Ted Hsu

[Digital Privacy Act, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the question of my hon. colleague on the opposition benches. I want to ensure that the government member really believes this is the best possible bill we could pass in the House of Commons, since we are at third reading debate.

Forty-two opposition amendments were passed over, I understand, with very little discussion, explanation or even defence of the rejection of those amendments. It is really a simple question, and perhaps my hon. colleague has already answered it. However, I would like him to say clearly whether he believes this is the best possible bill we could pass.

[Petitions, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from my constituents regarding women who work in dangerous jobs who become pregnant and whose employers cannot accommodate them. Presently the EI benefits and maternity benefits do not cover the full term.

In Quebec, the programme for a risk-free pregnancy provides for what is known as a preventive withdrawal.

Petitioners are asking that a federal early maternity leave program be created to reflect the change in our workforce and that the government update our policies in the area of maternal and infant care.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague comment on health care and housing with respect to this bill?

[Members not seeking re-election to the 42nd Parliament, June 10th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I am grateful to be allowed to speak tonight on the eve of my departure from the House. Before I leave the House of Commons, I want to talk about some ideals that have guided me in politics.

Interestingly, I was never involved in politics before age 40, and I was never asked to join a party. Nor was I recruited to run for office. I chose to do these things on my own when I had to face the importance of politics in dealing with the problems of the world. I knew enough to know that politics and government should not be idealized. However, I also believed that politicians should not be without ideals, so I would like to share some of my ideals today.

First, I have always felt that everything I have ever accomplished in life is only partially attributable to my own efforts. My accomplishments must also be attributed to good fortune. I am fortunate to have had health, a strong and supportive family, friends and a solid education. Most of all, I am fortunate to have grown up in Canada. Therefore, while I believe in promoting individual liberty and the social and economic advantages that result from it, I also believe in communal responsibility, in caring for fellow Canadians, in making the sacrifices needed to ensure equality of opportunity to achieve an enduring and shared prosperity.

Second, as a scientist, I believe in the value of individual and independent thought, rigour, empiricism and in intellectual humility: think for ourselves; collect, observe and discern the facts; be open to criticism; defend our point of view; never believe that we understand everything or have a complete picture of things; and, change our opinion when the facts change. History has shown that science has succeeded beyond all expectation by working in that way, and I sincerely believed five years ago, and still believe now, that one can succeed in politics with the same approach. These ideals and beliefs are what led me, before I sought election as a member of Parliament, to choose the Liberal Party of Canada.

I want to encourage all Canadians, and especially young Canadians, to consider participating in a political party, something which has, unfortunately, become less popular these days. Choosing a political party should not be about shopping until one finds a set of policies that one agrees with. One will never be able to find a party where one agrees with every single policy put forward because we have a diversity of views across Canada.

Political parties have the purpose of taking that diversity, sorting through policies and priorities in order to build a broad consensus within the party, and then translating that into an electoral mandate to actually implement the consensus. This essential part of democracy is a messy and unpredictable process, and everyone will disagree with his or her party some of the time.

However, for each person there will be a party where he or she will be most comfortable with the process, its results, and the kindred spirits who inhabit that party. I encourage young Canadians to not give up hope in our democratic institutions, like Parliament and political parties. Instead, I encourage young Canadians to articulate their ideals, to join parties, to work with kindred spirits, and to respectfully oppose others when appropriate in order to build a better future today.

I would now like to express my gratitude to a host of people who have made my time as a parliamentarian a success.

I thank the people of Kingston and the Islands who chose me as their federal representative. I have been proud to be Kingston's representative in Ottawa. I have tried to do my work in a way that ensured other MPs would know who I represented.

In 2013, I was delighted to be voted by MPs from all parties as the Parliamentarian of the Year who best represented his constituents. It has been a great privilege and honour to serve the people of Kingston and the Islands, and to serve Canada. After my announcement to not seek re-election, many constituents have thanked me for my service. However, I want them to know that everything I have accomplished has been accomplished through the efforts of hundreds of others around me.

I wish to first thank the people who are most responsible for making it possible for me to do the work of a member of Parliament, my family: my immediate family in Kingston, my wife Tara, my daughters Ella and Vera-Claire, my parents James and Marjorie, my uncle Ta-Fang and my aunts Linda and Josephine, my extended family, my brothers Bobby and Leon, and others who live elsewhere. These are the ones who deserve the most thanks for being a source of values, strength, help and motivation.

I want to also thank the many people who gave me their unwavering support throughout the past five years: friends; neighbours; campaign workers John Clements, Catherine Milks, and Adrian Brett; benefactors; kindred spirits; supporters from across the nation; and the strongest Liberal riding association in the country. I thank Ron Hartling, Ann Hutka, Hans Vorster, Alice Gazeley, and many others.

Special recognition should go to all of my dedicated staff and volunteers who have worked so hard, with care, discretion, and loyalty. Let me try to mention some of their names: Emily Trogen, Beth Palmer, Sophie Kiwala, Mary Davis Little, Dianne Johnston, David Yateman, Fred Faust, Ruth McKinney, Brian Evoy, Nicole Honderich, Ann Parker, Jenn Strychasz, Jane Latimer, and many students and volunteers and past staff members.

What I will miss most on Parliament Hill are my Liberal Party colleagues and their encouragement, their sharing of experience and perspective, their criticism, and their advice, mentorship, and generosity of spirit. I have felt part of, and supported by, a strong team.

During my tenure here, I have always loved working as an MP, but as a husband and father of two young daughters, I am especially sensitive to the sacrifices my own family would be making if I were to pursue another four years of political life at this time, so I have chosen not to run for re-election this year. In so doing, my desire is to remain faithful to my original reason for seeking elected office. It is what I said when I launched my nomination campaign in 2010: our children deserve to inherit our world without the troubles we have created.

When my children are older, and if there is a good reason to do so, I would happily seek elected office again. In the meantime, I will continue to work on many of the concerns that inspired me to enter politics. I will just do it closer to home for now.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2015]

With regard to both the Agricultural Innovation Program and the AgriInnovation Program: (a) what were the successful projects, broken down by applicant, date of application, stream, amount of funding requested, amount of funding allocated, and amount of funding provided; (b) what were the unsuccessful projects, broken down by applicant, date of application, stream, amount of funding requested, amount of funding allocated, and amount of funding provided; (c) how many successful Agricultural Innovation or AgriInnovation Program applicants used any part of their project funding to fund work undertaken by Agriculture Canada employees; (d) for each project in (c), who or what entity was the applicant; (e) for each project listed in (c) what was the (i) date of application, (ii) stream, (iii) amount of funding requested, (iv) amount of funding allocated, (v) amount of funding provided; (f) for each project listed in (c), how much funding was allocated to fund work undertaken by Agriculture Canada employees; (g) does or did the application to the programs named above ask applicants to name employees or contractors that they intend or intended to hire, by name, position, or organization; (h) does or did Agriculture Canada seek to learn which employees or contractors will be hired if an applicant is successful and, if so, how; (i) what impact does or did the applicant's answer to questions in (g) have on their application; and (j) if an applicant declares or declared an intention to hire Agriculture Canada employees, what impact does or did that declaration have on their application?

[Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill tonight and to some of the issues, which I think are important to put on the record, around the changes in the Statistics Act that the bill will put into place.

The bill amends the Statistics Act to protect the privacy of Canadians by requiring their consent for the release, after 92 years, of the information that they provide in a census-related household survey. It also removes the jail term from two of the Statistics Act's offence provisions and provides that a jail term is not to be imposed for default in payment of a fine imposed under those provisions. I will be supporting this bill. It is quite legitimate to remove the jail terms.

However, even though the bill removes the threat of a jail term, it is very important to understand why certain surveys should be mandatory. It is important to understand that, since we are removing one of the points that a Statistics Canada field worker might bring up to encourage somebody to fill out the census.

The jail term aside, it is important to get people to fill out surveys. It is important to reduce sample bias. That is the kind of error that occurs when certain groups do not answer the national household survey. We know that certain groups of people—single parents, renters, rural Canadians, very rich Canadians— tend to fall into this category, and it is really important for us to have good information in order to govern ourselves wisely.

It is not enough to simply threaten people. It is very important to explain to people. It is important for field workers to have the time to explain to people what the census data is used for and explain how they are helping the country by filling out the census.

People are very busy, and that is one of the reasons people would choose not to fill out the national household survey. It is important to have field workers out there who can use other methods of persuasion, including just going and helping somebody fill out the survey by explaining the questions and explaining what the answers to the questions are used for. They could explain how it helps the country and how it helps decision-makers make the right decision for the people they are serving by giving policymakers a clear picture of the country. Last of all, I think it is important to simply appeal to people's sense of duty to fill out the census.

One thing that Canadians may not know is that 2016 is the next census year. The current plan is to have automatic linkage of income and benefit data. The Canada Revenue Agency will automatically link that data to the census. What this means for Canadians is, in effect, that Canadians will have automatically filled out the questions about income that were previously on the long form census.

There will be no questions on income, but what is happening now is that there will be something called data linkage between the data at the Canada Revenue Agency and Statistics Canada. This has happened in the past. In the past there has been an optional box that people could check off to use that linkage. It was optional in the past, and now it is going to apply to everybody.

This particular step is okay, but it is really important for there to be a much broader discussion among our population about data linkages.

As some people might know, some European countries do not even have a census. They rely completely on data linkages between different government databases. They rely on people reporting to the government every time they change addresses, for example. If a student goes away to school or somebody changes apartments, they have to report their change of address to the government.

The government's plan is to rely on more data linkages, but it is important to have a discussion in the population about the extent to which Canadians are willing to rely on more and more data linkages, because their personal information is going to be shared more and more among government agencies.

The Privacy Commissioner has said that there are definitely privacy issues that have to be understood by the public before we proceed too far. There is a balance. However, Canadians need to talk about where they are comfortable having that balance.

I want to look at some of the reasons for having good census data, including data that used to come from the long-form census. Currently, those questions are being asked on the national household survey. However, the data is probably being collected in a biased manner. We know that, because the users of the data are noticing that there are problems.

I recently went to visit the Halton region in Ontario. I sat down with officials who use data to make decisions. I met with economic development officials, urban planners, not-for-profit agencies, social service providers, school boards, and public health officials. They were all very upset about the loss of the long-form census.

One of the reasons for having the long-form census is that it gives us high-quality, local data, because it is such a big survey. If we can get rid of the sample bias, it gives us really good local data. That allows local decision-makers to make smart decisions, because they know their community.

If we believe, which I think probably a majority of the members in this chamber do, that decisions should be made at the local level whenever possible, that we should try to avoid a one-size-fits-all government from Ottawa, and that if local governments can make decisions better they should make the decisions, then we should support the idea of local governments and local decision-makers having good data in order to make those decisions. That is what we are losing by getting rid of the long-form census.

One of the things I found out in the Halton region is that more and more not-for-profit groups are required to provide reports to funders on the value for money given by funders. In fact, even the current Conservative government is looking at something called social finance, whereby we very carefully measure the impact social service agencies or other agencies are having so that philanthropists, for example, know the impact their donations are having. When the federal government tries to implement social finance, it has to be able to measure the effect that someone who gets a contract is having on the community. To collect that local data, it needs the long-form census to help.

There is a famous example in the province of New Brunswick. The premier of New Brunswick said it was having trouble evaluating the effects of its five-year anti-poverty program because of the current government's elimination of the long-form census.

I found out that school boards need good information to see growth trends in order to plan ahead. For example, Milton is a very fast-growing part of the Halton region. It needs good information before it commits bricks and mortar, before it spends a lot of money building schools. It also needs good information before it hires special needs teachers.

I found out that the 2006 census is still being used to calculate grant dollars for first nation, Métis, and Inuit student populations in the Halton school board. It is not using the 2011 census results, because those census results are unreliable.

I have heard that people who work on poverty are not getting good enough information. Poverty intervention works best if it is done and targeted at a local level. I found out that in 2006, the census said that the difference in life expectancy between people living in the richest and poorest neighbourhoods in the Halton region was eight years for men and four years for women. That is a very sad statistic, because it means that poor people are paying the penalty of dying earlier. In the 2011 voluntary household survey, the eight year difference for men went down to four years, and the four year difference for women went down to zero years.

This sudden change can only be attributed to the fact that the voluntary national households survey was a poor substitute for the long form census. Not being able to see the problems that the marginalized in Canada have to face is a shame.

To conclude—

[Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act, June 3rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the idea of removing jail sentences for not answering a census and replacing them with a fine. However, it is important to remember that the mandatory nature of surveys is important. It removes sample bias. It minimizes the possibility of certain groups with certain characteristics being less likely to answer the census, or any survey. This sort of sample bias is very important to eliminate.

Once we make this change in the Statistics Act, does the member believe that the Chief Statistician should be given the tools and the direction to make sure that people answer surveys as much as possible? What I mean is that there should not only be a fine, which is a stick; there should be a carrot.

I believe that the Chief Statistician should be given the resources to educate the public as to the value and importance of the census. There should also be people to help those who might have trouble filling out a census and to encourage those who might be very busy and might be reluctant to invest the time to fill out a survey from Statistics Canada.

It is important for our economic growth to have good information about ourselves. It is important for a government in making wise decisions. It is important for local officials who are making local decisions to have good quality local data with good statistics at the local level.

What can we do to get more people to fill out the surveys and the census of Statistics Canada?

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague across the floor on the Conservative benches thinks about the fact that marijuana use is so high in Canada among youth. To me it must mean that whatever we have right now is not working.

In my colleague's speech, he talked on and on about the Liberal leader. My question to him is, did the committee report mention the Liberal leader and what was the purpose of the committee report or even the member's motion, given the content of his speech?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 1st, 2015]

With regard to the sale of the government's stake in General Motors (GM) common stock, announced in April 2015: (a) which counter-parties were contacted and asked to submit bids, broken down by (i) name of counter-party, (ii) date that they were contacted by the government or its designate, (iii) date of submission of firm, tradable bids to the government; (b) how was the sales price, as reported publicly, determined and calculated; (c) what observed prices, such as close prices or Volume Weighted Average Prices, in the market, were used to calculate the sales price; (d) were any other fees or commissions charged; (e) what conditions were imposed on the winning counter-party, Goldman Sachs; (f) when was Goldman Sachs made aware of the government's intention to sell GM stock; (g) when was Goldman Sachs made aware of the number of shares available for sale; (h) what conditions were imposed on Goldman Sachs’ ability to hedge its purchase of GM stock; (i) was Goldman Sachs permitted to sell GM stock or other auto sector stocks as a hedge of its trade with the government on (i) Wednesday, April 1, 2015, (ii) Thursday, April 2, 2015, (iii) Monday, April 6, 2015; (j) what limits on internal communications within Goldman Sachs were promised by Goldman Sachs to the government or its designate; and (k) what other measures were taken to minimize the transaction costs and market impact of the government’s sale of GM shares?

[Public Safety, June 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in answering my recent written Question No. 721, the Conservatives wrote bluntly that “...the Government of Canada will not revisit the decision to close the prison farms.” However, the Conservative candidate in Kingston and the Islands launched his campaign by stating his “unshakable” conviction to restore prison farms, and he bought a share in the herd of prison farm dairy cows.

Could the Conservatives please clarify for Canadians their position on having inmates pay their way through work on prison farms?