Phil McColeman

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member respectfully disagreeing, but I respectfully disagree with the member.

It has always been a core belief of our side that the privacy of Canadians must be protected at all costs. It must be protected in terms of what they choose or do not choose. Hence, the short form census, which continues to exist, plus the voluntary information that we sought from Canadians was a way to express that and for them to say that they would not be put in jail for doing this, that they would not be penalized excessively. There is this balance and that has to come into play.

Some people would choose the balance that was just described to us by the member, which is a balance that totally outweighs any relevance from this body where Canadians should be able to have that accountability. It takes them out of the equation. It makes this a completely independent body, let it do as it may, with no real accountability through the minister or for us as individual members to take our concerns to the minister and then for the minister to adequately address them. Because of the independence of this individual, he or she could say, “I don't have the time of day for this” or “I'm just doing what I think is best for gathering data and asking questions”. That is improper balance.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. When we start to, as a Parliament, hand over sole responsibility without any ministerial oversight, in terms of what an independent chief statistician could create, I am not suggesting here that Parliament should craft the questions. Absolutely not, we should not craft the questions.

What we should be doing is what we are currently doing under the design of the program, and that is ministerial oversight of those questions to be sure they are appropriate. Let me give some other examples of constituents who have brought to us their concerns, saying that when they receive the questionnaires, the ag questionnaires specifically, they are looking at the questions and asking, “Am I comfortable answering some of these very personal questions?”

What I spoke about in my speech was absolutely accurate about some of the questions they are being asked. They are very personal questions about how they live their lives. It is mandatory to fill it out. I do not know the numbers, but we have had examples in our party of constituents who are saying to us in our ridings, “Well, I will just lie, and I will give false information on that particular one.”

There are consequences for giving false information that are outlined in the legislation. However, frankly, who is going to enforce that? Who is going to dig deep enough to find out that people lied about the number of bathrooms in their house, or the fact that they get up in five in the morning to go to work but they lied and said that they got up at nine in the morning, giving false information.

If we are to make sure the questions are relevant, the minister involved here should have that oversight. We need to have these people be as independent as possible, but there is a place for the minister to be involved and there is a place, if necessary, for Parliament to be involved.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak to these changes as proposed in Bill C-36 to the Statistics Canada Act.

There is no doubt that in our society we rely on information. All sectors of business rely on good data, good information to guide their decisions, and on this side of the aisle, we have always stressed the importance of that good work that Statistics Canada does.

However, the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy. It is a concern of ours that some of the changes as suggested, if not amended, to this piece of legislation could strike an improper balance between the privacy of Canadians and what Canadians feel is their private information being infringed upon and what the government uses that data for.

This is a redesign and a re-engineering of how statistics would be gathered in an effort to make them more independent, make the chief statistician more independent, but it also has to come back to what is balancing the rights of Canadians while good data is collected.

I will give examples of some of the intrusive questions that we have heard from Canadians that some have said just go beyond, perhaps, questions they are comfortable answering. That would be, “How many bathrooms do you have in your home? When do you leave for work, and when do you arrive at work?” and other questions that delve into their personal lives on the basis that somehow this data would be useful to the government for the purposes of disseminating that information for good policy-making and for good decision-making.

It is proposed in the changes to give the chief statistician total control over those questions with no ministerial control or accountability by the minister. What this means in the new set-up, in the new engineered or redesigned way of collecting data and the supervision and the management of collecting data, is that the chief statistician would, on his or her own, be able to make those decisions, not have to vet them through the minister or through the ministry or through Parliament, where we would decide perhaps on certain, larger issues, whether they are appropriate or not appropriate.

What happens when a Canadian down the road decides that, although it is mandatory to complete it, it is too intrusive into his or her personal life? How do they ask the questions? To whom do they ask the questions to find out more about why this question is being asked? It will not come back to the minister. It will not come through the regular channels of parliamentary procedure as currently exist. It will be the chief statistician having the lone decision-making and not having to be accountable to this place for the decisions on those questions.

The other issue that has been mentioned this morning already is the storage of data. The chief statistician could decide, having been given sole authority to create this independence as put forward, where this data could be stored. We talked about the importance of where it is being stored today and maintaining that integrity, but at any point in time, the chief statistician could decide to deliver that data to a third party for storage.

In fact, we saw the most recent resignation, I believe his name was Wayne Smith, over this very issue. Former chief statistician Wayne Smith resigned over the push to use Shared Services Canada to store the information. Unfortunately his concerns, which were made clear to the Liberal government, were not looked upon and it took his resignation before they would listen. We are talking again about security of Canadians, and this should be the top priority of any government.

Let us talk about the overriding governance portion of the changes that are being made and why we have concerns with that on this side. What is happening is that the governance body, the overseeing body, is changing to the Canadian statistics advisory council, a new name, from the National Statistics Council.

The key concern here is, this was put in place in 1985 by the Mulroney government as an oversight body with 13 members, representing all provinces and territories, while the new one, as proposed in this legislation, reduces that to 10 members. Why is that a concern? It is because we cannot understand why the government would want to change from representation of all provinces and territories, in terms of their input into the data that is collected. What is the reason for eliminating three spots? That means three areas of the country would not be represented.

Here is an example. If Atlantic Canada, by chance, does not have an appointee to that board, it could miss out on specific data being included and received by Statistics Canada that is specific to Atlantic Canada, because the oversight board would see all of the information being asked for as it is done. The 13-person national board that currently exists, the National Statistics Council, has representation from all parts of the country. It has worked well, frankly, since 1985. It strikes the right balance. It decides what is working and what is not working. This is a body that is working very effectively, representing all parts of the country, yet we see it would change to a smaller number.

The other concern is it perhaps could become another place for patronage appointments. It could be speculated that the 10 who would be appointed would be political appointments. They could well be people who perhaps have knowledge and background in the area of statistics, but perhaps not, because it may be someone who is looking for a board appointment, who is favourable to this government, who could be put on that board. Therefore, it brings up questions, as we have seen being asked in the House most recently, about access for fundraising. Could it be Liberal supporters who go to events and pay $1,500 and hang out with Chinese billionaires? Could it be other people who have worked through the years on the Liberal front who are put on the board? This is a big concern.

Of course, if it was left as it is, as we think it possibly should be, and some of our amendments may deal with this going forward, then it is working, it is working well, and representing the complete country.

It begs the question, why would the government want to redesign it so that all Canadians are not represented? It could be said on this front that this shows incredible disrespect for the provinces and territories. Instead of revising the mandate of the current statistics council and keeping it in full provincial and territorial representation, as it currently provides, the Liberals have chosen to construct a new council to eliminate the feedback from three provinces or territories.

The redesign of the board to create independence brings up other concerns of promises made by the government, which as we have seen lately have basically been altered, either thrown in the garbage bin or arbitrarily overrun, such as the overrun on the promise of $10-billion deficits, now currently sitting at $25 billion.

We question today, as we debate the bill, what really is the purpose of the bill? What is the purpose when we see some of these changes?

Again, it is all about balance. It is all about striking the right balance between collecting data and privacy of Canadians. I will underscore that because there is no doubt about the information that it receives and the importance of work done by Statistics Canada, however, the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 2nd, 2016]

With regard to hotels, per diems, and other commercial accommodation in the National Capital Region for Ministerial exempt staff since November 4, 2015, broken down by Minister's Office: (a) what is the total amount spent; and (b) what is the detailed breakdown including (i) amount spent on per diems, (ii) amount spent on accommodation, (iii) number of nights the accommodation was provided, (iv) cost per stay, or nightly rate for accommodation, (v) name of vendors, (vi) contract or file reference numbers?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 2nd, 2016]

With regard to travel and hospitality expenses approved by a Minister or a member of his or her exempt staff, but incurred by individuals who were not Government of Canada employees at the time which the expense was incurred, since November 4, 2015, broken down by minister's office, what are the specific details of each expense, in the case of travel expenses, broken down by trip, including (i) total amount spent, (ii) amount spent on airfare, (iii) amount spent on other transportation, specifying type of transportation, (iv) amount spent on hotels, (v) amount spent on hotels or other accommodation, (vi) amount spent on per diems, (vii) dates of travel, (viii) origin and destination of each trip?

[Supplementary Estimates (B), 2016-17, December 1st, 2016]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board can confirm that the supply bill is in its usual form.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the quick answer is no, I am not concerned, because I believe the opposite will happen. I sat on the industry committee when we looked at the patent laws of our country compared to other countries we import products from, and at the intellectual property debates we have had in the country. Frankly, we have a big reform to do to make sure our pharmaceutical costs stay competitive with other jurisdictions', as sometimes they are not because of the rules and regulations.

The more we harmonize with developed economies, such as the 28 European countries who are part of this deal, and the United States, our neighbour, and the more we bring those harmonization rules to patenting and intellectual property, the more consumers will benefit at the end of the day. It is a process. It is a transition, but I totally disagree with the premise of that question.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this I know, that free trade agreements are good for our country. Let us remove the politics from this. The fact is, the new government should get the credit for coming in and picking up the ball and getting the deal done, just as it has given credit to our government for spending the years from 2007 to 2015 putting all the essential pieces together, so that really all the current government needed to do was to sign it.

My colleague from the NDP can go on into the weeds about the people who are against these things. Free trade has done nothing but bring prosperity to our country, and it will continue to do so. Hats off to everyone who has put this deal together.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to support the CETA agreement.

I would like to talk about a couple of things, basically that this comprehensive trade agreement opens up opportunities to many investors on both sides of the agreement, Canadian investors and European investors. I will move on from there to talk about some of the things that an agreement like this inspires and that, hopefully, can move this country toward, including by dealing with the trade barriers that exist within our own border.

The Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, CETA, will create jobs, strengthen economic relations, and boost Canada's trade with the second largest market on the globe.

As I think back to the time I have been in Parliament and part of the previous two governments, I recall the words of Prime Minister Harper on many occasions when he spoke about getting the business fundamentals correct. What CETA and the 40-plus other trade agreements the Harper government put together did was to focus on business fundamentals.

What are the business fundamentals in this country? They include things like keeping taxes low. In fact, compared to the United States, the total business tax load in this country is 46% lower. That was something we worked on during more than 10 years of government. We made that particular goal of setting and making sure the fundamental of keeping taxes low for business was right.

Why is that important in the context of a free trade agreement? It is important because we have to look good to investors from Europe. Europeans can now come here with this free trade agreement, know that goods can flow back and forth freely between our countries and consider making investments here, such as the one that we have in my community of Brantford, which is the Ferrero Company, a family company that came to this country nine years ago. The family came to North America. They decided where they would have their North American operation, and thankfully they landed in Brantford, Ontario, for all of their North American product lines. People will know Rocher, Tic Tac, and many of the products the company makes, with close to 1.5 million square feet of production.

I bring up that example because when companies like Ferrero, an Italian family company, make a decision, they make it based on research into what type of business environment they would be going into, what type of country, and how they will be treated as investors.

Among its other benefits that CETA provides in its market access provisions is enhanced investor protection. CETA will provide Canadian and EU investors with greater certainty, transparency, and protection for their investments, easing investment restrictions. The net benefit review threshold under the Investment Canada Act will be raised from the current $60 million Canadian to $1.5 billion, following CETA's entry into force.

The advantage over other countries is very significant, especially in the Americas. None of the other top destinations for EU investment in the Americas—the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil—have investment treaties in place with the 28 EU member states, because only CETA provides that. CETA is an agreement, as I said from the outset, and many people have talked today about the scope of CETA, the potential 80,000 jobs, the potential $1,000 per family benefit it would brings if we extend the benefits across our population. It brings us into a privileged environment in the world in terms of being free traders, allowing us to say to the globe that we can negotiate a deal like this when other countries are not about to do so.

I would like to transition into talking about what we face in this country today, namely the enormous trade barriers within our own borders, the provincial trade barriers today facing certain industries. Obviously, the debate we had earlier in this Parliament that my colleague entitled “free the beer” was an aspect of that. I am going to describe it from the point of view of my background, from having been in the construction industry in Ontario and trying to do business in other provinces.

First of all, what we need in this country more than anything else is a keen focus by the current government and the provincial governments on removing those trade barriers. I was very disappointed that the government chose not to vote for the free the beer initiative of my friend. That would have been a beginning, sending a signal to other industries to do that.

In the construction industry, particularly with tradespeople, this is significant, especially when there are downturns in certain parts of the country while other areas of the country are prospering. A person can have credentials as an electrician, plumber, carpenter, or whatever, and may be a licenced carpenter within Ontario's borders, but as soon as that person wants to practice that trade in other parts of the country, those credentials are not accepted as proper. One has to go through a retraining and certification process all over again in certain jurisdictions.

More so, when electrical companies or plumbing companies expand to a certain size and want to expand across the country, when they look at projects in other provinces, they are restricted from bidding on those jobs. They are told that they are restricted, because they are Ontario-based companies. This happens right here in the Ottawa area with our neighbouring province, Quebec, all the time.

However, it depends on the province. The Quebec contractors can come over to Ottawa and do work here, but Ottawa contractors cannot go to Quebec and do work there. These are the types of provincial barriers that I am talking about, which we need to focus keenly on reducing in this country.

I recall the 1988 debates around the NAFTA agreement. The NAFTA agreement in 1988, for all kinds of reasons, was opposed by different political parties, including the opposition and the typical groups right across this country. They thought we were going to lose our national identity from all of it, that we were going to lose our autonomy, and that our water was going to be taken away from us. All of these exaggerations were disproven.

The visionary part of a free trade agreement goes right to the top, reflecting who the prime minister of the day is. I can recall in those days looking to Prime Minister Mulroney and thinking that his was leadership that could hold the ground. He had the backbone to stand up to the type of opposition at that time, fight an election over it, and bring that free trade agreement, NAFTA, into existence.

I can tell members that today I feel the exact same way about Prime Minister Harper, who made free trade agreements a focus of his. CETA is part of the legacy of his leadership. I am proud to be here today to support this important free trade agreement and to have been part of the hard work since 2007 on that by Prime Minister Harper and the leadership of the Conservative Party.

[Committees of the House, November 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservative government put 6% a year more into health care every year—