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.
