Emmanuel Dubourg

[Citizenship and Immigration, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, five years after the terrible earthquake in Haiti, the Conservatives are lifting the moratorium on deportations to Haiti and Zimbabwe, while today, on the government's website, they are warning Canadians.

This announcement concerns 3,500 people who have integrated into the community and whose children are in school.

Will they be removed from Canada? Will the minister consider their integration efforts? What will he do to ensure that we are honouring our humanitarian duty?

[Status of Women, December 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago tomorrow, a killer shot 14 students at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. They were killed simply because they were women.

Now, 25 years later, how are we doing at protecting Canadians? People who sell firearms, including the kind used during the École Polytechnique massacre, are no longer obligated to confirm whether the buyer has a licence or to keep a record of the transaction. That is irresponsible. The Conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy gun control.

When will they stop jeopardizing the safety of Canadians?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 17th, 2014]

With regard to government funding, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the electoral district of Bourassa, providing for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, indicating the municipality, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

[An Act to amend the Statistics Act (appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census), November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-626, an act to amend the Statistics Act, appointment of Chief Statistician and long-form census, introduced by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to develop the best possible policies for the governance of our nation. We also have a duty to adjust our way of doing things and adapt our public institutions to society's progress. Our society is growing, both in terms of population and institutions, and we also want it to grow economically.

As society evolves, the policies that govern it must also evolve. Developing the appropriate policies requires an ever increasing degree of expertise and information.

As we go through our own renewal, we in the Liberal Party strongly believe that progress is critical to our public institutions and the democratic process. We believe that the holders of this expertise, whom we need to listen to rather than stifle, must be actively consulted. This expertise comes not only from Canadians all across the country who experience these realities, but also from scientists and specialists from every area that we choose to focus on.

The information, which is getting increasingly complex, comes primarily from reports, think tanks, experts and studies. The people we represent deserve to have us consult a greater variety of experts to ensure that we are best equipped to develop the policies that affect them. That is what we call evidence-based policy.

My colleague's bill is entirely consistent with this approach, which I wholeheartedly support. Since this government came to power, it has been opposed to the idea of developing evidence-based policy. While Canadian society continues to evolve and progress in terms of novel ways to access information and to develop commercially and intellectually, the government is trying to slow us down and limit the flow of information. The government has decided that information and its purveyors—such as scientists, the media, academics and even charities—are enemies. What does it prefer over evidence-based policy? It prefers politically based policy.

That is exactly what the government was trying to do when it abolished the long-form census. Let us look at the merits of this census compared to the National Household Survey, which the government tried to use to replace the census in 2011.

First of all, one of the Conservatives' main arguments for getting rid of the long-form census was the associated cost. In that regard, the verdict is clear: even in inflation-adjusted dollars, the administration of the 2011 survey cost $30 million more than the previous census.

The next issue is the government's oversight or the oversight it permits. Another one of the Conservatives' populist arguments was that abolishing the census would counter the surveillance of Canadians by major federal institutions. This argument alone must be assessed by weighing the loss of privacy against the collective good to society of the census.

Before discussing this issue, I would like to point out the extent to which this government, whose surveillance agencies are busy spying on Canadians here and around the world, is inconsistent. It does not hesitate to share Canadians' confidential information with Revenue Canada, other departments or even other countries. This government refuses to establish parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies. That is another example.

Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to tell Canadians that they are overly concerned about their privacy. Canadians do not ask questions about that, whereas the government does not hesitate to snoop on them without their knowledge.

Statistics are very useful. In order to understand why I believe we should bring back the long-form census, we must understand the usefulness of the data collected. I already mentioned that not only the federal government, but also the provincial and municipal governments need reliable data to develop sound policy. The government cannot afford to base its policies on bad data.

For example, we need to know where in Canada people speak certain languages, especially French and English, in order to know where and how to provide services to Canadians. It is not just governments that need these data. The data are used by businesses to identify potential markets and by labour to assess job opportunities. When deciding how to manage their growth or provide their services, NGOs need to know who really needs their services and who can contribute.

Academic researchers, who shape our understanding of society and demographic or sociological phenomena, must also be able to refer to reliable data on the Canadian population. I have not even touched on the main value of the long-form census. It is the anchor for every other study conducted by Statistics Canada and any other organization on the Canadian population. It is absolutely crucial to the reliability of every other study that is based on it.

In a completely ironic turn of events, the 2011 national household survey, which the government tried to use as a replacement for the long-form census, used the data from the 2006 census to adjust its results.

If there was any need for another argument in favour of reinstating the long-form census, the 2011 national household survey certainly provided it. Despite the hard work of experts at Statistics Canada, that study was terribly unreliable and in no way indicative of what we are capable of producing. The reason for that is quite clear. Because the study was voluntary, not enough people participated. Participation was about 65% and as low as 0% in some communities and for some groups. My colleague's bill aims to reinstate that anchor, the long-form census.

Since time is running out, I wish to conclude by saying that I commend the thorough process followed by my colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, in fine-tuning his bill. The bill went through many versions and was improved at every stage of the consultations with, for example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as the member just said in his speech. The member also heard criticisms of the original legislation, particularly concerning possible prison sentences, which are no longer part of this bill. I wish to congratulate him on that.

That is how a consensus is built around a bill that is needed and that Canadians deserve. We must move forward with this bill if we want to have a reliable statistical base in order to better understand the population we represent, to develop more sound, thoughtful policies, and to provide services that will meet the specific needs of Canadians. If we want businesses to be able to recognize and take advantage of opportunities, if we want to understand the impact of our policies on Canadians, if we want to know the people who elected us to represent them and if we want to better serve them, we need to know these statistics. That is what Bill C-626 proposes.

We are quickly approaching 2016, and the brave staff at Statistics Canada will have to get to work soon to restore their pride and joy, the long-form census, and to strip it of any political interference.

In closing, I congratulate my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I also urge my other colleagues from all ridings to vote in favour of Bill C-626, because this is what Canadians deserve.

[Taxation, November 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we learned that a Canadian crown corporation used an aggressive tax avoidance scheme to avoid paying $20 million in taxes in Germany. Climate change, international development, the United Nations and now taxes: the Conservative government keeps tarnishing Canada's reputation abroad.

The Conservatives are not credible leaders in the fight against tax evasion, because they themselves are guilty of it. How are the Conservatives going to fix this embarrassing mistake?

[Taxation, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2013, the Conservatives used Thomas and Colleen as a model, middle-class family with two children. They earned $45,000 and $75,000.

Today, income splitting will not provide any benefit to their very definition of a middle-class family. However, the Prime Minister will get a $2,000 benefit.

What makes the Conservatives think it is fair to give more money to the rich and nothing to the middle class?

[Taxation, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to watch the level of language in the House.

Many independent think tanks, and the late former Conservative minister Jim Flaherty as well, spoke out against income splitting, saying that it would benefit only the richest of the rich. The original plan was tweaked, but this is still a regressive measure. Will the Conservative government have the decency to tell Canadians that income splitting will not benefit 86% of them?

[Health, October 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada promised $60 million to help fight Ebola in West Africa, but just $4.3 million has been sent.

Why? We are talking about 4,500 deaths and 9,000 cases. Is that not alarming enough?

When will the Conservative government make that money available?

[Health, October 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Ebola virus continues to wreak havoc in West Africa day after day. Canada promised to send medical supplies. Those supplies are still here. Why?

Now that the virus is at our door, Canadians are worried. Of the five labs that are designated to screen for Ebola, only the lab in Quebec is in operation. How do the Conservatives explain their lax attitude when human lives are at stake?

[Ulrick Chérubin, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ulrick Chérubin, the mayor of Amos, who passed away last Thursday at age 70.

He came to Canada from Haiti, his birthplace, in 1970. Three years later he moved to Amos, where he taught several generations of its residents.

He switched to politics in 1994 and became a municipal councillor. Unopposed, he was re-elected in 2002. He then ran for mayor and served in that role until his death. Mr. Chérubin's journey is a perfect example of integration.

On behalf of the Liberal Party, I wish to extend our deepest sympathy to his wife, Immacula, his son and all his loved ones.

[Member spoke in Creole as follows:] Ulrick, si jodia mwen en politique, sé parce que ou trasé chemin pou tout kompatriot.

Thank you and bravo, Ulrick Chérubin, for your outstanding contribution and your dedicated service to society.