situation opens the potential for insider information, which could very well be passed along to this corporate giant.

The Ethics Commissioner has confirmed that only Mr. Wright and the Prime Minister can release details of his employment contract, adding that she “would love to have them do it”. When will they release it?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure to participate in the discussion on this private member's bill, Bill C-509.

I, too, thank my hon. colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, for his numerous introductions of the bill and his commitment to this cause. I realize that he has introduced this bill several times since 2007, and his tenacity needs to be commended.

I have worked with the member in his capacity as the chair of transport, infrastructure and communities committee. He has always shown fairness in his rulings and has a strong understanding of procedure.

As my party's critic for crown corporations, I will be supporting the bill at second reading and have suggested that my caucus do the same. My party does support greater service for and more affordable access to library materials for Canadians, Canadians in rural areas, in remote areas and seniors, and Canadians with disabilities. We support a reduced postal rate for all library materials and we support the new definition of library materials to include modern media.

I do, however, have a few concerns that I will address later.

The substance of the bill is two-fold. First, that Canada Post receive approval from the Government of Canada prior to any increase in the library book rate; and second, that the library book rate include the shipping of new media materials, such as CDs, CD-ROMs, DVDs and other audio-visual materials. I will be addressing both issues in that order.

First, I will deal with maintaining the library book rate. I have a letter from the Canadian Library Association, CLA, dated May 14 of this year. In the letter the association shows its full support for the bill, and rightly so. It goes on to explain its reasoning, and I could not agree more.

Over 2,000 libraries across Canada rely on the library book rate for transferring materials back and forth. Canadians from coast to coast, especially students, the disabled, seniors and those living in rural areas, should be able to take full advantage of this system. Quite simply, the fact that libraries can share hard copy materials with one another at an affordable rate allows people to obtain information on a more regular basis.

As we know, information is king, knowledge is eternal and we in the Liberal Party stand for lifelong learning. As the CLA pointed out, it is imperative that we retain the library book rate for many reasons. Without a sustainable library book rate, the CLA has the following concerns: First, that it would create a two-tiered service for Canadians; simply those who can afford to borrow material and those who cannot.

Second, that material would be difficult to obtain if it were not regularly transferred between libraries. This would make things very difficult for the elderly, students, the disabled and rural residents.

Third, that it would put added pressure on libraries to reckon costs and remain viable due to lower supply and, ultimately, fewer visitors.

Finally, that it would strain smaller libraries. Their ability to loan would be in jeopardy due to lower supply and lead to diminished lending.

Those reasons alone are good enough for me to support the bill. However, another concerning issue in the CLA's letter is the fear that the current library book rate is scheduled to end unless it is renewed by the end of the year. If this is true, we as parliamentarians must do what is right and extend the library rate without hesitation. The timing of the bill is impeccable and it is the perfect vehicle for doing so.

As the member pointed out in his opening statement in his speech back in May of this year, the library book rate has been in existence since 1939. Libraries have become dependent on the rate and it has allowed them to transfer materials affordably around the country. Although Canada Post has kept the rates at reasonable levels through the years, it has periodically increased them in order to keep up with inflation or for other economic factors.

The bill addresses the concern that Canada Post could, ad hoc, increase the library rate by requiring it to obtain a mandate from Parliament prior to doing so. I am in agreement with this notion but once again I have some concerns with costs.

On the matter of sustaining the library rate and costs, I would like to get some friendly clarification from the member for Brandon—Souris, which I will seek at the conclusion of my time. The second half of his bill deals with the addition of modern media, such as CDs, CD-ROMs, DVDs and other audio-visual materials to the library book rate.

I am in full agreement that as technology advances, Canadians will have a desire to keep up with current trends. The need for advanced information grows.

It is imperative that our libraries are well stocked with modern media. Without such measures, the growing concern is that this material might be hoarded at larger metropolitan libraries and not shared with smaller rural libraries, because they simply cannot afford to transfer them. Smaller libraries would definitely suffer as a result.

In this modern day of Internet, speedy file transfer, email, social media, and large broadband, it is refreshing to know that I can still walk into a library and borrow or lend a tangible item like a book, a newspaper, a music CD, a movie DVD, or even an ebook.

I know that my constituents feel the same way. For this reason, we have a responsibility to maintain this fundamental right for all Canadians.

I have spoken in favour of this bill and will continue to support it. However, I have some concerns regarding the sustainability of the library book rate, its effectiveness, and compensation measures and subsidies.

For the benefit of speedy passage of this bill to committee, I will not be putting forward any amendments today. However, I would like to express my thoughts as this bill continues to move forward through committee.

First, I ask the hon. member if he has considered ensuring that Canada Post maintains a library book rate in perpetuity.

Second, how often can Canada Post seek an increase in the library book rate? What is the time frame? When will this bill confirm that Parliament's approval is necessary before the rate can be increased?

Third, I want to address compensation to Canada Post for the loss in revenue. In speaking to representatives of Canada Post, I have learned that it currently loses $5 million to $6 million per year as a result of the reduced library rate. While I agree that this is a cost of doing business, a small cost to pay for maintaining such an important aspect of our society, I would like to know if the hon. member has considered compensating Canada Post for the losses through an order in council.

Finally, we need to look at the matter of subsidy. Has the hon. member determined the value of the subsidy that Canada Post provides to libraries? This important question was raised in the first hour of debate last spring.

Once again, I will be voting in support of Bill C-509. I have urged and will continue to urge my caucus colleagues to do the same. In fact, I urge every member to follow suit.

Before I end, I need to voice one final concern. This concern has to do with party principles and policies.

To my knowledge, the question of the library book rate came to light in 2006. While I commend my friend, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, for taking the lead on this issue, I do not understand why the government would not simply have addressed the issue of the library rate in a more responsive and timely manner.

Why has it taken four years? Many options were available to them: adopting it as a government bill, making a regulatory change, or seeking an order in council.

Unfortunately, this speaks volumes about the government's lack of connection with average Canadians, as well as their lack of direction and execution.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris has my full support for this bill at second reading and for sending it to committee. I look forward to seeing the bill in committee and raising the concerns I have mentioned.

[Pakistan Flood Relief, September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the efforts of those in Mississauga who have been working tirelessly over the past few months to raise money and supplies for victims suffering as a result of the devastating floods in Pakistan.

Friend and constituent Haroon Khan and his team, along with the Zafar Sultan Memorial Trust, have sent over 200,000 pounds of supplies and medicines worth $300,000 to Pakistan, which were donated by the residents of Mississauga and Brampton. They shipped these donations free of charge through Pakistan International Airlines, which confirmed that Zafar Sultan Memorial Trust has been the largest collector of supplies for Pakistan in the GTA during the month of September.

I would also like to congratulate the youth of Meadowvale Islamic Centre in Mississauga, with whom I worked to raise $80,000 for flood victims in Pakistan. The funds were donated to the International Development Relief Foundation. I extend a special thanks to Zain and Bilal Haq and Sarah and Hiba Fashih for their inspiration and leadership. They have set a wonderful example of how our youth can make a difference.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague had read the Globe and Mail this morning, he would have seen a resounding headline that said, “The elimination of the long-form census defies reason”.

The census is a senseless debate. We are wasting precious House time when we should be focusing on the economic mismanagement of the Conservative government. We should be focused on the waste of spending, including $9 billion on prisons and the sole-source contract on $16 billion in fighter jets, $20 billion in corporate giveaways or $1.3 billion on a G8/G20 summit, much of it spent on glow sticks.

We should be focused on Canadian families and the rising cost of post-secondary education, keeping public health care strong and sustainable and caring for the sick and aged and our veterans, or properly funding retirement pensions or funding higher quality full-time jobs, not prisons, not fighter jets and not this senseless debate on this voluntary census survey—

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, what is really at stake is the reliability and the accuracy of the data.

If we look at a quote from the former head of Statistics Canada, Mr. Munir Sheikh, he says, “It is recognized that the quality of data collected by the voluntary survey will be lower than that of a mandatory survey”.

If we look at his assistant, Chief Statistician Rosemary Bender, she says, “The information will not be as usable for a range of objectives for which the census information will be needed”.

When we talk about punitive measures, Canadians get it. They understand how important a tool the mandatory long form census is. It is used for creating policies and programs that serve their needs: social programs, veterans programs, health programs, public transit programs, language programs. That is why we see the rate of non-compliance being so low. There has never been an imprisonment over not filling out a mandatory census. There have been only a few people fined over decades and we have had only three complaints to the Privacy Commissioner.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Mississauga—Streetsville, I am happy to join in the discussion on the long form census.

Earlier this summer, the government announced its intent to abolish the mandatory long form census, which will compromise the accuracy and integrity of the data that Statistics Canada collects. Its rationale was that the mandatory census was overly coercive, intrusive and that no citizen should be punished with a jail term for failing to complete the form. However, according to Statistics Canada, no person has ever been sentenced to jail for failing to complete the census and a very small number of individuals have ever been fined.

Since the announcement back in June, the industry committee was recalled to hear voices and Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, came forward to express their discontent and often their visceral disagreement with this announcement.

We next witnessed the resignation of a lifelong civil servant, the director of Statistics Canada, Mr. Munir Sheikh, who could not, in good conscience, justify, rationalize or accept this policy. He knew that the data would be inaccurate and compromised.

The list of those Canadian civil servants who spoke out against this included former chief statistician, Ivan Fellegi, who celebrated 51 years as a civil servant; former PCO clerks, Mel Cappe and Alex Himelfarb; and former Governor of the Bank of Canada and finance deputy minister, David Dodge. They all urged the government to reverse its decision on the long form census.

In fact, the current governor, Mark Carney, stated that the Bank of Canada may no longer be able to rely on the data from Statistics Canada for analysis because of the proposed changes to the census. Mr. Carney said that the changes could have an impact on the quality of the research in important areas and force the bank to supplement the information with its own research. According to Mr. Carney, “There is a non-trivial range of data that could be affected”.

The central bank draws from a wealth of information about subjects, from the job market to housing and household debt, to track the economy and to help it decide whether to adjust the country's overnight lending rate. It receives that from the statistics that Statistics Canada collects.

In the face of rebuke, the response by the Minister of Industry was, “I got bigger fish to fry”, demonstrating the Conservative government's arrogance and contempt for its opponents and, in this case, for a man, Mr. Fellegi, who has dedicated his life to the service of our country for over a half-century.

In my time remaining I will discuss three issues: first, the historical basis for this vital tool; second, why it is so critically important to decision making; and last, why the decision to dismantle it is more ideologically driven than rational.

What is behind this irrational decision?

First, I will give the history of the census. The first known census to be taken was in Babylon at about 3800 BC. Not only were people counted but livestock, butter, honey, milk, wool, vegetables and weapons were also countred. The Egyptians, Chinese, and Persians all implemented a census. The Romans conducted a census every five years, including a very famous one that forced a very pregnant Mary and her carpenter husband Joseph to travel to Bethlehem to register themselves and their newborn son in 33 BC.

As most of us know, Jean Talon completed the first census in Canada, then known as New France, in 1666. He recorded age, gender, marital status and occupation. Through the years, more questions appeared. Questions of livestock, crops, buildings, churches and grist mills were added.

As Canada matured and grew, questions on race, religion and ethnic origin were also introduced. Yes, even as far back as 1710, questions of armaments and firearms also appeared. How fitting is that, given our vote on the long gun registry just last week?

Since 1666, census information has been used to collect information for the betterment of our society. It helped define our rich mosaic and create an accurate portrait of our nation and, most important, it helped us plan for the future.

Second, why collect census information at all? Quite simply, the census helped us shape our nation. If we do not have vital statistical information, then governments cannot make reliable, scientific, evidence-based, factual, efficient and cost-effective decisions to plan for our future, such as projecting the funding for our schools, our hospitals, our public transit and our police forces based on population growths, and for funding of settlement agencies based on projections of new immigrants arriving at our doorstep.

James Turk of the Canadian Association of University Teachers stated:

—we are deeply concerned about the disastrous consequences this will have for the scientific understanding of Canadian society, and for the ability to make informed decisions about social and economic policies.

The collection of data is not something to be feared. Statistics are used for creating, evaluating and monitoring federal legislation, for policies and programs, for rural communities, for ethnic communities, for women's groups, for the poor and for the disabled. It is used to collect demographic trends and information used to determine transfer and equalization payments to provinces for veterans, for health and social transfer payments, for Citizenship and Immigration to aid in the settlement of refugees and for language instruction for newcomers to support their economic, social and cultural integration into our nation and for labour market activity and income to plan Canadian pension needs, employment insurance programs and old age security.

The government's decision to eliminate the mandatory census will compromise the integrity of data and render it unreliable. Certain ethnic groups and other minority groups will be underrepresented in the data and will lose out on programs and services. Demographic trends will be missed altogether.

This decision has drawn opposition and has been widely condemned by media outlets, community groups, NGOs, not-for-profits, business groups, economists, aboriginal leaders, francophone groups, cities and municipalities. Over 350 organizations do not support making the long form census voluntary. The government stands virtually alone in its decision to proceed in its decision to proceed with abolishing the long form census.

Some of those who oppose dismantling it include: Canadian Association of Journalists, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Anglican Church, the CD Howe Institute, Canadian Population Society, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, cities and municipalities from across the country, Canadian Marketing Association, Canadian Labour Congress, the CMA, Catholic Women's League and the Prime Minister's former adviser, Tom Flanagan from the University of Calgary.

The list goes on, but I know my time is limited so I will move on to my final and third point, which is ideology versus science and rationality. I believe the decision to abandon reason and facts stems from the government's underlying and fundamental civil libertarian views and ideology, which places the rights of the individual ahead of the collective good.

We see Conservatives cutting government programs and services all in an effort to reduce the size and capacity of government. We see them attempting to eliminate tools deemed necessary by professional law enforcement agencies, such as the gun registry, because of the perceived nuisance it causes gun owners to register their firearms.

We see the Conservatives attempting to eliminate the mandatory census because they claim that governments should not be in the bedrooms or the gun closets of the nation, that it has no right to collect data on individuals even if it is in the interests of protecting the collective good, or to create a scientific evidence-based internationally praised and accredited database for all to use.

We see the Conservatives put ideology ahead of respect for democracy and silence those who oppose them as we have witnessed with the dozens of courageous civil servants who have been fired in various departments and ministries. We see them eliminating a credible, scientific policy planning tool for all to use in the delivery of social programs, of veterans programs, of language and settlement programs.

Not knowing the facts means not having to deliver the goods and services. The Conservatives will continue to base policy on anecdotes as we saw with the rationale for building more prisons, because unreported crimes were on the rise. They base policy on ideology rather than on facts and statistics.

I am not just speaking of the elites of society, as the government House leader has suggested, but of the myriad of groups and organizations that have taken the government to task for its decision to eliminate the data generated from the mandatory long form census for planning and policy purposes.

We need to ask the government this once again. What is its true motive for cancelling the mandatory long form census? Why would it proceed with its decision in the face of opposition from every sector, every region and every level of government? The decision has been universally panned, but rather than accept the folly of their actions and adjust their policy position, the Conservatives remain headstrong, self-righteous and sanctimonious.

I will gladly stand and be counted and support this motion. I hope the Conservatives and all members of the House will do the same.

[The Economy, September 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Finance made an out of touch, hyper-partisan speech that barely mentioned the economy at all. Could it be because the government's economic record really is not worth bragging about?

Consider that household debt is at record levels. Since January 2008, Canada has lost 150,000 high-paying full-time jobs. Canada's unemployment rate is 1.9% higher today than it was during the last federal election.

The Conservatives' imminent $13-billion employment insurance tax hike will cost Canadians 220,000 jobs. The government put Canada into a deficit even before the recession by increasing government spending by 18% in its first three budgets. Canada's deficit currently sits at $54 billion. That is higher than it has ever been in the history of our country.

Canadians are tired of the Conservatives' borrow and spend, out of touch priorities. They deserve better.

[Food Safety, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister failed in his promise of more inspectors and a more secure food inspection system.

Today, he admits he has no idea of what resources he has dedicated to food safety. Right now, meat headed to the U.S. is more vigorously inspected than meat sold here in Canada.

Let me repeat. We have just gone through a listeriosis crisis. Twenty-two Canadians have died. What will it take for the minister to act?

[Food Safety, September 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture admitted that he does not know how many meat inspectors he has at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Canada went through a listeriosis crisis. Twenty-two people died. Yet here we are, two years later, and the minister is still not taking food safety seriously.

In March he promised to hire upward of 170 additional inspectors. Why did the minister fail so miserably in honouring that commitment? If he cannot tell us how many inspectors he has, how can he protect Canadians?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With regard to the Veterans Affairs Community Engagement Partnership Fund: (a) what is the total amount of grants the department has dispersed since January 1, 2009; (b) who are the recipients of these grants; and (c) what is the amount of each grant to each recipient?