Bill C-36 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Statistics Act

This enactment amends the Statistics Act to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada, including by providing for the appointment of the Chief Statistician to hold office during good behaviour and by assigning to the Chief Statistician the powers related to methods, procedures and operations of Statistics Canada. It also establishes a transparent process to issue directives to the Chief Statistician concerning those methods, procedures and operations or the statistical programs. In addition, it establishes the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council, no longer requires the consent of respondents to transfer their Census information to Library and Archives Canada and repeals imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. Finally, it amends certain provisions by modernizing the language of the Act to better reflect current methods of collecting statistical information.

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

The Statistics Act is totally unclear on the issue and Bill C-36 is silent on the issue.

What I am suggesting, making section 21 subservient to 22, would—in my view—solve the problem. The way it would solve the problem is that section 4 gives the issue of methodological decisions to the chief statistician, covering all areas in section 22. So as soon as 21 is made subservient to 22, the chief statistician would then be able to prepare a long-form census, and he is the one who makes the decision as to whether something is voluntary or mandatory. Of course it would be mandatory.

However, for accountability, you want to make sure the Government of Canada has the final say on it, and with section 21 around, the Government of Canada can approve it, reject the chief statistician's advice, and send him a directive at that time and say, “For the following reasons, we are not going to accept what you are recommending.” To me, that simple change would solve the problem.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. Again, thank you so much for your time.

One of the questions that I have is around the nature of collecting information through the two different methodologies.

To use a concrete example, in the context of Bill C-36, will comparisons between data collected from the mandatory census versus data from a voluntary long-form census be statistically reliable?

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

I don't know why the government has resisted the idea, but as a former chief statistician, I find the principles to be extremely valuable. For example, Bill C-36 talks about the chief statistician doing his or her job. It makes it very clear, and the language in that is what I would say is a one-sentence summary of the principles. That's one reason.

I'm not quite sure what extra value you would get by adding those principles. It really is right there, in my view.

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

In my testimony to the committee seven years ago, I said that I had two jobs, one was to give my best advice to the government, and the second was to implement whatever the government decided.

I think it's pretty obvious by now that the advice that we gave the government was to continue with the long-form census. The government said no. They wanted the national household survey. StatCan's response was, “You're the boss. We'll do whatever you want.” We tried to do our best with the survey.

It was when the minister started to blame Statistics Canada for recommending the survey and saying that the chief statistician personally gave him that advice that it became very difficult for me to continue in that job, especially since he had done it a number of times.

I did my very best to encourage him to stop, but he did not stop. I think the point came when I said, “I can't work in this situation because it leaves the impression that we gave bad advice to the government.” That was my only way to send a message that we did not give that advice.

If Bill C-36 had been part of the Statistics Act at the time—I have already dealt with that in my comments, and I have said that I don't think anything would have been different. I would still be gone, and the minister would still have said the same things. We probably would be sitting here today talking about Bill C-36, but it would not have changed anything.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much. This question, first of all, is for Mr. Sheikh.

It was my understanding that an important factor in your resignation was the government interference in statistical matters in a way that made it seem like you as the chief statistician at the time had agreed with the decision. I just want to know if that is correct.

Further to that, I'll get to Bill C-36. Had it been in place at the time, how might the transparency around the direct power provision have altered the events? Would it have prevented the perception that you were on board with the government's decision? Finally, would you have felt more comfortable keeping your position as chief statistician knowing that the accountability for the decision clearly and transparently rested with the government and not you?

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

Before the 2010 census problem, as chief statistician, whenever I met with chief statisticians of the world, what I kept hearing was that Statistics Canada was the best statistical agency in the world. That reputation, of course, suffered as a result of what happened in 2010.

Therefore, the question I give to you, sir, is if Bill C-36 had been the law at that time, would that situation have been avoided? My answer is no, but you might come to a different answer. I think the answer is no because of this problem that I mentioned between sections 21 and 22 of the Statistics Act.

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

I don't think I'll be able to provide a definition right now. I haven't given it much thought.

I think the system we have has worked really well. You have a past census that you can search very widely. You can make changes to what the census should look like, and then the cabinet approves it. I think that system really has worked.

To my mind, that really isn't the issue, how you define a census. The issue for me is that in the Statistics Act right now, if you look at sections 21 and 22, there's a conflict. You need to avoid that conflict. Section 22 has a list of things that, under Bill C-36, the chief statistician would be able to make most, if not all, of the decisions on. Section 21 says quite explicitly that, by the way, the census questions are the responsibility of the government.

To me, which one of those would override the other in Bill C-36 is a big, big issue, and the bill is totally silent on that.

[Ian McKinnon, Chair, National Statistics Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee. Let me begin with a brief introduction to the National Statistics Council.

The NSC was created 30 years ago to advise the chief statistician on matters affecting the Canadian statistical system. It complements the more focused work of the subject area advisory committees and the federal, provincial, and territorial working groups.

It is my strong view that we've been very useful in pressuring StatsCan to look at new areas of data collection, for example, finding ways to reduce respondent burden and to make StatsCan's data more widely available to users.

With the controversy that attended the 2011 census and the national household survey, the council also began to consider more explicitly and even speak out on issues that could affect the continued quality of the overall Canadian statistical system.

The importance of this bill, Bill C-36, lies precisely in addressing some of the issues that were raised at that time.

We believe it is fundamentally important for our statistical system that we get this right. For the information produced by a statistical agency to be fully used, the quality of the information must be trusted. That information must be relevant, accurate, timely, and available widely.

Similarly, for Canadians to provide information—this is the other side—freely to a statistical agency, that agency must itself be trusted. From looking at both Canadian experience and that of similar countries, trust is dependent on several aspects of an agency's operation and its mandate.

Specifically, the statistical agency must operate transparently, with strongly protected guarantees of independence in terms of exercising its professional judgment.

There must be a relationship of trust with the individual providers of the information to the statistical agency. They need to understand why the information is collected, how decisions about what is collected are made, and above all, there needs to be a commitment to reducing the burden on respondents and an assurance that the information they provide will be held in confidence.

A statistical agency earns both its credibility and its social licence, if you will, by its success at embodying those attributes.

I'd like now to turn to the bill and the council's response to the direction of the bill.

The first is simply removing imprisonment as a possible penalty for individuals refusing to respond to mandatory surveys. The council has publicly endorsed removing the threat of imprisonment from the initial debates over the census in 2010 when that issue was raised, and we continue to do so.

Secondly, moving to the second topic, confidentiality, this is a central issue for the council because it is essential to holding public trust. If public trust is undermined, the provision of information is undermined. In contrast with our view that the potential punishment for not responding to mandatory surveys is too severe, the council has also suggested that penalties for unauthorized disclosure of data by employees or designated research should be monitored to make sure that they constitute a significant deterrent. In this I echo fully Mr. Cappe's earlier points.

Maintaining confidentiality is far more than simply having appropriate penalties, however. There are also matters like the security of computer systems and data protection procedures. This committee has already heard about further securing computer systems and the changes at Shared Services Canada.

The council does not possess the expertise to make a judgment on secure computing environments. However, we do believe that the core practices that ensure the protection of personal information flow in part from corporate culture. We can attest, from our experience, that confidentiality is a deeply rooted value in the culture of Statistics Canada.

On the aspect of confidentiality related to making census returns available after 92 years, the council agrees that the benefits to historians and genealogists outweigh concerns that this change might affect people's willingness to respond to the census. We simply haven't observed significant public concern over this.

Turning to strengthening the independence of the chief statistician and Statistics Canada, many of the changes in the act are consistent with advice that the National Statistics Council has given.

The council has agreed that giving the chief statistician a fixed, potentially renewable term during good behaviour increases independence.

As with some of the statements made in earlier hearings by former chief statisticians, we agree that there should be a wide and aggressive search conducted when this position is to be filled. Again, this is consistent with the statements today from Professor Thomas and Mr. Cappe. As well, we suggest, as does Professor Thomas, the use of a senior panel in making the selection.

The balance between independence and accountability is critical. The council believes that on questions such as appropriate methodology and other issues of professional judgment, Statistics Canada and the chief statistician should be responsible. Conversely, Statistics Canada, in particular the chief statistician, should have operational control of the agency, subject to the financial, personnel, and administrative disciplines governing federal organizations generally. The incumbent should be responsible to propose the statistical program of the agency, subject to written direction by the minister on topics and priorities.

The importance of transparency and written directions I think is part of the pivotal mix, because it means that there is not necessarily a cost, but it makes clear where the responsibility lies. Transparency can help ensure this balance is sustained. The chief statistician's annual report through the minister is one element, as is the chief statistician's ability to make public the directives that are received from the minister.

The final element in balancing independence and accountability is the creation of the Canadian statistics advisory council. The function of that body is significantly different from that of the current National Statistics Council, reflecting the changed position of the chief statistician and of Statistics Canada.

Through their annual public report, this council can offer a more independent view of issues and challenges facing the Canadian statistical system. While it's not a board to oversee StatsCan, it can increase the transparency and general understanding of the competing pressures facing the statistical system. It can also provide the government with an external view of operational and professional issues facing Stats Canada.

As you also heard earlier today, it means that appointment to that body is a critical issue because, given that new role, one that is different from that of the National Statistics Council, it's important that it is well understood how people are appointed and that people feel confident they can act in an independent manner. While we are intensely proud of the work of the National Statistics Council and what it has done over the years in terms of stakeholder engagement, ongoing professional consultation, and outreach to current and potential data users, all of those elements have become increasingly part of StatsCan's operating values.

The advisory council fills a new role, one which would be difficult for the current statistics council to perform, frankly, and the creation of that new entity is I think an essential and pivotal part of the promise that this bill holds in transforming it from just letters into a well-operating and successful change to the Canadian statistical system.

I await your questions. Thank you.

[Dr. Paul Thomas, Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee to offer some thoughts on Bill C-36.

I've served on the National Statistics Council since 1996, but my remarks today are very much my own opinions.

I prepared and submitted a brief to the committee, and I understand that it has been translated and circulated, so I'm going to use my brief opening time this morning to highlight some of the recommendations I made in that document. There won't be time to go into at length the rationale behind the recommendations I'm making. If there is time and interest in the question period, I'd be pleased to provide additional comments on the reasoning behind my recommendation.

Let me say at the outset that I think Bill C-36 represents an important and valuable first step toward modernizing the Statistics Act. In particular, Bill C-36 provides for a less detailed and prescriptive governance framework for Statistics Canada. This more flexible governance framework means that the chief statistician and the agency at large will have more independence and autonomy to make informed, impartial professional judgments about statistical programming, the methodology to be used, and the interpretations to be applied to the data they collect.

I think the bill also clarifies the accountability relationships that Statistics Canada must maintain with the government, with Parliament, and with the public. In the past, these matters were largely governed by long-standing practices and conventions. Some of those conventions and practices are now being codified in the form of this legislation. Therefore, my recommendations are not to approve the bill, but I think there are a number of areas covered by the bill where improvements could be made. I'll go through those very quickly.

In both the backgrounder to the bill and the remarks by the minister, the government is saying that the contents of this bill align with the fundamental principles of official statistics of the United Nations. I think it would be better, in fact, if a preamble were added to the bill to indicate that this is the foundation for the contents of the bill. Such a preamble would serve both a contextual and a constructive role in the interpretation of the statute. It would confirm the spirit of the law and help with the interpretation of any ambiguity therein. It would provide a foundation for the development within Statistics Canada of a culture of independence, impartiality, and objectivity in the production and publication of official statistics. Such a preamble would also provide a basis for discussions and negotiation between the chief statistician and officials of the government when issues of independence arise.

The second point I would make is that the bill presumes a policy operation split. In other words, the policy remains the prerogative of government and Parliament, whereas operational and technical matters are supposed to be the domain in which the chief statistician and other experts at Statistics Canada prevail.

As already mentioned by the previous two speakers, the bill, I think, needs to create greater clarity regarding those instances in which the responsible minister believes a technical and operational matter is of such importance that it rises to the level of becoming a matter of national interest and the minister can issue directives to Statistics Canada. I think in that instance there should be a requirement in the law that such directives be tabled in Parliament and be subject to a 60-day notice and comment period so that there would be debate about the appropriateness of government involvement with an operational matter.

There is also authority given to the minister to issue more general policy directives that are binding on the chief statistician and the agency. In that case, I think it would be better if those directives came not from the minister solely on his or her own behalf but were subject to prior approval by cabinet. I suggest a procedure for that.

The further recommendation I have on this general policy directive is that no such policy directive should amount to an indirect amendment to the Statistics Act in any fundamental way. Amending the Statistics Act is a responsibility of Parliament.

I then turn to the position of the chief statistician, which I think has a crucial role in all of this, the catalyst that makes for a high quality national statistics system. I think that the provisions proposed in Bill C-36 should be amended to provide for an advisory panel of three eminent or distinguished persons with appropriate background knowledge to conduct the recruitment activity and to review the applications, nominations, for the position of chief statistician. That panel would then recommend one name and place two alternative names before the Prime Minister for possible recommendations to the cabinet.

If the Prime Minister found none of the nominees suitable, he or she could nominate their own choice, but would be required to give reasons for not accepting someone from the list provided by the panel.

Turning now to the proposed Canadian statistics advisory council, I think there is a very real ambiguity here about the role of this new council that could lead to problems down the road.

I think two questions of clarification need to be asked. The first question is, does the government understand whether the council is to serve primarily a representational role or is the new council presumed to play a governance role, serving as the eyes and ears of the minister by overseeing the performance of the agency?

The second question is, as order in council appointees, will council members see themselves more as agents of the government than as trustees of the long-term interest of the national statistical system?

What happens if there is a disagreement between the council and the chief statistician over what advice should go to the minister? I have not read or heard a clear statement from the minister on these points. A greater clarity would be advisable.

On the basis of that clarification, I would suggest that proposed subsection 8.1(2) of the bill regarding the new Canadian statistics advisory council should be amended to provide for a greater number of members, possibly in the range of 20 to 25 members, including a chairperson appointed by the Governor in Council to reflect a wider range of interests served by the statistical programming of Statistics Canada. Recruitment should be done on the basis of an open process of application and nomination.

In conclusion, I would make the following point. Legislation that distributes authority and creates structures and procedures is the starting point for achieving an appropriate balance between independence and accountability for Statistics Canada. Even more important, however, is the appointment of a chief statistician and other leaders of integrity within the agency who are committed to strengthening an already strong shared culture within Statistics Canada that's based on the principles and values of a high quality national statistical system.

Thank you very much. I look forward to any questions.

[Dr. Munir Sheikh, Former Chief Statistician of Canada, As an Individual]

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to come here today and share my thoughts with you on Bill C-36. It's good to be back at this committee after almost seven years, when I appeared following my resignation as chief statistician.

I think it would be useful for me to set a context for my comments on Bill C-36 and proposing changes to the Statistics Act. An official statistical agency must have the utmost trust of the users of this data. To achieve this objective, both the government and the official statistical agency should play their parts.

For its part, the agency must strive to achieve excellence in the production and dissemination of needed data. I can say, based on my experience, that the agency has always tried to do that. On the part of the government, it needs to find the appropriate mechanisms to make the official statistical agency accountable to the citizens of the country, while at the same time ensuring that the agency is appropriately independent and avoids political interference, both in fact and in appearance.

Avoiding political interference is important because Statistics Canada is in the business of producing facts, not in the business of policy-making, where political decisions are normal. Political interference can damage the trust that citizens must have in the official agency that is producing the data, which could make all official data suspect for users.

Turning to Bill C-36, I would like first of all to commend the government for setting the objective of increasing the independence of Statistics Canada and for introducing legislation to that effect. Let me now offer some comments. In doing so, I apologize to the committee, in that I have actually more questions than I have answers.

The existing Statistics Act is flawed, in that it gives the authority to make technical statistical decisions to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Bill C-36 rightly shifts some of that responsibility to the chief statistician. I'm pleased that the government has proposed this important change in proposed subsection 4(5).

However, the bill does not stop there. It allows the minister to send a public directive to the chief statistician in cases where the minister disagrees with the chief statistician on these matters. This is in proposed subsections 4.1(1) and 4.2(1). I understand fully that this is done to preserve accountability; however, it does raise a number of questions. Let me mention just two.

If a chief statistician is perceived not to have made appropriate decisions on statistical matters, so that the minister needs to intervene, how can the government afford to have such a chief statistician stay in the job for five years? Next, as an example, given that Statistics Canada is a national statistical agency and not a federal agency, as I understand it, what happens if a minister orders the cancellation of a survey that is of critical importance, say, to a province?

As I just mentioned, another proposed change in the bill is a fixed five-year term for the chief statistician. Presumably, the purpose of the five-year fixed term is that the chief statistician should be able to withstand political pressure.

However, let me mention that I am not aware of any such problem ever happening in the long life of Statistics Canada, but it may happen in the future, of course. I am, however, aware that the Prime Minister makes changes to the ranks of the senior civil service to match the best people to the types of deputy minister jobs that exist. This prime ministerial prerogative includes the chief statistician at this time. This raises the question whether it is worth sacrificing a known benefit that is part of a Prime Minister's authority at the moment to achieve a potential benefit with an uncertain and very small likelihood.

Another important proposed change is the establishment of the statistics advisory council. Its members would be appointed through an order in council and could be asked to provide advice to both the minister and the chief statistician on issues related to the "overall quality of the national statistical system". This also raises some questions. Why does the minister need advice from outside when they have the chief statistician for all such advice? What happens if the minister and the chief statistician have different views on the advice they get, particularly in the context of the chief statistician's five-year term? Is there a risk that a government would make politically motivated appointments to the council? Let me emphasize that, if a council is indeed established, it is of the utmost importance that it should be set on the right foot at the start of its life.

Let me now turn to the question of how things could have unfolded if this law had been in place in 2010 at the time of the cancellation of the long-form census. There were two issues running at that time, if I could remind the committee members. First, the inappropriateness of cancelling the census, which seriously reduced data quality, as I warned in my resignation statement. The second issue was the nature of the statements made by the minister in response to the criticism the government rightly received for making a very bad decision. These statements led to the resignation of the chief statistician.

On the first issue, regarding the cancellation of the long-form census, I have not found anything in Bill C-36 to suggest that things would have been different in 2010. The census would still be cancelled. Let me emphasize here that I am assuming that section 21 of the Statistics Act overrides section 22. If it does not, and my assumption is incorrect, I think the law should be clarified on that.

This raises another question. Given what we went through in 2010, and perhaps one of the reasons we are all gathered here today, is there not a need to avoid repeating that problem? On the issue of the nature of the minister's statements that led to the resignation of the chief statistician, I fully understand it is not possible to legislate that a minister cannot say those types of things.

Thank you.

[Professor Mel Cappe, Professor, School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

I hope to make you happy today, sir.

Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on Bill C-36.

The last time I appeared before this committee was August 27, 2010, on the issue of the long-form census. I went back and reviewed that testimony and found that what I said then I really want to say again, so I'm going to quote myself, I'm afraid, and perhaps bore you all.

First of all, I start off by saying I've never been partisan. For five years, I was president of the Institute for Research and Public Policy, and then, I quote, “I spent over 30 years in the public service of Canada. I served seven prime ministers. I was the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet to Mr. Chrétien, but lest you think that somehow taints me as being a partisan in anyway”—remember this was the last government I was talking to—“the first order in council naming me to the deputy minister ranks was by Brian Mulroney, and I ended my career in the public service loyally serving Prime Minister Harper”.

In the spirit of that non-partisan public service, my objective today, again, is to try to help the committee deal with the government's objectives, as well as the opposition's objectives. I think both can be met. Although the government and the opposition have switched, my point is as applicable today as it was then.

My first point is I'm not partisan, and the second point is that statistics are a public good. I quote myself, “That's a technical term, but it's a good one. [They're] used by a wide array of real people: banks, charities, and public health authorities.” The state can collect and analyze statistics at lower cost than requiring everyone to collect their own. One person using statistics does not impede others from using the same ones, and that's what makes statistics a public good.

My next point is that the Statistics Act should minimize the use of coercion, which I think was an issue back in 2010. We should be minimizing intrusiveness and maximizing the privacy of the data as much as possible.

What I meant then was that “you can remove jail terms”, but “you can review the questionnaire and minimize the intrusiveness of the questions” as well, “and I would add to what the National Statistics Council has said, you can increase the penalties for the divulgation of private data.” So this secrecy of data provided to Statistics Canada is fundamental and important. “I think anybody who releases census data inappropriately should be seriously fined.”

My next point is that the governance of Statistics Canada can be improved. The higher principle is, quote, “...to ensure the integrity of the statistical agency. I think the events over the course of [2010]...raised questions about this larger significant issue. I think the committee should take its time...to consider the UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics.”

“To my surprise, there are [such] principles”, but in 2010 many of those issues were raised “about who's responsible for methodology in collecting statistics. There are several principles in that UN charter that deal with independence, methodological integrity, and the role of politics”.

I said in 2010 to this committee, “You might consider—and I'm not suggesting this is 'the' answer, but it's 'an' answer—amending the Statistics Act to make clear that the Chief Statistician, who is a statutory officer named in the Statistics Act and appointed by Governor in Council, has the sole responsibility for methodological and technical issues.”

However, I also think—I thought then, and I think now—there is a legitimate role for politics in statistics—politics, but not partisanship. Statistics Canada is a:

...department of government that reports to the minister and...many questions around the choice of questions [for the census] are political. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Chief Statistician should be the only person to comment on methodological questions in government and have the obligation to inform the chair of a parliamentary committee, or someone in public, of his views on methodological questions. I would urge the committee not to play partisan games with an important institution of governance.

Those comments in 2010 are as apt today as then, and I stand by them. It's through that lens that I reviewed Bill C-36, and I want to make four points.

One, statistics should not be a partisan issue. The efficacy of the agency and the integrity of our institutions should be important to all parties. The bill does not appear to me to be particularly partisan. It revalidates the independence of the agency.

Two, statistics are indeed a public good, and it's highly appropriate for the state to collect and analyze statistics, so I'd support the objectives of this bill. It reconfirms the legitimacy of the collection and analysis functions of the agency.

Three, in minimizing coercion and reducing penalties for violation of the act by removing jail terms, this bill meets my objectives and, I would suggest, the legitimate objectives of this committee.

Finally, the changes to the governance structures of the agency strike me as appropriate. Creating the statutory council and legislating the independence and responsibilities of the chief statistician for methodology are apt.

I would just note that there's a trade-off here, Mr. Chair, between the independence of the agency and the need for more direction from government, when it's a department of government that already is there. The more independence you give the agency, the more formally in statute the relationship has to be articulated. Thus, I think this is a very good piece of housekeeping to modernize the Statistics Act. While I have strong views on other parts of the bill dealing with independence and directives, I'll await your questions to deal with them.

Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome everybody. We're going to get started. This is meeting number 55. We're continuing our ongoing study of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

We have with us today, as individuals, Mel Cappe, professor, University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance; and Munir Sheikh, former chief statistician of Canada. Via video conference we also have Paul G. Thomas, professor emeritus of Political Studies, University of Manitoba. From the National Statistics Council we have Ian McKinnon, chair.

Welcome, everybody.

We're going to start with Mr. Cappe.

You have up to 10 minutes. I wouldn't be hurt if you kept it under 10 minutes.

[Dr. Ivan Fellegi]

It's just a similar analysis that we have carried out.

While I celebrate the improvements, I think it would be a great loss if a once-in-a-generation opportunity like the present one were not exploited to bring in a truly model Statistics Act. I would like to recommend for your consideration six possible improvements. I'm less modest than Mr. Smith. He only had three.

First, I would suggest that you give careful consideration to the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. It has a very important preamble that sets out the reasons why trust in official statistics is crucial for the sound functioning of democratic processes and why the professional independence of the national statistical office is a critical element of this trust. It would set a context for the act and could play a major role in guiding its interpretation by the courts and by others.

Second, I think the proposed method of appointment of the chief statistician leaves a lot to be desired. Here I'm fully echoing what Mr. Smith said. This is a position requiring a deep knowledge of the quality issues of official statistics and what makes them trustworthy, an understanding of the multiplicity of information needs of governments and society, and a demonstrated ability to manage a complex, multidisciplinary organization.

I strongly urge you, in case of a vacancy, to consider requiring the establishment of a search committee of eminent and knowledgeable people for the purpose of searching for and putting forward to the Prime Minister a short list of qualified persons. Such a search committee could be composed of retired governors of the Bank of Canada, retired clerks of the Privy Council, retired chief statisticians, the president of the Statistical Society of Canada, and so on. The search committee should be required to not only review applications for the position but to also conduct an active search. This is a highly specialized position, and I am asserting, based on my long experience, that an essentially passive application process without an active search component will often not work well, and has not worked well in the past.

Still on the appointment process, I welcome the establishment of term appointments to be served during good behaviour and the fact that the term is renewable, but suggest that you consider more than just renewal. Perhaps after one renewal...subject to a review by a search committee. If you have an outstanding person in the job, why should you preclude at least the possibility of reappointment?

Four, as I mentioned before, giving the chief statistician control over the statistical methods to be used and over the timing and methods of dissemination is at the heart of the proposed changes. It is, however, a major flaw, in my view, that Bill C-36 leaves open the possibility of the chief statistician being overruled, on a methodological issue, by the responsible minister. I would underline “on a methodological issue”. The proposed safeguard of transparency would not have worked in the case of the 2011 census.

This aspect of the proposed Statistics Act also explicitly violates the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, of which the Government of Canada is a foremost signatory. As I mentioned, it leaves the door wide open for the repeat of the 2011 voluntary long-form census by calling the long form a “survey”, and overruling the chief statistician on its mandatory character.

I left five copies of those fundamental principles with your clerk.

Fifth, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the scope of the census is not specified, and this leaves the door even more widely open for a future government to opt for a short-form census, with perhaps a voluntary long form that would be called a survey.

Sixth and finally, and perhaps less importantly, I suggest that you specify some skill requirements for the members of the proposed Canadian statistics advisory committee. I also suggest that you increase its size. It needs to represent a variety of disciplines, skill sets, client groups, and geographical locations.

I thank you for your attention, and I'll be very happy to answer your questions.

[Wayne Smith, Former Chief Statistician of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address the committee as it studies Bill C-36, a bill that seeks to establish the professional independence of Statistics Canada in law. Ivan Fellegi and I have played a significant role internationally in the articulation of the need for professional independence of national statistical offices. I think Dr. Fellegi is going to speak to this a bit. He participated in the writing of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics and their adoption by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, while I, as chair of the Conference of European Statisticians, helped to obtain their approval at the UN General Assembly. As a member and vice-chair of the executive of the Committee on Statistics and Statistical Policy of the OECD, I proposed and helped develop the OECD's recommendations on good statistical practice, which were ultimately adopted by the OECD council of ministers.

A key notion behind both of these documents is that the professional independence of national statistical offices should be protected in national statistical legislation. It has always been somewhat ironic that while Canada played such an important role in developing this notion, Canadian legislation has been among the worst in the developed world in terms of affording protection to Statistics Canada's independence. In Canada, professional independence, until recently—until now if this bill is adopted—has been a matter of convention rather than law, and has relied on the good graces of successive governments, and the determination of successive chief statisticians to protect that independence. While independence has been generally maintained, preserving it is not a game for weak-willed chief statisticians.

This requirement for professional independence is rooted in the need to protect the credibility of national statistics that, in the democratic process, provide a report card to the nation on the performance of successive governments and a reliable information base for public policy debate. If the national statistical system is subject to political or other external interference, credibility is eroded, and debate becomes about the statistics themselves, rather than the substantive issues of public policy. If the system of national statistics is credible, then one can truly say that a person is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

So it's gratifying to see Bill C-36 brought before Parliament. I had the opportunity to contribute to the building of the legislation prior to my resignation.

I'd like to say at the outset that while I consider the legislation to have three major flaws, even if it's passed in its current state, the legislation would materially improve the independence of Statistics Canada and should be welcomed. But there are flaws.

The first flaw is that the legislation does not include provisions for a merit-based, transparent selection process for the chief statistician, one that would engage a selection committee of stakeholders in the statistical system in that process.

The government has argued that it now has a general merit-based selection system for Governor in Council appointments, but this system is not transparent and not binding on the current government, let alone future governments. This point was demonstrated when my successor was selected through a completely opaque process and was appointed to a lower level deputy minister position without adequate public explanation. The chief statistician of the moment is very beholden to the government and on a very short leash. This demonstrates how independence can be undermined by the selection process.

The second flaw is that Bill C-36 will in no way alter the provisions of the Statistics Act with respect to the census of population. This means that there will be no guarantee that every five years a comprehensive census will be conducted that is mandatory in all respects. The decision of the previous government to make the long form of the census of population voluntary was the principle reason for wanting to reinforce the professional independence of Statistics Canada, so it is surprising that the bill does not address the issue.

Even if Bill C-36 is passed, the cabinet is still required and authorized to approve the questions for each census, and can decide to reduce the content to any number of questions it desires. Under existing case law, the interpretation of the Statistics Act is that the long form is not part of the census proper, and therefore can be conducted on a voluntary basis, and this problem has not been addressed.

Through deft manipulation of the provisions of the amended act, any future government will still be able, once again, to make the long-form census voluntary without going before Parliament.

The third flaw is the one that led to my resignation in September 2016. Bill C-36 does not address the serious intrusion on Statistics Canada's independence arising from its new forced dependence on Shared Services Canada for informatic hardware infrastructure. This dependence, created under the previous government, gives an outside organization the ability to interfere with or even prevent, through malice, incompetence or disinterest, the delivery of Statistics Canada's programs.

We are living a case in point at this very moment. Statistics Canada has been working for some time now to modernize its data dissemination systems, which rely on now obsolete software. Statistics Canada has done its part. It has developed modern programs to replace these systems, but requires new hardware infrastructure to introduce them. Shared Services Canada has repeatedly failed to deliver the required, operationally-ready infrastructure to allow Statistics Canada to implement the new systems. The first date that was missed was in May 2015, and the structure still isn't there. The 2016 census of population program, which intended to make use of the new software platform, was forced to retreat and incur some non-negligible costs to patch up the old programs. Commitments made to the previous government to improve the usability of online census data could therefore not be honoured. More significantly, over two weeks ago—actually at the time of the release of the last labour force survey dated early in March—significant portions of Statistics Canada website were taken offline due to security vulnerabilities in the old software, which is still in use, contrary to Statistics Canada's desires, intentions, and plans. Major components of the website are still not available today. To my knowledge, this is the worst outage of online data access in Statistics Canada's history and a serious loss of access to data for Canadians. It shows why Statistics Canada must have full management control over its informatics operations.

It is my sincere hope that this committee will bring forward amendments to address these flaws in Bill C-36 when it is returned to the House.

With that, I will end my comments. Thank you.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here today.

Let's go back to what we're really here for. We're here to assess Bill C-36, which focuses on the independence of StatsCan. When I look at this in general, I see three key stakeholders, which I call the three legs of the stool. I see a ministry or department, I see Shared Services, and I see StatsCan. If we look at a day in the life of any of these three departments, certain business requirements identified by a ministry are passed on to StatsCan, and it needs to assess them to be able to satisfy that. Within that process, can you explain to me Shared Services' role and what controls are in place to ensure that the independence of StatsCan is met?