Bill C-625 (Historical)

Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act

An Act to amend the Statistics Act (removal of imprisonment)

This enactment amends the Statistics Act to protect the privacy of Canadians by requiring their consent for the release, after 92 years, of the information that they provide in a census-related household survey, to remove the imprisonment penalty from two of its offence provisions and to provide that a term of imprisonment is not to be imposed in default of payment of a fine imposed under those provisions.

Statistics Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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.

Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I trust that maybe at a future time I will be able to get the extra two minutes if in fact it is deemed necessary

It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-625. It is an interesting bill, to say the very least. Just listening to some of the debate, I can appreciate why members would be expressing a great deal of concern in regard to census material. My colleague from York raised other issues, but was able to bring it around so that we could understand the relevance of the way in which the government has changed in its behaviour in regard to the whole issue that Bill C-625 is trying to deal with.

Numerous thoughts come to my mind that I think are worth sharing with members. When I think of what the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London is attempting to do here, I have a great deal of admiration in terms of why the member has seen this as something that is important. I suspect that if we were to canvass constituents, many would find it somewhat odd, maybe a little peculiar, as to why it is that someone could ultimately end up in jail if in fact he or she did not fill out mandatory forms.

I understand, through listening to some of the debate, that the member for Kingston and the Islands introduced a bill of a somewhat similar nature. However, I suspect that at the time the government's opinion on the issue had been different than what it appears to be today. That is why we would encourage members of the Conservative Party to better explain the rationale or their positioning on Bill C-625, given the response that we had to an earlier piece of legislation that would have done the same thing.

It almost goes without saying that the current law as it states, as someone has pointed out, has really, with the exception of one occasion, never been acted on. I can understand why it has not been acted on. However, at the same time, it is worthy to note that someone did ultimately have to go behind bars, but I understand, based on what I have heard this evening, that incident was based on protest more than anything else. That does not necessarily mean that the bill does not merit being passed.

As I indicated, on the surface I look at the bill and it is worth supporting, given that it is a private member's bill. The Liberal Party caucus has been fairly transparent and open in encouraging members of the Liberal caucus, in fact all members, in dealing with private members' bills of this nature and we encourage having free votes on it. I also see that as a very strong positive.

I want to pick up on the issue of the long form census and that is where I would like to spend some time. I do not really believe the Government of Canada understands the importance of what StatsCan did and the impact of the government's decision to get rid of that mandatory component and downsizing Statistics Canada in its ability to provide the type of results that it was known for.

It is second to no other institution in the world. In fact, there were many other countries that looked at Canada and the way in which we conducted StatsCan through the long form census, and found that it was done in a world-class fashion.

That information is of critical importance. My colleague made reference to schools. The impact that the census had on school divisions is an example of where a school board might be planning to have a school. In certain situations, it has an impact on where it might decide to look at either closing or using a school for an alternative purpose.

There are some really big numbers to be thrown around. We are talking about billions of dollars that are provided to provinces in the form of social transfer payments, whether it is social services, health care, equalization, all of which rely heavily upon the census material that is provided to them. Ensuring that as many Canadians participate in the census process is of critical importance. We are not talking about thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are talking about the transferring of literally billions of dollars from Ottawa to the different provinces, recognizing the many different inequities that are scattered throughout virtually every region of our country.

If I were to focus on the province of Manitoba alone, I can recall a very heated debated inside the Manitoba legislature. There was a question as to whether we were getting the appropriate amount of money through equalization and transfer payments based upon some of the demographics in the province of Manitoba. There was a dispute between Ottawa and Manitoba in trying to come to a better understanding of what the actual numbers were.

When we look at equalization payments, many different things are taken into consideration. It is not only the population of each individual province. We need to have an understanding of the needs of each of the different provinces when we talk about federal policy changes. We saw the impact on changes in health care policy. Provinces that have an older population will be penalized more than provinces that might have a healthier population. I can give a good example. Some communities are better known as retirement communities and have a much higher senior population. Where there is a senior population, there are many more demands upon social services, in particular, health care services.

It is the nuances that are so critically important when we make government decisions. We need to have the best information possible. One of the things we have become very dependent on is the fine work that Statistics Canada has done for generations, and we have all benefited from that.

When we talk about the importance of individual Canadians contributing to that data bank of information that is so vital in the determination and development of good, strong, healthy social policy, it is absolutely critical that this be taken into consideration

I suspect I will have another two minutes when the House gets the opportunity to debate the issue again.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this bill, which is a Conservative smokescreen.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to remove the possibility of imprisonment for people who refused to fill out Statistics Canada's long form census, they would have supported, back in 2011 or even earlier, the bill introduced by my colleague from Windsor West, namely Bill C-346.

This bill would have restored the long form census, which has many social and economic uses for municipal governments and businesses. It enables them to help the public and to make certain improvements. Furthermore, Bill C-346 removed the possibility of imprisonment.

No one has been imprisoned since Statistics Canada created a public census form. The Conservatives are simply trying to polish their image instead of working on advancing issues and fixing problems.

It is clear that this bill does not reverse all of the cuts that the Conservatives have made to Statistics Canada, which is now underfunded and unable to produce studies and data that are in keeping with international standards.

As I said, no one has been imprisoned. The only people who have been convicted were sentenced to community service or else were pardoned.

Let us look at the fallout of the Conservatives' decision to eliminate Statistics Canada's mandatory long form census. I will give a list of the serious problems created as a result of the Conservatives' decision, which is completely ideological and is not in the best interests of the public.

Many communities in Canada had such low-quality data that Statistics Canada refused to release them. For example, 40% of communities in Saskatchewan had data held back because they were insufficient. These data are normally used by provincial and municipal governments and by non-government actors to plan services, such as transit routes and shelter coverage.

Women, aboriginal groups, and minorities were also under-represented in the 2011 national household survey. This means that the government was not able to see whether the situation for these groups could be improved. It has no idea what the situation is like in Saskatchewan.

Furthermore, the information on incomes that came out of that survey in 2011 suggested that the income inequality gap in Canada was shrinking. That was at odds with progressive economists who said that the Conservatives' message did not hold water, because the data from income tax returns from the Canada Revenue Agency, which is managed by the Conservatives, said the opposite. We need to bring the long form census back in order to have more accurate data, statistics and scientific facts.

Bill C-625 before us today raises an extremely important issue, namely the role of science in a democratic society. Under the rule of law, a government should base its public policies on facts and verified scientific evidence. In Canada, we should be able to say that we live under the rule of law. However, since 2006, the Conservatives have been standing in the way of that, and things have only gotten worse since they won a majority in 2011.

The Conservatives are developing ideologies that fly in the face of scientific, empirical evidence and knowledge acquired from experience. As I said, they are not governing for the public good. Their interests are very targeted, very partisan and very political. That is completely irresponsible, and they do not deserve the trust of the people.

Since 2006, Canada has been slipping into an ideological crusade that undermines the very foundation of our democracy. The Conservatives manipulate the facts to serve one ideology—the Conservative ideology.

This bill is merely one of many cogs in the terrible system that the Conservative government has dragged us into, against our will. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London said that his bill is meant to strike a balance, and I want to quote from his speech at second reading:

The changes in my bill would ensure that Statistics Canada's programs reflect an appropriate balance between the collection of useful information and guaranteeing that the privacy rights of Canadians are upheld.

I support that laudable objective. Unfortunately, this private member's bill from a Conservative member conflicts with all of the measures the government has passed. Allow me to explain. If the Conservatives were truly interested in protecting Canadians' privacy and personal information, why would they have introduced Bill C-51—to name just one of the more recent ones—which would enable intelligence agencies to use people's personal information and share it with whomever they please without a warrant and without informing people that information about them has been collected and shared? There is no oversight mechanism or accountability in Bill C-51, but the Conservatives went full speed ahead with this bill to make sure that nobody would realize what was going on.

There is obviously a huge difference between what the government says and what it does. It no longer respects Canadian institutions, from the Federal Court to senior officers of parliament, let alone experts, members of the House of Commons or the people. It does not consult anyone. When it does consult people, it discredits them if they contradict Conservative ideology. This really needs to change now.

Unfortunately, this government's battle against reason continues. The Conservatives have done a lot of damage over the past few years. The cuts that they have made to many federal departments and agencies, such as Statistics Canada, are depriving us of essential socio-demographic data—data that are needed to guide our public policy. By eliminating the mandatory long form census, the government is depriving us of these crucial data. Why are they so important? I will give a few examples.

The census is one of the tools that enabled Canada to become one of the most developed countries in the world. It is one way for the government to develop targeted, effective public policies. For instance, it tells us what the average age is in a given area, which helps in the creation of appropriate health care programs. It guides entrepreneurs who are looking for opportunities, by mapping out the average income in a given region. It also helps community organizations that want to reach out to a specific clientele. It helps us assess how francophone communities in Canada are doing and to determine the appropriate measures to defend linguistic minorities. It also helps us determine the employment rate for Canadian immigrants and set up hiring programs for visible minorities. It also shows the social and economic reality of women living in rural and urban areas and guides policy to improve gender equality.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. In my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, the schools are immersed in a rather underprivileged area. How could we know that? It is thanks, in fact, to Statistics Canada's long form census. From that census, we could develop tools and, as teachers, we were given extra resources to better teach our students, give them more tools to increase their chances of success in life, and truly provide them with a wide range of services.

By getting rid of this census, the government eliminated the possibility of giving our youngest citizens an equal chance, and that is very serious. Not everyone is getting the same quality of education now because we do not have all the information we need, thanks to the Conservatives.

My Conservative colleague's bill is truly a smokescreen, as I was saying. If the Conservatives really wanted to remove the possibility of imprisonment, then why did they not do that in 2011, when my colleague from Windsor West introduced his Bill C-346?

This shows a lack of political will and a lack of vision. This is pure partisan ideology that does nothing to serve the public's interests. Again, this is very serious. To not rely on scientific data from our experts, is to disrespect democracy. We are truly no longer living under the rule of law and that is unfortunate.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, and it is a good one. It does not necessarily pertain to Bill C-625, which is simply about removing the punishment of jail time and about the release of the national household survey.

When we were at committee on this piece of legislation, the Chief Statistician expressed that he was pretty pleased with the return on the national household survey. The member opposite has just suggested some other things that may very well be in a piece of future legislation, but they are not in this one, so I will stick with removing the threat of jail time and releasing good Statistics Canada documents after 92 years.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House on debate for the second time on my private member's bill, Bill C-625, an act to amend the Statistics Act. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank the hon. members for the unanimous support the bill has received so far.

The principles of this bill are simple and address two very important issues. First, the bill seeks to eliminate the threat of jail time for Canadians who refuse to complete the census or any mandatory survey questionnaire. Second, it would seek the consent of Canadians to publicly release all records obtained through the national household survey 92 years after each census or survey cycle.

With regard to the first issue, Bill C-625 would eliminate the threat of jail time for those who refuse to complete mandatory surveys or for those who choose not to provide access to administrative records. While we can all argue that the work of Statistics Canada is extremely important, threatening Canadians with jail time is simply inappropriate and unacceptable.

Regarding the second issue, access to census-related records, Bill C-625 would ensure that historians, genealogists, and future generations would have access not only to census records but to census-related records, such as those collected through the national household survey. Where permission has been granted, census-related records would be released 92 years after they were collected. Current generations would therefore have the unique opportunity to inform future generations and leave their mark in history.

With these changes to the Statistics Act, our government and I are delivering on the promises we made to the voters in my riding who asked for this. I am proud to play a role in helping to deliver on this commitment.

With the support this private member's bill has received, at the stages going forward I hope that the House will remain in favour of it and that all members will vote in favour of it.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-625, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (removal of imprisonment), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Industry, Science and Technology

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, in relation to Bill C-625, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (removal of imprisonment).

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Wayne Smith, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you and good morning.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-625. I'd like to begin by saying that Statistics Canada fully supports the proposed amendment to remove the penalty of imprisonment from the Statistics Act for Canadians who refuse to comply with mandatory data collections.

Under the Statistics Act, all data collections are mandatory by default and refusal to participate in a mandatory collection is subject to the penalty clauses that are addressed by this bill. Since 1982 Statistics Canada has had the authority to declare participation in individual data collections, with the exception of census of population, voluntary for the purposes of the act and refusal to participate gives rise to no penalty at all.

Today, virtually all business surveys, including agricultural surveys, are still collected on a mandatory basis. Household surveys are generally conducted on a voluntary basis and there are two current exceptions. One is the census itself and the other is the labour force survey. While business surveys and the labour force survey are mandatory, and while refusal to participate could result in prosecution, and therefore, penalties, Statistics Canada in my 34 years at the agency has never referred either a business data nor a labour force survey refusal case to the Public Prosecution Service.

The only instance in which Statistics Canada refers cases to the Public Prosecution Service for possible prosecution, therefore bringing individuals into the scope of the penalty sections of the act, is for refusal to participate in the census of population itself. The decision of whether to prosecute is ultimately taken by the Public Prosecution Service.

A long-standing practice of seeking prosecution for census refusal is in recognition of the constitutional importance of the census and its foundational role in the national statistical system. In the last six census cycles, between 18 and 74 refusals have been prosecuted per cycle. The very small number of cases reflects the difficulty of establishing an unambiguous case of refusal. For successful prosecution an individual's name must be determined. They must have refused multiple times. They must be the same person in the household refusing on each occasion. The field staff involved must be able to definitively physically identify the person who refused. The field staff involved must also be able to testify years after the event and the person concerned must have received and failed to respond to a registered letter sent by me advising them of their responsibilities and the risk of prosecution.

Our objective in proposing cases for prosecution is to establish the fact and seriousness of the legal obligation. The agency does not emphasize penalties in its communications or on the census, although the news media reliably report on this aspect of the census during the collection period.

While nothing prevents a judge from applying the jail term provision of the act's penalty clauses on a guilty verdict, this has only occurred once in my 34 years of career at Statistics Canada and in very unusual circumstances. Most judges will typically invite the accused to complete the questionnaire at the beginning of proceedings. If they comply, and two-thirds of people do comply, the charges are normally stayed or withdrawn. If they decline and are found guilty, which occurs about 90% of the cases that go to trial, community service or fines are typical of penalties assigned.

Essentially, the courts have also clearly viewed the imprisonment penalty as unreasonably harsh. Statistics Canada agrees that the jail term penalty is inappropriate and should be removed. I'm aware of no one external to Statistics Canada who is arguing for its retention and we anticipate absolutely no adverse impact on our operations as a result of removing the jail term penalty.

The bill also proposes to amend the Statistics Act to include census-related surveys, such as the national household survey and the provision to release individual census records to Library and Archives Canada 92 years after the information is collected, provided personal consent is obtained. Statistics Canada also supports this amendment.

Census records for individuals are important to genealogical and historical research in Canada. In 2005 it was noted that historical census legislation did not allow for release of individual records for censuses subsequent to the 1901 census because of confidentiality provisions. The Statistics Act was therefore modified to allow for full release to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years for every census taken between 1910 and 2005.

For the 2006 census and subsequent censuses, release after 92 years was only to be allowed with the consent of the respondent. This applied to records from both the short and the long census forms.

In 2011 when the long-form census became voluntary under the name of the national household survey, this change was approved under different dispositions of the Statistics Act and the census, and as a result the individual records could no longer be released, even with consent, after 92 years. Genealogists and historians therefore were at risk of losing an important future resource. Statistics Canada, anticipating that the act would be changed to allow for release, asked respondents in 2011 for consent to provide their information to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, but we did not have the legislative authority to actually do so.

The proposed amendment will allow Statistics Canada now to provide these 2011 national household survey records, and any similar records from future surveys conducted jointly with the census, to Library and Archives Canada. This recreates Parliament's original intention from 2005. The 2005 amendment to the Statistics Act also provides for an eventual parliamentary review of the outcomes from that amendment to determine if the intended objectives of supporting genealogical and historical research were met.

In summary, Mr. Chair, Statistics Canada fully supports the amendments proposed in Bill C-625.

Thank you.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It does seem a bit out of place being at this end of the table, so I am in awe of the rest of you today.

I'm honoured to speak to the committee today on Bill C-625, an act to amend the Statistics Act, regarding removal of imprisonment. I'd like to thank my own constituents for their support in bringing forward this bill and the members of all parties who voted unanimously in favour of bringing it to this committee.

The principles of this bill are simple, Mr. Chair. It addresses two very important issues. First, the bill seeks to eliminate the threat of jail time for Canadians who refuse to complete mandatory surveys, and second, it will ensure historians have access to related census records, where Canadians have given their permission, 92 years after the information is collected.

With these changes to the Statistics Act, we are again delivering on promises made. Our government committed to removing the penalty of jail time for anyone who refuses to complete any mandatory survey administered by Statistics Canada. The members of my constituency asked me to do the same. The bill delivers on this commitment by eliminating the threat of jail time under sections 31 and 32 of the act. It removes this threat for those who refuse to complete the mandatory surveys and for those who deny access to administrative records. It also proposes to eliminate the threat of jail time for failing to pay a fine under those two sections.

Canadians understand the importance of the census and other surveys in which they participate. I believe that people provide their information to Statistics Canada surveys because they know that it is by far the most reliable and accurate source of Canadian socio-economic information at the national, provincial, territorial, and community levels.

Jail time is a punishment that should be reserved for the most severe crimes. Canadians should not be threatened with jail time for not filling out a survey. We have an obligation to eliminate the penalty of jail time from this section of the act and replace it with a more reasonable penalty.

This brings me to the second part of the bill, which addresses the release of historical household survey records related to the census of population 92 years after its collection. This bill delivers on that commitment by adding a provision to the Statistics Act that allows access to these records. This change echoes the decision that was made in 2005 to amend the Statistics Act and allow for the release of census records after 92 years.

The adjustments in this bill will allow for the wealth of information collected through the 2011 national household survey to be released in the year of 2103 for the Canadians who have provided their consent. I'm sure we can all agree that it is important to leave a record of present-day Canada for future generations, and with this amendment to the Statistics Act, we're giving Canadians that choice.

I would encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

I will answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning everyone.

Welcome to the 42nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We're here today pursuant to order of reference on Bill C-625.

We have some esteemed witnesses with us, but before I introduce them, Jean-François is here and he's the expert on iPads and on our move toward a paperless committee, so if anybody needs any help, Jean-François will be here for the first bit to coach and massage your technological expertise in order for you to have dominance of your iPad.

Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-625, under private members' business.

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-625, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (removal of imprisonment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the past few years, the Conservatives have unfortunately been the victim of the most human of emotions, that of fear. While I understand the inclination to embrace this most human of emotions, I do not find it logical.

Statistics and their collection are indeed logical. In these times we must embrace the interaction of science and the imagination. Statistics Canada gives Canadians tools and data that are rooted in science. In order for the thinkers of tomorrow to become tomorrow's innovators, we need to give them these tools. It is unfortunate that so many cuts have been made to this agency in the past years.

While we will support Bill C-625 at second reading, we are concerned that the cuts to Statistics Canada have affected the efficiency of the data that is provided. This bill before us in the House today does nothing to address any of the serious issues facing Statistics Canada. What it does is formally remove the possibility of imprisonment for failure to complete the mandatory survey. However, when we look at the historical record of this, no person has ever been imprisoned under the Statistics Act. Therefore, I return to where I began my discourse and the fact that this bill is yet again playing on the emotion of fear. It is saying to Canadians that they could be imprisoned when in fact they never have been. It is yet another example of electoral style legislating, trying to market fear through legislation, a type of window dressing to gloss over the war that the Conservatives have been waging against science in general and against Statistics Canada in particular, including the disastrous decision to remove the long form census.

Now the Conservatives are wasting time and creating problems where none exist. There are no problems that exist here, though the bill may permit the Conservatives to speak to a fear that Canadians have. I have seen that in many other bills they have presented before the House, which have been presented in order to inculcate fear in Canadians. As I have said, it is a powerful human emotion, and it often works with the electorate if one promotes fear in the hearts of Canadians.

However, our vision on this side is quite different. We prefer the human emotions of love, the idea of hope and being optimistic about our future, and we refuse to play on the fears of Canadians. We stand here to protect the rights of Canadians, who are perhaps fearful that the government would enact legislation that would decrease their privacy rights. That is certainly true, but the idea of imprisoning Canadians under the the Statistics Act is laughable, because it has never happened. No one has ever been imprisoned under this act.

Instead of scrapping the long form census, as the Conservatives did, and making cuts to Statistics Canada, they should have supported the NDP's plan to fix Statistics Canada, remove the possibility of imprisonment, and restore the long form census. Because they did not take this approach, unfortunately the data that Canadians can get from Statistics Canada is not of the same quality. Officials from Statistics Canada have said the same thing.

We have seen in committee studies and in numerous places that whenever Statistics Canada appears as a witness or whenever people are using Statistics Canada data to try to make a case, it is always pointed out that the data is now insufficient because of the elimination of the long form census.

As I said, no person has ever been imprisoned for an offence under the Statistics Act. Some people have been charged under the Statistics Act, but they never did actual jail time, and their charges were linked to their activities in protesting against the Statistics Act. However, no one has ever been put in jail for this.

In 2006, Statistics Canada reported that there were 64 cases of non-compliance, with a mandatory sentence. The cases were prosecuted and resolved, but none of them resulted in prison. Canadians were told that if they did not fill out the long form census, they would be put in prison for that wrongdoing, but it never actually happened. No one was ever actually put in prison for non-compliance with the long form census.

The NDP believes that the long form census has to be restored to provide social scientists, governments, and businesses with the data that they need. The Conservatives are merely providing window dressing to look like they are effective at managing Statistics Canada, but we have seen problem after problem at the agency under the current government.

Many people agree with our position that independence should be restored to Statistics Canada. We should give it the tools that Canadians need to be the innovators of tomorrow, to mate their imagination with science and come up with the innovations of tomorrow.

Professor C.E.S. Franks, from Queen's University, said in 2010 that:

The issue of a voluntary survey rather than a mandatory census is far more than the “technical statistical issue” it was described as by Mr. Sheikh. The voluntary survey will fundamentally weaken the data on which many of Canada's government and business policies are based.

La Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne said that it applied to the Federal Court for an injunction against the Conservative government on the grounds that the voluntary NHS violated the Official Languages Act by providing less accurate information about French-speaking communities. The injunction was not granted by the court.

The fact that we do not have the proper statistics on minority language communities is a serious problem, because it makes enforcement of the Official Languages Act more difficult, and over the past years we have seen the attitude that the government has towards official languages.

For instance, just yesterday, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages was at committee, she used the words “official languages” and “national languages” interchangeably, as if they were the same thing. I pointed out to her that the difference between an “official” language and a “national” language is that a national language does not have any protection under the Official Languages Act. The legal status of a national language is not as strong as that of an official language, so to hear those terms used interchangeably is troubling indeed.

We do have the Official Languages Act in this country. Minority linguistic communities depend on this act to fight for their rights, but we need the statistics to show where minority Francophone speakers are and where minority Anglophone speakers in Quebec are so that we can provide the proper services, design the programs that these communities need, and evolve the programs, services, and financing of those services according to need. For that we need statistics.

The mandatory long form census was doing a good job of that. It is true that there was the threat of imprisonment on the books. No one, however, has been—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-625 and the commitments our government made to amend the Statistics Act. Our government committed to removing the penalty of jail time for anyone who refuses to complete the census or any mandatory Statistics Canada survey. We also committed to allowing for the release of historical household survey records related to the census of population.

Currently the Statistics Act provides only for the release of the census of population records. This amendment would allow Statistics Canada to transfer census-related records, including those for all voluntary surveys, to Library and Archives Canada for genealogical and historical research.

A bill on the release of census records after 92 years was debated and passed into law by the House in 2005. That bill ensured that individuals had the choice of deciding if they wanted their census information made publicly available 92 years later. Prior to 2005, many members of Parliament received letters, calls, and petitions of support from Canadians who felt strongly that historical records are a fundamental part of Canada's heritage and should be made available to everyone.

I am sure we would all agree that the reasons genealogists, historians, and researchers want access to historical information are legitimate and important. It is also as important to leave a record of present-day Canada for future generations as it is to have historical records from 1911. This amendment makes it possible for all of us to have a place in history and contribute to the future growth and prosperity of our great nation. However, while there is undeniable value attached to historical census records, an important principle of privacy does come into play.

I would like to take a few minutes to quickly outline the steps that led to the introduction of the census bill in 2005. During the late 1990s, a number of genealogical associations, researchers, and other interested individuals held a campaign to express dissatisfaction with the inability to access historical records for censuses after 1901. The census records up to and including 1901 were not taken with a guarantee of confidentiality, and records were therefore made available to the public 92 years after the event. Census information after 1901 was collected with a promise of confidentiality. As a result, these census records were never made available to the public. It was therefore recognized that clarifications to the Statistics Act were required.

The Statistics Act contains confidentiality provisions that protect all census and survey information collected by Statistics Canada. The 2005 amendments made it possible to release records from the census of population 92 years after the census has taken place. The bill before the House today would extend this provision to surveys related to the census of population. Therefore, it would ensure the release provisions also apply to the 2011 national household survey and any other future surveys related to the census of population.

As with the census, Canadians responding to the national household survey are asked to consent to the release of their personal information after 92 years. If consent is given, 92 years following collection their information will be released to Library and Archives Canada. This amendment allows Canadians to decide if others can have access to their personal information.

Canadians should have the right to decide for themselves if they want their personal records to be made publicly available in the future. If they answer no, their information will never be publicly accessible.

With this point in mind, I would like to assure my colleagues that the addition of a consent question will not impact the timeliness of statistical data from the national household survey. Information that does not identify individuals will be disseminated by Statistics Canada in a timely fashion, as was the case for the 2011 national household survey.

In closing, I would ask hon. colleagues for their support for Bill C-625. This government firmly believes that no Canadian should ever face the threat of jail time for failing to respond to a survey. The bill seeks to remove jail-time penalties for Canadians who fail to respond to mandatory surveys or who do not release administrative data.

The amendments proposed in the bill would remove this threat and ensure that Canadians can respond to surveys in complete confidence. The bill also seeks to make administrative records accessible, provided Canadians give their consent.

I would urge all members to support Bill C-625, to ensure that important records from today can be made available to all Canadians in the future, and to ensure that we remove the unnecessary threat of jail-time penalties.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-625, An Act to amend the Statistics Act. This private member's bill, which was introduced by a Conservative member, will officially eliminate the possibility of imprisoning someone who fails to respond to a mandatory survey.

I believe that no Canadian should be imprisoned for failing to fill in a survey or census form. Although I support this bill, I am still a bit perplexed, since no one in Canadian history has ever been imprisoned under the Statistics Act. This is not even necessarily a problem and does not affect Canadians' daily lives.

I have to wonder why the member chose to tackle this issue instead of the Conservative government's worrisome underfunding of Statistics Canada. He could have also looked at the elimination of the long form census, which the government replaced with the national household survey—even though this survey does not provide reliable and usable data. I urge my colleague to take a look at these issues that are vital to our country's future and that are essential in making evidence-based decisions.

The Conservative government's decision to eliminate the long form census is fairly high on the list of attacks that the government has made against science and evidence-based decision making. Like many New Democrats in the House and many experts have mentioned, this was an ill-advised decision, given how important it is for governments to have reliable and quality data on which to base their decisions. I am not just talking about the federal government here. I am also talking about provincial and municipal governments.

When the former industry minister announced that the long form census would be replaced by the national household survey or NHS, stakeholders from across the country questioned whether this was a good idea. They were concerned that the elimination of the long form census might undermine Statistics Canada's ability to collect data that the government could use to make a multitude of decisions.

The New Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent the Conservative government from eliminating the long form census. Unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats believe that the long form census is a valuable and essential tool for collecting clear and concise statistics, which are important for decision-making in areas such as health, housing and public transportation.

Parliamentarians and politicians use this information to make appropriate decisions on government policy. We heard from a number of experts on economy, statistics, urban planning and health, among others, who clearly stated that the data collected by the NHS were basically unusable.

The Conservative government is undermining the capacity of current and future governments to provide Canadians with essential services. What is more, these questionable and inadequate data will negatively affect the decision-making of businesses and the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Just as an aside, in 2013, the Government of Quebec published a document entitled The Québec Research and Innovation Strategy . The document heavily criticized the Conservative government's approach to Statistics Canada. At the time, the Government of Quebec argued that it needed a long form census, which it used to deliver health services and make decisions about our education system for example. This Government of Quebec document criticized the political motivation for getting rid of the long form census. It stated that when the government made the decision to eliminate the long form census, it assumed that a state could operate without reliable data about its own population. The Government of Quebec also stated that, in making the decision, the government took for granted that the personal preferences of elected representatives could serve as an adequate substitute for specific facts about the reality on the ground.

As the experts have said, the Conservative government's census is an inadequate substitute for the long form census. It is clearly not an acceptable substitute. However, the Conservatives are yet again refusing to listen to the experts, and they are continuing to govern with blinkers on. The Conservative government's foolish decision was yet another attack on science in Canada.

Data on immigration, place of birth, citizenship, ethnic origin and visible minorities in Canada as well as data on the languages and religions of Canadians are also problematic because of the low response rates. There is a huge problem with the current system that the Conservative government has put in place.

I would like to point out that in 2010, the former chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, could not tolerate the Conservatives' attack on the integrity and independence of Statistics Canada. In fact, he resigned to protest the Conservatives' irresponsible approach. He did try to convince them to use evidence and facts rather than following their ideology. Munir Sheikh said that Statistics Canada data were important and that they were a great help to the government in identifying financial crises and developing policies to respond to them.

I have to say that this is very ironic because this Conservative government claims that it is the best economic manager when, in reality, it is attacking the data that allow us to make reliable decisions about managing the Canadian economy.

Clearly, there is a lack of consistency on the part of this Conservative government. Since I am almost out of time, I would like to reiterate that an NDP government will bring back the long form census and reinvest in Statistics Canada so that we can make reliable decisions and continue delivering services to Canadians across the country.

It is crucial to continue to support science, evidence and data in Canada, rather than ideology.