2017-01-30

Private Members' Business
Gender Equality Week Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 17, 2016, consideration of the motion that Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Randy Boissonnault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House today and to speak in favour of the important legislation of Bill C-309, which would establish a gender equality week in Canada. This would provide a week to reflect on the importance of gender equality and the ongoing need to advance the cause of equality in Canada.
I am proud that our government will support the passage of Bill C-309, with amendments that will be brought at committee. I would like to thank my friend the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore for bringing this important legislation forward. 
This is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the work that still needs to be done to ensure greater gender equality.
We know that too many women are still facing systemic inequalities in the workplace. We need more women in politics, and we know that we need more women in the judiciary and more women in STEM professions.
We need to seriously address issues of sexual harassment in the workplace, and we have seen shocking examples recently of the harassment that women in public office face. It includes women in this chamber and women who have risen to become premiers of several provinces across this country, including mine. This is unacceptable, and we know that awareness and education are the most important tools in beginning to correct these issues. A gender equality week is a tool for spreading that awareness and bringing change in our country.
It is important to remember, as well, the importance of gender equality for our transgender community. As special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, I can state unequivocally there is much work that needs to be done in this area. 
Our government has been clear that equality of transgender Canadians is a priority for us because it is a priority for Canadians. Just this last week, I had the opportunity to hold round table conversations in five cities in our country; it is critical for our government to make sure that both houses pass Bill C-16, which would extend rights to transgendered persons. However, there is so much more to do, and I look forward to working with members of this House and continuing to listen to the trans and non-binary community about further steps that need to be taken. However, we do know that there is a serious need for greater awareness and education surrounding the challenges this community faces. Bill C-309 gives us that opportunity.
There are those who argue that the bill is not necessary. There are some who dismiss Bill C-309 as merely a symbolic gesture on which we should not spend any time. After all, they argue, symbols do not matter. I disagree. Symbols do matter. Symbols send powerful messages, particularly when we are discussing equality and human rights. They rally people to press forward, and they give hope and inspiration to those fighting for a better world. 
We should take a look at the symbol of Angela Merkel, female Chancellor of Germany. How many girls have been inspired to rise to the top of their professions, due not only to her amazing work but to the symbol that she provides to the world?
We must not dismiss the importance and impact of symbols. It would be a mistake to pit symbol against substance rather than recognize that they are intertwined. Symbols give rise to substantive change, and substantive change leads to more symbols.
Symbols are influential; they are forces of change. Symbols provide the hope and resolve that mobilize crowds and drive people forward. Symbols unite us in pursuit of a better world. 
When we set out to establish a gender equality week, when we speak up for inclusion and respect, when we march for LGBTQ2 pride, when we honour the differences, identities, and genders of every individual, we are actively and symbolically recommitting to supporting rights and equality for all.
When we discuss our gender-balanced cabinet, we know it is both a symbol of equality and a sign of substantial action. Symbols lead to substantive change; substantive change leads to more symbols; and we know that every young girl in this country will be able to point to the symbol of gender balance in our executive council and know that, some day, should they want to work hard for it, they could also have a place at that table. That will also ensure substantive action on the changes we need and the different perspectives we need to take in all elements of Canadian society.
Equality is not something that just happens. Repression and discrimination do not just end overnight. It takes the work of activists and trailblazers. It takes time and self-reflection and tough questions. It often takes the support and leadership of government.
It takes the initiative of members of Parliament to be bold, as my colleague has done. Canadians elected the members of our Liberal caucus to show that leadership, and this is one of the many ways that we are bringing real change to Canada and to all Canadians.
Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, usually this would be a time when I would welcome everyone back and wish them a happy new year in my first speech of this session. Instead, I stand in the House devastated by the violent events that occurred yesterday.
Members of our Muslim community were killed and many were wounded in their sacred space of worship in Quebec. These violent deaths have rocked me to my core, and they hit hard the foundation of my Canadian identity.
When I worked at an immigrant-serving agency, I assisted many families from across the world to join our Canadian family. In my new role, I continue to do this work in a new way. These people continuously reinvigorate my Canadian pride. Working with them as they prepare for Canadian citizenship, and watching them as they receive it, makes me so proud of this country. This is what I know.
In Canada, we have generations of Muslim Canadians who have helped build this country. I am deeply saddened today. I want to thank my constituents for the many emails I have already received. I thank them for their support and immediate call to action. We will stand together to say no to this violence. We will stand together because, as Dr. Christina Hubert said:
 We must not sit idly by as injustices abound around us. We have a voice, and we must use it.... We must advocate for those who no longer have a voice. We must love greatly. 
Many constituents have shared with me that we are living in scary times since the inauguration of President Trump. Now when we look at our televisions and social media, we see tens of thousands of people standing up against hate. 
On January 21, I was proud to stand alongside many inspiring women and men. I want to thank the Comox Valley women's solidarity gathering for making the women's march on Washington such a resounding success.
This truly historic march drew an estimated worldwide participation of 4.8 million. After the march, officials behind the organization reported that 673 marches took place worldwide. In the United States, the protests were the largest political demonstrations since the anti-Vietnam War protests in the 1960s and 1970s. 
Here I am today speaking on Bill C-309, an act to establish a gender equality week; a bill in which the title says it all. The bill aims to establish the first week of October every year as gender equality week. 
It is important to raise awareness of the significant and substantive contributions that Canadian women have made and continue to make to grow, develop, and add to the strong identity of Canada. The NDP has been at the forefront and will continue to champion real gender equality. I fully support the bill at second reading and want it to be studied at committee. 
As a legislator who takes her responsibility very seriously, I have to offer a cautious assessment of the bill and of this government's attitude in dealing with gender equality. Once again, we have in front of us a bill filled with billowing symbolism. By no means am I condoning investments in matters symbolic; by no means am I reducing the possibilities this gender equality week could have on our movement; and I know that 673 marches took place across the world, which demonstrates a powerful fact: actions speak louder than words.
When words are not followed up by action, emblems become tokenism, and then sincerity is put into question. I do not doubt the genuineness of the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore in bringing the bill forward. For a responsible lawmaker, context matters. 
After more than a year in power, the government has failed to translate feminist rhetoric into real change. The best way to honour women is by matching words with actions, none of which are included in the bill. How many statistics and figures must we repeat in the House for just a little movement on this very important issue?
Rather than sharing figures, I will share advice for future bills that would bring the significant, substantive changes required to improve the daily lives of Canadian women. Hopefully, my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore can share them with the government.
How can women from coast to coast celebrate gender equality for a week when we know all too well that in a week they will earn only 74¢ for every dollar earned by men? This is both a chronic and a growing issue. The House sent the issue of pay equity to a special committee, which returned with facts that have been repeated many times in the House and in many other committees. Women are still being paid less money than men for the same work.
Then the government had the nerve to say this was something it would address in 2018. That is not good enough. How long do women have to wait? They have waited for 40 years and should not have to wait any longer.
Does the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore believe in a more gender-balanced Parliament? I am afraid he does not. He voted down the bill that would have done just that. The sad part is that he was not alone. Many Liberal MPs did the same thing, including the then minister for the status of women.
Increasing representation of women in Parliament would be in the type of bill we are looking for. These are the actions worth celebrating. These are the bills that would take words and transform them into real action.
How can we pay tribute when more than 500 women and children are turned away from shelters on a typical day? How can we pretend we have achieved gender equality when on any given day more than 4,000 women and more than 2,000 children will reside in a domestic violence shelter? The absence of a national action plan to end violence against women is making responses largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and inconsistent across Canada. New Democrats are pushing for more federal funding to support domestic violence shelter operations. I ask again. Where is the action?
High-quality and affordable early childhood education helps women seek employment or improve their job skills and pursue careers, and it eases families' financial stress. Delays in the creation of a national child care strategy will perpetuate socio-economic inequalities for people in Canada. The NDP believes that the federal government should start tackling its fundamental responsibility to reduce inequality between men and women. In the 2016 budget, the government missed multiple opportunities to respond equitably to the needs of women and girls and to fully support the realization of their economic and social potential.
This bill has a very lofty preamble. To be fair, it addresses a broad range of issues, including the fact that indigenous women are disproportionately affected by gender-based violence and sexual exploitation. If the bill were passed, the preamble would evaporate into thin air and what would remain is reality, a reality in which all aboriginal women employed full time earn 26% less than non-aboriginal men. Even more devastating is the reality that aboriginal women with a university degree earn 33% less. Yes, that is correct: the gap actually increases the more educated they are. There is so much more, such as shelters, safe drinking water, and education. 
This bill aims to raise awareness, and I encourage it. That is why I will support it at second reading. It is time to get to work and address some long-standing issues that would make a major difference in women's rights.
I am so proud of the work and leadership of our critic for the status of women, the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. 
We will be proposing amendments at committee stage, arranging that the bill not enter into force before the government implements proactive pay equity legislation and gender-based analysis legislation. 
We should take real action to achieve gender equality. The NDP believes that, when women are no longer disproportionately affected by violence, inequality, and poverty, then we could legitimately have a celebratory week. 
As the West Coast Leaf Association mentioned about the bill:
 ...legislation and other actions like Bill C-309...not only do very little to address inequality in the everyday lives of women in Canada, but they also create a risk of misleading the public into thinking that the federal government is taking substantive action when they have little potential to create meaningful change. 
The women of Canada are looking for action. I hope we see it soon.
Mr. Gagan Sikand (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to the bill brought forward by my colleague and fellow member from Mississauga—Lakeshore.
Bill C-309, an act to establish gender equality week, addresses a very important issue. As the text of Bill C-309 states in its preamble, poverty and inequality disproportionately affect Canadian women, particularly the elderly, disabled, transgender, and visible minorities. 
In Canada, women are more likely than men to be victims of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Canadian women currently face barriers in pursuing and completing post-secondary education and pursuing careers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. There is currently a wage gap between men and women in Canada. 
When I read all of these facts, I find it hard to believe that I am describing life in Canada in 2017. Even though our government has taken positive steps toward reducing gender inequality since being elected, the fact of the matter is gender inequality still exists in Canada and more awareness needs to be raised. It is for this reason that I urge all members of the House to support this bill.
The bill would not only raise awareness of the issue of gender inequality, it would also create a platform to educate Canadians on the non-binary nature of gender. The bill would also encourage Canadians to recognize gender equality as a fundamental human rights issue linked to other policy areas such as health care, crime, poverty, discrimination, and inequality. 
Throughout my life, I have worked with many intelligent, strong, and passionate women who have excelled and become leaders in their fields. This has not changed since I have become a member of Parliament. Every day, whether it is working with my staff or with my hon. colleagues here in the House, I am reminded of the exceptional abilities of all women across the country. Women are an important part of the work we do here in the House of Commons. Every day we debate and discuss a wide range of policies covering a variety of different issues and topics, and due to this fact, we have to ensure that we are looking at these policies and topics from the widest lens possible. In order for this to be ensured, the House must be as diverse as possible. It is for this reason that women's viewpoints are so essential to the work we do here in the House. 
If I reflect back, I can confidently say the most influential people in my life have been women, whether she was my grade 7 teacher, my mom and her sister, or all of my cousins who are as close to me as if they were my sisters. It just does not seem right to me that these individuals could or would be treated any differently from anyone else. A gender equality week would be a tribute to these women and women like them all across Canada. While this may not eliminate gender inequality, it is definitely a step in the right direction. 
It was in 1918 that Canadian women became eligible to vote in federal elections, and 1929 when Canadian women were considered persons under the Canadian Constitution. It is hard to believe that in 2017 we are still discussing gender inequality issues. 
I speak at local elementary schools quite often and discuss gender inequality. I hope that by the time the students I speak to are old enough to occupy these seats they will no longer have to discuss the same issue. 
Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-309, but first I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for the substantive work he has put into preparing the bill. It is always a pleasure to see such passionate effort directed toward the ongoing challenge of achieving real gender equality in Canada.
Since 1992, October has been recognized as Women's History Month. I believe this bill which would declare the first week of every October gender equality week could serve a vital and complementary function to Women's History Month. 
Women’s History Month has long been used as a platform to recognize the contributions and efforts of women across the country and throughout our history to advance gender equality in Canada. It offers an opening for parents to teach young Canadians about the struggles of the Famous Five and many other remarkable Canadian historical figures. 
Gender equality week would not only be a time to congratulate the women on whose shoulders we stand and who have accomplished so much, it would also be a call to action, an opportunity to take stock of how far we have come and how far we still need to go.
Gender equality week would be a time to acknowledge our ongoing struggles and the challenges that we still need to overcome, especially for women who are doubly marginalized. We know there is an intersectionality between gender and other identity factors, such as race, indigeneity, disability, sexual orientation, and others who still face double discrimination, higher instances of violence, and tangibly lower standards of living.
Gender equality week would be an opportunity to pause and to think about the work that we need to do today to ensure a better future.
We, here in this House, and all of our allies across the country still have so much work to do. Two-thirds of Canadians say they personally know a woman who has experienced physical or sexual abuse. One-fifth of men aged 18 to 24 do not fully understand the concept of consent. In 2014, a woman was murdered by her intimate partner every six days. As of last year, the rate of female intimate partner homicide remained unchanged. On any given night, more than 3,000 women seek shelter from an unsafe home. 
Today there are still over 1,000 missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. This state of affairs is an unforgivable injustice and not only does it carry a profound social and cultural cost, but it is estimated that dealing with the ongoing struggles of violence against women and its aftermath costs Canada billions each year.
While we have come far, today women still account for less than a quarter of jobs in science, in large part because many qualified, passionate women find themselves driven out of their field.
In my own field and those of the rest of us in this House, when it comes to women's political representation, Canada ranks 61st in the world. We trail behind countries like Sudan, Iraq, and Cuba. Women have never held more than 26% of the seats in this House, and women's representation at all levels of government has not increased significantly in over 20 years.
Across Canada women continue to attain higher levels of education and higher levels of job experience, and yet they continue to earn less than men. Across the country women make 73¢ on the dollar of what men make. This inequality is exacerbated in the cases of women who are visible minorities, women who are indigenous, and women with disabilities. Women are more likely to be compelled into extensive periods of unpaid labour, such as caring for children or senior family members. 
Even when a couple is cognizant of the historical and ongoing social factors at play that pressure women to take on these traditional roles, a couple’s economic reality—the reality of the pay gap, of the various barriers women face in the workforce, and of the deficit of affordable alternatives—perpetuates the problem, too often making it the rational choice for the woman to forego her salary and job security to take on child care or other unpaid caregiving, rather than a male spouse.
To be clear, gender equality week would not be a time to wallow in doom and gloom, but rather to motivate both women and men to commit to do better. For my part, I am proud of work that has been done and continues to be done on all of these fronts. 
This week the Standing Committee on the Status of Women will begin to draft its report on violence against young women and girls in Canada after hearing months of testimony. I am certain that this report will work in concert with the Minister of Status of Women's cross-Canada consultations to develop solutions to eliminate gender-based violence.
I was proud a few months ago that the Minister of Status of Women announced $90 million in funding for transitional women’s shelters. When I chaired the Special Committee on Pay Equity, all parties worked together to draft a substantive report with broad agreement on all the principle priorities. Pay equity is a human right.
To solve the issues that are so deeply rooted in our culture as misogyny and gender inequality requires more than legislation. It requires dialogue and the ability to share experiences across the country. Gender equality week would be a springboard for that dialogue. It would provide a logical opportunity for schools to introduce teachable moments, for governments to bring forward public awareness campaigns, and for our ongoing issues to enter public awareness and the popular dialogue. Gender equality week would be a stepping-off point for inclusive dialogue and a contemplative thematic preamble to Women's History Month's historical focus.
I am proud to be a member of this House alongside so many other strong women and men who call themselves feminists. I am proud that the Prime Minister is leading the way on gender equality, that we have a gender equal cabinet, and that we recently formed an all-party women’s caucus to move these issues forward. I am especially proud of my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore for bringing this important bill to be debated today.
I look forward to joining with all of my honourable colleagues and with Canadians next October to celebrate gender equality week.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Resuming debate. Seeing no one rising on debate, I invite the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore to provide his five-minute right of reply.
Mr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, welcome back to you and all of my colleagues. It is indeed an honour to speak on the first parliamentary day of 2017, the year of our 150th anniversary.
To start off, I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for their interest in Bill C-309, an act to establish gender equality week, for their important contributions to the debate at second reading, and for their support. I would also like to thank the members of my incredible team for their tireless efforts, and the stakeholders, community organizations, and Canadians from all walks of life who shared their views with us. In particular, I want to thank Rachelle Bergen and the Strength in Stories team for their ideas that helped bring us to where we are today.
This effort is about building a more inclusive society. We think about gender equality week as an opportunity to rally all Canadians around a very important issue and to generate additional momentum for social change. It is not an occasion to celebrate accomplishments, but as reflected in the paragraphs in the preamble, gender equality week seeks to raise awareness of the most profound remaining challenges and offers a platform to work collaboratively on concrete solutions.
To be absolutely clear, I am very proud of what we as Canadians are already doing to achieve gender equality and equity. In November 2015, our Prime Minister formed Canada's first cabinet with female and male parity. Our government has launched an inquiry into Canada's missing and murdered aboriginal and indigenous women, and the Minister of Status of Women is developing a federal strategy against gender-based violence.
The Government of Canada introduced Bill C-16, which protects Canadians of minority gender identity and expression by adding gender identity and expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In early December 2016, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Status of Women announced that Nova Scotia businesswoman and civil rights activist Viola Desmond will be the very first Canadian woman to be featured on a Canadian banknote. However, important as these and other actions are, there is more work ahead of us than there is behind us, and to close the remaining gaps, the government will need the advocacy, support, and commitment of Canadians.
Bill C-309 recognizes that need and issues a call to action to all Canadians to become involved: men, women, Canadians of minority gender identity and expression, children, students, educators, civil servants at all levels of government, young and established professionals, new Canadians, indigenous peoples, Canadians in law enforcement and our armed forces, and seniors. Involvement in gender equality week could take a wide range of forms, including town hall discussions, university and college colloquia, music, plays, literature, film projects, workplace round tables, the formulation and presentation of academic research, public rallies, fundraisers, and social media, radio, and television events and campaigns.
Our consultations with various groups, organizations, and different levels of government helped us develop a substantive preamble that gives Canadians a fuller perspective of the challenges that lie ahead. The challenges posed by gender-based violence and the gender wage gap were identified as particularly critical hurdles that we, as Canadians, must address and overcome. Through active engagement, Canadians can achieve real progress on these fronts. 
I look forward to working on Bill C-309 with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of the House in the days, weeks, and months ahead. I encourage my fellow members to support the bill, as the time to act is now. It is only through concerted, sustained action that real and lasting social change can become a reality.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
Anthony Rota: The House will suspend until noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:38 a.m.)
[Stage Direction]
 (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) 
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been some consultations among the parties, and I believe you would find agreement for the following motion:
Motion
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Statements by Ministers, pursuant to Standing Order 33, shall be taken up at 1:15 p.m., later this day, and that a representative of the Bloc Québécois and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also be permitted to comment briefly thereon. 

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): (Motion agreed to)

Government Orders
Statistics ActHon. Navdeep Bains (Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and pleased today to rise to discuss Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.
As members well know, statistics play a critical role in democratic societies. Information is essential to understanding ourselves, our past, and our future. Businesses, civil society, researchers, the public, and the government itself rely on the integrity and accuracy of data.
High-quality data is needed for planning services, improving social conditions, and helping businesses expand. That is why statistical information produced by the government has to be of good quality and satisfactory to its users.
Impartial data is essential for making informed decisions about the services upon which all Canadians rely. I am talking about issues around housing, education, public transportation, and skills training, among other things, because these services touch every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.
Our government believes that decisions regarding official statistics should be made exclusively on professional considerations. Indeed, there is widespread agreement internationally that statistical agencies must operate with a high level of professional independence, in day-to-day operations, from direction and oversight by the government.
What do we mean by independence?
We mean that national statistical agencies must be guided exclusively by professional considerations on decisions related to their operations and data-gathering methods. The same goes for every other aspect of statistics production. These agencies must also be free of interference from the government or interest groups.
That is how Canadians can be confident that the statistical information produced on their behalf is impartial and of the highest possible quality.
Internationally, approaches to independence vary. For example, the Netherlands, Ireland, and New Zealand have explicit provisions on independence in their legislation. The United Kingdom Statistics Authority is a non-ministerial department that reports directly to Parliament. Meanwhile, Statistics Netherlands is an autonomous body.
Regardless of how countries around the world define independence, they all follow a common set of principles.
Canada endorses two documents that outline these international principles. These documents are the United Nations' “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics” and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's “Recommendation of the OECD Council on Good Statistical Practice”. These are the two principles we follow.
I am proud to say that the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act are aligned with these documents.
These amendments will ensure that data produced by Statistics Canada continue to be accurate, reliable, and of the highest quality. They will also help ensure that Canadians remain confident in the impartiality of the information gathered on their behalf.
The first point I would like to mention is the need for formal independence. Currently, Statistics Canada is treated, by convention, as an arm's-length agency, with little direct involvement by the minister overseeing it. That is the current practice. However, the agency's independence is not formally legislated, so it is more by convention and not by legislation. 
The previous government's decision to replace the 2011 mandatory long-form census with the voluntary survey exposed a vulnerability in the Statistics Act. This is an issue we heard about often, at times, when we were at the doors during the campaign. The legislation allowed the government of the day to make a key decision on a statistical matter, and the decision was made with very little openness and transparency.
Replacing the long form census with a voluntary survey compromised the quality and accuracy of data about Canadians. Several small communities did not have access to information that was important for local decision-making. The decision to eliminate the long form census was condemned by Canadians who use statistics.
The proposed amendments in Bill C-36 would enshrine in law the long-standing convention of independence in statistical matters conferred on Statistics Canada. Again, we would take the convention and put it into law. These amendments would safeguard the quality and impartiality of the information produced by Statistics Canada.
Let me outline the proposed amendments contained in this bill, because details matter.
Under the current act, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada has overarching authority for decisions about the agency's operations and methods for gathering, compiling, and producing statistical information. In practice, this authority is delegated to the chief statistician. The bill would amend the act to formally make the chief statistician responsible for all operations and decisions related to statistical products. That includes the long-form census.
As part of the amendments in the bill, the minister would retain the authority to issue directives on statistical programs. Again, the minister would still be responsible for what statistics and information were needed. For example, in the context of our government, as members know, we are investing a great deal of time, effort, and energy in clean technology. If we needed information about clean technology and about companies and growth in the market, we would say that is what we need. How that information was obtained would be the responsibility of the chief statistician.
The bill would ensure greater transparency around these directives as well. It would empower the chief statistician to publicly request written direction before acting on the minister's directions for a statistical program. In addition, should the minister deem it to be in the national interest to make a decision that directly affects matters related to operations, or even data-gathering methods, it would have to be authorized by the Governor in Council and also tabled in Parliament. That is the key component of the open and transparent aspect of this particular legislation.
The bill also proposes to create a new Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the existing National Statistics Council. The new advisory council would focus on the overall quality of the national statistical system. That includes the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information produced. The goal of this new council would be to increase transparency and ensure that Canada's statistical system continues to meet the needs of Canadians. The council would provide advice to the minister as well as to the chief statistician. To continue to improve transparency, the council would publish an annual report, accessible to all Canadians, on the state of the national statistical system.
In anticipation of the bill's passage, I would like to thank the members of the National Statistics Council for their service. They should be proud of the important contributions they have made over the past 30 years to the work of Statistics Canada, so I thank them once again.
The bill would also change the appointment of the chief statistician, and this is another important detail. This appointment would be for a renewable term of no more than five years.
The appointment would be made through an open, transparent, merit-based selection process in accordance with our government's new approach to Governor in Council appointments. This is the process we would follow with respect to the selection of a new chief statistician.
The chief statistician will serve during good behaviour and may be removed by the Governor in Council for cause. It is based on merit and performance. This change will strengthen the independence of the chief statistician in his or her decision making.
It is also important to highlight that the minister would remain accountable to Parliament for Canada's publicly funded statistical agency. As the minister presently responsible for this agency, I will be personally responsible, and so will my office, for the accountability of this agency.
The amendments to the Statistics Act have been drafted to ensure the responsibilities of the minister and the chief statistician are more clearly defined than they are currently.
The bill also has provisions concerning Canadians who refuse to complete the census and other mandatory surveys. The general consensus is that a prison sentence is a disproportionate penalty for the offence. The bill would amend the act to eliminate prison sentences for Canadians who refuse to answer mandatory surveys.
Canadians who do not comply will continue to face the possibility of fines of up to $500. The updated act will also the transfer of census records after 92 years to the Library and Archives of Canada. That will apply to all censuses of populations conducted from 2021 onward. For censuses taken in 2006, 2011, and 2016, and the 2011 national household survey, the records will be released, where the consent has been given, to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years.
We will respect the previous censuses and the information provided by the individuals who fill them out, and also ensure we protect their privacy. This change in the act will make a rich source of information available to historians, genealogists, and other researchers. It is so important that we understand our past if we are to understand and appreciate the possibilities going forward.
Amendments would also update the language of the act in order to reflect technological changes to data collection methods, which include the use of electronic surveys rather than paper surveys.
The amendments in Bill C-36 will better align Statistics Canada with the guidance of the UN and the OECD. They will ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on the integrity and accuracy of the data produced by their national statistical agency.
I also want to highlight the outreach presently taking place with respect to this bill as well, because it has a key component. The amendments in the bill were developed based on consultations with many Canadians, as well as with international experts and bodies. They include the OECD, as well as the former heads of statistical offices in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia.
The government also conducted a review of statistical legislation in six countries. They include, again, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, United States, Netherlands, and Ireland. These consultations allowed us to consider various approaches to international norms. We also worked closely with stakeholders across the country as well.
Statistics Canada consulted extensively with the National Statistics Council and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultative Council on Statistical Policy. The agency also engaged with 16 other federal departments that are major users of its information. We really wanted to get a sense of the information, and the concerns and the viewpoints from the users. They all support the proposals contained in the bill.
I also want to take this opportunity to highlight some of the actions already taken by our government. Reinforcing the integrity and independence of Statistics Canada is a key priority of this government. It is something on which we campaigned, something we put in our platform, and something we are delivering on.
My first official act as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and I vividly recall this day, was to restore the mandatory long-form census. Canadians have responded overwhelmingly to the return of the long-form census. I am proud to report that the 2016 population census was the most successful in our country's history. After I made the announcement, I had the opportunity to go out into my constituency, knock on doors, meet with Canadians, and talk to them about what our government was doing. They all mentioned this issue to me because they were paying attention to the news and really cared about this issue. That was reflected in the overall response rate as well, with more than 98% of people responding, which was higher than 2011 and 2006. Frankly, it was the highest response rate in the history of the census.
I also have to say that the response rate of almost 98% was the highest ever reported. These impressive results show Canadians' commitment to the census program. They prove that Canadians believe that it is important for decision-making to be based on accurate and reliable data.
Our government has also taken steps to reinstate the University and College Academic Staff System survey. I met with individuals from academia in the lobby who were so proud of this decision. This survey provides up-to-date information about the composition of faculty members at Canadian universities and colleges. Data compiled through the survey will be used to recruit faculty who reflect Canada's diversity.
This survey supports the government's innovation agenda, which was implemented in order to establish favourable conditions for economic growth, create well-paid jobs, and grow the middle class. Encouraging diversity and inclusion in Canada's knowledge institutions is key, because an economy based on innovation needs good ideas from people of all backgrounds.
The amendments contained in Bill C-36 also support our government's commitment to promoting innovation. By making decisions that are informed by reliable and accurate data, Canadians can turn information into useful insights or solutions that benefit everyone. This is a key part of our government's innovation and economic agenda as well.
In conclusion, we live in a world where knowledge drives innovation, and innovation depends on the free flow of reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information. I am proud that this bill reflects that direction and our government's desire to follow through on a campaign commitment to end political interference with respect to our statistical agency.
Hon. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): 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?
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague was paying attention to the various details I outlined. That is one proposed change in the bill. That change does reflect the fact that we want the new Canadian statistical advisory council to have a strong mandate to not only provide advice to the chief statistician but to the minister as well. That is important.
The composition of the advisory council would be done through the process that this government has promoted, a Governor in Council process, which will be merit-based and will look at diversity and geography. It would also ensure that we would have individuals with the skill set to provide good reliable advice to the minister and to the chief statistician. I am confident that the composition of the committee and the individuals on the committee will provide the diverse aspects, the diverse ideas that are needed for the agency to move forward in a robust and productive way. I can assure the member opposite that the concern she has raised will be addressed in this process.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is on privacy and the census. The census first started to have difficulty when the Paul Martin administration decided to outsource census data collection to Lockheed Martin, which is essentially an aerospace manufacturer that was also involved in census operations in other countries. This public outsourcing created issues under the Privacy Act. As a result of that, we had a number of census issues relating to the public's confidence in the privacy of personal information. The census then went through a series of controversial measures, resulting in it being made a short-form census, which has now been returned to the long-form version. The outsourcing of information to the private sector that included exposure to the United States was an essential part of the problem.
What guarantees can the minister give us that he and his administration will not outsource more public jobs related to data collection for the Canadian census in order to instill public confidence? 
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of privacy, this is a concern to our government and to me. I can assure the member that privacy, reliability, and accuracy of data are the reasons why we are proposing the bill. 
The day-to-day operations of how the data is collected, how the integrity of the data is maintained, and how operational matters are determined will be subject to the chief statistician and Statistics Canada. They have the professional independence and the ability to proceed without any political interference. At the same time, I am also the minister responsible to the House and accountable to the House. I can assure the member opposite that both of these aspects are addressed in the bill. 
The chief statistician will have the understanding and the know-how at an operational level to deal with issues around privacy and how data is collected to ensure it is accurate and reliable. The chief statistician and individuals in Statistics Canada are professionals. They know what to do and how to do it. We trust them in these matters. That is why they are responsible for the how and, as the minister, I am responsible for the what and ultimately accountable to Parliament.
I can assure the member that if any of these issues do come up, he has the ability to ask me about them in the House or he can call me any time. I am accountable for that. 
The bill would enshrine that convention into law and would ensure that the operational know-how and the issues that my colleague raised around privacy and data collection would now be done by professionals, individuals who have the skills and the ability to do so in a proper manner.
Mr. David Lametti (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development on his speech and on the important bill he introduced. I also want to say how excited I am about working with him as his parliamentary secretary.
Why do we need good data? What in the context of good governance, what in the context of the current economic situation, necessitates this bill, necessitates the collection of accurate and reliable data?
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, I too look forward to working with the new parliamentary secretary of innovation, science, and economic development. He did a tremendous job as the parliamentary secretary for international trade. Her loss is my gain, and I look forward to working with him on these important matters.
With respect to the question he asked, why good quality data is important, it has such an important impact on the lives of Canadians. Good quality, reliable data will allow, for example, municipalities and our communities to plan better, particularly in my riding. For example, in Mississauga—Malton, and the surrounding regions, there has been an enormous change in demographics and population. To plan for schools and housing, those types of changes require good quality data so we can provide better services and outcomes to Canadians. 
That is why our government is so committed to advancing the strengthening of the professional independence of Statistics Canada. That is why our government reintroduced the mandatory long-form census to make sure we have good quality, reliable data. It is part of our government's overall economic agenda as well. Good quality, reliable data is essential for innovation, economic development, and developing our communities. That is why this data is so essential for today and for generations to come. 
The changes we are proposing are designed to end any type of political interference, because it is important that Canadians, frankly, have trust in their institutions. Statistics Canada is such an important institution, with a storied history when it comes to collecting data, producing that data in a very reliable manner, and that data has an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of Canadians. 
I would like to thank the member for the question and assure him that our government is committed to good quality, reliable data. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words the minister has put on the record. Perhaps he could he reflect on the civil service that has been administering the census over the years.
I think it is known virtually around the world how high the Canadian civil service is held in esteem for the fabulous work it does. As the minister pointed out, there are many different stakeholders out there. Non-profit and private groups and governments of all different levels are very dependent on Statistics Canada doing a good job. That is what it does, day in and day out. It is done that way because of a highly motivated, dedicated group of civil servants. 
Could the minister provide his thoughts in regard to the civil service and the role it plays with Statistics Canada? 
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the public service was obviously essential in the outreach we had designed in terms of being able to look at users and some of the concerns and issues they had. Not only did it help me put together this very important piece of legislation, but we also consulted 16 different departments that use this data. We asked what they use it for, what kind of quality assurances they are looking for, and what type of data are they looking for. That enables me to make decisions on what data we are trying to collect and what we need the information for, because it is very important to understand it from a user perspective. The role of the public service has been essential in this.
One other area I would like to highlight as well is, when we worked with the public service, in general, one of the changes we discussed in the bill was eliminating and removing prison time. That is very important as well because it was disproportionate to the offence. We have been very clear about that in the bill as well. We would still have the fines. 
I can assure the member that the public service played a critical role in developing this legislation, and it is also a user of good quality data. 
Diane Finley: 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, extraction, 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.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the idea of open and transparent government. We have taken that issue quite seriously. Since taking office, we have seen a national government here in Ottawa being just that: open and transparent. I would add that it is a government that has confidence in the public sector. It is a government that believes in the importance of statistical information for many different stakeholders, whether it is the different levels of government, the private sector, or the non-profits. Having statistical information is critical to making good policy decisions. This is something in which this government believes. The Harper government did not do that. It did not have the same confidence in the importance of the civil service or statistics. We saw that in the policy decisions that were made back then.
In order for governments and others to make good decisions, it is incredibly important that statistical information be there and be accurate. With this legislation we will see a more independent StatsCanada which will in fact enhance Canada's credibility in collecting statistics that are necessary to create good, sound policy decisions that will have a positive impact on Canada's middle class and all Canadians going into the future. Would the member not agree?
Diane Finley: 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.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, there has been consistency and inconsistency with the census over the last decade with all the changes that have taken place from the long form to the short form, and the Harper administration was very much a part of that. Now new legislation is being introduced. We are dealing now with a situation where we are asking public servants, many of whom were maligned in the past when it comes to how they were treated by the previous administration, to actually fix this and to go forward with further changes. 
It was the Harper regime that created the Phoenix pay system which is now a debacle under the Liberals. What does her party have to say about this situation where public servants, including the employees at StatsCanada, who worked for her and her colleagues to get legislation passed and get other things accomplished for their constituencies, are not being paid on a regular basis?
Diane Finley: 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.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Questions and comments. I want to remind hon. members that they have to be at their seat in order to be recognized to speak in the House. 
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by one of the responses the member made to my question. She implied that many Canadians were lying on their census forms because they were getting frustrated with the number of questions. To what degree does the member believe that was a problem, or was that purely speculation on her part? How did she become aware of that serious issue? If that is the case, has the member advanced her concerns to Statistics Canada?
Diane Finley: 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.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring the member's attention to a story that was in Maclean's in 2015, which talked about the small town of Melville in Saskatchewan, where fewer than 50% of the one-third of people in that town actually completed the voluntary census. As a result, it became a statistical ghost town. They knew how many people lived there, but not how many people were unemployed, who lived in poverty, who were immigrants, single, divorced, and so on.
The member talked about the fact that we need to have all this reliable data, but it was her government's actions that resulted in this town becoming a ghost town. We did not know anything about it. I appreciate the member's support of statistical reliability now, but I am just wondering how she meshes that with the previous government's actions that resulted in this actually happening.
Diane Finley: 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.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to talk about the Canadian census. There have been several debates on this issue over the last number of years, and Bill C-36 is the latest machination of that. 
Basically, the census is a particularly important piece of information gathering that is critical for our economic, social, and societal planning. It is important to note that information collecting through the census is important for not only its particular use but also for other surveys and other types of public opinion research that are done on a multitude of issues, where the census is used to backstop those types of surveys, whether on agriculture, economics, public housing, or transit. As well, the census is important for our democracy. The fact is that it helps generate the information necessary for everything from locations and geography of where and how people live to the distribution of seats here in the House of Commons, as well as ensuring that different population-analysis requirements are looked at; for example, on issues of urban transit planning more recently, but also the use of land in Canada.
There is no doubt that there are dozens upon dozens of Canadian professional associations that support a solid, robust census: one that remains independent, protects personal privacy, and can be valuable, as well patterned so we can look at historical changes in all of the areas I mentioned before.
The challenge we have had in the previous Harper administration, the current one now to some degree, and more importantly, the past Liberal regimes has been the inconsistencies and anomalies from playing politics with the census.
The first I would mention is the ideological drive by the Liberals to outsource public service jobs. That was essentially the first attack on the census, in the sense that we had one of the best-recognized information gathering and census distribution systems in the world. In fact, I participated in the year 2000 complete count as a city councillor, because the area that I represented often had a lot of people with different languages, some of them had not become Canadian citizens at that time, and others were not part of the community because of university and college during the full time of when the census was distributed and when it was returned. As well, we had the fact of absentee and other landlords who decided not to respond to the census. That was during the Chrétien regime, and there was an attempt in a number of small areas, ones that I represented as councillor, to improve that so we did not miss out on opportunities to improve the interaction and activity with government. Then the Right Hon. Herb Gray represented the riding, and it was a good indication and a good measure of working together with the city and with me as a councillor on how to improve the response rate, which was less than 50%.
All that connects to Bill C-36 and what has taken place since that time, because I come from a time when it was not politicized. We saw that when the Martin regime of the Liberals wanted to privatize the census, it disrupted the long-standing and secure foundation that was set up nearly two decades before that, with regard to its implementation. In fact, Canada was often touted as one of those places to examine for census improvement.
However, the outsourcing to a private arms manufacturing company that was doing other privatization measures across the globe created certain problems when it actually went to implement that. First was the intervention of the Patriot Act in the United States. The Patriot Act breached Canadian privacy regulations because under the Patriot Act, U.S. companies are not allowed to tell clients that they are actually giving their information to the federal government of the United States.
Therefore, when the attempt was made to outsouce this to Minneapolis, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a long battle that took place in this House of Commons, with us as New Democrats, to retain that information in Canada. In fact, the contract ended up having to be amended so that the information was retained here. 
Then we entered into the age of this outsourcing, which clearly became a problem for the many Canadians who were not supportive of it. However, we did not have the census in headlines until that time.
If we move forward to the next set of governments under the Harper administration, we quickly go through a number of different problems that emerged, the first and foremost being the move to a small census that was not mandatory. The challenge there and the outrage that we heard from a number of different scientific-based organizations, universities, and colleges with research capabilities was not only that the census information was at risk but that there was no doubt a break in the lineage that could be used to make further assessments and the continuity that was not there because we moved away from a long form stable census to that of a short-term short form one that certainly did not cut the mustard in any way, shape, or form. It became a controversy in the House of Commons for a number of years, eventually leading to the resignation of Munir Sheikh, who was the previous census chief executive officer. We have had other resignations since because there has been quite a connection between the political office and that of the census office.
I think that something of primary importance to Canadians is the recognition that we have—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Order please. Although it is nice to see everyone back from our break and wanting to speak, all of the excitement is causing me a little difficulty in hearing the person who is speaking. Therefore, I want to remind everyone that there is someone speaking, and if they are having a conversation, to take it outside or into the lobby unless they are whispering. 
The hon. member for Windsor West.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone will be enthralled by my speech and will remain in the House, hopefully, to participate in debate. 
It is important to note that, on the issue of the transition and politicalization, it was a challenge for our country, and it has been a loss. Here is where I would give the previous Liberals some credit. It was a co-campaign, as New Democrats and Liberals fought about some of these things. There were lots of shiny things thrown out there to follow. Most important is the one being addressed in Bill C-36, jail time. It was certainly one of those things that was seen as raw meat on the issue, thrown out by the Harper administration, quite embarrassingly, because we found that the facts did not basically matter in that debate. Bill C-36 would get rid of jailing individuals for non-completion and non-compliance with the census. 
When we think about all the court cases and issues that we are dealing with right now and the challenges, we see there are several issues that I will not get into but are highly complex. However, the reality is that we have a serious issue with them. Trying to send someone to jail for not filling out a census form is not the appropriate use of public enforcement or our court system, and in general, not an appropriate way to convince people that the census is a value added for them, their families, and our country. I support wholeheartedly the elimination of that distraction and shiny bauble that is thrown out from time to time. It really was quite an interesting situation. 
The problem we have with the census is still the independence issue, and we will see it at committee. One of the things I have raised at committee is the insinuation that there is a 92% response rate. I have not had a satisfactory response to the 92%, and we are still waiting for information on it. That would be helpful, coming from either the census or the minister's office. As I understand it right now with the system we have in place, essentially they could be counting full census applications, returns, or notes saying “no, I do not want to participate” stuffed in an envelope and sent back. We do not know the full extent, but at least there has been a high participation rate. 
One of the other things is an understanding of privacy and when the information is released. That is critical. There is going to be a release after 92 years, and there are rules with that. That may sound irrelevant upfront, but I know from speaking with a lot of the community that there are people who are worried about their privacy and the use of that information. Having confidence is very important, so the 92-year set example is critical for us to ensure that. This way, there is no distinguishable difference. People will understand that, if they want to change the 92 years, there has to be amendment to legislation, and if there is amendment to legislation it would require a process in the House of Commons, a separate bill that would have to go through the Senate as well. There would at least be some stability there and some protection. Even though it might sound trivial, there are a lot of people concerned about the 92 years. 
I mentioned that one of the troubling aspects we still have is around the concentration of power to the minister. It is diminished in the bill to some degree, but it would not separate it from Shared Services. It would accumulate and dominate any information sharing out there. We would like to see the preservation of the census independence. Shared Services Canada is one of the reasons Mr. Smith, the latest chief statistician, has decided to leave the position. Therefore, at committee we will be looking at an amendment or change to continue to improve that type of independence.
As New Democrats, we value the public service, not only in terms of saying that but also in delivering on that. It is the central backbone of how we actually do business and operations.
I have been at committee when we have had chief executive officers complain about not getting their subsidies, because they want this incentive from a program or this other tax break or this other measure in place. 
It is interesting. A lot who often complain that the government has to get out of the way are often the first to come and ask for something. In fact, I cannot remember a lobby situation by any business in my office or at committee that did not have a request attached to it. That is fine. That is fair, but they had also been actively lobbying about the elimination of the so-called fat in the public service, and they were complaining that they could not get stuff done, because there were not enough people. I question the fact that they had been champions of diminishing this group, and now that they could not get their paperwork done without assistance, their tactics were shameful.
This connects, very importantly, to the Phoenix situation we have right now. In this Liberal administration, there is disdain and a lack of concentration by a government that is more worried about where it goes, how it parties, and how it plans its next wave than about actually paying employees. There is no doubt that the Phoenix situation has gotten worse under the current administration, but there is a connection to the Conservatives. They cannot get out of that.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I just want to make sure everyone understands that there is a presentation being made. Someone is speaking in the House, and out of respect, if members do not mind, I would like to hear what that person has to say. If members want to have a conversation, either whisper or take it into the lobby. Thank you.
The hon. member for Windsor West.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive matter when we, as a government, do not pay our public servants for the work we are trying to have them do. I can appreciate that sensitivity on the other side of this debate. They have allowed the situation to fester. That is the reality. We are continually asking our public service to work on legislation like this, including Statistics Canada people, organizers, and workers who have not had their proper pay.
I notice some Liberals are laughing right now at this. They are making fun, probably, of it. I do not think it is fair that people who have to send their children off to school, make plans, and go into work every single day and who have signed a contract of agreement on remuneration are not being paid. 
Their continued laughter about this is sad. It is sad, because those are real lives. They are asking them to help contribute to the organizational structure and disbursement of income in Canada. The laughter is continuing. It will not distract me from the fact that Liberals are responsible for making sure that this situation has not improved. Is that the way they want to operate and conduct themselves, by laughing at public servants not being paid?
I just heard the word “bull” something. Apparently I do not even have the attention of the Speaker right now. I just heard foul language from a member of the Liberals over there, the word “bull”. I can finish it if you like, to get attention. I would be happy to do so.
The Speaker: I encourage all members to exercise restraint in the language they are using.
The member for Windsor West has the floor.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I do not care if foul language is used against me. I do not care if people are laughing at me on the other side when I talk about workers and their not getting paid. It will not bother me. It will not stop me from talking about these issues in the House of Commons. 
We should not have to do that in this place. It should not be the case, but I cannot even get the attention of the Speaker, as is the case right now.
I will just continue, basically, because the microphone is on, to talk about other things until we actually get a resolution to the sad state of affairs in this House right now, which I have never seen in, basically, the 15 years I have been here. 
The fact of the matter is that when “bull s” is said to me on a regular basis, and we have continued laughter from the Liberals about me, infringing on my privilege and my time to discuss something very important, and we have no intervention of seriousness from you, it is a disgrace to democracy.
In fact, I think that the tapes of this should be used and should be looked at, and the conduct, on a regular basis, because I can barely speak in this manner. I have been totally using my time for the last five—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West will take his seat for a moment. 
The member referred to a comment from the other side, but he did not indicate who allegedly made this comment. I did not hear the comment. We can review Hansard for this or the blues. I certainly did not hear it. I call upon members very seriously to restrain themselves in their comments. 
We have come to the time to move on to the next item.
It being 1:15 p.m., according to an order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to Statements by Ministers. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

Routine Proceedings
Shooting in Quebec CityRight Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was with shock and sadness that Canadians heard about the devastating terrorist act that happened last night in Quebec City. 
According to official reports, six people worshipping at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec have lost their lives, with many others seriously injured. These people were targeted for practising their faith. This was a terrorist attack. It was an attack on our most intrinsic and cherished values as Canadians: values of openness, diversity, and freedom of religion.
Our hearts go out to the victims. These people were our fellow citizens, ordinary Canadians. They were brothers, uncles, fathers, and friends. These were people of faith and of community. In the blink of an eye, they were robbed of their lives in an act of brutal violence. I know that there is a deeply personal connection between the community and their member of Parliament. The member for Louis-Hébert knows them well and has joined them at the centre many times. He is with them as we speak.
I want to remind each and every one of my 337 colleagues that we are all leaders in our communities. It is at times like these that our communities need our leadership the most. It is at times like these that we must live up to the honour that we have been given to sit in this House and represent Canadians. We need to reach out to our friends and neighbours; we need to bring our communities together; and we need to be there for the people we represent. They need us.
I want to say to those who were injured, the victims' families, the people of Quebec, and all Canadians that we will get to the bottom of this. Such an act of violence has no place in Canadian society.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the first responders and thank local police, municipal authorities, and the Government of Quebec. I want to assure all Canadians that we will work very closely together over the next few days.
I would also like to thank the many political and religious leaders from around the world who have reached to us out since last night's events. Their thoughts and condolences have been greatly appreciated.
Canada has long been a diverse and accepting nation. We are kind, we are generous, and we embrace one another not in spite of our differences but because of them.
It is in tragic moments like this that we must come together in order to move forward. Canadians will not be broken by this violence. Our sense of spirit and our sense of unity will only strengthen.
The people who commit these acts mean to test our resolve and weaken our values. They aim to divide us, to sow discord and plant hatred. We will not close our minds. We will open our hearts. 
Mr. Speaker, my friends, my fellow Canadians, let us strive to be the best version of ourselves in these dark hours.
To the more than one million Canadians who profess the Muslim faith, I want to say directly, we are with you; 36 million hearts are breaking with yours. Know that we value you. You enrich our shared country in immeasurable ways. It is your home.
Last night's horrible crime against the Muslim community was an act of terror committed against Canada and all Canadians. We will grieve with you, we will defend you, we will love you, and we will stand with you. Over the coming days, let us take solace in one another. We will mourn this devastating attack and we will heal together as one community, as one country, and as one family.
Canadians will not be intimidated. We will not meet violence with more violence. We will meet fear and hatred with love and compassion, always.
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak today.
Although debates in the House can often get heated, I know that today we are all united in our grief for the victims of yesterday's heinous attack. Our caucus was gathered in Quebec City just last week. Quebec Winter Carnival was beginning just as our meetings were wrapping up. 
This is supposed to be a fun time of year, when some of the coldest nights of the year become so warm and inviting.
Quebec City is warm and welcoming, and one of the safest cities in Canada, a point of pride for those who live there. It was the city of the victims of yesterday evening's attack. It is a terrible shock to the region. 
On behalf of the official opposition, I extend my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to the families of those who were killed in cold blood yesterday evening at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec. 
Once again, the House is memorializing innocent people killed by cowardly attackers. We are offering our thoughts and prayers to families in Quebec City who today are mourning their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons, innocent people who merely went to pray and will not be coming home. This terrorist attack strikes at the very heart of one of the freedoms we cherish as Canadians: the right to practise one's faith, to worship without fear. It is the freedom to worship as people choose, with their fellow believers as a community, in safety and security. 
We have profoundly defended that right for people around the world, but it is most meaningful to us in Canada. An attack against a place of worship, against people praying in a mosque, is an attack on these very freedoms. It negates the principles on which Canada was founded. 
In the House we have our differences on many issues that are important to Canadians, but I know that every member of every caucus believes in the great Canadian tradition of pluralism, this peaceful coexistence of people of faith and different beliefs under the banner of Canadian citizenship.
That peace was broken yesterday evening in Sainte-Foy. This is not the first time this has happened in Canada, a country that enjoys relative peace in many ways.
Yet we must never be blind that such terrible motivations as hatred or ignorance persist. We cannot stand for it and we must be ready to meet it. This attack offers another sad reminder that our country is not immune to terrorism and demonstrates that we must always be vigilant against this threat.
Today, we are incredibly grateful for those who stand vigilant on our behalf, including the police and first responders, as well as the Canadian Forces and our intelligence agencies. We appreciate their swift response last night.
Later today, I will be joining the Prime Minister in Quebec City. I want to thank him for this opportunity to show all Canadians that we are united in our support for the victims and their loved ones. We will keep the victims of this crime and their families in our thoughts and prayers.
Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as-salaam alaikum.
Yesterday evening's terrorist attack on the Centre culturel islamique de Québec has shaken our country. Families are mourning the loss of their loved ones and praying for those who are injured and fighting for their lives.
To all our Muslim brothers and sisters, we mourn with you and we pray for you. We promise that we will stand united and fight against hatred, bigotry, Islamophobia, and against those who peddle the politics of fear and division.
Today, people feel unsafe in their place of worship. Many feel unsafe in their communities.
That is just not something we can accept. This is not the Canada we believe in. It is not the type of society we want to live in. Canada is a country of diversity, peace, and inclusion. We cannot and we will not tolerate hate and violence.
Today our hearts are broken, but with love and hope, we come together with the shared belief that we will overcome.
Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, death came to a place of worship, armed with guns and hate to spread terror and despair.
Yesterday, six Quebeckers were murdered because of their beliefs. Five others are still in the hospital in critical condition for the same reason. Our hearts go out to them. 
An unhealthy climate has taken hold in our society and across the western world. The Quebec City attack is the latest example of a climate of distrust and intolerance.
There is not enough love. That is clear from all of the information we are bombarded with on the news, in the newspapers, on the radio, and on social media about Syria, the ongoing attacks around the world, the calls for hatred, the abandoning of refugees for small political gains, radicalization, and the rejection of differences. There is not enough love.
We were all horrified by the Quebec City attack and we do not understand it. We do not understand this violence and barbarism. We do not understand how anyone could pull the trigger and kill people who are praying, people who talk and think differently. We strongly oppose, denounce, and condemn this violence that makes us feel sad, hopeless, angry, and ashamed. However, it is not something that we will ever understand or even begin to comprehend.
How could anyone do such a thing? It makes no sense. Such a thing should not be. This must stop. We are in desperate need of love and solidarity.
Yes, we stand with our fellow citizens in the Muslim community. We stand with families and friends who lost a loved one yesterday for no good reason. Our hearts go out to the children and spouses of the victims of this senseless, cowardly massacre.
We stand with all those who mourn the senseless loss of the Quebec City shooting victims. We stand with all those who are ashamed of what happened at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec, ashamed that it happened in our country, ashamed that January 29, 2017, will forever be a black day in our history. 
We stand with all Quebeckers affected by this incident, with everyone around the world who is stunned by what happened yesterday. We mourn with them. We will also stand together to find solutions. This must stop.
Today we mourn the deaths of Muslim Quebeckers. Now is the time for tears, for solidarity, for love. Tomorrow, we will reflect and find solutions. Canadians can count on us.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, as-salaam alaikum; peace be upon Canadians.
It is a great honour to speak to my colleagues today. I second everything that my colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, said. It is clear that all members of Parliament are united. I share their feelings and wish to express my condolences.
At the same time, when we know we have no words, and my colleague, the leader of the Bloc, said it best, we do not understand. This is Canada. This is Quebec City. This is a mosque where innocents gathered to worship. We know that much, but we cannot understand it because it is so out of order. It does not belong in Canada. It feels as if it could not possibly have happened, and yet it did.
We will pray. We will work. We will reject intolerance and hatred. We will say, as our Prime Minister has said, to every Muslim member of the Canadian family, that today we are all Muslims. We stand with you. We will never let there be daylight between a Christian, a Jew, a Sikh, an atheist, and a Muslim in our country.
We are Canadians, and we stand together in love.
The Speaker: There have been discussions among representatives of all the parties in the House, and I understand that there is consent to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the attack at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec. I invite hon. members to rise.
[A moment of silence observed]

Government Orders
Statistics ActThe Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 23 minutes.
The hon. member for Windsor West has two and a half minutes remaining in his speech on debate.
I would ask members to keep very quiet. 
The hon. member for Windsor West.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I come from Windsor West, an area which has a significant Muslim population as well as a significant connection with our American cousins on the U.S. side, friends, families and neighbours. With the presidential ban and this heinous act, the last 48 hours have been very difficult. It is important for us at this time to at least have this House carry voices in a way that we can actually talk. I do not believe that has been my experience here this morning. It is sad that I have had to fight to have my say in this chamber. I hope other members at some point reflect on what has taken place this morning.
I will conclude with that, because I have fought long and hard many times to be in this chamber, and to have people swear at me and laugh I do not think is appropriate in this place.
The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the attempt by the hon. member for Windsor West to call upon members to be attentive, to listen to other members and show their respect. On a day like today in particular, we ought to be mindful of our duties and of the need to be respectful of each other, as we must be respectful of this place.
Questions and comments, the hon. member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, one of the provisions in Bill C-36 is it is replacing one existing review or advisory committee with another. It is not clear to me at first glance what the purpose is of moving from an existing oversight committee to a new committee. 
I wonder if the member has reflected on that particular provision of the bill, and if he has any thoughts on why the government might be making this particular change.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an interesting one, one which was brought up by his critic. It relates to the fact that we are going from a 13 member council to a 10 member council, which makes it difficult if we want some regional representation. It is something in the bill that needs to be examined. 
There are also questions regarding the council's relationship with the chief statistician, and how they relate to the minister. Once again, we have to make sure there is as much independence as possible. 
The member brings forward a very valid point that will be part of the debate at committee. I look forward to amendments, because there is an argument to be made for the regional aspect that could be accommodated by 13 members as opposed to 10 members.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if I may at the beginning, I would just acknowledge and share many of the thoughts that were expressed by the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, and others in regard to their thoughtful expressions of love and caring for what has taken place. I would just express my best wishes and condolences on what is a very tragic moment that has taken place in Canada.
Having said that, I listened thoroughly to what the member was commenting on prior to the interruption that took place. I listened attentively, and I would assure the member that as a government, we talk a great deal about the importance of the public service. We recognize the hardships that have been caused with respect to the Phoenix pay system. The member had a great deal of interest in the Phoenix system. I would just let the civil servants know that this is a government that is very much listening and doing what we can to try to fix a problem that was handed down to us with the transition into the Phoenix process.
My question for the member is with respect to the legislation before us. I would ask the member to reflect on the positives of the legislation which would enable a more independent thinking Stats Canada. At the end of the day when we look at the importance of statistical information for good solid, sound policy decisions at the national, provincial, or municipal government levels, school divisions, non-profits, and even the private sector, this bill is indeed a step forward. Therefore, it is highly recommended that this particular piece of legislation be passed. Would the member not agree?
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, the member is not in the section where the foul language was coming from, so I appreciate his noting that he actually listened to me. I appreciate the fact that the member has recognized the importance of the census. We are supporting the bill to go to committee and we have no will to hold up any changes that could actually be very important for timing of how to improve things for the next census, given the extreme amount of work that needs to be done before then.
As far as Phoenix goes, we still assert that the Liberal government has not resolved enough of the problems to fix Phoenix. It is as simple as that. At the end of the day, there are people who are not being paid. These people have families. Some people have been overpaid, have been underpaid, have had clawbacks and a series of different problems. I agree with the member that the Liberals inherited it from the previous administration. The Conservatives argued that they did not, but the member is correct.
As far as this bill goes, it is critical, as the member has noted. It does go down to municipalities. It does go down to planning. It does affect social services for children. It affects the provinces in how they actually deliver the different types of program funding. All of those things are part of a robust census that we need to de-partisan. When it comes to the independence of the minster versus that of the chief statistician, we will be looking for amendments to make sure we have that validity stamped out, because a previous chief statistician basically quit because of that relationship and the problems related to Service Canada.
Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments that have been made by our Prime Minister, the hon. leader of the official opposition, and all of the party leaders. What a sad day it is. I woke up this morning and heard of the shootings in Quebec City. Our national caucus was just there over the weekend. Words cannot express enough our heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of the victims.
At first glance, Bill C-36 carries a few concerns. The government would like to centralize the role that Statistics Canada has and take away the role of three provinces and the territorial governments as well. I fail to see the necessity of that.
We are constantly hearing about cyber-attacks in which Canadians' private information has been given away by a third party for nefarious reasons. We are concerned about this. With Bill C-36, under the authority of the chief statistician, Canadians' information could be moved to a third party without Canadians consenting to have their information shared with anyone. Canadians' privacy should be paramount. Canadians should have a say as to whether their information is to be shared or not. They should also know where that information is going to be stored. Bill C-36 would allow the chief statistician to move this information to a third party, which in today's world of cyber-attacks would end up who knows where. I shudder to think about it.
I wonder if our hon. colleague from Windsor West has the same concerns regarding privacy and housing the information of everyday Canadians with a third party that to this day has not been vetted.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for expressing his concerns with the tragedy and the acts that took place over the last 24 hours. We all have concerns about this. 
With regard to this legislation, there is a good example that we could continue with—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Is the hon. member raising a point of order?
Brian Masse: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there has been so much discourse during my speech that I would ask you to review the tapes to find out the exact level of discourse. I do know it came from across the aisle and members were in the House. The tape will decide who used foul language. There were two occasions when I was trying to talk and there was an extraordinary amount of laughing and cat-calling going on. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to review that. I would also ask you to review the most recent case, which was the extended conversation that continued to go on. Some discourse is going to happen in the House of Commons, but clearly, I have never witnessed it to this extent. 
I would also ask that the tapes be reviewed to see the Speaker's interaction with respect to how much time these conversations went on for and the fact that I would continue speaking and there was no acknowledgement; hence I had to basically take it upon myself to pause to get some kind of attention. That would be my point of order. 
I feel that my parliamentary privilege has been affected by the conduct and behaviour in the House today. My capability to articulate my thoughts with respect to this particular bill has been diminished. As a dean of the NDP caucus and someone who has been here through several different party machinations, I am quite perplexed and saddened that I have to intervene in such a way.
I would like to answer my hon. colleague's question briefly because he did bring up some good points and I hope that I can do so without being—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): I will deal with the point of order first before we go back to answering the question. I believe that when the hon. member was speaking, both myself, as Speaker, and the Speaker who was in the chair prior to me tried to rein people in. We made those efforts, but we will take it under advisement and come back to the House should we have anything to report. 
Now I will allow the hon. member for Windsor West to continue with his response.
Brian Masse: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, there is a good example to look at. Back in 2003, the issue of the outsourcing of the census to Lockheed Martin was raised by Bill Blaikie. That continued until 2004, when a final contract was actually awarded to Lockheed Martin, which provided the census. The data and so forth, as the member is concerned about breaches in security, fell to a third party. 
I asked the minister a question previously about concerns regarding third-party ownership of data. I look forward to the hon. member raising that important issue in committee.
Mr. Geng Tan (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. 
As we know, the bill aims to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence. To achieve this, the bill introduces three key legislative amendments. The first would assign authorities for decisions on statistical matters and operations directly to the chief statistician. This amendment would ensure decisions of a technical statistical nature would be based strictly on professional considerations.
The second key amendment would change the appointment of the chief statistician from one of “at the pleasure” to one of “during good behaviour” for a term of five years, with the possibility of reappointment. This would protect the chief statistician from being potentially dismissed for unfair and unjust reasons.
The third key amendment, which I would like to spend a bit more time on today, is the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council to replace the existing National Statistics Council. This new council would be created to increase transparency and ensure that Canada's statistical system would continue to meet the needs of Canadians. 
The National Statistics Council has been a useful consultative body. Established in 1985, it is a non-legislated consultative body, with a mandate to advise the chief statistician in setting priorities and rationalizing Statistics Canada programs. It currently consists of 35 to 40 experts who serve in the public interest without pay. This council has made important contributions to the work of Statistics Canada, including helping to revise and update the Statistics Act. However, its mandate, structure, and composition have not evolved to match the changing nature and demands of the statistical system under Statistics Canada. 
I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Winnipeg North.
The new council's mandate would be to advise both the minister and the chief statistician on any matters either of them may refer to it. Its focus would be on the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of data it produces.
Unlike the current council's work, which is not in legislation or mandated to be done transparently, Bill C-36 introduces the requirements that the new council's work be done in a transparent manner. It also requires that the council make public an annual report on the state of the national statistics system.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member for Don Valley North will have six minutes and 30 seconds when he resumes after question period.

Statements By Members
Shooting in Quebec CityMr. Michel Boudrias (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, obscurantism no longer recognizes any borders, and last night, it struck us here at home.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I unreservedly condemn the terrorist acts that have plunged Quebec City and the rest of Quebec into grief. We are all devastated by the realization that human beings are capable of such cowardice and brutality.
On behalf of the Bloc, I offer our deepest condolences and unwavering support to the families of the victims and the entire Muslim community in Quebec.
We also want to recognize the exceptional work of law enforcement officials, the SPVQ, the SPVM, the Sûreté du Québec, and the RCMP, as well as the hospital staff who cared for the injured and continue to treat them today.
We stand in solidarity with all Quebeckers of Muslim faith. We stand in solidarity with all Quebeckers.
Let us stand up together here today and send a very clear message that intolerance has no place here, and it never will.
Marcel Prud'hommeHon. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Honourable Marcel Prud'homme, an MP and senator who passed away a few days ago at the age of 82. 
Marcel was here within these walls for 45 years, 29 as a member of Parliament and 16 as a senator. Marcel was known throughout his career as a straight talker on matters of foreign affairs and as a defender of difficult causes, including the Palestinian cause.
Marcel, you gave true meaning to freedom of expression, one of our fundamental values. Marcel, thank you very much for being an important player dealing with nations that were not necessarily natural allies at the time. Thank you for moving our country forward over the years, Marcel. We will never forget the friendship we shared over the years. Keep building bridges on behalf of Canada wherever you are up there, Marcel.
Interprovincial TradeMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all I wanted for Christmas was to bring back some fantastic craft beer from my home province of Alberta to Ottawa without breaking the law. However, government interference on interprovincial trade has weakened the Canadian economy and impeded consumer choice. A Senate study states barriers to internal trade costs the Canadian economy nearly $150 billion. 
In a new and uncertain world, freer trade among the provinces and territories will grow our economy. However, an agreement with dozens of exemptions, like beer, wine, and cheese, is not free trade. The Conservatives want to see a full free trade deal benefiting all Canadian industries, not just a select few.
Before endorsing a fake free trade agreement with the provinces, the Liberals must ask the Supreme Court for clarification on section 121 of the Constitution, which states that free trade is a constitutional right for all Canadians.
It is time to free the beer. It is time to free the Canadian economy.
Linda VatcherMs. Gudie Hutchings (Long Range Mountains, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the holidays, communities and families in my riding were devastated to learn that Linda Vatcher was the Canadian who had been killed in the terrorist attack in Jordan, which claimed 10 lives and injured several, including her son. Linda had been on holidays visiting her son.
It became clear as the news of this cowardly attack and terrible tragedy spread just how many people Linda had touched throughout her life, especially in the communities of Burgeo and Corner Brook. Linda was a selfless, loving woman with a kind and big heart. Many have told stories of Linda's compassion and determination to help others.
For example, as an elementary school teacher, she often reached into her own pocket to ensure each student received a book at the book fair. As an avid volunteer, she worked tirelessly to help organizations, like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Salvation Army Food Bank.
Linda had recently initiated a program of Women helping Women to further help those in need. The day she left for her holiday, she dropped off a donation for the Christmas programs and said that she would be back to help as soon as she returned. 
It is clear that Linda made the lives of everyone she met better.
Larry CostelloBrian Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honour my friend and hero, Larry Costello. Larry, a veteran of the Canadian Navy, passed away at the age 92.
Larry was a decorated veteran and respected soldier of the Canadian Navy. He served for 25 years with distinction and fought bravely in the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest engagement of World War II. 
His storied military career is only equalled by the fight he chose to take on in his post-active service life as a tireless and determined advocate for veterans. Whether it was helping a specific group, or organization, or veteran, he was always up for the cause and served as a warrior, advocate, and champion. He executed his duty with grace and dignity. 
I want to extend my deepest condolences to Goldie and the Costello family, as well as friends, and the community. 
Life was exceptional with Larry. We have him as a role model. We thank him and his family for that.
Andrew TelegdiMr. Bryan May (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a sad heart that I rise to pay my final respects. The hon. Andrew Peter Telegdi passed away a week ago, on January 23.
He served this House from 1993 to 2008 as MP for Kitchener—Waterloo, parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration, parliamentary secretary to the minister of indigenous affairs, and chair of the citizenship committee.
His life was one of service. He served as a city and regional councillor, founded the non-profit organization Youth in Conflict with the Law, and sat on several boards.
It is my solemn duty to rise to offer my thoughts and prayers to Nancy and Erin, and to dedicate our actions to his ideals: building Canada, strengthening our communities, and providing a voice for the voiceless. 
Many will remember him from his time in this House as a great member of Parliament. I and many of us here will remember him as a friend and mentor. Andrew, on behalf of Canada, thanks.
Public SafetyMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Bill S-217, Wynn's law, sponsored by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton will soon be up for final debate in this House.
Tragically, in January 2015, RCMP Constable David Wynn was killed and Auxiliary Constable Derek Bond was severely wounded by a career criminal who had been let out on bail because the prosecution did not disclose his criminal history to the judge. Bill S-217 would ensure that judges have the relevant facts about the accused before granting bail.
As members of Parliament, we have a moral duty to our men and women in uniform and to the communities we serve to make sure our Criminal Code adequately ensures justice is served. I urge all members of this House to join together in passing this much-needed legislation.
Member for Kildonan—St. PaulHon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Kildonan—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank all Canadians.
Since November 2015, I have had the honour of serving Canadians as minister of employment, workforce development, and labour. It was my pleasure to work with the dedicated public servants in ESDC and, together, we made history over the last year and half. 
I am proud to sponsor pay equity for the federally regulated sector, sign Canada's ban on child labour, improve funding and job training for indigenous people, help secure a settlement for Canada Post, and make education and training more accessible for Canadians. 
I am excited to focus my energy on working for the people of Kildonan—St. Paul. It is an honour to serve them here in Ottawa.
Tamil Heritage MonthMr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all this month, Canadians have been celebrating Tamil Heritage Month from coast to coast to coast.
At the University of Toronto Scarborough campus, Tamil Heritage Month was marked by a $2-million endowment to the Tamil Worlds Initiative by Dr. Ravi Gukathasan of Digital Specialty Chemicals. This generous gift will allow the university to expand Tamil studies, including digital archiving, scholarships, and a post-doctoral fellowship.
Dr. Gukathasan came to Canada at the age of 18 with his parents from Jaffna, Sri Lanka. In 1986, he obtained a Ph.D. in chemistry from UTSC and established Digital Specialty Chemicals, one of the top enterprises in Scarborough, currently employing 21 Ph.D.s.
What a way to mark Canada's 150th birthday and the first pan-Canadian Tamil Heritage Month celebrations, by enshrining the study of the Tamil language, culture, and people at one of Canada's top universities. I am proud to welcome to Ottawa Dr. Ravi Gukathasan and Dr. Bruce Kidd, principal of UTSC.
Shooting in Quebec CityHon. Tony Clement (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the rest of my colleagues in this place to express my deep sorrow at the horrific terrorist attack that took place yesterday evening in Quebec City, Sainte-Foy, and offer my sincere condolences and prayers to the families who have had loved ones lost so senselessly. To those still fighting for their lives, we offer our prayers for strength. 
In my role as public safety critic for the official opposition, I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank my hon. friend the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for briefing me this morning on the situation as it was unfolding.
As we condemn this act of violence and terrorism, we also reach out with compassion to the Muslim community of Quebec City and all of Canada. Places of worship and freedom of religion are sacred to Canadians, and we must stand against all those who oppose these enshrined values. Acts of evil know no bounds, and at times like this our collective understanding, grief, deepest sympathy, and a call for justice must also know no bounds.
We must stand together, and we will stand together. We will find those responsible for the murders. They should be held to the fullest account.
RacismMr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this past Friday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a sombre anniversary when we remember the murder of more than six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War. It is also a day when we recognize and remember the indomitable spirit of those who survived this evil, and the thousands of Holocaust survivors who built new lives for themselves and their families in my riding of York Centre and across Canada. Their enduring legacy of courage and triumph of spirit must continue to inspire us to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of systemic racism in our communities and around the world. 
We must ensure that we never forget our obligation to stand up and speak out against hatred and prejudice, wherever it rears its ugly head, as it did so tragically last night in Quebec City. We must all stand together in condemnation of this heinous act of terror and in support of the Muslim Canadian community.
Spring FestivalGeng Tan: Mr. Speaker, I believe many parliamentarians have been participating in Spring Festival celebrations in ridings across Canada with their families and friends. It is the most important celebration of the year for many Asian Canadians. That is thanks to the passage of my Spring Festival motion last June. The Government of Canada now proclaims the first day of every Lunar Year as the beginning of the 15-day Spring Festival. 
To celebrate the Spring Festival on the Hill, the Canada-China Legislative Association is hosting a reception tomorrow, Tuesday, January 31, at 4:00 p.m. in room 160-S in Centre Block. It is my pleasure to invite all my colleagues to attend.
Happy Chinese New Year.
Shooting in Quebec CityMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night, six Canadians brought together by their faith were victims of the worst act of human cowardice.
Today, our thoughts are with the victims' friends and families, the orphaned children, the widows, the friends they will never see again. Criminals stole their lives. Our thoughts are also with police personnel, who acted so quickly, and Quebec's medical practitioners, who continue their efforts to save the lives of survivors as we speak. 
Terrorism knows no religion, no race, no nationality, no age. Terrorism is the embodiment of cowardice, ugliness, and weakness. 
As we read in the Quran, the taking of an innocent life is the taking of all mankind. This is why I want to express my deepest sorrow to the Muslim community.
[Member spoke in Arabic]
What I wanted to say is that we will respond to hate with solidarity, unity, and support. Today we are all Quebec City Muslims.
Mr. Arif Virani (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as-salaam alaikum. For Muslims, the greeting means “peace be unto you”. That peace was shattered yesterday in Sainte-Foy. A shooting at Le Centre culturel islamique de Québec took the lives of several of our fellow citizens. This was not simply an attack on Muslim worshippers; it was an attack on the values that all Canadians hold dear: that our diversity is our strength; that by not only tolerating but by celebrating different faiths, we are stronger as a people.
We are in shock after these tragic events, and we condemn in the strongest terms this terrorist attack against Canadians who were in a place of worship and sanctuary.
Our deepest condolences go to the families and friends of those who died, and we wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
I say to Muslim Canadians that we stand in solidarity with them against intolerance.
  Wa-alaikum-salaam , which means, “and unto you be peace”. That is the commitment we make today to Canadians, that in this country all persons can worship in peace and safety. 
MulticulturalismMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a rich and diverse country, with a vibrant multicultural mosaic that reflects the faces of the world, and nothing brings cultured communities together better than love, compassion, and respect for each other.
Chinese community leaders organized the 44th annual Lunar New Year parade yesterday, with tens of thousands of people from all walks of life taking part in celebration of the Year of the Rooster. The streets in Vancouver's Chinatown were an incredible array of colourful lions, spirited dancers, dragons, marching bands, troops, and aboriginal drummers. The centuries-old cultural tradition was not just celebrated in Vancouver, but indeed it was celebrated across the country in communities big and small. 
As we celebrate our nation's 150th birthday as well, let us also celebrate the contributions and strengths of the multicultural communities.
[Member spoke in Cantonese]
[English] 
Happy Lunar New Year to everyone and to all Canadians.
Shooting in Quebec CityMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my democracy is suffering. I have been deeply affected and hurt by the attack on the Centre culturel islamique de Québec yesterday evening.
Unfortunately, the very heart of Canada's unique and highly valued multiculturalism has come under attack. Our acceptance of diversity is what makes Canada such a great place to live, but now intolerance is creeping in. 
As we once again witness a wave of anger and hatred toward Muslims, I hope that we will emerge from this tragedy stronger and more united than ever.
To Canadians of the Muslim faith, particularly those in Quebec, please know that our hearts are united with yours, regardless of religious belief.
I want to extend my deepest condolences to the victims' families and loved ones.
Mr. Rémi Massé (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, terror struck at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec in Sainte-Foy last night.
The Muslim community's place of worship, a sanctuary and meeting place, was the scene of a shooting that took several people's lives and injured many. Lives were lost and families wrenched apart.
We strongly condemn this horrible crime. Our thoughts are with the victims, their families, their loved ones, the Muslim community, and everyone affected by this terrible tragedy. 
As we come to terms with this senseless act, let us remember that we are all Canadians. Let us remember that we are united and strengthened by diversity no matter where we come from, the colour of our skin, or our religion. Canadian Muslims are woven into the fabric of our nation. Terrible acts like what happened yesterday have no place in our communities, our cities, or our country. 
Today, more than ever, it is our duty to demonstrate openness and tolerance to all of our fellow citizens.

Oral Questions
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked by the terrorist act that was committed in a Quebec City mosque last night. 
We offer our sincere condolences to the families of the victims and wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured. All Canadians are free to practise their religion as they wish, and they should feel safe doing so. Those who perpetrated these horrendous acts must be brought to justice.
Can the Prime Minister provide an update on the investigation as well as the federal government's response?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question and for her leadership, just as I thank all members of the House for their leadership in these difficult times.
We stand united with the Muslim community, the people of Quebec, and all Canadians who might be feeling scared or anxious right now. We are working closely with all levels of government.
I have spoken with Premier Couillard, Mayor Labeaume, and many people who are working very hard to clarify the situation and figure out how this happened. The investigation is ongoing, but it is important for Canadians to know that we must stick together in the days, weeks, and months to come. We know that diversity is our strength. Our Muslim brothers and sisters are important to all Canadians.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipRona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, last year the House unanimously voted to recognize that violence perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidi people constitutes genocide and committed to providing asylum to women and girls from this persecuted minority within 120 days. Time is almost up and the U.S. travel ban on refugees from the region has made this rescue operation all the more critical.
Could the Prime Minister update the House on how many Yazidi women and children have made it safely to Canada?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Immigration  is working very hard on this file. We know that the end of February deadline is rapidly approaching and the solidarity shown by all members of the House standing with the vulnerable Yazidi people and wanting to do more here in Canada is something we take very seriously, which is why we are working very hard on this issue and look forward to having positive things to announce in the coming weeks.
EmploymentRona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, a lot has changed for Canada in the last few months. The new U.S. administration is lowering taxes and cutting regulations with the promise to bring back jobs to America. Canadians are worried this means their jobs might be heading south. When is the Prime Minister going to get serious and present a plan to protect our workers and their families?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the focus of this government is on growing the middle class and supporting those who are working hard to join the middle class. That means good jobs for Canadians which is why we recognize that building a strong economy and protecting the environment need to go hand in hand, which is why we have approved pipelines at the same time as we are making innovative measures toward lowering our emissions and creating the clean, green jobs of the future. We are investing in training for workers. We are investing in post-secondary education and research facilities. We know that we need to be smart about our investments to create the good jobs of the future and that is the primary focus of this government.
EthicsRona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Act is clear about the Prime Minister accepting travel on private aircraft. It says, “No minister of the Crown...shall accept travel on...private aircraft for any purpose unless required in his or her capacity as a public office holder, or in exceptional circumstances or with the prior approval of the Commissioner.”
We know the Prime Minister violated the act in this context. My question is simple: Why does the Prime Minister think that the rules do not apply to people like him? 
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, my office is working very closely with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to resolve all these questions.
Rona Ambrose: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the Ethics Commissioner has launched a formal investigation into the behaviour of a prime minister. This is not good for the country, especially when Canadians need their prime minister focused on jobs. They need him focused on his job and jobs for Canadians, not distracted by ethics investigations. 
How can Canadians have confidence the Prime Minister is focused on their interests when he is spending all of his time defending his own?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to get out across the country to 10 different town halls where I heard directly from Canadians who, yes, are very worried about their jobs, are very worried about the future we are building together. That is why I was able to highlight the significant investments we are making in Canadians' future, defending Canadian jobs, building the jobs of tomorrow, working with Canadians to ensure that we have the skills to take on the challenges and the opportunities that are coming at us in the coming years. That is the focus of this government. That is what we will remain focused on.
Shooting in Quebec CityThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening in Quebec City, several members of the Muslim community were murdered while at prayer in the Great Mosque. We offer our condolences, prayers, and love to the victims' families and loved ones.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do to keep religious institutions across Canada safe?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the authorities and communities are keeping a close watch on religious institutions of all denominations.
Meanwhile, we know that the best way to defend Canadians is to have a united and compassionate society where all members listen to, care about, help, and are there for one another. 
We are going to remain vigilant and stress the fact that we are strong, not in spite of our differences but because of them. We will always work together to defend one another.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the loss and suffering in Quebec City is being felt across the country and, indeed, throughout the world. The mosque in question had been the target of hateful acts in the past. The victims were murdered last night in the middle of prayer.
Will the Prime Minister commit to immediate support for the affected families and will he also commit to greater dialogue with concerned religious and faith groups across the country?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course, over the past hours, and indeed over the past months and years, all Canadians, all parliamentarians, not just of our party, have been very much engaged with faith leaders in their communities, as MPs, as community leaders. We are very aware of the pressures of intolerance that exist within our country and around the world. We know that opening dialogue, fostering understanding, reducing ignorance, and combatting fear and division with unity and messages of positivity and hope are the kinds of things that we need to do a lot more of. I look forward to working with the member opposite and all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Outremont.
Foreign AffairsThomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the American president has implemented a ban on all individuals from a number of Muslim countries. There have been no justifications offered, but we all know that there can be no justification for this.
Does the Prime Minister agree that this targeting of people based on their religion or place of birth is an affront to our shared values as Canadians and supporters of human rights across the world?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will always stand to defend the Canadian values of openness and diversity that we cherish so much, that we understand are essential, not just to our success in the past, but to our success in the future. We are a strong, united people, who are generous and open because we have seen how much openness to the world and diversity not only make us more prosperous, but more safe as a country and as communities.
I will continue to stand for Canadian values any chance I get, in this House and elsewhere.
Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, we were proud to see the Government of Canada take measures to offer temporary residency permits to those stranded by the United States' recently announced Muslim ban. However, the government must now commit to taking the next step.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do to provide ongoing assistance to the thousands of refugees who are now banned from the United States?
Justin Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again say how proud I am of the Canadians, communities, municipalities, and provinces who have told me that they are prepared to do more and that we need to be even more open and provide more aid.
I asked the Minister of Immigration to look at the different ways we can help these people. I look forward to discussing with all members of the House how we can once again show the rest of the world that being open, generous, and compassionate is good for us, our economy, and our security.
Democratic ReformHon. Denis Lebel (Lac-Saint-Jean, CPC): Mr. Speaker, instead of following the laws on party financing, the Prime Minister has decided to change the law because the optics will be better. However, that is not the case. The law does the job, but it must be obeyed.
Will the Prime Minister promise to work for all Canadians, and not just do partisan work for the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government was elected on a platform of openness and transparency. I look forward to working with all members in this House, particularly with the opposition parties, to work to provide information and access to all Canadians; information and access that will help us to continually improve our democratic institutions.
EmploymentDenis Lebel: But it costs $1,500, Mr. Speaker.
Canada will be facing many challenges this year. The government must stop making taxpayers pay more taxes. Forestry workers want an agreement to bring stability to their sector. When it comes to free trade with the U.S., we must protect Canadian jobs.
Will the Prime Minister stop changing the ethics rules that are not to his liking and focus on the Canadian economy and Canadian workers?
Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I would like to talk about the softwood lumber agreement. As the House knows, the softwood lumber agreement expired while the former government was in power. Our government will vigorously defend the interests of Canadian workers and producers in this sector. We will continue to work closely with softwood lumber workers and producers.
I want to point out that we are looking for a good agreement for Canada, not just any agreement.
EthicsMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has come to the Prime Minister's attention that the Prime Minister has been breaking the Prime Minister's own ethical rules, so now the Prime Minister is creating new rules for the Prime Minister to follow so that the Prime Minister will no longer appear to be breaking the Prime Minister's rules. Can the Prime Minister please confirm it?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, our government is taking concrete action to provide more openness and transparency to Canadians. We restored the long-form census. The Prime Minister made mandate letters to ministers public. We unmuzzled government scientists to talk freely about issues like climate change. As well, the Prime Minister just concluded an open town hall tour: 10 town halls, seven provinces, 12,000 Canadians.
We will continue to take action to make government and all aspects of our democracy more open and transparent. 
Blaine Calkins: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is now changing the rules for the Prime Minister to follow after the Prime Minister was unable to follow the initial rules the Prime Minister made. Therefore, if the Prime Minister cannot follow the first set of rules that the Prime Minister made, what makes the Prime Minister think he can follow a new set of rules for the Prime Minister? Or, does the Prime Minister now realize that the problem is not the rules, but that the problem actually is the Prime Minister?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate that the Prime Minister just did something unprecedented in Canadian history. He travelled across—
The Speaker: Order. Let us start the new year with decorum and proper respect for each other and for this place.
The hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions.
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, he travelled across the country to 10 town halls, seven provinces, and 12,000 Canadians where he was open and accountable. He let people ask whatever questions they chose and he answered Canadians. That is something that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the House: engaging with Canadians, listening to Canadians, and being open and transparent—
The Speaker: The hon. opposition House leader.
Hon. Candice Bergen (House Leader of the Official Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, section 12 of the Conflict of Interest Act says that no minister, including the Prime Minister, should accept travel on private aircraft except in exceptional circumstances. I do not think a holiday to the Bahamas is an exceptional circumstance. This Prime Minister seems to have no regard for the rules or even the law. Therefore we ask again and we ask him to answer Canadians today: Why does the Prime Minister think the rules around travel and private aircraft do not apply to people like him?
Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as it is my first time standing in the House this year, I would like to welcome back all members of Parliament. I look forward to working with each and every single one of them on behalf of Canadians.
As was previously stated, the Prime Minister was on a personal family vacation with a long-standing friend. The Prime Minister has known the Aga Khan ever since childhood. The Prime Minister will answer questions the commissioner may have. 
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, he either did not know the rules, which does not make any sense, or he blatantly broke them, and he needs to tell Canadians which one of those he did. 
The Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, even the languages commissioner have placed the Prime Minister and his Liberals under investigation. That is unprecedented. 
As we saw from Jacques Corriveau's sentencing last week, the Liberals have a history of breaking the rules. Sadly, this Prime Minister is no different. Does the Prime Minister not understand that there are consequences to breaking the law, and why in the world is he putting his own personal gain against the highest office in Canada? 
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, this government always follows the rules, and as the Prime Minister has stated, we will answer any questions the commissioner may have. We will always work with the Ethics Commissioner. We will always work with every office in this place to ensure that we provide the information necessary to ensure that we work hard on behalf of Canadians. 
Foreign AffairsMs. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Has the government shared its concerns with the American authorities regarding the Trump administration's decision to ban entry to the U.S. for the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries?
Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her question. I hope we can work productively together. I have a great deal of respect for the member.
I would also like to begin by offering my condolences to the victims of yesterday's shooting in Quebec City, as well as to their loved ones. Canadians will stand with them against these hateful acts.
As Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is my duty to work in favour of our economic interests, while at the same time, always asserting our Canadian values.
Jenny Kwan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are alarmed and outraged by President Trump's immigration and travel ban. Inscribed on the Statue of Liberty are the words, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses”, but now it falls to other nations to step up and provide shelter to those fleeing violence and persecution. 
Canadians are staunch defenders of human rights who reject a ban based on race, religion, or place of birth. Will Canada do its part and immediately lift the 1,000 application cap on privately sponsored refugees?
Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1,000 cap on refugees only applies to groups of five members. There are other avenues that sponsorship agreement holders and others, the hon. member must know, can use to sponsor privately sponsored refugees. 
Our immigration level plan for 2017 includes a historic level of 16,000 spots for refugees. That is something we can be very proud of. 
FinanceGérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, a few hours before Christmas, on December 23, the Department of Finance published a document that stated that if nothing changes, Canada is headed toward a $1.5 trillion debt by 2050 and, if nothing changes, we will return to a balanced budget by 2055. The Liberal government is missing its target by 36 years. That is Liberal management. The worst part is that our children and grandchildren will be footing the bill.
My question is simple. For the 15th time, I am asking the Minister of Finance, when will we return to a balanced budget?
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report says that our economy is ideal for the long term. In the meantime, we know that we need to invest in the future to improve our level of growth. The report does not talk about changes to our investments. We have to be careful with our investments in order to improve the economy now and for the future of all Canadians across the country.
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is clear that the minister has no plan to balance the budget. He does, however, have a plan to make life difficult for our entrepreneurs, the people who create jobs.
The government wants to impose a Liberal carbon tax, a Liberal health care tax, and a medical tax on dental care. The United States, on the other hand, wants to cut taxes on businesses and workers. 
Why is the government completely neglecting the Canadian economy?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, we want to be clear with Canadians about taxes. We want a system that works for families who are part of the middle class and those who want to join it. Our system must be fair to Canadians. That is what we did by giving nine million Canadians a tax cut when we came to power. We will stick to our agenda to ensure that the system is fair, responsible and effective.
Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberals seem to have something against workers earning just $45,000 a year. Such a worker does not earn enough to get anything from the so-called middle-class tax plan, but he does qualify for new carbon taxes on gas, home heating, and electricity. 
Today a Dental Association report showed that a worker earning $45,000 a year would pay $1,200 under the new Liberal plan to tax health benefits.
What has the government got against people earning just $45,000 a year?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, the very first thing our government did was lower taxes on nine million Canadians. We know it is important that we have a system that is fair, efficient, and responsible. 
We announced in budget 2016 a review of our tax system to make sure that it is just that. We will continue on this and assure Canadians that we will come up with a system that is fair, responsible, and efficient so that we can have a system that works for all Canadians.
Pierre Poilievre: Fair, Mr. Speaker? He thinks it is fair that he has a middle-class plan that does not give anything to people earning just $45,000 a year, a plan that forces such a worker to pay higher taxes on home heating, gas, and electricity, and maybe even lose his job because the employer cannot afford that tax, and now a new tax on health benefits that could force that family to have to buy its own private supplementary plan, which would cost thousands of dollars.
In what universe is such an approach fair to the middle class?
Bill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we think it is important to consider the real facts. The real facts are that nine million Canadians had their taxes lowered last year. The real facts are that the Canada child benefit helps nine out of 10 families with children and puts more money in their pockets, significantly more money, on average $2,300 after tax. 
We will move forward with the review of the tax system to make sure that we continue to make a difference for Canadians, middle-class Canadians and those people who are working hard to get there.
Public SafetyMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it took only one week for the new President of the United States to announce that he is in favour of using torture. Torture is immoral and ineffective. I commend the minister for speaking out against torture every chance he was given. However, here at home, a ministerial directive that allows the use of information obtained by torture is still on the books. 
With such a frightening normalization of torture by a Five Eyes ally, will the minister finally repeal this directive, yes or no?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have noted, torture is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is contrary to the Criminal Code. It is contrary to virtually all of the international treaties and conventions to which Canada is a party. Most important, torture is found to be abhorrent by Canadians, and we reject it.
The ministerial directives issued previously, as I have indicated many times in this House, are under review to ensure that they are consistent with the policies and practices of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are also with New Brunswickers who are still dealing with the fallout of the ice storm that left 133,000 New Brunswick homes in the dark. Many are still without electricity, heat, and other necessities. Two people died from carbon monoxide poisoning, and seven others are seriously injured. 
On Friday, the Premier of New Brunswick requested the assistance of the Canadian Armed Forces, who just arrived in Miscou and Lamèque today.
Can the Minister of National Defence explain why it took three days before the troops were sent after the formal request was made by the province?
Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whenever a disaster strikes Canadians, the Canadian Armed Forces is always ready to help.
There is a system in place to allow for the provinces to do their own assessment. We are always ready and prepared to provide support. 
As soon as the request was made, the response was there, and we have right now 200 members of the Canadian Armed Forces proudly helping Canadians.
Mr. Pat Finnigan (Miramichi—Grand Lake, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was said by my colleague across the aisle, last Wednesday, January 25, the east coast, mainly New Brunswick, was hit with its worst ice storm in history. Thousands of homes and businesses, including many from coastal and first nations communities, are still without power today.
Canadians who have gone through similar experiences know how devastating this can be and what an anxious time it is for those going through such a disaster. The situation is critical and the conditions will only deteriorate as the temperatures drop over the next few days. 
Can the minister please update this House on this emergency situation?
Harjit S. Sajjan: Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of New Brunswick who have suffered the impacts of this storm and particularly with the friends and families of those who lost their lives.
On Saturday we received and accepted a request for assistance from the provincial government, and Canadian Armed Forces members are now proudly engaged in the emergency response effort. Our government will continue to support the people of New Brunswick, both in the immediate term and throughout the process of recovery.
Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for years Canada's intelligence services have warned that China is trying to steal Canadian advanced technology.
In 2015, our Conservative government ordered Chinese divestment of ITF, a Quebec high-tech company, on national security grounds. Three months ago, as the Liberals rushed to satisfy Chinese demands at every level, coincidental with the Prime Minister's cash for access events and the Chinese billionaires' shopping spree, the Liberals cancelled the Conservative cabinet's divestment order. Why?
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, the member understands that all foreign investments in Canada are screened for national security in accordance with the Investment Canada Act.
This rigorous process is undertaken in consultation with the government's national security agencies, so any decision we make is done in conjunction with the guidelines provided by the national security advisers.
I can assure the member and this House that any decision we take going forward will be in the best national interest of our country.
Peter Kent: Mr. Speaker, this is not just any Canadian company. ITF has worked with Canada's Communications Security Establishment, the National Research Council, and the Department of National Defence.
ITF's various technology applications have military applications. More than a quarter of the Hong Kong company is held by a Chinese state-owned enterprise. We know minority ownership by Beijing means control by Beijing.
Again, why are the Liberals risking Canadian national security to play up to the Chinese communist government?
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, we will never compromise our national security. We will never compromise our national interest. Any decision we make will be to the benefit of all Canadians.
I can also tell the member opposite that we have increased transparency by publishing national security review guidelines and information on national security reviews in the IC annual report. This will help investors and Canadian businesses in planning investments while maintaining our authority to take action to protect national security.
JusticeMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, when the Prime Minister was asked at a town hall why the Liberals opposed Wynn's law, he said that he did not know anything about the bill, a bill that has been before Parliament for more than a year and that his cabinet, presumably, has vetted.
It begs the question, just how many other decisions of his cabinet is the Prime Minister in the dark about?
Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly with respect to Wynn's law, the private member's bill the member is referring to, we want to acknowledge and recognize the suffering that has been caused with respect to the loss in Alberta.
We are committed to reforming the criminal justice system to improve the efficiencies and the effectiveness of that system. We recognize that there is a need for information at bail hearings, and we are committed to the objectives of this bill. That is why we are working very collaboratively with our partners in the provinces and territories, the steering committee, to ensure that the efficiencies—
The Speaker: The member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
Michael Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister incredibly said that he was at a disadvantage when it came to learning the facts about Wynn's law.
Do members know who was at a disadvantage? It was Constable Wynn. He was at a disadvantage when he was shot and killed by someone who should not have been on the streets and would not have been on the streets had Wynn's law been the law.
Now that the Prime Minister is in the loop, will he do the right thing and pass Wynn's law?
Jody Wilson-Raybould: Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to speak about the mandate that the Prime Minister has given me to comprehensively reform the criminal justice system to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including bail reform. 
I acknowledge the hon. colleague across the way for his involvement and commitment to ensure we improve the effectiveness. This is exactly what we are doing, working with the provinces and territories, working with stakeholders, and working with the steering committee, which is focused specifically on assisting us with bringing forward substantive solutions. We will move forward in due course. 
Indigenous AffairsMr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has clearly shown just how out of touch he is with the needs of indigenous youth. The priority of youth is not canoes, but rather adequate and equitable services.
My question is very simple: when will the government finally comply with the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the unanimous motion of the House and immediately invest the required $155 million?
Hon. Carolyn Bennett (Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to fully reviewing child and family services for first nations. We have invested $635 million over five years to close the gap in funding. We are determined to work with first nations, the provinces, and the agencies to achieve real reform at all levels to ensure the well-being of children.
Ms. Georgina Jolibois (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the money is still not flowing. 
My constituents are also concerned that the enhanced service delivery program will end in March. Hundreds of youth benefit from this program, which is giving them important job skills. 
Let us face it. This is not what first nations youth want. According to Indian Affairs, an assessment of the program should have been completed last year. It is now 2017. 
Will the minister commit to ongoing funding so that northern youth are employed?
Carolyn Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows in listening to youth, it is hugely important that they want the skills to to be able to participate in the economy, but they also want the language and culture. They want to be back in touch with the land to be able to be proud indigenous people. We will work on both fronts to make sure that happens.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipMr. Bob Saroya (Markham—Unionville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Has the Government of Canada received, in writing, from the American government that the U.S. travel ban of citizens from the affected seven countries will not affect Canadians with dual citizenship and permanent residency travelling to the U.S.?
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, Canada continues to be a welcoming country to newcomers, including those refugees fleeing persecution and war. 
U.S. authorities have assured us very clearly that anyone with a Canadian passport and Canadian permanent resident cardholders will be allowed entry into the United States. We continue to monitor the situation closely and work with our American counterparts.
Canada continues to remain open and views immigration as a key ingredient in our economic success.
Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the private sponsor refugee program uses donations from Canadians to support refugees, which means that we do not need to rely solely on taxpayers to help those who are in need. The Prime Minister's weekend Tweet did absolutely nothing to explain his decision to prevent privately sponsored refugees from being admitted to Canada this year.
With over 45,000 PSR applications in the queue, why is the Prime Minister limiting the generosity of private sponsorship groups and shifting the responsibility solely to taxpayers?
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because it gives me an opportunity to clarify some of the confusion around this. 
The year of 2016 was unprecedented for our country. We welcomed more than 40,000 Syrian refugees, from November 4, 2015, and we are proud of that record. 
Wait times for privately sponsored refugees continued to balloon under the previous government, and we intend to take action against that. Our immigration levels in 2017 create 16,000 allocations for privately sponsored refugees, which is triple that the previous government created under its administration.
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, if the government is so welcoming to refugees, why, since the motion around Yazidi genocide victims was passed in October, has the government admitted exactly zero Yazidis to Canada?
My question is very simple. If the government truly supports this motion, why did the Prime Minister dodge this question? How many Yazidis is the government bringing to Canada and will it meet the timeline associated with the motion?
Ahmed Hussen: Mr. Speaker, our government has been recognized widely as being a great government for welcoming and resettling refugees from across the world. We are committed and proud of the fact that all members in the House supported the resettlement of victims and survivors of Daesh. We have a plan that is under way. Our operation is under way. We have committed to meet that goal. We will be providing an update to the House in the near future.
Veterans AffairsMr. Don Rusnak (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and I were pleased to reopen one of nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices closed by the previous Conservative government. The nearly 1,700 veterans in my region can now be served by Veterans Affairs staff, will now provide restored service and access, and benefits to veterans where they need them and when they need them. This is not just a gain for Thunder Bay but for all of northwestern Ontario.
Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs give the House an update on office reopenings?
Hon. Kent Hehr (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to be reopening doors that were previously closed to veterans and their families. Veterans have selflessly served our country and our government is recognizing their service by enhancing financial benefits and restoring and expanding access to critical services not just in Thunder Bay, but in Corner Brook, Brandon, Sydney, Kelowna, Saskatoon, and Charlottetown, where we also opened offices. We will open three more offices in Windsor, Prince George, and Surrey, B.C., all by May of 2017. We are getting it done.
Indigenous AffairsMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated that he knew better than the chiefs and the top priority for indigenous youth was a place to store their canoes and paddles. That is unbelievable. We have a suicide crisis. Two 12-year-olds from Saskatchewan took their lives.
Our committee travelled across the country with panels listening to youth. They talked about safety, security, education, and hope. Canoe storage did not come up.
Will the Prime Minister retract these condescending and out-of-touch comments?
Hon. Jane Philpott (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any loss of life is a great tragedy and it grieves us when we hear about indigenous young people taking their lives. We know that the roots of the suicide crisis among indigenous youth are deep and complex, but we are working with our partners, indigenous leaders, and provinces to make sure we have supports for people. 
Our government has invested $69 million to make sure there will be 24 mental wellness teams, as well as crisis support teams.
We will continue to support these youth and put an end to this crisis.
EmploymentMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are increasingly worried about their economic situation, and this is tied to the emerging crisis of precarious work that we are facing in our country. While the economy is staggering, the government is failing to protect and create good, full-time, permanent jobs. It has also failed to react to this crisis and, instead, prefers to tell Canadians to just get used to it. Canadians deserve a government that will fight for good jobs.
When will the government show leadership, stand up for Canadian workers, and fight for the good jobs that they deserve?
Hon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government knows that our prosperity relies on young Canadians getting good jobs and contributing to the economy in the fullest way. That is why we are investing historic amounts into ensuring that young people have the diversity of skills to bring forward new ideas, new talent, and new creativity to the emerging workforces of Canada.
I look forward to working with the member opposite on a plan.
Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year small businesses and non-profits in my riding of Brampton North hired 134 students through the Canada summer jobs program. Could the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour tell the House how many jobs across Canada have been created for young Canadians this year?
Patty Hajdu: Mr. Speaker, we know it is important for young Canadians to have access to opportunities to gain the skills that they are going to carry forward into their careers. That is why I am so excited that we are again supporting small businesses, not for profits, and public sector employees to hire young Canadians this summer through the Canada student job program.
I encourage all employers to apply for funding at canada.ca. The deadline is Friday.
Official LanguagesSylvie Boucher: Mr. Speaker, in January, there were two incidents where the Prime Minister should have answered a question in one language but instead he answered in the other.
With his usual arrogance, the Prime Minister demonstrated his lack of respect for Canadians and official languages. On behalf of Canada's linguistic minorities, I am calling on the Prime Minister to publicly apologize for his blatant lack of respect for those communities.
Will the Prime Minister apologize and finally show respect for Canada's official languages?
Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that our Prime Minister is an ardent defender of official languages. That is why he gave me a strong mandate to support him on this issue.
Official languages are a priority for our government and we have done more than just talk. We have taken action. We reinstated the Mobilité francophone immigration program. We appointed bilingual judges to the Supreme Court, and we reinstated the court challenges program. Those are not just words. We have taken action.
We are also going to launch a new official languages action plan in 2017.
EthicsRhéal Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government wants to introduce a bill laying out the rules for its $1,500 fundraising cocktails featuring privileged access to the Prime Minister, but that will not solve the problem. 
The government has no plans to end the undue influence of bagmen or privileged access for rich lobby groups that can afford to invest $1,500 in a Liberal cocktail.
The Liberal position is that advertising these fundraisers will suffice.
When will the Liberals realize that advertising $1,500 privileged access to the Prime Minister does not make it more ethical?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, Canadians need more openness and transparency when it comes to political party fundraising activities attended by ministers, party leaders, and party leadership candidates. We will introduce our plan to make that happen. 
I am pleased to be working with parliamentarians to introduce more openness and accountability into political party fundraising activities.
Democratic ReformMr. Louis Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a month ago the Prime Minister attended a cocktail party with Chinese investors who wanted to move their projects forward by paying $1,500.
This could continue today under Liberal legislation. Of course there will be a report, which will be made public with great pomp and circumstance, but otherwise, nothing will change. 
Rather than encouraging cynicism among the electorate, will the Minister of Democratic Institutions follow Quebec's example, put a $500 cap on political donations, and restore per-vote public subsidies to political parties?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very honoured to be given the opportunity to serve Canadians by improving our democratic institutions.
Our government was elected on a promise of openness and transparency. Our government believes that it must be open and transparent with Canadians. Our government will have more to say very shortly on how we believe political party fundraising can be made more open and transparent. I look forward to working with all my colleagues on this issue.
Interests of QuebecMr. Simon Marcil (Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many are worried about the U.S. government's protectionist talk, but Quebeckers have the most to fear.
Our regions are already suffering from the federal government's inability to stand up to the United States. When it comes to diafiltered milk, softwood lumber, or spent fowl, the Canadian border is a sieve for Americans doing business here, but a wall when Quebec might come out on top. Every party in power here has allowed the Americans to run roughshod over NAFTA.
What does this government plan to do differently to protect Quebec?
Chrystia Freeland: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States have a strong economic relationship and we are working with the new U.S. administration to protect and develop this integrated relationship.
I am proud of my work with the Government of Quebec on CETA. I have already spoken with representatives from the Province of Quebec about NAFTA and our relations with the U.S. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I am well aware of the interests of Quebec, and it is an honour and a privilege—
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the hon. Dave Levac, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the hon. Linda Reid, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Routine Proceedings
Board of Internal EconomyThe Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that the member for the electoral district of Honoré-Mercier has been appointed a member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of the member for the electoral district of Orléans, for the purposes and under the provisions of section 50 of the Parliament of Canada Act. 
Foreign AffairsMélanie Joly: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following treaties:
The first treaty, entitled, “Resolution (88)15 setting up a European support fund for the co-production and distribution of creative cinematographic and audiovisual works (Eurimages)”, was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 26 October 1988, as amended.
The second treaty is entitled “Audiovisual Coproduction Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan”, done at Amman on October 31, 2016.
An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty. 
Business of SupplyBardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, February 2, will be an allotted day.
Committees of the HouseMr. Jean Rioux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence entitled, “Canada and the Defence of North America: NORAD and Aerial Readiness”, tabled in the House of Commons on September 19, 2016.
Jean Rioux: Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled, “Report 5—Canadian Army Reserve—National Defence", of the spring 2016 reports of the Auditor General of Canada, tabled in the House of Commons on October 3, 2016. 
Indigenous AffairsMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Implementation Report for 2013–2014. 
Also under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2014 annual report of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. I request that this report be referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
Finally, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the Nisga'a Final Agreement Implementation Report, 2012–2013.
Government Response to PetitionsKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 130 petitions.
Committees of the HouseHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-30, an act to implement the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its member states and to provide for certain other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
Shooting in Quebec CityMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as you know from the many passionate statements we have heard today, all Canadians are shocked and saddened by last night's attacks in Sainte-Foy, Quebec. In light of the vigil organized this evening on Parliament Hill, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that would allow all members in this place to stand in solidarity with those victims and those grieving their loss. 
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day at 5:55 pm later this day and shall not take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsGarnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, over the break I heard from many people in my constituency concerned about the economic impact of job losses and the other challenges we are facing in Alberta; so I am pleased to table a petition today calling on the government to do something concrete, and that is to support the energy east pipeline. People across the country support this project, and they see the value of it for helping Albertans get back to work and also creating jobs across the country. 
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present a petition. The petitioners recognize that there is a very big demographic shift happening in Canada today with respect to seniors and that Canada needs to prepare for these dramatically changing demographics and the unique needs of seniors. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to appoint a minister for seniors and develop a national strategy for seniors.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the member for London—Fanshawe for the great work that she has done in this regard. 
Ms. Kate Young (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present two petitions. I am pleased to first present a petition on behalf of more than 400 people across London. The congregation of Lambeth United Church has undertaken private sponsorship of the Ghazel family. Currently, the family resides in Aleppo, waiting for the immigration interview process to begin.
The petition asks that the Ghazel family's immigration file be expedited due to the high risk of injury or looming threat of death. 
Kate Young: Mr. Speaker, the second petition has more than two dozen signatures of individuals in London, Ontario, who are asking the Government of Canada to undertake public consultations to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure voters can cast an equal and effective vote; be represented fairly in Parliament regardless of political belief or place of residence; be governed by a fairly elected parliament where the share of seats held by each political party closely reflects the popular vote; live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority of voters; and expect introduction of a suitable form of proportional representation as a result of the requested public consultations. 
Michel Boudrias: Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 284 petitioners from the Les Moulins RCM.
This petition, which is also being circulated in 13 other ridings represented by other members of the House, seeks to draw the government's attention to the consequences of the new CRTC policy on independent community television in Quebec and Canada.
The petitioners are asking that the government strengthen independent community television to ensure its survival, ensure that local media is available in remote communities and other regions, and ensure that it has sufficient resources.
I therefore urge the government to take note of the new reality brought to light in this petition.
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from residents of Gabriola Island who are opposed to the establishment of five new bulk commercial anchorages, each to house 300-metre-long vessels that are going to be exporting Wyoming coal to China, where it will be burned in power plants. Petitioners point out that this is bad for climate change, bad for the sensitive ecology, and bad for the sport fishery in the area. No local jobs are created. Oil spills risk their local economy. They urge the federal government to take their advice and to follow the government's commitments to restore habitat protection to the Fisheries Act and to restore the protections of the navigable waters act.
If the government had done its work, this petition would not be necessary and the community would not be so risked. 
Questions on the Order PaperKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 596, 598, 605, 606, 608, 609, 611, 613, 615, 622, 626, 628, 629, 631, 634, 642, 644, 653, 654, 660, 663, 671, 672, 673, 676, 680, 684, 688, 694, 697, 702, 725, 726, 734, 737, 740-742, 744, 755, 757, 761, 762, 764, 770, 772, 777, 782, 785, 788, 789, 791, 792, and 793.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, if supplementary responses to Questions Nos. 425 and 467, originally tabled on November 4, 2016, as well as Question No. 538, originally tabled on December 2, 2016, and the government's response to Questions Nos. 592-595, 597, 599, 600, 602-604, 607, 610, 612, 614, 616-621, 623-625, 627, 630, 632, 633, 635-641, 643, 645-652, 655-659, 661, 662, 664-670, 674, 675, 677-679, 681-683, 685-687, 689-693, 695, 696, 698-701, 703-724, 727-733, 735, 736, 738, 739, 743, 745-754, 756, 758-760, 763, 765-769, 771, 773-776, 778-781, 783, 784, 786-788, 790 and 794-796 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately?
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Request for Emergency DebateThe Speaker: Having had notice from the hon. member for Vancouver East of a request for an emergency debate, we will turn to her now.
Jenny Kwan: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 52(2), I am proposing an emergency debate on President Trump's ban on immigration and travel from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
The ban will have disastrous implications for thousands of innocent travellers—family members, students, business people, indeed travellers of all kinds—but most disturbingly for the men, women, and children who are seeking asylum and fleeing persecution. Additionally, many Canadians are uncertain about the circumstances of their own travel to the United States. 
Canadians are staunch defenders of human rights, and they reject a ban based on race, religion, or country of birth implemented by our closest ally and neighbour.
This matter needs the immediate attention of this House. An emergency debate would allow parliamentarians to address this unacceptable situation and allow the Government of Canada to hear suggestions from parliamentarians and develop and implement a response strategy. For example, the idea of Canada stepping up and sheltering the refugees being shut out of the United States is an important one, and lifting of the 1,000-application ban on privately sponsored refugees is a valid suggestion and should be considered. 
Canada must do its part to address this urgent situation, and an emergency debate will greatly help begin that process.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for considering this request, and if granted, I respectfully ask that the debate take place tomorrow to allow for attendance at memorial events this evening.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for raising her request for an emergency debate. I am prepared to grant her request, and pursuant to Standing Order 52(9), I am happy to have the debate begin at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment tomorrow.
Mr. Scott Simms: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I request unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to return to presenting reports from committee?
Committees of the HouseScott Simms: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in relation to a motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, April 21, 2016, entitled “Wild Atlantic Salmon in Eastern Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I want to thank all members of the committee, and certainly our analysts work worked very diligently, as well as our clerk.

Government Orders
Statistics ActGeng Tan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 would introduce the requirement that the new council's work be done in a transparent manner. It would also require that the council make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.
The new council's membership would also be much smaller and more focused compared with that of the existing council. The council would consist of a chairperson and up to nine additional members who would be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure. The chief statistician would also be a member of the council.
Unlike members of the current council, all members would be paid. The pay level would be fixed by the Governor in Council. Members would also be entitled to be paid any reasonable travel and living expenses incurred while absent from their ordinary places of residence to perform their duties under this act.
Given the reduced number of members compared with the current council, there would not be any additional costs associated with the new council.
Establishing the new Canadian statistics advisory council in the Statistics Act, as proposed under Bill C-36, would be beneficial in at least three ways.
First, it would strengthen the accountability of Statistics Canada, which would balance the increased independence secured under other suggested legislative changes.
Second, it would increase the transparency of the council's work, thereby increasing its own accountability in addition to that of the minister and the chief statistician.
Third, it would publish an annual report on the state of the statistical system, including the quality, relevance, accessibility, and timeliness of the data it would produce. This is particularly important given the critical role statistics play in evidence-based decision-making.
The statistical information produced by government must be high-quality and responsive to stakeholder needs. Otherwise, it will not be trusted, nor will it be used. Businesses, governments, non-profit organizations, the research community, and the public rely on the integrity and accuracy of this data.
Statistical information helps us better understand ourselves, our past, and our future by providing information on our economic, demographic, social, and environmental situation. As such, it is essential that statistical information be impartial, reliable, relevant, accessible, and timely. In essence, it must be of the highest possible quality.
The new Canadian statistics advisory council would play an essential role in ensuring that Canada's statistical system continues to be one of the best in the world.
This government is committed to ensuring that its decisions are evidence-based and reflective of the needs of businesses, institutions, non-profit organizations, and Canadians.
To meet this commitment, we need quality data. That is why we reinstated the mandatory long-form census, and that is why Bill C-36 is so important.
Together, the legislative amendments proposed to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence will ensure that Canadians can rely on and trust in the official statistics produced.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although we appreciate the effort that was put into drafting this bill, I want to ask my colleague if he does not think it would be a good idea to listen to what was said by Canada's chief statistician, who recently resigned. He said that there are problems that this bill does nothing to address.
The budget cuts at Statistics Canada over the past several years have had serious consequences. I think it is very important to be able to evaluate all of our markets using statistics. In order to do our jobs properly, we should at least listen to what the former chief statistician has to say.
Geng Tan: That is exactly the purpose of Bill C-36, Mr. Speaker. In this society, where there is such a high pace, data is so critical, and we have to make decisions based on the accuracy of data and in a timely manner. This is why we have given the chief statistician the authority and have made the position very independent. We even introduced a fixed five-year term for the chief statistician so he could work independently, based on the evidence and the studies, and not under the influence of other political tendencies.
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to correct a previous discussion regarding the Phoenix pay system by my friend from Winnipeg North and also from the member for Windsor north.
I have worked on this probably more than anyone else in the House. It is very clear from the Gartner report, as well as access to information reports that have come in, that the Liberal government knew there were issues with Phoenix and went ahead with it anyway. Therefore, to blame it on the previous government is incorrect.
Regarding the new bill, the past president of Statistics Canada quit in a disagreement with the Prime Minister about shared services, specifically stating that having to go through shared services infringed on the independence of Statistics Canada.
I would like the member to explain this very clearly because it is not in the bill. Where is the government going to go? Will Statistics Canada servers be with shared services, like other government agencies, or will it be going it alone? I would like clarification, please.
Geng Tan: Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that we would give independence to the chief statistician. We will also reduce the size of the board. We are bringing in more experts and giving them pay, so they become more dedicated in terms of time, energy and the quality of the decisions.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while New Democrats are happy to see measures that would promote independence of the chief statistician, as usual with the Liberals, the devil is always in the detail.
I am not sure how having a five-year term that is renewable makes people more independent than having essentially a career long term. I am also not sure when a Liberal government in its previous incarnation started the privatization of statistic service, handing over control of data to private organizations. When we get to committee, I think we will have a lot of very detailed questions. 
Is the government open to additional measures in the act to ensure that the chief statistician is actually independent and the privacy of Canadian data is protected?
Geng Tan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 proposes to make some changes to make our Statistics Canada more independent and ensure that its decisions are made based on the evidence and the studies. We also make this process more transparent.
Bill C-36 proposes that the new Canadian statistic advisory council will produce an annual report on the state of its job. Canadians will have access to review its work and to make comments.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this very important legislation. Many listeners, or members, will recall that there was a campaign commitment by the government just prior to the election. We said that we believed in Statistics Canada and the fine work done by it. There are a multitude of reasons why it is so important to our nation.
We made a commitment to bring a higher sense of independence and to provide assurances to our chief statistician in an effort to see a stronger Statistics Canada and a more independent approach to dealing with what was so critical when it came to the gathering of information in order to see good, sound policy decisions being made. Therefore, it is a good day in Ottawa. We see another commitment that is being fulfilled by this government. We have consistently talked about the issues of transparency and accountability, the importance of information and science-based decisions. We have heard a lot about these types of things from the Prime Minister. Today we have before us yet another piece of legislation that advances the election commitments we made to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-36.
It is important to point out right at the beginning some of the things the bill would do. When I talk about reinforcing Statistics Canada's independence, I am talking about things such as assigning authority to the chief statistician to make decisions on a number of things, such as statistical procedures, methods and professional standards employed for the production of statistics, the content of statistical releases and publications, the timing and methods of dissemination of statistics that have been compiled, and the operations and the staff at Statistics Canada. We are looking at increasing the transparency around the decisions and directives, all of which are in the legislation we are debating today. We are also appointing the chief statistician during good behaviour for a fixed renewal term of five years. I am very much aware of the concerns of the New Democrats, and we look forward to them presenting those concerns at committee. 
The legislation deals with the creation of the Canadian statistics advisory council, and makes some changes which the Conservative Party across the way has expressed some interest. Again, we look forward to seeing this bill go to committee to hear in more detail with respect to this, as well as listen to possible amendments being brought forward.
It is important to recognize that we are removing the penalty of imprisonment, while retaining financial penalties. As a member of Parliament, I have often heard, “If you don't fill out the form, the Government of Canada will throw you in jail.” This is one of those things that is probably long overdue because it never really happened in reality. I think it might have happened once over the years, and it was likely because of the individual wanted to protest it by going to jail. Therefore, it is good to see that aspect being removed.
We are removing the requirement to seek consent for the transfer of census-related data to Library and Archives Canada, 92 years after the taking of the actual census. In the bigger picture, with respect to the way we have evolved, that is a positive initiative.
There would be a number of technical amendments made, such as modernizing the language to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistics and information, correcting errors in the wording of statutes, and so forth. 
I have already had the opportunity today to ask a number of questions of others.
I have always recognized the important and critical role Statistics Canada plays, whether it is with respect to governments at the national level, the provincial level, municipal level, school division level, and non-profit groups and private groups. A great many stakeholders have a huge interest in what we are talking about and the type of mandate and legislation that provides the guidance that is absolutely necessary for us to continue to be proud of Statistics Canada well into the future. This legislation would be a step forward. 
It is important for us to recognize that Statistics Canada, and the public service that has made Statistics Canada what it is today, is virtually recognized around the world as a professional organization that knows how to get it right. When the previous Harper government changed the mandate by saying it no longer wanted the long form census done in a mandatory fashion, people were quite disillusioned. They could not understand why a government would make such a decision. The Liberals indicated that we would bring back the long form census. I look at from a practical point of view. Often there is a difference in approach in dealing with Statistics Canada, but I want to raise the issue of why we need it from a practical perspective.
Prior to getting involved in politics I was quite involved in community revitalization. I was on a western revitalization board. I was on a housing co-op board. Having strong and sound information and statistics was really important. I can remember community profiles. Municipalities still invest a great deal in community profiles. The type of information that community profiles draw upon often comes directly from Statistics Canada. It is the things that really matter in deciding what sort of program is needed in a community that would allow it to be safer, or an area that needs a bit more attention with respect to revitalization than another, or getting a better sense of the economics of that particular community, such as what types of stores might be necessary. There is a litany of things and when broken down into those small communities, it really makes a difference to have accurate information. There is no other organization like Statistics Canada. It is second to no other organization that I am aware of, not just nationally but in the world, with respect to providing critically necessary information. That is talking strictly at the community level. 
At the national level, we can talk about how important it is to the provinces that Ottawa gets it right with respect to everything from population numbers to demographics to transfer payments. Many provinces are have-not provinces and they are dependent on those social transfers or equalization payments. Those billions of tax dollars are absolutely critical to the provinces to assist them in ensuring they get it right. Imagine the importance of health care and long-term policy development in health care. Imagine knowing where our senior population is based and being able to predict how to provide sound health care policy that could see access centres opened up, certain types of home care services delivered, all of which are dependent on good, sound statistical information for both long-term and short-term planning.
By making Statistics Canada that much more independent in the way it operates, by providing the type of support this government has provided in legislative and moral support, it will assist Canada and the many different stakeholders to make good, sound, solid policy decisions which would be to the betterment of all Canadians. That is why I would encourage all members of the House to get behind the bill. Let us get it to committee, because it would be good for all of us.
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from my friend from Winnipeg North again.
I have two quick questions with respect to the member's speech and this legislation. Maybe I misheard, but he seemed to imply that the previous government had done away with the long-form census, which I am sure he knows is not the case. A decision was taken for it not to be mandatory, and we can debate that decision, but I am sure the member would want to at least be clear about the facts with respect to it. There was no desire to do away with the long-form census.
Also, I want the member to explain the rationale for that one aspect of the bill where the government essentially is doing away with an existing committee and replacing it with a different committee providing oversight. It is not clear to me why we are switching from one committee to another. A good point was raised by the New Democrats with respect to the smaller number not as effectively facilitating those opportunities for regional representation. It is the sort of thing where it makes people raise their eyebrows and wonder what is going on behind the scenes. I wonder if the member could reflect on that as well.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from across the way. I enjoy his interjections in the House and I anticipate there will be a good number of them in the coming months.
Having said that, the member is right that the Harper government did not get rid of the long-form census, but he needs to recognize that the Conservative government did make it non-mandatory. The criticism of the Harper government back then was very extensive, from virtually every sector and every stakeholder that understood the importance of the census being mandatory.
If the member across the way were to reflect on it, I am sure he would not suggest that it should be non-mandatory. By making it mandatory, we will have better information.
As I tried to illustrate in the limited amount of time I had, that information is very critical for all levels of government, not to mention the non-profits, the private sector, and many other stakeholders that are in need of the type of information we know Statistics Canada can provide, as long it is afforded the right tools, and one of those tools is a mandatory long-form census.
Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how not having the census be mandatory in the past impeded historians, genealogists, scientists, and many other researchers, and how implementing Bill C-36 will benefit researchers in his community and across Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that when these long-form surveys are sent out to Canadian residents, depending on the numbers and the draws, and I am not a stats person per se, a certain percentage will get that long form.
If a significant number of people in certain areas chose not to fill them out, it would have a profound negative impact on the overall collection of information. It could create a bias for a number of different reasons. I wish I had the time to expand on those biases. At the end of the day, it would not give the best type of information that we require. That is what Canadians and others have expected of Stats Canada. That is why it was great to see the census being made mandatory once again.
Kelly McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Winnipeg North admitted he is not good with stats. I think if the Liberals were, we would not be sitting on a $30 billion deficit this year. 
This is the same question I asked previously about Shared Services. Wayne Smith, the highly respected past head of Stats Canada, who had been there for 30 years, quit specifically because the government would not address his concerns with Shared Services. He wanted StatsCan to go to a separate server. Is the government going to have StatsCan on a separate server or keep it on Shared Services? If it goes to a private server, how much is the cost going to be?
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to confuse the member. I am a big fan of using and reviewing statistics. They are incredibly important. They enable us to make good, sound policy decisions. The member raises some concerns and I would highly recommend he detail those concerns and bring them before committee. It would be most helpful. If the member chooses to speak to this legislation, maybe he could expand on his point.
I assure the member that the government is open to looking at what opposition members have to say on ways to improve legislation. A number of members have brought up the issue of why it is a five-year term appointment. I served in the Manitoba legislature and independent officers usually are fixed-year appointments. To indicate why it is five or six versus four could be a good question for the member to present at committee. I do not have the specific answer at this point. 
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and address this important legislation.
It is good to be back in this place. Maybe I am the only member who thinks this, but when I am away on the long breaks, I do kind of miss the House of Commons, so it is good be back and speaking again.
Before I proceed to discuss this legislation, I hope members will indulge me with a few brief remarks on the events of the weekend.
Canada as a nation is defined by unity in the midst of our diversity, and an attack on one person or one community is an attack on all of us. Indeed, we must respond and we have already responded together across faith lines and across party lines, and that response has to continue. 
Details remain unclear about the motivations of the attackers, but in whatever sense, I think we know that this terrorist attack which targeted the Muslim community in Quebec seeks to undermine our unity. I have already seen comments by those who want to blame this on our commitment to pluralism, and this is precisely what terrorism seeks to do: to undermine our values and our sense of solidarity. Terrorism does not just seek to take life, it also seeks to undermine our way of life, so today we must continue to stand together, fight back, and downgrade and defeat radical violent extremism in all of its forms.
I also want to extend my well-wishes to those across the way who have been affected by the cabinet shuffle. We know that in the current government, there are those in cabinet and there are those working hard to join it. Therefore, congratulations to those who have succeeded.
In particular, I want to extend my best wishes to the former foreign affairs minister. The member has been relentless in his service to Canada. Of course, given my interest in the foreign affairs file, we have had a chance to cross swords quite a bit over the last year and a bit. I know the member is intelligent and deeply thoughtful. His vision for foreign policy was one with which I passionately disagreed, but it must be said that he did articulate a vision for Canadian foreign policy which reflects his values, and it was a vision he developed with sincere motivation. Perhaps more importantly, his ideas about the commitment to the idea of a unified Canadian nation have stood and will stand the test of time. I wish him very well in whatever next steps he takes. 
I look forward to debating with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, although I was hoping that the member for Winnipeg North would get that position so that he would be travelling more and I could finally catch up to him on the word count. 
Today we are debating Bill C-36, which is an important piece of legislation about the Statistics Act. The government introduced this legislation on December 7, so we see that we are moving along relatively quickly with the debate and discussion on this. Certainly, it contains some important measures that we are looking at. We have heard different and thoughtful arguments from members throughout the House today. I will start by reviewing some of the substantive content and also what appear to be the objectives of the bill, which I will react to and discuss.
I will say at the outset that my objective in rising today is not to speak definitively for or against the bill, but rather to raise some issues that I think require discussion and consideration in the context of this legislation. Following that, I intend on listening to the ongoing conversation that happens on this legislation and evaluating some of the pros and cons going forward. 
With that in mind, certainly for those who are watching or perhaps reading the transcript of the debate afterward, I look forward to hearing substantive feedback from my constituents and others on how they see this debate proceeding with respect to this important legislation.
When most people hear that we are talking about the Statistics Act, they might imagine something fundamentally dry and technical. Of course, there are technical aspects to all legislation that we deal with in the House, but the bill before us is very practical and important for the collection and use of statistics in the real world. Indeed, it is the kind of information gathered by government, the way that the gathering of this information is overseen, and the way that information is shared and used that can influence research, which then touches on every aspect of our lives. 
Before being elected, I had the honour of working for an opinion research company. Being involved in this process first-hand I saw all kinds of different ways research and statistical information impacts all sorts of practical aspects of our daily lives.
We live in a world today of big data. Every aspect of our lives is influenced by data, from the choices and prices we see at the store to the social outreach activities of religious institutions. These things are often informed by all kinds of complex calculations involving data. 
Certainly, with the advent of the Internet and then of social media, there is more data out there about the world, as well as about us, than would have been imaginable even a short time ago. This use of data has many positive impacts for our lives. It also raises lots of different kinds of questions that perhaps were not at the forefront of our public conversations, again, a relatively short time ago.
The role and approach of government in the collection and use of statistical information is a critically important and very interesting discussion, especially if that information interacts with other data sets that are collected privately. The information gathered by the government can be used as a basis for weighting other kinds of data, everything from social research to medical research, to market research, to political polling. I generally believe that the government should stick to doing the things it does best, but gathering important baseline data is certainly one of those things, and there is a very important role for government involved in that.
As I mentioned, my prior life of working in the private sector, as the vice-president of an opinion research company, involved using data gathered by government as part of the benchmarking for the various research initiatives in which we were involved. The use and also, by the way, the misuse of data, which we often see in the context of politics as well, shapes and will continue to shape many different aspects of our regular daily lives. Of course, the government does not just gather data for the use of others. It also conducts policy research that shapes its own decisions, and I will return to that insofar as how this legislation might interact with policy research as well. 
Here again, we can see both the use and misuse of data. I think we would agree in principle, notwithstanding the possibility of misuse, that governments should always try to base their decisions on the best available information and be diligent about identifying and utilizing opportunities to actually gather that information.
With that general introduction about the importance of this area, let me return to the specific provisions of the legislation we are talking about.
Bill C-36, introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in December of last year, proposes amendments to the Statistics Act with the government's stated objective of strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada. Part of what we are evaluating is whether it actually would succeed in those objectives, and there are some other things that are, at best, tangentially related to that identified objective.
Under this legislation, we would have the appointment of a chief statistician for a fixed, renewable period of five years, removable only for cause, as identified by the Governor in Council. It also assigns to the chief statistician the powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. The minister would still be able to issue directives on statistical programs, but would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations.
The chief statistician might require that any directive given be made public and in writing before acting on that directive. Therefore, there is still the opportunity for the government to direct a particular statistical program, but there is a level of independence within the general ambit of that in terms of the chief statistician being able to define exactly what kinds of operations, methods, and procedures make the most sense in that context. 
This may perhaps not be the direct intent, but the legislation also means that the chief statistician might have authorization to make decisions about where the data is housed. This raises, of course, another set of questions in terms of what this means for the practical use of data.
The chief statistician, in the context of methods, procedures, and operations, would have authority to develop questioning within surveys. That is quite a bit of flexibility to be held independent of the government, and there is a discussion to be had about what the role is for the elected government in terms of the development of those things versus an independent officer like the chief statistician.
I raised this separate issue in questions and comments a number of times. The bill would establish what it calls the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the National Statistics Council. 
The new council would comprise 10 members. This council would advise the chief statistician and the minister and focus on the quality of national statistical systems, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of statistical information that is produced. As well, as part of its responsibilities, the council would be required to make an annual public report on the state of the statistical system. 
The question I would ask the members of the government, and maybe we will hear an answer to this soon, is just what motivates this replacement. This is an opportunity to appoint new people to this body. It would be important, if the government felt there was a need for something new to exist, for it to develop some arguments about what was wrong with the old model and new about the new model. It is the sort of thing that needs to be explained, and so far, I do not think it has explained what the objectives in mind are.
The other thing to note, which has been raised by other colleagues as well, is that the existing National Statistics Council being replaced by the Canadian statistics advisory council has representation from 13 provinces and territories, hence the number of members. We can presume that the new council means that three provinces or territories would lose representation. Again, this speaks to the question of why we are moving from one council to another. Those of us participating in the debate are asking legitimately why this is happening.
The bill no longer requires the consent of respondents to transfer census information to Library and Archives Canada, and that is a point of important discussion in terms of whether that consent should be required. It also repeals the penalty of imprisonment for every survey except the mandatory short-form census. As members of the government have said, I think this particular provision is a common-sense change, that people not be imprisoned for failing to fill out the long-form census. This was a concern we had when we were in government and that we spoke about; again, not doing away with the long-form census but moving back on those mandatory provisions, with a concern about some of these issues, for instance the possibility of imprisonment.
It is worth underlining, in the context of the discussion about mandatory versus not around the long form, that the bill does not change whether the long-form census is mandatory. That specific element is not affected one way or the other by specific provisions of the bill.
Those are the different details we are debating. Some of them have a clearer rationale than others, and hopefully, over the course of this debate, we will hear a little more about those rationales.
On the question of independence with respect to methods, with respect to the types of questions we are being asked, there is an important discussion to be had here, because on the one hand, it is important for the government, which is elected by the people, to be able to get the statistical information it needs to answer policy questions that it feels are important and need to be answered. On the other hand, it certainly makes sense to have experts defining what methods make sense for achieving those objectives.
That is generally the model that is envisioned, but we could also imagine a case where a minister might have an opinion about the kind of method that was most suitable for getting certain kinds of data. We could also imagine possible problems with that. 
In the context of this debate, we should think about the government's experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website, because it was an example of the government wading into what it claimed was an exercise in research, in gathering Canadians' opinions. However, we know that there are horrendous problems with the kind of survey that was developed and the way it was developed. It did not actually ask clear, direct questions in terms of people's opinions about specific issues. It did not get clear feedback from people, and there was ambiguity about whether people had to actually give their information or not.
This, perhaps, speaks to the importance of having independence when it comes to developing statistical surveys because it really looks like MyDemocracy.ca was developed, clearly, with certain objectives in mind by the government, which is to obscure the information, to not actually do what seems much more natural and straightforward and obvious, which is to ask people questions about their opinion.
There is a worry, when it comes to an elected government being involved in information-gathering, that there is a loss of independence and that the government seeks to use its desire for certain policy outcomes to obscure the collection of information.
Over the break, I had a constituent write to me about his experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website. It speaks to some of the problems with statistical information, so I want to share what he had to say. His name is Mike, and he said I could share his name because I think this is important information. 
He wrote, “I live in Sherwood Park and I received a card to fill out the survey at MyDemocracy.ca. I went to fill it out and ran into a major issue. I spend a bunch of time and when I got to the profile section, which states that it's entirely optional, it would not let me proceed. I called the number and spoke to someone. He told me that it was a failsafe to ensure it was filled out, even though it is optional to fill out that portion, and he suggested that I could put in false information if I did not want my real info in.”
He continues. “This insane and defeats the entire point of the survey. For a federal government employee to suggest putting false info in is unbelievable. It's clear this a skewed survey. At the end of the day, my opinion was not registered, and something is wrong with that. The deadline for this survey is December 30. I received this card yesterday, December 7. The fact that the government sent this out at the busiest time of year, with only three weeks to contemplate it and with a major flaw that eliminates certain people's responses, is a major problem. Most people will not take the time report this problem. Who knows how many people's opinions have been excluded. This survey has no validity now. I cannot adequately express how troubling this is and makes me wonder what the federal government's real motivation is. Further to the above, the survey questions are very repetitive, and they basically ask the same questions two and three times.”
That is correspondence that I received from a constituent about MyDemocracy.ca. Of course, it is correspondence that has important implications for the electoral reform discussion, but it also has important implications for our examination of what the relationship should be between the elected government and those developing statistical tools. It speaks to the fact that we have a government here that is, I believe, trying to set up a system for gathering information that is designed to produce the kinds of outcomes that it wants, rather than engaging in a more serious, sincere consultation or survey to figure out what either those who want to participate in giving us information think or what a representative sample of Canadians think.
This speaks to the importance of independence. On the other hand, would the change to the Statistics Canada Act actually affect this kind of ad hoc, one-off policy research the government might choose to do?
Maybe we should look at saying that, specifically, when the government has these kinds of political objectives in mind, that is where that independence would be critically needed so we do not run into this sort of false research exercised by the government when it is trying to get specific outcomes it wants in order to justify a course of action that it has already identified. That is not meaningful research. That is certainly not meaningful consultation.
Another point I want to make, just on reflecting on the content of the bill, is that we would be changing the council that provides oversight to the activities with respect to statistics. Again, the old council was the National Statistics Council, or NSC, and we would be moving to the Canadian statistics advisory council.
There is a possibility that this is actually a tactic that compromises independence because it opens up an opportunity for the government to appoint an entirely new council whose members, presumably, would all be appointed by the government, which might not be as effective in exercising oversight as the existing council, with the existing people, with the existing infrastructure that is in place. That transition would create an opportunity for the government to appoint a wholesale group of new people.
Again, we have yet to hear from the government some degree of explanation or rationale with respect to what the objective is, what it would be trying to achieve with this new council.
To summarize, the ongoing discussion on the bill before us is important. There certainly are some important objectives here, but there are also some outstanding questions about what the real objectives are and whether some of these changes would actually achieve the objectives that the government has defined. I look forward to that continuing conversation.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to ask my first question in this role. 
I will take a moment to express my sympathy for the victims of the terrorist attack in Quebec City last evening. Our hearts and souls go out to all of those people affected by it.
I would like to ask the hon. member for a bit more clarification on the matter of the long-form census. I think he is technically right, but maybe he has missed an important element of the facts.
It is true that the mandatory long-form census was not eliminated by the previous government, but the Conservatives did make the political decision to render it non-obligatory. Then, and this is the part that perhaps this bill would hopefully correct, they tried to pass off that decision on Canada's chief statistician and say that he was in agreement. However, he said that he was not, and he effectively resigned over the matter. 
This is the part that I think the hon. member is missing. This is what the bill is trying to correct, to increase the transparency and make governments responsible when they do issue that kind of political directive. I would ask the member to comment on that.
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the premise of the member's remarks, he said that I am technically right. Well, there is only one kind of being right, and I am glad he acknowledges that everything I said about the mandatory long-form census was correct. The fact is there was no intention and there never was a plan to do away with the long-form census and it never happened. In terms of that, he should acknowledge, as I said, the bill would not change any of that with respect to the mandatory long-form census. 
Again, it has come up in discussion and it is sort of approximately related that one thing the bill would do is repeal the possibility of imprisonment for those who do not fill out the survey. I am glad the government has at least come along with us that far in terms of realizing that incarcerating someone is not an appropriate response to someone choosing not to fill out or perhaps forgetting to fill out the long-form consensus. That at least is a step toward proportionality. 
The objectives in a lot of the bill are important, but it is just a question of whether or not the provisions realize the objectives.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about statistics in general and the census, I would like to talk about a problem I am seeing in my riding. I wonder whether my colleague is facing a similar problem.
The census is done in the summertime, in early spring, in May. Along with the census there is also an agricultural census, and all agricultural businesses must participate. This happens at the worst time of year, since that is when farmers need to be sowing their fields and getting ready for summer.
Does the member think that that is the best time to encourage census participation? Since we are talking about the census and statistics, should we not try to find a solution that allows farmers to participate more fully, and make sure that it does not happen at a time that is really difficult for them, since it only makes life harder?
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I do have the honour of representing a constituency with a significant farming community. It is not a majority of the population in my riding, but it is certainly a vital part of the community.
The member makes an excellent point about the timing of the agricultural census. I certainly think that is an issue worthy of ongoing consideration in terms of looking at possible alternative times when that could take place.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague underline his concerns about the use and misuse of data. With the last voluntary survey that was done, it was noted that some jurisdictions in Canada had a low response rate in their survey, and that certain groups within Canada tend to respond to voluntary surveys better than others. Therefore, we get a real hodgepodge of data that comes in, and in some places in Canada it leads to an absolute black hole. Some communities reported that there were problems with their data. They did not know where their citizens worked, what their education levels were, what their marriage status was or their immigration status, or what the poverty levels were. Therefore, there were no socio-economic statistics that could help these local communities make policies to help their citizens.
I know that my colleague is withholding judgment on this particular bill, but I would like to know his thoughts on the long-form census. Does he personally believe that a mandatory long-form census should be instituted? Is this something the committee should be studying and implementing to make sure that the data across Canada is used appropriately to help Canadian citizens where they need it?
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the question, and I thank him for the information he has shared and the point he has raised.
My response may be somewhat technical, but it is important to clarify. The short form census continued to be mandatory. The long form census, for a time under the previous government, was not mandatory. However, when we have a short form census that everyone is still filling out, we still have the opportunity to benchmark or weight the data we are collecting from a long form survey based on the data we are collecting from the short form. In other words, we can make up for the possibility of under-representation of certain groups in a response sample by weighting, given that we still have the data from the short form.
He might have a point about a data black hole if the short form census were no longer mandatory. That was certainly never undertaken and, as far as I know, never contemplated. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the responses the member gave. He was talking about an important aspect of the legislation, which ultimately says that if someone refuses to complete a census form they would no longer be going to jail. People have not really been going to jail, even though the legislation allowed for it. 
The member is trying to give the impression that the Conservatives support that aspect and it is good to see that our government is bringing it in. The Conservative government at the time was very anxious to make the long form census forms non-mandatory, yet it seemed rather odd that they never got rid of what it is we are getting rid of, the jail time penalty. Perhaps the member could explain why the Conservatives did not deal with that particular issue when they had the opportunity. 
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clar. The law allowed someone to be sentenced to jail for not filling out the long form census at the time when it was previously mandatory. It is a problem that it says that in the law. Do I know offhand the number of people who were sentenced recently under that provision? No, I do not. However, it is not a matter of small consequence that it is still, at the present time, the law. Of course, at the time the government made the decision to have the long form census not be mandatory that particular provision was not relevant because it was not mandatory. Under a framework where it was not mandatory, there was not a need to repeal the provision. 
However, the government has made the decision to make it mandatory. It has taken quite a while to get around to repealing the provision, but at least it recognized the fact that people should not be incarcerated for not filling out the long form census. That, at least, is progress. 
Diane Finley: 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. 
Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the critic for her question and also for her great work in this area.
This is a great point. The government has a part of the bill that really is not explained at all in terms of the rationale. It removes people who have experience, who have been working in this area and have the intimate knowledge. It creates an opportunity for the government to appoint a whole new slate of people. When the government appoints an entire slate of people all at once, that has the potential to really compromise independence, because the same government is appointing all of those people right out of the gate. There is a loss of institutional memory and experience. 
Sometimes, what we see from the government is change for change's sake. There are benefits to change if there are benefits of change in a particular case, but we should not just be changing things for the sake of changing them. In the absence of some kind of rationale around this, that is kind of what it looks like.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, I should note that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton North.
It is an honour to take part in this debate after two illustrious members of the House from both sides. While I will not claim that my word count is anywhere near either one of theirs, I think I am not too shabby myself.
I rise to speak about Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. The government is committed to evidence-based decision-making. This bill supports the production and distribution of statistical information that is reliable and impartial.
Bill C-36 ensures that Canadians can have full confidence in their national statistical agency and the quality of the information it produces. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that decisions made about data collection, analysis, and dissemination rest with the experts in the field of statistics, not the politicians. 
Statistics play an essential role in modern democratic societies. They are critical to good government and evidence-based decision-making. They inform the decisions made by businesses, non-profit organizations, governments, and the public. Public confidence in the quality of official statistics is critical, as is the public trust in the institution that produces official statistics. 
For those reasons, Canada's statistical agency is a world-leading organization and must have a high level of independence. In fact, the agency must be able to operate at a healthy distance from day-to-day political direction and oversight. Statistics Canada must be guided exclusively by professional considerations on decisions relating to its operations and data-gathering methods. Any perception of interference inevitably leads to a loss of public trust. 
The decision by the previous government to turn the 2011 mandatory long-form census into a voluntary survey highlighted a vulnerability in Canada's statistical legislation. It raised public concerns about Statistics Canada's independence, and it compromised the quality and detail of the census data. This unilateral decision prompted a swift reaction from Canadians who objected to this change.
Historically, Statistics Canada has been treated at arm’s length by convention rather than by legislation. Because this practice was not enshrined in the Statistics Act, it left the agency and the chief statistician of Canada vulnerable to political interference in statistical matters. 
This bill strengthens Statistics Canada’s professional independence by enshrining it in law. The bill accomplishes this goal in a number of ways. First, it protects the independence and integrity of the chief statistician. Under the current Statistics Act, the Governor in Council appoints the chief statistician of Canada to be the deputy of the minister. The chief statistician also holds office during pleasure of the government.
The act sets no specific terms or conditions about the employment of the chief statistician. In effect, the chief statistician can be removed arbitrarily from office at the government’s discretion with or without cause. This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician’s ability to make decisions based on professional statistical and ethical principles. Furthermore, the chief statistician could effectively be dismissed at any time without public justification. 
This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician's ability to make decisions based on professional, statistical, and ethical principles. 
Bill C-36 would address these legislative gaps. It proposes to appoint the chief statistician, on good behaviour, for a five-year renewable term. It would protect the chief statistician from being dismissed for arbitrary reasons. It would provide greater clarity on the chief statistician's terms and conditions of employment. As well, it would place a greater onus on the government to explain a decision to remove the chief statistician.
Taken together, the proposed changes contained in Bill C-36 will protect the integrity of Statistics Canada. They will strengthen public confidence in the agency’s ability to protect the confidentiality of their information. They will also enable Statistics Canada to continue to produce high-quality statistical information that all Canadians can rely on. A fundamental role of government is to safeguard the integrity and quality of the statistical data that is produced on behalf of all Canadians. Bill C-36 allows this government to fulfill that responsibility. 
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his new role and for his first speech in the role.
One of the things that is important is this. With the chief statistician taking over the responsibility for choosing methodology and choosing data and all that kind of thing, it is very important that the chief statistician have some credentials or some understanding of statistics. I wonder if the member could tell me what the current chief statistician's credentials are.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the chief statistician's CV in front of me.
What we hope to do in this legislation is improve the quality of the chief statistician. How? It would be by subjecting the appointment of the chief statistician to our Governor in Council appointment process, which we have revised to make into a process of the highest quality and the highest transparency to get the single most qualified person in the job.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his insightful speech. This is obviously a subject he is very interested in. It is a first and I congratulate him. However, given that we are focusing on the chief statistician, let us talk about the former chief statistician. As we all know, he quit because he knew that the former government's vision for Statistics Canada was problematic. Will he appear before the committee so that we can hear what changes he would make? 
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We are indeed talking about two chief statisticians, not just one, because there are two who resigned. The first, Munir Sheikh, was consulted throughout the process. We took his recommendations into consideration. That does not mean that we accepted all of them, but we consulted him.
The second chief statistician, Wayne Smith, was also part of the reform initiated by our government. He therefore played a role in the process. Once again, I am not going to say that he completely agrees with the recommendations contained in the bill, but some aspects of it reflect his views.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, another thing that my constituents often mention about the census is access to a paper copy. In the past, there were people available to help those who are somewhat less educated or who have trouble reading or understanding the questionnaire.
Is it not important to ensure that this service continues to be available to people who need it? Paper copies of the census must be made available, and people who want a paper copy should not have to wait on the phone for an hour and a half to get one. It is also important that those who call are able to speak to someone in the official language of their choice, and staff must be available to help people who, for whatever reason, need assistance filling out the form.
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. 
My colleague is talking about the methodology used for any survey. We will give the chief statistician and his advisors, as well as his department, the authority to take such practical matters into consideration. Such things should not be up to the government because they have to do with methodology. We will delegate decisions about methodology to the department under the leadership of the chief statistician, and we will count on the expertise there. Practical matters that should be delegated will be, and that process will be transparent.
Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a moment to express my grief for the victims and family members of the terrorist attack in Quebec against our Muslim brothers and sisters. I know that all of my colleagues stand with me in solidarity with them at this terrible moment.
I am pleased to speak about one important particular amendment to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, which relates to the release of census records 92 years after any given census. Consistent with this government's commitment to open and accessible data, Bill C-36 proposes to remove the requirement to request consent before transferring census records to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census of population.
Researchers, historians, and genealogists require this information to conduct research to help us better understand our past and to build our future. There has been little opposition to the release of these records and as many other countries have come to understand, preserving information about our past is of great value.
The U.S., New Zealand, the U.K., and Australia are among many countries that preserve census records for release. In the U.S., the time lapse is 72 years. In New Zealand and the U.K., it is 100 years. In Australia, it is 99 years. Until recently, Australia's and New Zealand's census records were actually destroyed. Then they passed laws, in 2000 and 2005 respectively, to allow such records to be released. They recognized the value of these records. They did this after campaigns by networks of family historians, genealogists, and interested citizens.
In Canada, we are fortunate that there has never been a policy to destroy census records. The notion that such records provide valuable historical information has always been upheld in our country, Until 1993, census records were routinely released after various lengths of time, ranging from 70 years to 98 years, with no restrictions. In fact, it was not until requests for the release of the 1901 census records that an impasse over access arose. 
It was noted that legislation at the time did not allow for the release of individual records from censuses after 1901 because of confidentiality provisions. On the other hand, the National Archives, heritage and genealogical groups, and others argued that census records constituted a national historic treasure that should be preserved. They argued they should be made available after a sufficient number of years for privacy concerns to no longer exist or hold sway. They believed 92 years to be in accordance with existing regulations in the Privacy Act. 
Why 92 years? At the time that the Privacy Act was adopted in 1983, data from the 1891 census had yet to be released. To facilitate its release, the Privacy Act regulations included a provision for the release of census records after 92 years, the number of years between 1891 and 1983. That 92-year precedent was applied to the Statistics Act when a section about releasing census records was added as a result of the passage of Bill S-18 in 2005. The enactment required that Canadians consent to release their census records beginning with the 2006 census. It also provided for a parliamentary review of the administration of that requirement. The experience of the past three censuses indicate the support of Canadians for the release of census records after 92 years. 
It is important to note here that in 1999, the hon. John Manley, the minister of industry, called for the creation of an expert panel on access to historical census records. That panel, which was chaired by a former Supreme Court justice, issued a report after an in-depth inquiry. It found no evidence that legislators in the early census days intended census records to perpetually be confidential. The panel recommended allowing public access after 92 years. The government at that time stated that this issue would be considered as part of the review of privacy legislation. In our view, the passage of Bill S-18 only partially resolved this issue. 
Our government believes that census records constitute a national historic treasure and therefore should be preserved, and more importantly, should be released for research purposes after 92 years.
Census records are essential to understanding our society's past, present, and future, which cities like Brampton, the city I am from and represent, that have large immigrant populations, can definitely benefit from. There are so many Canadians who are desperate to find out more about their roots. That is why Bill C-36 proposes amendments to the Statistics Act to remove the requirement for consent for all census records, beginning in 2021. 
As Canada becomes more diverse, cities like Brampton could use this historical data to see if policies made by previous governments reflected their populations. It would also help emerging cities compare their growth patterns to Brampton and better compare policies that did or did not work for their people.
Records for the 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses, for which consent was required, would be released only if consent was given. 
Two key considerations in deciding to include this amendment in the bill related to privacy concerns and response rates. On the privacy front, as in other countries, the proposed amendments strike a balance between the right to access and the right to privacy. We believe that 92 years is a sufficient lapse in time.
The other issue relates to the potential, however remote, for response rates to fall if people think the data will eventually be released. We are talking about more than nine decades after a person has taken the census. Experience has shown that the automatic transfer of census records after a sufficiently long period of time does not adversely affect census participation. Response rates to a census have remained high over time, whether or not consent was sought before the release of census records.
In making this change, we are ensuring that researchers can eventually access what many consider a national historic treasure, a treasure that may help us understand both our own individual lineage and the evolving social fabric of our country.
Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my question is on the council we would be getting rid of. The National Statistics Council would be changed to the Canadian statistics advisory council.
I have never heard a complaint about the good work the National Statistics Council has been doing. I have actually had a hard time finding out who the members serving on the council are. From what I gather, there are many senior journalists on it, who usually specialize in social and economic affairs. There are junior journalists. There are also members from the Statistical Society of Canada. When I did find the list, I noticed that there are provosts of universities and many professors on it. 
The council is being reduced. It is not quite clear why the government is going in this direction. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I am interested to hear from the member why she thinks the government has chosen to do this. 
We heard from the minister this morning. He did not indicate whether the previous council had done a bad job. In fact, he just said that it is moving on and the previous people will have their appointments rescinded.
Does the member know why the government is moving ahead with removing the previous council and creating this new one, even though there have been no complaints about the work of the previous group?
Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has said he has not heard whether there were complaints. I also am not sure and cannot validate whether there were or were not complaints.
I understand that the new Canadian statistics advisory council would be focused on presenting quality statistical data to Canadians, and that is something I believe all of us can be proud of and can benefit from in the future. Having accurate quality statistics is important for all of our cities in order to develop good policies.
It is hard for me to comment on something that is unknown to me or the member, but it is something we can inquire about. Whether that information is available, I do not know. 
Quality is what we are concerned with, and we can trust that the new advisory council would make that its focus and its main mandate.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be looking forward to this bill going to committee so that we can give it the proper scrutiny it deserves. My question is sort of related to the bill, but is more on the government's policy. The previous chief statistician of Statistics Canada resigned from the agency, and his main reason for doing so was, he complained, that there was a lack of independence that the organization had; that it was sort of tied down to Shared Services Canada.
I wonder if the member can inform the House of what the government is going to do to innoculate Statistics Canada against any kind of interference from Shared Services Canada, and how it plans on making it a truly independent agency in which Canadians can have full trust.
Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, creating this council that will advise the chief statistician, with the combination of having open transparency and creating that distance between the minister and the advisory council that will then inform the chief statistician, is a great step to putting a distance between the two departments and making sure there is more independence going forward for the chief statistician working with the advisory panel alone. That, in itself, is a good measure to take. 
I, too, look forward to this bill going to committee and the committee working on making sure that this bill has the proper amendments in place to make sure it serves Canadians as it should.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague another question, because the response given by her colleague a little earlier worried me somewhat. 
When we were talking about the chief statistician, Mr. Smith, the parliamentary secretary said that although he did not always agree with everything, he was definitely consulted.
Can we at least expect Mr. Smith to appear before the committee, or did the Liberal government make an executive decision and simply decide that one consultation was enough?
Ruby Sahota: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I fully understood the question, but when it comes to the council or the parliamentary committee that this bill is going to go before, I believe it would be up to the parliamentary committee, of course, to decide on the experts it wishes to hear from. As we know, our committee consists of members from all parties, so I can only have faith that the committee will make good decisions when choosing the witnesses to come before it.
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments that were made earlier today about the tragic murders in Quebec. I did not think I would ever see the day when people would be murdered at worship in Canada. Our hearts go out to them. Our prayers are with them, certainly.
That said, I want to say how nice it is to be back in the House of Commons and to welcome all my colleagues back. What a delight it is to be discussing an issue that is near and dear to my heart; I may be one of the few, but I will try to keep this lively.
I am rising to speak on the subject of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. First, I want to thank the minister for the work that he put into the bill and for recognizing the importance of meaningful, accurate statistics.
I do know a bit about the subject of statistics. As a chemical engineer, I did study statistics at Queen's University. Later in my career, I was fortunate to receive a degree in statistics from the University of Tennessee as part of Dow Chemicals' implementation of Deming's quality practices. I was then certified as a black belt and master black belt under GE's Six Sigma statistics program, and I served as a statistical specialist to a global business for several years. So I do know a little bit about the subject.
The bill aims to change the role of the chief statistician, making the position more independent, change how respondents' information is archived, and amend the penalties for offences committed by respondents. The bill also seeks to change the terminology used in the Statistics Act to modernize it, as well as ensure French-English concurrence. In addition, the bill would replace the National Statistics Council with a Canadian statistics advisory council.
First of all, I would like to outline some of the principles that I think should apply to this discussion. Canadians need to be able to trust the data that comes from Statistics Canada. The government needs to support the work that Statistics Canada does. The government needs to be accountable to Canadians to strike the right balance between protecting their privacy rights and collecting good quality data.
I am going to highlight some of the things I like about the bill and then I will highlight some of my concerns. 
First of all, it has been very concerning to have had two chief statisticians quit their job over issues which I believe have now been addressed in the bill. 
The first issue was the long-form census. I have been clear that I support a long-form census and that the only correct statistical method for a census is the mandatory one.
When I first took the role of science critic, I made my census position known in my party and in the House. I believe that Canadians, through one of the best participation rates in history, have also shown that they value the census and the statistics it collects. They know that many organizations use this information to make plans to improve our country. To be better able to provide for Canadians, we need to understand the Canadian makeup, including age, gender, region, and culture. From a wider scope, having data on economic, social, and regional variables in Canada is also invaluable for legislators as well as for our countless researchers.
However, I want to say that with the implementation of the long-form census, there were quite a number of problems which I did highlight for the minister as soon as they were brought to my attention. Many people were unable to log on. There was a huge overload on the system. Some people did not receive their log-in IDs properly. There were really long wait times on the line if people were phoning in to address a concern. Those are things we would want to see fixed going forward.
One of the questions I had personally was that I received a form at my apartment in Ottawa and the same one also at my home in Sarnia. I filled both of them out, but no one seemed able to answer whether that would result in doubt counting or not. That would be fundamentally important from a data integrity point of view.
When it comes to the responsibility of the chief statistician, I am happy to see that under the bill the responsibility to select statistical methods and the data to be collected is to be the responsibility of the chief statistician, as it should be. I believe the autonomy provided to this role under the bill would ensure good science aligned to world statistical language and good practices would result.
As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I have seen countless witnesses, both inside and outside government departments and agencies, testify that there simply is not the data available to answer certain vital questions. More specifically, segregated data is lacking to continue much needed research in the fields of women in the Canadian economy or more broadly on the subject of violence against women.
For all of us who took gender-based analysis training, and I believe there were 1,000 parliamentarians and staff who did so, we will know from the training that segregated data is very important in making sure that we can see that all of the legislation we are putting forward is fair for all. Again, we need to have the correct data.
I look forward to having a chief statistician who, upon receiving the requests for data which are needed to address, based on good science, the difficult issues of our time, has the autonomy to act.
The term of office being five years with good behaviour seems reasonable, but there is no definition of what constitutes a cause for which the Governor in Council could remove him or her. I am assuming that it must be the standard government employee criteria; otherwise, it needs to be clarified in the bill.
I do not see where the qualifications required for a chief statistician are defined. I would expect as a minimum that someone serving in this capacity would have training in statistics, but I am not familiar with the credentials the current chief brings and the parliamentary secretary was unable to comment. I would like to see a minimum of university statistics training as a requirement. In order to apply methods, define data collection, and interpret the data, people actually need to know something about statistics or they could get into trouble. We have all heard the saying, lies, lies, and statistics.
One thing that was not clear in the bill was how the budget for Statistics Canada would be proposed and approved. One would expect that if the chief statistician has the ability to determine what data Statistics Canada would be collecting, and to have control of the operations, the hiring of temporary, contract, and full-time employees, he or she would be in the best position to propose a budget that the minister would submit for approval. What would happen if the finance minister decided not to adequately fund Statistics Canada? This would limit the ability of the chief statistician to really have autonomy over the department and what if he were fired for the cause of not achieving his goals because he was underfunded?
This bill also seeks to modernize the language of the Statistics Act to better reflect linguistic standards and current methods of collecting statistical information, and to make the English and French consistent. It is important to ensure that we are saying the same thing in both official languages. It has been known to happen that officials say one thing in English and quite another in French. We do not want that to happen at Statistics Canada. 
Given the ongoing evolution of data collection and analysis in Canada, revised legislative language will enable statisticians to use the most effective and current technologies to better understand Canada's population, society, and economy.
I am also glad to see some ability for the chief statistician to ensure that data is kept secure and tamper free. This would address the concern of protecting the independence of Statistics Canada from decisions made by shared services that could be detrimental to the operation of Statistics Canada.
One concern I do have is that with this ability to choose data storage solutions that may not align to shared services, we must also add protections to ensure that our data is not stored with a third party that could lead to security concerns. We can imagine, for example, if the data was outsourced to a company with any linkages to terrorists or other organizations that would be interested in having the private information of Canadians, that would not be a good thing.
Having already had the Chinese hacking into our systems and with the government currently allowing the Chinese to buy an IT technology firm in Canada against the recommendation of CSIS, we certainly need to have Canadians interests top of mind. We can be aware that this IT technology firm that is being allowed to be purchased by the Chinese did research into anti-hacking with specific recommendations around the Canadian systems. Therefore, that is a real area of concern for me. We have seen in the past where the Canada Revenue Agency had leaks. Certainly protecting the data security, this is the private information of Canadians, is top of mind.
One of the other mandatory census items I wanted to discuss is that of the agriculture census. We heard something about it earlier from one of my colleagues. I strongly support the need for the census, but I will share with the House some concerns I have heard from farmers on this subject.
Many farmers have told me that they have received a call at the worst possible time, while they are in the fields, from Statistics Canada, not a form or an email survey. Several have been on their tractors when they get the call and are asked about specific facts and figures regarding their agricultural operations. 
When they inform Statistics Canada that they would rather check their numbers and call back when they are in their office, they are told to just guess or estimate the numbers, and that they cannot do the call later when they are in the office.
This calls into question the integrity of the numbers, so I would definitely like to see an amendment to the method of collection for the agricultural census to be along the same lines as the long form census, with a deadline to complete and hopefully at a different time than when they are in the field.
There is an opportunity to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of data collection. A large percentage of the population are computer savvy and are quite capable of completing information online, thus making it much less costly to collate the data. Wherever possible, we should move in that direction, since in very short order everyone will be computer literate. I know there have been improvements from the 2011 census, which 60% of people responded electronically to an even better time, but we need to continue to move in that direction.
The bill also proposes the creation of an advisory council. 
The role of the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council would be to advise the minister and the chief statistician in a transparent manner on many different subjects, particularly the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of its data. The council would also make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system. 
Personally, I would be pleased to have an annual report on the state of Statistics Canada, because I see the real value in accurate and well analysed statistics. I believe that an annual report will show both the progress made every year by Statistics Canada and the areas where progress is still required. We cannot underestimate the importance of quality statistics and ensuring that our statisticians have the feedback and the support of the House and Canadians.
I do have a concern about this new council. The previous National Statistics Council had 13 members, one from each province, to ensure that geographic representation existed. The new council would have 10 members appointed by the Liberals. I worry that we would lose the geographic representation and that if the Liberals appoint their buddies to the council as plum appointments, there would be a partisan interference potential, which has no place in science and statistics.
I have also indicated that it is important for people in this kind of advisory role to have some background in statistics. I also do not see that requirement for any of the people on the council.
The terms of office specified for everyone, such as the chief statistician for five years with a chance for a second five, and others at five years and three years, are fine. However, if people are doing a great job, then why limit them? If we get people in these roles and they are experienced, it can be an efficiency and reduce the waste of turnover.
In addition, there is another aspect of this bill that might be controversial. Bill C-36 would make it so that Statistics Canada would no longer require the express consent of the respondent to transfer information to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years. Personally, I do not have an issue with that. Once my seven years of tax records that are required by the CRA are taken care of, it could archive any of my other information and it would not matter to me. However, there are Canadians who are more sensitive on the issues of privacy, so perhaps a checkbox on the information collected that grants permission to archive after 92 years would be a good amendment. I do realize, though, that even if we had filled out our first information at age 18, and it was archived 92 years later, we would be 110 years old. Therefore, I think it may not be such a huge concern.
This bill would eliminate the penalty of imprisonment for any offence committed by a respondent. We have heard today that everyone is happy to see that because it is ridiculous that one would go to jail for not filling out a form. The financial penalty that remains is an adequate control. If we look at history, there have been very few instances, in fact I could find none, where people were imprisoned for not filling out the census. There were several where it went to court but was not pursued. Therefore, the controls outlined for ensuring that information is forthcoming from corporations and other organizations is also adequate and appropriate.
In summary, I believe the bill addresses the need for more autonomy for the chief statistician. However, I would like to see additional protection for data storage that would recognizes potential security threats.
Mechanisms to allow ministerial intervention are adequate. Penalties for not providing data are appropriate. I would ask that the archiving of information without consent be revisited for those Canadians who may have a concern. While I support the mandatory census for agriculture, I would ask for enhancements to ensure the responses received reflect the best data integrity possible. I would also ask that the National Statistics Council be maintained, with its geographic representation of all provinces and territories, and with non-partisan appointments.
I would like to again thank the minister for his bill and to thank all the other members who took to time to speak to this matter this afternoon. As a statistician, engineer, and parliamentarian, I understand the real value to our country of accurate statistics that are properly collected.
At the end of the day, statistics reflect the Canadian population. The closer that reflection is to reality, the more closely the government can respond through well-informed and well-thought-out legislation.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in her concluding remarks with respect to how the statistics should reflect the population. Overall, Statistics Canada has done such an incredible job of ensuring that it is as aligned as possible, especially if we draw a comparison to how we are doing as a nation versus other organizations, as well as within Canada, where other groups attempt to get an understanding of the different demographics and the needs of the different communities. Therefore, I think all members of the House owe a great deal of gratitude to those public servants who have done such an incredible job at Statistics Canada.
My question to the member is specifically related to this. One general gist of the legislation is to move forward with a more independent Statistics Canada. In good part, that is done through the chief statistician. At the very least, would she acknowledge that it would be a positive thing for Statistics Canada to be a little more independent of government, allowing those who have the ability and knowledge to ensure that there is more discretion, and that they have the authority to do so, whether with respect to the types of questions or whatever else that would be? Would she see that as a good thing?
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Statistics Canada for the work that it does. It is so important.
This bill moves us in the right direction in giving more independence to Statistics Canada. There is the right balance in the bill as the minister still has the ability to overrule. That provision still exists.
What we have here is the chief statistician determining the methods and what data is going to be collected. It is so important to have somebody who really understands the difference; otherwise a decision can be made which may be well meaning but may result in a problem where voluntary data, for example, is skewed in a way that is unknown, because it cannot be determined why people do not return the survey.
We are moving in the right direction with the right balance of independence of Statistics Canada and a bit of oversight from the minister, and a little bit of independence from having to go with whatever Shared Services is going to dictate, because let us keep in mind that this is very confidential information with different criteria. If we put some extra protection in there to make sure the data is secure and does not go to interests that might not be friendly to us, that would be a good thing.
Pierre Nantel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We can once again see how generous and knowledgeable she is from her contribution to the parliamentary system. I thank her for that. I am learning a lot from her.
I think that everyone can agree that this bill is a step in the right direction but that it is incomplete. There are quite a few loose ends that need to be tied up.
Does the member have faith in the committee process? Does she believe that it will be fair and conducted in the best interests of Canadians?
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I believe that although the government is well intentioned with respect to trying to address all of the things, the detail is important. If I look at the other things I have seen the government do, I think there is a high potential for getting the government's buddies involved and having a partisan influence in this system, especially with the statistics council that is being proposed.
I must say that gives me concern. Also, there is concern about the data storage being done by a third party, maybe a Chinese third party, because there seems to be a lot of goodwill to try to create business there. That could be a very dangerous thing from a security point of view.
I hope the committee will get the details, but my experience is that they will not get the details and that will fall through the cracks.
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all day listening to different members present their views on this piece of legislation.
I want to bring it back to the National Statistics Council that is basically being replaced, essentially dismissed. This is what I heard from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development this morning. On this council, however, we had provosts of universities, senior professors with decades of experience in statistics, economics, and social affairs. We also had journalists on this council. This may not be the case going forward, because it is being restricted down to 10 members. I have never heard a complaint about this particular council from any constituent, ever. In fact, it was very difficult to find out who the members of the council were.
Moving toward a GIC model might serve the government well in this one particular area, but restricting it down to 10 members might actually limit the amount of expertise the chief statistician will have available.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts on restricting the membership to 10 and appointments by GIC. Will it truly be open and transparent? Can the chief statistician have the requisite amount of human capital, human knowledge for all these individuals from different parts of the country?
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Certainly, if we go from having representation from all the provinces and territories down to 10, we are not going to be able to have that geographic representation.
The point is well made that nobody has heard anything bad about those who are on the existing council. We have enough problems to fix in government where there really is something wrong that we do not need to throw things out that do not have anything wrong with them. 
There is a balance of expertise on the committee. In addition to the amount of time spent, some of the people are academics who actually have an appreciation of statistics. This could be the one time in the House of Commons that I say something nice about journalists, but the fact is they would bring that transparency, because if something were awry, we can be assured they would bring it to the attention of Canadians.
I like the balance we have with the existing committee. I do not see anything wrong with it. Therefore, I really do not understand why the government is changing it, and I worry.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed my colleague's speech. It is really refreshing to hear her belief in statistics and of course her mastery and background involved in that. 
As I have pointed out before, the previous chief statistician, Wayne Smith, resigned because of what he thought was unnecessary interference by Shared Services Canada. He felt that having to meet its expectations compromised the integrity of the agency he was trying to head. He really tried to fight for the complete independence of the agency to make sure that it really was doing its job. 
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I know the bill does not specifically address that, but it is important in this debate that we address not only the legislation before us but the context and environment in which it is being formulated. I would love to hear her thoughts on the former chief statistician's resignation and what she thinks the government should be doing to make sure that does not happen in the future. 
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, the concerns Wayne Smith had with Shared Services had to do with the data storage component, which I think has been addressed by what the bill says in terms of giving the chief statistician the autonomy to determine how that should be done and the criteria for that. 
Also, he was not happy about the interference he perceived from folks who knew less about the subject than he did. With the chief statistician being in charge of the methodology and what data would be collected and being in charge of the operation of the department, that really gives the right amount of direction for him. 
Does it solve all of the problems that he brought up? No, there are probably other issues that are not addressed, but in the main, it moves in the direction of good, so that is fine. 
Todd Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize because I missed a portion of our hon. colleague's speech. I apologize now if she addressed this, but over the course of the questions and in the debate, I was confused by some of the answers. She is a good colleague of mine. I have a lot of respect for her.
I have concern, and I think Canadians should have concern, when we have a single source in control of all of our data and private information. Canadians' information should be kept private. That being said, a single source should not have the ability to farm out the storage of our data to a third party. In some of the comments we heard, there is a concern that this could be done. In an earlier answer, my hon. colleague mentioned China as another source. We hear day in and day out about cyber threats and attacks and the stealing of personal data. I would like our hon. colleague to clarify her point that she is absolutely against a third party storing Canadians' data and that indeed going to a single source, or a single group, or chief statistician with all-encompassing power, we could see this, and it could spell doom for a lot of what we collect. 
Marilyn Gladu: Mr. Speaker, I forgive my colleague for missing my riveting speech. Definitely, he did get the main point, though. I am very concerned about Canadians' private information. There are a lot of people in the world with ill intent, who would love to have Canadians' private information. The government has a responsibility to protect that information. In the past we have seen hacking into the Canada Revenue Agency. There have been other rumours of Chinese hacking. We have to make sure that the data storage is secure. In my experience, that means not to give it to a third party. 
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House late in the day, after hearing so many contributions to the debate. 
I will say that, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am not happy to be back. I would much rather spend more time with my family, probably like some members here. I like them all, but not enough to lose that time with my family.
Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, is an interesting subject to bring up on a Monday. 
As I always do, I have a Yiddish proverb today. It is more of a saying. If one has two bundles, a bundle of books and a pouch of gold, and one drops both of them, the saying is that first one would pick up the bundle of books. The knowledge it represents is far more valuable than the gold one would lose in a pouch of gold. I think that saying speaks to how much we as a society, as communities, working together, value knowledge first and foremost. 
We pay for knowledge. Very often companies or individuals pay large sums of money to obtain information they consider of value to them, either for market purposes, if they are expanding a company, or for personal genealogical reasons. Perhaps they are interested in their family's past. We have large companies that profit from this sharing of information. They produce information for people who want or need it for purposes of their own design. 
I think this Yiddish saying speaks to the worth of knowledge and the value we place on it. In Canada, we place so much value on it that we have an entire agency of government devoted to the collection of information and the dissemination of information across society to community organizations, businesses, and government officials so we can make better decisions on behalf of Canadians. 
The bill purports to modernize Statistics Canada. There are certain sections of the legislation I want to go through to lay out what I think are opportunities lost. I have some questions on some sections and how they work with others. I have not yet taken a positive or negative stance on the bill. Mostly I want to go through the legislation with members of the House and mention some concerns I have and things I would like to know about.
Under duties for the chief statistician, there are three or four points laid out on what he or she must do to fulfill the requirements or obligations under the legislation. In the bill, under proposed paragraph 4(5)(b), we have: 
 advise on matters pertaining to statistical programs of the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, and confer with those departments and agencies to that end; 
I wonder if this will be made public. The government has made a big deal of being open and transparent. I am wondering if in the future, the government will be making that type of information, those discussions between departments and the chief statistician, public. Will they share with Canadians the conversations departments are having on how they are using, sharing, distributing, and disseminating the private information of Canadians that they have collated?
In this day and age, that is a concern many Canadians have, and businesses as well. How is this information they are providing the government being protected, and how is it being used? I think it would be great if they perhaps clarified for us in the House, either the minister or the parliamentary secretary, whether they intend to share this information with the public.
Proposed subsection 4.1(1) reads:
 Directives on any methods, procedures and operations may only be issued to the Chief Statistician by the Governor in Council, by order, on the recommendation of the Minister. 
There are a bunch of commas in there that make it really unclear what the purpose is. It is actually quite broad. It is not quite clear whether the chief statistician will be told what to do in certain circumstances, under the operation of a particular survey program, or whether it will, in fact, be the minister, upon a recommendation, who will be passing ideas that the chief statistician believes to be right.
Having worked before with statistical data for a professional association in Alberta, I had a chief executive officer and a board of directors I was responsible to. Like any CEO or head of an agency, a person does do not want to be micromanaged by a board of directors. One would want to be given a broad mandate that would be in the contract signed, in this case with the government, and one could then go forth and fulfill the mandate. The last thing one wants to have is, by directives, being told to do something a certain way. 
In proposed subsection 4.1(1), exactly how would that be applied, and is this the clarity level the government wishes to have?
Another proposed subsection I am interested in is 4.2(1). If independence is to be assured, why would this particular clause exist? It says:
 The Minister may issue directives to the Chief 5 Statistician on the statistical programs that aim to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics on all or any of the matters referred to in section 22. 
Again, more information being made available would help us understand exactly how this section is going to be applied to the chief statistician. It is not a value judgment, good or bad; it is more information about how exactly it is going to work in the day-to-day life of the chief statistician.
The points I am going to be touching on are mostly about the replacement of the existing National Statistics Council with a new council, the technological issues that happen in the news and are covered by national media that talk about the delay in the release of economic reports that depend on the collection by Statistics Canada, as well as some of the IT problems that the previous chief statistician at Statistics Canada kind of laid out for us and potential delays that may happen if information is shared or not shared in a timely manner.
As well, I want to touch upon the influence Shared Services Canada can have and the substantial control it may be able to exercise on Statistics Canada's work, whether good or bad. In my previous professional life, I worked for a professional association that was going through a major software upgrade. There are always issues with it. There is always a question about where our data is actually being stored, who has control of the data, how we can change it or not change it. A lot of those questions can be resolved pretty quickly just with more information. It is not a value judgment. It is just that more information would be of interest to us. Can the minister still issue directives to the chief statistician on statistical programs? I mentioned those two sections. It is not quite clear how those would work.
We know that Statistics Canada will be made to use Shared Services. There was a recent report entitled, “Heightened Program risks at Statistics Canada”, which enumerated the challenges in terms of reliability, timeliness, effectiveness, and affordability that are being experienced, according to the director general of the Statistics Canada informatics branch. The report went through some of the issues it could see potentially happening down the road. 
According to a CBC article in July 2016, Statistics Canada put $38 million toward Shared Services Canada “with the promise to upgrade IT infrastructure”. It was told that Statistics Canada would then have to cover the cost of migrating all information to new data centres. In general, my thought on this is to move forward carefully with an agency such as Statistics Canada. Again, with experience in my past life at a chamber of commerce and with a professional association, it should be careful about how data is being transferred to different places. 
The last thing it wants to do is to go from an older system to a new system and realize it has lost 20% of the data that it used to have for historical purposes. It would always want to keep it. A lot of that historical data is very good for graphing trends. Trends are the most important thing that businesses are interested in. One data point does not tell the whole story; a trend tells the story. It is how businesses sell products and convince people to take policy decision A versus policy decision B. The historical data is needed to make the case to individuals in business, charities, and whatever type of environment one is in.
Another thing I want to mention is the recurring theme that surfaced in the report that Shared Services Canada had, that it cannot or will not meet Statistics Canada's IT requirements, because it refuses to upgrade computer infrastructure. It goes back to the point that we do not want to be losing data potentially or constricting the type of data that can be collected because of moving from one type of software to another.
I again want to quote from an analysis of the report, which states:
 Having to delay their release would be unprecedented and will impact the ability of key users (e.g. Bank of Canada, Department of Finance, commercial banks, etc.) of making timely decisions, translating into considerable embarrassment to the government of Canada. 
Of course, we want to avoid situations where a Department of Finance document cannot be released because there are missing valuable Statistics Canada tables that we may want to use for a release. 
I want to mention a Reuters article with the headline, “Canada to make statistics agency independent amid data concerns”. It says, “The agency was criticized earlier this year for technological issues that delayed the release of some economic reports on its website”. Again, going back to my time working for the Alberta government, when it was upgrading the licensing system at the time, Telus was responsible for an analog system when moving it online. With large IT infrastructure projects like this, the historical data is very valuable for organizations. Retention, production, and transferring of the data are all important, especially when it is a government agency like this one, where the Government of Canada has collected large volumes of very personal information. It should make sure the businesses and individuals affected do not somehow have that data compromised during the transition between different systems. 
In another Canadian press article, this time in December 2016, with the headline “Liberals Move To End Political Interference At Statistics Canada”, the background says that ministers:
 ...would retain the right to decide on the “scope of the statistical program,” or what information Statistics Canada collects. 
 The government would also be able to make changes to “methodological or operational matters” — which includes how data are collected — through a cabinet order should the government “deem it to be in the national interest.” 
Again, I would like to know how the government will be defining that national interest. I could not find it in the legislation. I am just curious to know how that will be defined and what will be the conditions under which cabinet will be able to order Statistics Canada to produce or not produce certain data on a certain form, and what those national interest grounds would be. Again, it is not in the legislation. I am interested to know how that will work, whether that will perhaps be published online somewhere or if the government intends to bring another piece of legislation on it. It is an open question. We do not really know.
We know that we had a resignation. One of the chief statisticians of Canada, Wayne Smith, resigned. At the time he mentioned, “It is my view that the Shared Services Canada model does not respect the provisions of the Statistics Act which does not permit that such information be in the hands of anyone who is not meaningfully an employee of Statistics Canada...”. 
Again, I wonder how the amendments to the act would address the concerns that Wayne Smith expressed at committee, and whether this would fully addresses his concerns. I have not heard from him in particular, so again I do not know whether it fully addresses all our concerns. However, some of the sections I mentioned earlier, like section 4 and subsection 4.1, kind of indicate that perhaps there will not be that independence.
I also want to take a moment to highlight a section I do like. Section 31 would remove the jail time for non-completion of the censuses or the survey work that Statistics Canada would produce. We know that in 2011, Statistics Canada received 13 million completed census forms, a 98% response rate, not necessarily completion rate. As well, the 2016 survey had 98% and 14 million households completed the national census, 96% for the long form. It had 330 refusals back in 2011, and overall Statistics Canada referred 54 people at the time for prosecution for failing to complete the mandatory census form. We have known this. People could face a fine of $500 at the time, or three months in jail.
There are three people I want to highlight who actually went to court on this.
Janet Churnin, 79, who refused to fill out the mandatory census, was handed a conditional discharge, which means she will have no permanent criminal record after she completes her sentence of 50 hours of community service within a year.
Audrey Tobias, 89, was a peace activist who refused to fill out the census because of its link to a U.S. military contractor, whose name has been mentioned before in debate. She was found not guilty of violating the Statistics Canada Act. That was the decision of a Toronto judge at the time.
Sandra Finley, 61, was found not guilty of not filling out her long form census in 2006. Again, she appealed her census case in which she received an absolute discharge. After losing an appeal of her conviction for not filling out the federal form in 2006, again she received a conditional discharge.
Now I see the government has moved away from this jail time hanging over people, kind of like the dagger of Damocles over them. I do want to ask questions, though, on why the Liberals have kept $500 and $1,000 penalties. We note here that they are kept in section 32, that by summary conviction people could face being liable for a fine of up to $1,000. The government has also kept a $500 fine. For refusal to grant access to records, it is $1,000.
I want to compare it to some other fines people may face from different provincial and municipal governments. If I am caught speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit set by the Alberta government, I could face a $253 to $474 fine from the peace officer. That is by summary conviction. Speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit is far more dangerous than my not filling out a census or a survey from the government, just in comparison. Say I run a red light. A red light violation carries a fine of $287 in Alberta, and speed-on-green infractions are on a sliding scale. Again, it is $287 if I run a red light with the camera present taking a picture of my licence plate and a potential $500 fine if I do not fill out a survey because I may have lost it, I may have moved, I may have gone on vacation, or I may have shredded it for whatever reason. How much are we fining people, and why are we fining them?
Say I run a red light and I am actually stopped by a peace officer. That carries a $488 fine back in my home of Alberta. Failing to stop at a signal or a crosswalk, or advancing into an intersection controlled by a flashing red light in an unsafe manner is $233. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a survey or not being willing to release information in the case of a business or I could be fined a $1,000.
In 2015 by comparison, a man was fined $1,400 for selling fur animals without a licence in Alberta. Off-leashing a dog in a provincial park in Alberta can set an individual back $1,000 by court order. Building and cleaning an illegal bike path in a provincial park, Bow Valley, which does happen, is a $400 fine, plus penalties assigned to the individual by the court. 
As a father of three kids, all of whom use car seats, I know this one very well. I double-check my car seats, because if I am stopped by a police officer, it is $155 fine. I think that is a far more egregious violation of the law as there are danger and safety concerns for small kids. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a census form and being fined $500, or a business not willing to release proprietary information and being fined $1,000. 
I would be remiss if I did not mention the former MP for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Joe Preston, who tabled private member's C-625, the removal of imprisonment in relation to mandatory surveys, which received unanimous support and moved on to committee.
This is just a concern of mine. I have open questions for the government to consider. Do the fines outlined in the legislation fit with other similar federal legislation? Was there an assessment done on whether these fines would pay for the administration and collection of the fine? Did the government undertake any work on how many fines it expects to hand out? If the fine levied is actually higher than the cost to government of collecting, then why are we doing this? Again, maybe more tongue in cheek, do the Liberals expect these fines to fill the government coffers to pay for perhaps some of the $30 billion deficit they have managed to run up in the past year, because with the 40 million Canadian households, I think we ought to stop taking the census for several years in order to pay off the deficit.
These are open questions wondering what the government is doing. This is not the first time I have asked. I actually tabled an Order Paper question, Question No. 255, way back last year and did not receive an answer regarding exactly who is being referred for prosecution by Statistics Canada. 
We heard earlier today from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development who said that the National Statistics Council would be replaced by the Canadian statistic advisory council under proposed section 8.1. Again, what will happen to the previous members? The understanding I had from his speech in the House was that they would all be dismissed. They would all be removed from the council. I just wonder, why are we reducing it? Why are we reducing it to 10 members from 13 members, which is my understanding of how many members there were before, and what did these particular individuals do that was so egregious that they should be removed? I have heard no complaints in my constituency office on the work they were doing. Judging from the members who served there in 2010, they were university provosts, professors, very senior members of the academic community, as well as journalists. I just think it is perhaps arbitrary to move in this direction, but perhaps there is a great reason for it. I just did not hear it from the minister on exactly why we are moving in this direction.
On the Statistics Canada website, the mandate was to advise the chief statistician on the full range of Statistics Canada's activities, particularly on overall program priorities. We know from the proposed legislation that they are moving to a smaller group of people. Perhaps this is the right way to go, but they have not really explained the rationale for it and why they have changed it. Perhaps they will be keeping some members of the previous group as they go forward. Again, there is no rationale. I am just asking an open question.
We know that Statistics Canada also uses professional advisory committees in major subject areas. It has bilateral relationships with federal departments. It has federal-provincial-territorial consultative councils on statistical policy with a focus on health, education, and justice. 
Statistics Canada already broadly collaborates with civic society, with organizations like the Canada West Foundation, universities and others. I am just wondering how that knowledge would be used, how it would be disseminated, and how these relationships would be leveraged. I do not see that really in the legislation. 
I will mention one last thing, because I am running out of time. How does proposed section 8.1(1)(b) fit with section 6? In one section it talks about being forced to table an annual report with the annual report of the minister, and then in section 6 it talks about tabling a different report on statistical policy in Canada, one for the council, one for the chief statistician. The two do not really match, because one would be tabled here in Parliament with the minister's tabling of his annual report, and another one would be perhaps tabled publicly. It is not very clear whether the council has to table with Parliament, table with the chief statistician or whether it tables with the minister's report.
Those are the open questions I have. The tabling of new reports is nice, but I just want to know in exactly which direction they are going. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on that point. It is encouraging. The member appears to be supporting the legislation to possibly allow it to go to committee stage. At least, that is what I decipher from his comments. One of the reasons it appears they are supporting it is that we would be taking away the imprisonment element, which is a good thing. I think the consensus would be to do just that.
I do not know if I agree with the member's assessment with regard to comparing traffic tickets, or red light tickets, or camera flash tickets to the census. I do not know if that is a fair analysis. However, I am curious. To what degree does the member across the way believe there needs to be some sort of incentive for people who might not necessarily be inclined to fill out the form, recognizing how important it is that we do get these forms returned? That is what enables us to make good sound policy decisions, as the national government, or other levels of government, or as I said earlier, private sector and non-profit groups. We need to get people filling in these forms. It is in the collective best interests to get them in.
What would he suggest those fines be?
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, obviously, over the winter break his deciphering has gotten a little worse. By no means have I indicated whether I am going to vote for or against the government. I am asking open questions. Once I have the answers, I will be able to make a decision.
However, on fines, I do not think it is right to levy a punitive fine on a family where perhaps both breadwinners are out of work. I think it is actually punitive to levy a fine on a family where everybody is unemployed and they are looking for work and being told they must fill out the census or be levied a $500 fine. I think it is a fair comparison across governments, because these are Canadians paying the fines, to ask, comparatively speaking, what the public policy goal is of levying this fine. Is it to compel a person to provide information, or is it to compel someone to drive more responsibly to avoid hurting someone else? I think those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask, with the purpose behind levying a fine being the goal at the end of the day. Again, we should be prioritizing the safety of Canadians over, perhaps, raising revenues through a punitive fine. 
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's speech, I looked up clause 31 of the bill, which is the specific section of the bill that deals with the fines. It should be important for every member of this House to note that, if people are found guilty of an offence, the fine shall be not more than $500—so that could be the maximum, but it could be anywhere from zero to $500 and is at the judge's discretion.
Furthermore, if people had a lawful excuse—if they were moving and did not get their mail—of course, there would be leniency applied. 
Therefore, we should not be too worried about the draconian measures in the bill, because I think there are enough escape clauses.
That being said—and I realize that he is going to withhold his judgment on this particular bill—I want to follow up on the question of the member for Winnipeg North about what incentives we put forward to Canadians to make sure we are getting the data. It has been shown that when voluntary surveys are put forward, the information that comes back leaves huge information gaps. Certain sectors of society are more likely to fill out the data, so some parts of Canada may not get any responses. Therefore, we are going to have local city councils and provincial governments acting with a complete information vacuum. I would like to know the member's thoughts on, specifically, a long form census being mandatory. Does he believe it should be mandatory? Surely he has given some thought to that and he can inform this House of his personal views on that specific question.
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, the member asked an interesting question.
In my previous life, I was a registrar in the human resources profession, where I dealt with large volumes of personal information. As the registrar, I was also responsible for making sure our 6,000 members in the province of Alberta were doing their due diligence when dealing with their employees' private information. I would ask what type of incentives were wanted. When I was there, we started an Alberta human resources trends survey all across the province with 6,000 of our members. We did not need punitive fines. We actually offered incentives. We would say that if all 6,000 members filled out a survey, we would have better data, so there was some self-interest at play for people to fill it out correctly. We also put their names in a random lottery draw, and that was our way of enticing people to fill out the survey.
I am not saying Statistics Canada should go this route, but in a not-for-profit private sector that is what we did. Our response rate was nearly 20%, which is well above what most people expect to get in a public information survey or a public policy poll. We were getting steady 20% responses over the lifetime of the survey. 
That survey has now expanded to all western Canadian provinces. It is called the western HR trends survey, and every single professional association from British Columbia to Manitoba is now participating in it. Well over 10,000 members are filling out a survey without any type of fine being levied. There is some self-interest in knowing more about their particular field. The same applies for all Canadians. Canadians are interested in knowing about Canadian society, and businesses are the same way. With that valuable information, I do not believe necessarily that a fine needs to be levied. In some cases it might have to be levied, but not all the time.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, it is such a curious experience to hear the Conservative Party debating Bill C-36, the restoration of data and evidence and the restoration of the long form mandatory census. We are in another universe now.
I was elected to local government at the time that the mandatory long form census was removed by the federal government. I was part of the movement of elected people who were deeply alarmed at the lack of data, the brokennesss of our access to data, whatever it was we were measuring, whether it was measuring success, whether it was environmental protection, or whether it was service delivery. Then the alarm went through every local government convention around how we were going to know that we had the data that was going to point to where our federal and provincial dollars should go to support the social safety net. It was very alarming. We are glad to see this moved back.
I am curious as to whether the member wants to update the House on whether he shares the former views of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who said the value of the data is not worth the intrusion of privacy rights, and that is why the Harper Conservative government removed the mandatory long form census.
I would love to hear the member say that he now recognizes the importance of data for service delivery and the strengthening of our social safety net.
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the long form census was made voluntary. It did not just vanish.
Speaking as a member who used to be in the private sector, I will say that my board of directors saw it as an opportunity. We created labour market information with our members. We started an entirely new product and service line because we saw a gap that we could fill privately and then sell to other organizations with the permission of our members. It was information that was much more malleable and flexible and responded to our members needs. Not all information coming from the government is either necessary or has value to everybody who is using it. I will put an asterisk to that. 
When I worked for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, I used Statistics Canada data on a daily basis when we wrote reports, either aboriginal business connection series or Métis labour reports. While I value what Statistics Canada produced in terms of information, it is not the only source of available information. There are private sources, not-for-profits and charities that produce valuable, high-quality information that we should all be using.
Kelly McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I have a few items for my colleague, which I could just ask him, but I would like his comments on the record.
First of all, I am hoping Edmonton City Council is not watching CPAC right now, because I would hate it to get the idea that there is upward movement available on traffic fines.
When Wayne Smith, the former head of Stats Canada, quit he made it very clear that it was an independence issue. It is a bit ironic that we are hearing that this is all about independence for Stats Can when the past head gave up a 35-year career and walked away from it over a disagreement with the government about Shared Services. He said specifically that the relationship with Shared Services is inconsistent with internationally recognized principles of independence of national statistics offices, something that the government endorsed but walked away from. We have asked repeatedly today if the government would stick with Shared Services or if it would go to a private server. We have not had an answer, although it does appear it will stay with Shared Services.
I am curious if my associate shares my same concerns that the government is not looking into the issue with Shared Services fully.
Tom Kmiec: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to put this on the record. I share his concern.
I am interested to know how the information that Statistics Canada will hold within its agency will be transferred, whether to Shared Services or others, or whether there will be a private server. This is something I get emails on in my constituency. I get phone calls on this, too. There is a lot of concern out there about how private information is used by government. There are other members in this House who have mentioned this. We do hear about cases, with our government and governments in the United States and our allies in Europe, where they have problems retaining and protecting the private information of citizens.
The previous chief statistician of Statistics Canada had a very valid point when he raised the fact that there may be some independence issues that arise. Perhaps the government has resolved all of these issues or has a method to do it but has not tabled it before the House. Without it, we are unable to know whether it has resolved all the issues within government or whether Wayne Smith does have a point.
The Deputy Speaker: Before we go to resuming debate with the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I will let him know that there are only about three minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. We will get started just the same, and he will have the rest of his time, of course, when the House next resumes debate on the question.
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be splitting my time.
Before I start speaking about Bill C-36, on this day I feel it is very important to add my voice to those of all the hon. members who have spoken before me, to express my condolences to the families and friends of those victims in Quebec City, and to say that I stand here in support of my Muslim brothers and sisters against racism, xenophobia, fear, and intolerance, and that everyone in this House stands with them today and later tonight at the vigil.
Today, we have been debating Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. From the preamble of the bill, we know that this bill's aim is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. It would assign to the chief statistician powers related to the methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. It would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. It would also modernize the language of the act to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistical information.
These are all changes that New Democrats agree with. We, of course, will be supporting this bill at second reading because we believe it deserves to go to committee so that we can call witnesses to give the expert testimony and feedback, to see if there are ways that we can make this bill an even better one.
We have long stood for the transparency and independence of data from Statistics Canada, because we know how important that data is to public policy and to all of the various levels of government and civil society that depend on it.
I would like to give a shout-out to the hard-working men and women who work at Statistics Canada, because I do not think we, as elected representatives, often give acknowledgement to those hard-working men and women and the data that they supply us. It is their data that allows us to make the policy decisions that best reflect the needs of Canadians.
I want to extend personal thanks to all of those hard-working members of Statistics Canada. They provide statistics that help Canadians better understand their country, whether it is the population, resources, economy, society, or culture, just to name a few. In addition to the census that is held every five years, there are an additional 350 active surveys on all aspects of Canadian life.
In their words, “Objective statistical information is vital to an open and democratic society”.
I would love to carry on with this point at a later date. I see my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to open my remarks on this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: Rest assured, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford will indeed have another seven and a half minutes for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on the question.
It being 5:55 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.)