Diane Finley

[Small Business, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, another year is under way, and like any new year, Canadians have made their resolutions in the hope of improving their lives.

The Liberals, however, have a resolution of their own: to create as many taxes for Canadians as possible.

Unfortunately, small business owners continue to bear the brunt of Liberal taxation. Now the Liberals claim that some small businesses, like campgrounds, are too small and should be paying more than three times as much tax as other small businesses. This does not make sense and it is not fair.

In my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, small businesses are the very lifeblood of our rural lifestyle. With this new job-killing carbon tax and our already outrageously high hydro prices, many businesses cannot survive more Liberal tax grabs.

The government needs to start supporting our small businesses, instead of driving them out the door.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have been very reliant on outside expertise to bring some fresh perspective to things and make sure that programs being presented and executed are still grounded in the real world. Back in about 1985, the Mulroney government established the current National Statistics Council. It had representation from all 13 provinces and territories. People have served well. I have not heard any complaints about it, ever.

I was wondering if the member could comment on why there would be a need for a new council and any concerns he might have about losing institutional memory of the members who have sat on that council for quite some time, replacing them with people who would be brand new out of the chute.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s decision to explore purchasing 18 F-18 Super Hornet planes from Boeing: (a) what is the projected acquisition cost of these planes; (b) what is the Department of National Defence’s projected operational life span of an F-18 Super Hornet; (c) what are the projected yearly operation costs and maintenance of the fleet of F-18 Super Hornets; (d) what measures are in place to ensure that there is a fair and open competition for the permanent replacement fleet; (e) what specific measures are in place to ensure that Boeing does not receive an unfair advantage due to its status related to the interim fleet; (f) what are the dates, times, locations, and lists of attendees of all meetings between the government and Boeing since November 4, 2015; (g) what are the details of communications which have been received from the United States government to date related to the interim purchase of 18 Super Hornets from Boeing, including the (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) relevant file number; and (h) in the open competition for a full replacement of the F-18 fleet, how will the Statement of Requirements be developed, when and by whom?

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we always want to make sure that we have good quality, reliable data, but we also need to protect the rights, the privacy, and the privileges of Canadians. That is our objective here today, to make sure that any changes in this bill are going to pursue those objectives, and not just pursue them but achieve those objectives.

We have to have good quality data. If we do not, then we will be in trouble in a whole lot of ways.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when we are not sitting in this chamber, we are often back in our ridings meeting with people. We hear from our constituents, whether it is on a formal basis in our office or at events that we attend.

Usually at the time year when census forms come around, people bring that up in conversation. It did disturb me that so many of my constituents and people from whom I heard had concerns about the scope of the questions, and about what they perceived as the invasion of their privacy with those questions, particularly when the questions were taken in the aggregate.

These are anecdotal stories, but they are enough to cause me some concern. I do hear them. I have heard them over many years. That is something we need to be very cognizant of whenever surveys are being designed; otherwise, the quality of the data just will not be there.

We have to make sure that Canadians are encouraged to provide full, complete, and accurate data so that in turn when they need it for business decisions or personal planning, they will have access to good quality data that is relevant, reliable, and accurate.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the hon. member on his statement. In fact, it was the Liberal government that authorized the go-ahead for the Phoenix pay system. The way it has performed is indeed completely and totally unacceptable. I do need to correct the member on that statement.

It is important that we rely on the public service. They are professionals who are trained to do their jobs. They give their service to Canadians, just as we do. I have had the privilege to spend many years in this House, and I have had the opportunity to work very closely, co-operatively, and indeed very productively with a wide range of public servants from a wide range of departments. It has been a great privilege to work with them.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, before I had the great honour of representing the good people of Haldimand—Norfolk, I was in the private sector and also in the public sector for many years. Large parts of most of my jobs included doing a lot of research whether it was to develop a new product line, whether it was to predict sales volumes and demographic changes, and I was a very reliant user of Statistics Canada. Not only that, but I was the minister of human resources and skills development for over five years. That department was the largest user, the largest customer of StatsCan, so I am extremely familiar with just how important it is that StatsCan has good, reliable data.

My concern is that without the appropriate oversight representing the full scope of our country, without the appropriate accountabilities, there is an opportunity for things that we saw happening a number of years ago where the census questions and survey questions being put out by Canada created a disturbance. Many of my constituents told me that Statistics Canada was asking too many questions that were of concern to them. They did not mind one or two, but when all of them were put together, a picture formed and people were getting worried. People said it was none of the government's business. They told me that they were lying on their census forms. That is not going to create good quality information. That is not going to create the quality of information that we want to see, need to see, and expect to see from StatsCan.

My concern is about the appropriate accountabilities to make sure that the rights, privileges, and privacy of Canadians continue to be respected.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the start of the new year, I would like to welcome back all of my colleagues. I hope that they and you, Mr. Speaker, had a wonderful break and are charged up and ready to go for this new session.

Before the House rose in December, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development introduced Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Statistics Act that are intended to provide more independence to Statistics Canada and to the chief statistician, at least that is the claim. However, in order for us as members of the House to properly debate these changes, I think it is important to first list all of the sections of the act that would be modified or added.

First, these changes would give sole responsibility to the chief statistician, or the CS, to decide, based on his or her professional opinion, how to carry out the methods and procedures of all statistical programs. This includes the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction, and publication of all statistical information.

The chief statistician would have full authority over the content within statistical releases and publications issued by Statistics Canada and how and when this information is circulated. What is more, the chief statistician would be responsible for all operations and staff at Statistics Canada, and would be appointed for a fixed renewable term of five years.

The bill would establish the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would be comprised of only 10 members and would replace the National Statistics Council, which has been functioning since the mid-1980s. The new council would advise the chief statistician and the minister, whereas the National Statistics Council solely advises the chief statistician, which is a key difference. The Liberals are saying that they are giving the chief statistician more independence, and yet they would increase indirect supervision by the council through the minister.

Within its mandate, the Canadian statistics advisory council would focus on the quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information that is produced by Statistics Canada. It would also be required to make a public annual report on the state of the statistical system.

As well, Bill C-36 would allow for the transfer of census information from Statistics Canada to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, without the consent of Canadians. Once transferred to Library and Archives Canada, this information would be made available to all Canadians.

Finally, the bill would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent, and it would amend certain sections to make the language more modern and eliminate discrepancies between the English and French versions of the act.

After reading the bill at length, it has become evident that there are many aspects that could be of concern and possibly should be of concern to Canadians and that merit further discussion.

As Her Majesty's official opposition, it our duty to critique and highlight any issues that we find evident in all legislation put forward by the Liberal government. As such, I will be shedding some light on some of the concerns that I have regarding Bill C-36.

Our Conservative Party supports the work that Statistics Canada does and the key statistical data that it produces. We know how important this information is for governments, public policy-makers, and the research and academic communities. It is essential for anyone who uses Statistics Canada data for any purpose, be it businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or individuals, that they find the data relevant and reliable. In other words, everyone needs to know that they can trust the accuracy and quality of the data.

However, the privacy of Canadians is also fundamental, and fostering an environment that builds trust between Canadians and Statistics Canada is therefore crucial. The Liberal government must ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting the privacy rights of Canadians while collecting good quality data.

In the past, Canadians have expressed concern with the questions asked of them in response to the census, particularly the long-form census, and in surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. They found questions such as the number of bedrooms in their house, what time of day they leave for work and return, or how long it takes to get there to the intrusion of their privacy, and indeed in some cases, they perceived the cumulative answers as a risk to their very home security.

With the changes that the Liberal government has proposed in the bill, the minister would no longer be able to issue directives to the chief statistician on methods, procedures, and operations. This means that the chief statistician would have sole authority to ask any and all questions that he or she deems fit on the census or survey, including those that Canadians could find intrusive.

As a result of that, it could potentially result in the creation of distrust and cynicism between Statistics Canada and the public, which would then of course hinder the quality of the data that StatsCan receives from those being surveyed.

With the abdication of responsibility from the minister to the chief statistician, who is responsible for answering to Canadians when they raise concerns regarding the methods used? This is an important question, and quite frankly seems to be the opposite of the open and transparent government that the Liberals keep touting.

In addition to this, I would like to touch a bit further on the section of the bill that amends the responsibilities of the chief statistician. The current changes state that the chief statistician will:

...decide, based strictly on professional statistical standards that he or she considers appropriate, the methods and procedures for carrying out statistical programs regarding (i) the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction and publication of statistical information that is produced or is to be produced by Statistics Canada.

As a member of the official opposition, it is my duty to highlight any implications that a bill may have, regardless of intent. Even though it may not be the intent, the bill authorizes Statistics Canada to house all of its data wherever it chooses. If the chief statistician would like to move the private information of Canadians to a third party, it would have the ability to do so if the bill became law.

This could be quite concerning. The security and safety of Canadians and their private information should be a top priority for the government. Any use of a third party to house this data could create security concerns, and again damage the view that some Canadians have of Statistics Canada.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has also suggested that a Canadian statistics advisory council be created to replace the National Statistics Council. As I mentioned earlier, this new council would be comprised of 10 members, and would focus on the quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information provided.

For those who do not know much about the National Statistics Council, which is already in place and has been since the mid-1980s, I will provide a brief background, so that we can complete a full comparison of what is in place with what the government is proposing to change it to.

According to Statistics Canada, “the National Statistics Council advises the Chief Statistician of Canada on the full range of Statistics Canada's activities, particularly on overall program priorities.” The council was created in 1985 under the Mulroney government and currently has representatives from all 13 provinces and territories.

While the new council would provide insight to the chief statistician and the minister, as opposed to only the former, and would produce annual reports on the state of our statistical system, it would no longer have representation from right across Canada. This could result in one area of the country being favoured over another, which certainly would not be fair to Canadians in those parts of the country without representation.

As an example, if there is no representation for many of the east coast provinces, the council could fail to advise on potential questions simply because it does not have a strong knowledge of the area and of what matters most to Canadians who live there. As a result, we could miss out on important data that is crucial for making good quality decisions on behalf of Atlantic Canadians.

I have to ask why the Liberals would decide to create a council that does not fully represent Canada as a whole when we already have one that does instead of simply altering the mandate of the National Statistics Council, which already provides insight from all parts of Canada.

We have already seen the Liberals give out benefits to their friends, especially if they are Chinese billionaires or can pay $1,500 for access to government. Perhaps this council would be another way they could appoint and reward their friends, because quite frankly, I do not understand why the government would actually choose to create in legislation an advisory body that does not represent all Canadians.

As Canadians, we are extremely fortunate to live in a democratic society where the rights of citizens and the protection of those rights are treated with the utmost importance. Canada has enshrined those rights in law and without them, our society and Canadian way life that we cherish would cease to function as it does today. Some of these rights include the right to freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and the right to consent. The main job of any government is to make sure that these rights are preserved and protected.

Since the government has a crucial role to play in the conservation of these rights, I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government would choose to remove certain rights from Canadians. I am speaking here of the right to consent. As I stated earlier, the Liberals want to take away the ability of Canadians to decide whether they want their personal census records made available to the public after a period of 92 years. Canadians should always have the right to consent to the transfer of any personal information obtained through the census. As a government that claims to be open and transparent, frankly, I see this as yet another failed attempt.

Canadians should have the comfort of knowing that their privacy is being respected and have the opportunity, if they so choose, to make their information public. It is not the right of the current government or indeed any government to decide what information should remain private and what should become public and when. The Liberals say that they are attempting to generate a system that is more accountable to Canadians, but by giving more independence to the chief statistician and passing off their responsibility, they are in fact creating a system that is less accountable to Canadians.

Finally, this bill would repeal the imprisonment consequence for not responding to a mandatory question or for giving false information while maintaining the established fines. These fines include up to $1,000 for not completing a mandatory census and up to $500 for providing false information. Canadians have always believed that jail time for not completing a census or for giving false information on a census because they felt uncomfortable was an extremely harsh punishment for this type of offence.

When the previous Conservative government consulted Canadians on issues surrounding requests for information from Statistics Canada, this was a main concern. That is why the Conservatives revoked the criminal punishment from all censuses and surveys that were not mandatory from 2011 onward. Further to this, in 2015, former Conservative member of Parliament Joe Preston proposed a bill to repeal the jail time associated with all mandatory surveys, which all members of the House voted in favour of. Unfortunately, because of the 2015 election, the bill was killed before it could reach royal assent.

In closing, there is no doubt our society relies on information that it receives from the work done by Statistics Canada. It is important work, but the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy. Canadians, in their personal and business affairs, need to be able to trust the data that they give and get from Statistics Canada, and betraying that trust does not promote a stable environment where quality data can be obtained.

The Liberal government must ensure that it has the right balance between the rights of Canadians and the collection of data. It must be answerable to Canadians for its decisions, such as the decision to create another statistics council instead of altering the mandate of the council that already exists. It is crucial that we continue the debate around this bill to make sure that it protects the rights and the interests of all Canadians.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great things about Canada is our diversity, and we celebrate that in many ways. However, this bill causes me some concern. It would replace the existing advisory council, which currently has representation from each of our 13 provinces and territories.

Members have travelled the country as I have and know that the issues of primary concern in Nova Scotia may be quite different from those of primary concern in Yukon. The council with which the minister is proposing to replace the original council does not have 13 members; it only has 10. In other words, three of our territories or provinces would be excluded on the assumption that the others would be evenly dispersed.

First, why is the minister replacing the old council? Second, if he is so big on diversity, then why is he excluding three of our 10 provinces or territories on the structure of the new council?

[Taxation, December 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the small businesses in Haldimand—Norfolk are hurting. They are already facing some of the highest hydro rates in North America, forcing many to close up shop or move to the U.S. According to the Liberals, that is okay, because they believe that imposing a job-killing carbon tax and spending billions on hot air credits will magically solve the problem.

How can the Liberals justify imposing a carbon tax on job creators when our sky-high hydro rates are already driving them to the U.S.?