Mike Lake

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there are a couple of interesting distinctions. First of all, in the 2006 census, the machinery behind it was in motion prior to our government taking office, so those would have been decisions made under the Liberal Party.

The member talks about the safety and security of information at Statistics Canada. That is not what this debate is about. Fundamentally, the debate is about Canadians' right to say that they do not want to share specific information, certain information about their personal lives such as how much yardwork or housework they do, when they leave for work in the morning or what their religion is, the fundamental right of Canadians to say that they do not want to share that kind of information, without being threatened with a fine of $500.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while the hon. member selectively quotes groups that are in favour of his position, the Alberta government has taken a different stand on this.

I would say first that there are two debates going on side by side here. If the question is about information, if the question is, “Do you like information”, which I suspect many of the groups that he quoted are answering, I think I would say, “Yes, I do too”. I think all of us would agree that information is good, and I made that very clear in my speech.

Fundamentally we are asking a different question. We are asking the question that in our search for that information as a government, we have to balance both the need for information and privacy concerns at the same time, the freedom and rights of our citizens. We have said that there is a line there. New Canadians are another one of the vulnerable groups that the Liberal Party has referred to. When a census taker comes to the door of a new Canadian and that person says he or she is not comfortable answering the question about his or her religion and he or she will not do it, and the census taker tells the person that there is a $500 fine attached to that and the person says he or she is still not comfortable answering that question, we believe fundamentally on this side of the House that the new Canadian should have the right not to answer that question of the government without being threatened with a $500 fine or a threat of jail time. Obviously on the Liberal side they believe that is okay.

We will be having a good debate about this over the next few days. Apparently there is a private member's bill coming from the Liberal Party, and I am sure that we can give the Liberals a chance to defend that position, but again, fundamentally we do not believe that a new Canadian should be threatened with a $500 fine simply because he or she does not want to tell the government what his or her religion is.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this question is about balance. The hon. member talks about ideology and substance. The ideology here is about striking a balance. Certainly we maintain the mandatory nature of the short form census, because I think we all agree to the importance of that fundamental census information that most Canadians would associate with a census. We have struck a balance.

The government believes fundamentally that what is not appropriate is to go to what the Liberal Party would call the most vulnerable groups. They are the ones who are least likely to fill out the long form, as stated by Liberal member after Liberal member. It is not appropriate to go to and threaten them with fines of $500 because they do not want to tell the government how much housework they did last week.

Fundamentally we believe on this side of the House that it is wrong to go to someone in poverty, say a single mother with three kids in poverty, and if she does not want to tell the government how much housework she did last week or how much time she spent with her kids, threaten her with jail time or fines of $500. We believe on this side of the House that is wrong.

We also believe on this side of the House that when someone repeatedly tells their constituents they will vote in favour of abolishing the gun registry, for years and years, as the member for Malpeque did, it is wrong to then change that vote to satisfy the whims of his leader.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the debate on this significant issue. The minister made an important point that seems lost on the opposition members. Our government has already compromised on this issue.

The opposition has chosen to take a position that is not a compromise. The opposition believes only in the status quo, that law-abiding Canadians should be forced to answer detailed questions on their personal lives.

Speaking of compromise, I will specifically address the opposition motion. As members are well aware, the motion calls on the government to immediately reinstate the long form census and to remove the threat of jail time. However, it ignores the importance of the national household survey and the balance it aims to achieve by addressing the needs of user groups, while also addressing the concerns of Canadians.

It is important to remember why we are here today. We are here to talk about what the appropriate limits are to a government's coercion of its citizens. The short form census has always and will continue to provide critical data to governments. Access to relevant, high-quality information is fundamental in an open and democratic society to support decision making by people and their elected representatives.

No one has made the argument that the data collected in the former long form census is not valuable. What is lost on the opposition members is that by taking the position they have, they deny Canadians the right to object against providing this information under the threat of fines or jail time. In essence, their opinion is not valuable or worthy of consideration.

Too often this summer, the opposition cited the number of Canadians who wrote to the Privacy Commissioner, complaining about the intrusive questions in the long form census. This completely misses the point. Canadians who value their privacy are less likely to register their personal information with the government, whether they are registering with the Privacy Commissioner or with the Chief Statistician.

Our point is simple this. We want to strike a balance respecting those Canadians who feel they should not be threatened with jail or fines to disclose this information, while still providing useful and helpful information to user groups. We believe the government's proposed changes will meet those demands. As the minister indicated earlier, these changes are more procedural in nature rather than substantive and in no way undermine the objective of the census.

Within the context of procedural change, I will confine my remarks to penalties and privacy issues and comment on the new national household survey.

It is important to note that the 2011 census, which is mandatory, includes the exact same questions found in the 2006 census short form questionnaire, with the additional two questions on official language usage to ensure we meet the provisions of the Official Languages Act. The questions cover basic demographic characteristics such as age, sex, marital and common-law status, household relationships and mother tongue. As in 2006, there is a question asking for the consent of Canadians to release their personal census information to the National Archives after 92 years.

The government compromised by adding two additional questions on knowledge and use of Canada's official languages to ensure we were meeting the provisions of the Official Languages Act.

Throughout the summer and before the industry committee hearings, we had discussions about the matter of penalties associated with the census and the fact that answering a long list of pretty intrusive questions was mandatory. I believe we have made our position on such penalties and compulsion pretty clear.

I found one of the frustrations during the committee hearings was to be repeatedly asked how many people had gone to jail as a result of not filling out the mandatory long form. That question completely misses the point. It was never a question about how many people were punished. It was the threat of punishment that was the problem.

I ask the members opposite, if an agent of the government comes to their homes or the homes of their family members and says that they must provide him or her with details on the number of rooms in the house or details on their personal daily schedules and then follows that up by threatening them with a $500 fine or jail time if they choose not to answer, is that the kind of respect Canadians are due from their government?

If they choose not to answer for whatever reason and that same person comes back to the house on multiple occasions, using the same coercive tactics each time, is that appropriate? If he or she starts asking neighbours to confirm when they will be at home so he can be sure they cannot avoid him or her, is that acceptable? Is that right?

Clearly the opposition thinks that is right. Clearly the opposition parties believe it is appropriate for the government to treat its citizens that way. Our government does not.

I cannot help but think of new Canadians who come from countries less democratic than ours who might wonder why their chosen country would force them to answer the types of invasive questions previously found on the census long form. Is it sufficient to coerce these people into answering and then say to them, “Do not worry, it is for your own good”, if they are upset at having to answer?

This may be the Liberal, NDP and Bloc position, and they will have to explain that to their constituents as this debate continues. On this side of the House, our response to our constituents will be simple and clear. We have found a balance between the right of Canadians to not be threatened with jail and fines to disclose personal information and the rights of user groups to that information.

There is a better way to get people to fill out a form that is 40 pages long and that asks a lot of personal questions than by simply threatening them. Think about this: the one time many Canadians in the census have an interaction with a government official, that government official is implicitly threatens them to fill out the form or else. We need to treat Canadians with more respect than that. All those issues and problems surrounding the invasion of privacy go away by the simple measure of making the long form survey voluntary and removing the threat of jail for not filling out even the compulsory census.

We are pleased that our hon. colleagues opposite agree on the matter of threatening jail time. I am sure they are equally pleased that we have committed to remove these severe sanctions from all mandatory surveys that fall within the purview of the Statistics Act.

Let me now turn to the sum and substance of the national household survey. Information previously collected by the mandatory long form census questionnaire will now be collected by this new voluntary national household survey, or NHS. The questions are virtually identical to those asked in the mandatory form in 2006. The NHS questionnaire will include questions on demography, activity limitations, language, citizenship and immigration, ethnicity and religion, aboriginal identity, mobility, education, labour markets, place of work, income and housing.

The national household survey will also include the standard 92-year question that the short form contains. According to the Statistics Act, respondents may consent to the release of personal information after 92 years. All this stemmed from a change to the legislation in 2005. The net effect was that Canadians were asked to decide, starting with the 2006 census, whether they would allow their personal census information to be made publicly available 92 years after it was collected. Records would only be made available when consent was given. Informed consent about the use of one's own personal information is a matter of fundamental privacy protection. Canadians should have the right to decide for themselves if they want their personal census records to be made publicly available in the future.

The 2005 legislative amendment only applies to the census and not any other surveys. With the replacement of the long form census with the national household survey, this personal information could be lost to genealogists. To deal with this challenge, the minister has committed to introduce legislation that would permit the release of this information in the same manner as the census long form data would have been. Consequently, Statistics Canada will include the 92-year question in the voluntary 2011 national household survey.

Although this is the first time Statistics Canada will undertake this voluntary survey, it will conduct and release the results applying the same methods and high standards used for all of its surveys.

The NHS will be conducted within four weeks of the May 2011 census. It will be distributed to one in three households, which represents approximately 4.5 million households in total. This is an increase from the 2.9 million, or one in five that received the long form questionnaire in the 2006 census. Statistics Canada expects to receive responses from more than two million households, which is a significant number. The agency will be conducting extensive outreach activities to encourage participation in both the census and the NHS.

Finally, let me recap the legislative changes that the government plans to introduce in the days to come. They are as follows.

Consistent with our concerns about the inherent unfairness of prison penalties, our objective is to remove jail times for non-compliance for not only the census but all other mandatory surveys.

To deal with the 92-year rule I mentioned above, the government plans to introduce legislation that would permit the release NHS data in the same manner as the census data. Consequently Statistics Canada will include a question in the national household survey asking for respondents consent to release personal data after 92 years.

The questions are essentially the same as the 2006 process and identical to the questions that would have been on the 2011 long form. We have essentially doubled the sample size to offset any loss in data. However, most important, we have eliminated the threats of jail and fines that even Liberal members and witnesses agreed were excessive for the questions.

As I said earlier, the opposition has put forward an intellectually dishonest position on this matter. The opposition members pretend that we have outright eliminated the census long form. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With that in mind, our government wants to put the following reasonable amendment forward. This amendment clearly demonstrates that our government is striking the necessary balance on this issue respecting the needs of user groups and while at the same time taking seriously the concerns raised by Canadians.

I therefore, on behalf of the government, put forward the following amendment for which we hope to obtain full party support. I move: “That the motion be amended by replacing the words “provision of imprisonment” with “provisions of imprisonment and fines” and by inserting after the words “long-form census” the words “and imprisonment from”.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have already given the reasons for the decision, but let us talk about clarity.

What is clear is that when it comes to funding programs like this one, there is no amount of funding that will satisfy the Liberals, because no matter what program we fund, the Liberal Party always wants more. If we fund 30 qualified recipients, the Liberals want it to be 40. If we were to fund 40, they would want it to be 50. They want it to be ongoing. They want these programs to be permanent.

Today the Liberals' former critic for finance was calling for a six- to twelve-month extension of the stimulus program. There is no end to how much money the Liberals would spend, and there is no end to how far they would take Canada into deficit to do that.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know where to begin in terms of the inaccuracies in the hon. member's comments, but let me try.

The marquee tourism events program was announced on January 27, 2009 as part of budget 2009. In budget 2010, the government reaffirmed its commitment to fully implement these temporary stimulus measures.

The marquee tourism events program is part of the government's support for Canada's tourism industry. While the industry has strong, long-term potential to generate jobs and growth, it has faced its own economic challenges and competition from other destinations. Promoting tourism is a key component of the economic stimulus which was introduced to encourage growth and restore confidence in the Canadian economy.

The marquee tourism events program is designed to contribute to the long-term growth of the tourism industry by bringing more visitors to cities and communities hosting marquee events from inside and outside Canada. It provides much needed assistance to these world-class recurring events that have a history of programming and management excellence.

The program respects the three principles that guide the economic action plan. It provides timely support for marquee events that stimulate tourism in all regions. It is targeted at major events that drive business activity in the communities in which they are held. Funding is temporary, ending March 31, 2011.

In its first year, 165 applications were received. Sixty events in 26 cities were funded for total approved funding of $47.5 million, including $1.2 million in funding for two-year projects. In the second year, 131 applications were received. Forty-seven events in 35 cities were funded for total approved funding of $39.2 million.

On May 7, 2010 when the Minister of Industry announced the recipients for 2010, he also announced an $8 million investment in the Canadian Tourism Commission. This funding was provided to the Canadian Tourism Commission in order to capitalize on the success of the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in key international markets. The Canadian Tourism Commission is well positioned to use this investment to attract international tourists and generate increased tourism revenue for years to come.

A small amount of funding remaining was earmarked in each year to support program administration costs. In both years all supported events met the program's eligibility criteria and demonstrated how their proposed projects would contribute to program objectives. In year one, almost 70% of the funding went to events in Canada's largest cities. In year two, successful recipients were selected to ensure broader regional distribution of support. This has meant 19 new events are being funded across Canada and will have the opportunity to highlight their tourism offerings to domestic and global markets.

The marquee tourism events program is a two-year program, and applicants were required to submit an application for each year. Funding is project based and each application was considered on its own merits. Now in its final year, the marquee tourism events program will have provided support to close to 80 festivals and events to help stimulate the economy and promote Canada as a global destination of choice.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his input and look forward to working with him in the future on this and other issues of importance to Canadians.

The recent passage of Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, implemented important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans. We will continue to strive to make an already strong foundation of pension services and retirement security even stronger. That said, pension reform must be undertaken with due deliberation. That is why we have taken great care to get input from Canadians from coast to coast and why we have been continuing to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues.

At the end of the day, Canadians can be sure that the government, within its legislative mandate, will make the tough choices and do the right thing to protect the retirement income of Canadians.

[September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the concerns raised by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

The government very much understands the value of secure and sustainable pensions and has taken action on a number of fronts.

On the narrower issue of bankruptcies and restructurings, the government has already taken steps to protect pensioners by amending insolvency laws. For example, in July 2008 we amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide a higher priority for outstanding pension contributions so that those amounts would be paid to pensioners ahead of even secured creditors. In September 2009 we made similar changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act, dealing with pensions in the case of firms undergoing a restructuring.

However, attempting to deal with unfunded pension liabilities through insolvency legislation can have a significant impact.

Canada's insolvency laws aim to encourage restructuring as evidence shows that this leads to better recovery for creditors and preserves more jobs. We must be careful therefore before changing the priority assigned to various claims in insolvency, as doing so can have a significant impact on a businesses ability to restructure, the availability and cost of credit and on the other creditors of an insolvent company, including small suppliers, independent business partners, landlords and many others.

However, the longer term answer to pension security requires a multi-faceted approach. Prevention and proactive solutions must be the order of the day if we are to ensure adequate retirement security for Canadians.

That is why last October, in the federal domain, the Minister of Finance announced some important reforms. A number of these reforms are now coming to fruition with the government's recent passage of Bill C-9, Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which among other things, implements important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans.

Complementing the act are changes to the relevant sections of the pension benefits standards regulations that the minister proposed in early May. These changes will enhance protection for plan members, reduce funding volatility and modernize the rules for investments by pension funds. They will allow sponsors to better manage their funding obligations and give them greater flexibility in investment allocations.

The member should rest assured that for its part the federal government, after considered deliberation to reconcile the needs and perhaps at times conflicting advice received from stakeholders, will make the necessary choices and do the right thing for Canadians.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as this will be the last time I will be on my feet for a question, I will reiterate what I have said.

It sounds like the other parties in the House support the legislation. We have gone through the committee process. There is very little difference in this legislation from what was in the previous legislation. We have heard commentators from all three parties over the last few weeks talking about trying to make things work in the House. This is the perfect opportunity for that. We have discussed the legislation. We have expedited the process through committee to get the legislation passed for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to Bill C-28 in which there is small mention of the do not call list.

I will concur with the hon. member's comments about the do not call list in the sense that a great number of Canadians have signed up for it. I believe 33% have registered their land lines. A smaller percentage have registered their mobile phones.

I point out that notwithstanding comments by other members of the House in regard to the do not call list, surveys have pointed out that a majority of the people who have signed up have indicated that they have received less marketing calls as a result of doing that.

I hope we will have the support of that hon. colleague.

There are differences in the legislation to the do not call list. In putting this legislation forward, we studied some of the things that have or have not worked in other countries. We have built the legislation by taking the best legislation from other countries in the knowledge that this will make a significant impact on the amount of spam coming out of Canada and make us a world leader in a good way in that regard.