Garnett Genuis

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the lack of answers we are getting from the government about the change in the form of its statistical consultation body. I refer to the comments of the Treasury Board president. It is clear that this is not in its proper form in terms of the transition that is happening. The previous body was providing a role similar to the new body, but the new body would essentially allow the government to reappoint these people. It would give the government much more direct control over appointments and weaken its independence.

I wonder if the member thinks we should have confidence in the government when it comes to its appointment processes.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the member said that better is always possible. I think that would apply to his answers as well. I am going to try one more time here.

The member referenced The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Perhaps the improbability drive is the best explanation for the way in which the Prime Minister responds during question period. He kind of plugs whatever in, and gets whatever out.

Can the member come back to the question that I asked previously? If one body is replaced with another, there is effectively no meaningful change, but simply a matter of being able to reappoint all the members of that body. The member sort of obliquely referred to progress and flexibility, conveniently ignoring the fact that the new oversight body is meaningfully the same as the previous one. There is no new flexibility associated with that, surely.

Better is always possible. Perhaps the member will have a better response this time.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I asked the members of the government a question that I do not feel received a clear answer, so I will see if the member can answer in a little more direct way.

There is a pre-existing advisory mechanism associated with the statistical decisions that the government makes. That would be eliminated and replaced with another advisory mechanism with almost the same name. The only obvious difference is that the number of members would be reduced, which Conservatives have some concerns about, but beyond that, a mechanism would be created by which the government could now reappoint the members of that body.

We have heard all kinds of attestations from government members about how committed they are to making good appointments, but it is rather fishy that this change would effectively allow the government, without making many other substantial changes, to reappoint the entire membership of this body.

Does the member really think that if he were in opposition, he would not have objections to a government that proceeded in that way, doing away with one body to replace it with almost identical one, thus allowing itself to reappoint members? Would he really accept that if he were not a member of the government?

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thought the points my colleague made were great. I wonder if he would develop a bit the broader questions around the government's lack of willingness to apply a genuinely scientific lens to the policy decisions it makes?

We repeatedly hear this rhetoric around science-based policy. However, we can look at the way it has set out the process around pipelines. The northern gateway pipeline went through a review process and then the government threw it out even though that did not accord with the science and the information. We have talked about its approach to marijuana. Even its approach to fiscal policy does not reflect any kind of economic science to say we can run budget deficits in perpetuity.

Would the member agree that there is a real dissidence between the government using this kind of bumper sticker about evidence-based policy when in reality it is making all kinds of decisions that are so obviously at odds with the evidence?

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to bring to the attention of members, and I just found out myself, that our lobby coordinator, Sean Murphy, will be getting married on Saturday. I hope all members will join me in wishing him eternal happiness.

I would like to ask my colleague about the issue of the appointment process.

Members of the government have assured us it is fine because it is an application process. We do not even know where those applications are going or the people who apply for government appointments. Maybe they go straight into the shredder. It seems the overwhelming majority of appointments by the government have been very partisan in nature.

Could my colleague tell us whether he is in any way comforted by the assurances from the government that people can at least put in applications?

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on my friend's comments about the Liberal approach to appointments.

It is quite evident that merely accepting applications from the public is not an open process if the results are baked in. In fact, all it is doing at that point is just leading people on and inviting them to use their time unproductively, if in fact all the government is doing is receiving these applications but then proceeding in a direction that is predetermined.

What we have seen in the way the Liberals have approached appointments, with respect to the Senate, is they have accepted applications, but then if we look at the voting record of those senators, we see less independence from their new appointees than we see from the people who were appointed as partisan Liberals.

Strikingly, on the one hand the government is defending this application process that it has for various appointments, but on the other hand there are people like Madeleine Meilleur put in place who clearly are there with a partisan background and reflecting that partisanship.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is willing to come clean on this point, and acknowledge that what we really have is a smokescreen. There is an application process that is designed to—

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member mentioned me in his speech. I am sorry that I missed the reference and cannot respond to it directly. However, I wonder if he will acknowledge the significant failure of the government and its lack of credibility with respect to appointments and the problem with the Liberals asking us to pass a piece of legislation that effectively allows them to reappoint the people responsible for giving statistical advice.

I know this member often attests to the good intentions of the government, but good intentions are not enough when they do not square at all with the government's record on appointments. Will the member not acknowledge the failure of the government in this respect and realize there is a need for a better explanation of how it will behave with regard to the statistics council, given the way it has behaved in the past?

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

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.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

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.

[Statistics Act, June 20th, 2017]

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.