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.

Statistics Act

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

The legislation aims to provide more independence to Canada's chief statistician. It would update penalties for Canadians who failed to complete their short form census. It would replace the National Statistics Council with the new Canada statistics advisory council. There would no longer be a requirement to obtain the consent of Canadians to transfer their personal information from Statistics Canada to Library and Archives Canada.

I would like to address each one of these changes. Some of them are supportable and some are not.

Let me first begin with the increased independence of the chief statistician.

Under the legislation, Canada's chief statistician would have sole responsibility to decide the methods, procedures, and operations of all statistical programs under Statistics Canada. It would also mean that he or she would have full authority over the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction, and publication of all statistical information. The chief statistician would also have control of the content released and publicized, and how and when this information would be circulated.

While some aspects of the legislation make sense, and the chief statistician should be able to decide the best way to gather data and what the process should look like, we also need to ensure that he or she remains accountable to the minister and Canadians. Moreover, the new powers granted are such that he or she will have the final say on where information is stored, as well as the type of information being collected, as he or she will have powers to decide what questions are asked and which ones are not.

I will acknowledge that this will likely be good news to the former chief statistician, Wayne Smith, who resigned recently over the Liberal government's push to use Shared Services Canada to store statistical information. While there may be a need to use a different method to protect Canada's data, we need to ensure we have a system of checks and balances and ensure that this information does not fall to a third party to store and potentially undermine the security of Canadians.

We have seen many examples of the hacking of systems worldwide. We have seen the manipulation of information, the selling and trading of information, and our own systems have been subject to these same practices. The Liberal government is now reopening the process to allow a Chinese company to buy a Canadian IT firm against the recommendations and warnings from CSIS. We need to ensure the minister and all departments under Statistics Canada's purview are held accountable to Canadians. Giving the chief statistician the final say without any accountability really undermines that process.

The second change would remove the penalty of imprisonment for Canadians who failed to fill out census forms. I think we can all fully support this change. In fact, it was the previous Conservative government that removed this penalty from every survey, except the short form census.

The third change is the bill would create the Canadian statistics advisory council. This council would replace the National Statistics Council, which has been in place since the 1980s. This new council would reduce the membership of the current council to just 10 members. In addition to advising the chief statistician, the new council would also advise the minister and would be required to produce an annual report.

Again, the issues with this section have to do with accountability. In particular, I am concerned with the new membership structure.

The current council has representation from every province and every territory in Canada. However, the new council will only include 10 members and will not include representation from every province and territory. In fact, three provinces and territories will not be represented. What is even more troubling is that we will not know the makeup or representation of the council until the Prime Minister and his cabinet appoint the members.

It is inappropriate for cabinet to decide which regions are important enough to have a voice at the table and which ones are not.

We collect data from Canadians in every province and every territory across the country. Not to have representation from three provinces and territories is unacceptable. This change needs to be rectified.

The fourth change is one that gives myself and my colleagues on this side of the House the most concern. The government will no longer require the explicit consent of Canadians to transfer their personal census information from Statistics Canada to Library and Archives Canada after a period of 92 years. Once the information has been transferred to Library and Archives Canada, it will be public and available for anyone to view and use at will.

The privacy and security of Canadians should be of the utmost priority for any government. The work that Statistics Canada does is so important, not only for policy-makers in crafting our legislation, but also for helping Canadian research and academia sectors, business sectors, environmental sectors, and for future historians who will be looking to understand the evolution of Canadian society.

However, regardless of all the great work Statistics Canada does, the right of Canadians to privacy over their own information cannot be compromised. Canadians should have the right to consent to the transfer of any personal information obtained through the census.

In today's digital age of easy and instant information sharing, we cannot forget how easy it is for information to be shared and used without our permission. We should not be giving anyone the power to transfer some of our most personal data to a public domain without our explicit permission.

Even though the legislation has a delay period of 92 years for transferring and publishing our personal information, the type of information collected by Statistics Canada will often include or impact not only those individuals, but also their spouses, their children, and other family members. The argument that 92 years is a sufficient length of time to cancel out any worry about invasion of privacy assumes that the data looks at the individual in a vacuum.

We need to be aware that sharing and transferring this information to Library and Archives Canada will impact not only the individual, but also those who are, or were, connected to that individual. This is the most problematic piece of the legislation. An amendment that requires the explicit consent of the individual should be included.

The bill has potential. The work that Statistics Canada does is extremely important, but the collection and storage of data cannot come at the expense of the privacy of individuals or their families.

We also need to ensure that Canadians from all regions are represented equally and fairly, and that Canadians can be confident that the personal data they provide to the government is stored securely and is not shared without their consent.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today to speak to these changes as proposed in Bill C-36 to the Statistics Canada Act.

There is no doubt that in our society we rely on information. All sectors of business rely on good data, good information to guide their decisions, and on this side of the aisle, we have always stressed the importance of that good work that Statistics Canada does.

However, the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy. It is a concern of ours that some of the changes as suggested, if not amended, to this piece of legislation could strike an improper balance between the privacy of Canadians and what Canadians feel is their private information being infringed upon and what the government uses that data for.

This is a redesign and a re-engineering of how statistics would be gathered in an effort to make them more independent, make the chief statistician more independent, but it also has to come back to what is balancing the rights of Canadians while good data is collected.

I will give examples of some of the intrusive questions that we have heard from Canadians that some have said just go beyond, perhaps, questions they are comfortable answering. That would be, “How many bathrooms do you have in your home? When do you leave for work, and when do you arrive at work?” and other questions that delve into their personal lives on the basis that somehow this data would be useful to the government for the purposes of disseminating that information for good policy-making and for good decision-making.

It is proposed in the changes to give the chief statistician total control over those questions with no ministerial control or accountability by the minister. What this means in the new set-up, in the new engineered or redesigned way of collecting data and the supervision and the management of collecting data, is that the chief statistician would, on his or her own, be able to make those decisions, not have to vet them through the minister or through the ministry or through Parliament, where we would decide perhaps on certain, larger issues, whether they are appropriate or not appropriate.

What happens when a Canadian down the road decides that, although it is mandatory to complete it, it is too intrusive into his or her personal life? How do they ask the questions? To whom do they ask the questions to find out more about why this question is being asked? It will not come back to the minister. It will not come through the regular channels of parliamentary procedure as currently exist. It will be the chief statistician having the lone decision-making and not having to be accountable to this place for the decisions on those questions.

The other issue that has been mentioned this morning already is the storage of data. The chief statistician could decide, having been given sole authority to create this independence as put forward, where this data could be stored. We talked about the importance of where it is being stored today and maintaining that integrity, but at any point in time, the chief statistician could decide to deliver that data to a third party for storage.

In fact, we saw the most recent resignation, I believe his name was Wayne Smith, over this very issue. Former chief statistician Wayne Smith resigned over the push to use Shared Services Canada to store the information. Unfortunately his concerns, which were made clear to the Liberal government, were not looked upon and it took his resignation before they would listen. We are talking again about security of Canadians, and this should be the top priority of any government.

Let us talk about the overriding governance portion of the changes that are being made and why we have concerns with that on this side. What is happening is that the governance body, the overseeing body, is changing to the Canadian statistics advisory council, a new name, from the National Statistics Council.

The key concern here is, this was put in place in 1985 by the Mulroney government as an oversight body with 13 members, representing all provinces and territories, while the new one, as proposed in this legislation, reduces that to 10 members. Why is that a concern? It is because we cannot understand why the government would want to change from representation of all provinces and territories, in terms of their input into the data that is collected. What is the reason for eliminating three spots? That means three areas of the country would not be represented.

Here is an example. If Atlantic Canada, by chance, does not have an appointee to that board, it could miss out on specific data being included and received by Statistics Canada that is specific to Atlantic Canada, because the oversight board would see all of the information being asked for as it is done. The 13-person national board that currently exists, the National Statistics Council, has representation from all parts of the country. It has worked well, frankly, since 1985. It strikes the right balance. It decides what is working and what is not working. This is a body that is working very effectively, representing all parts of the country, yet we see it would change to a smaller number.

The other concern is it perhaps could become another place for patronage appointments. It could be speculated that the 10 who would be appointed would be political appointments. They could well be people who perhaps have knowledge and background in the area of statistics, but perhaps not, because it may be someone who is looking for a board appointment, who is favourable to this government, who could be put on that board. Therefore, it brings up questions, as we have seen being asked in the House most recently, about access for fundraising. Could it be Liberal supporters who go to events and pay $1,500 and hang out with Chinese billionaires? Could it be other people who have worked through the years on the Liberal front who are put on the board? This is a big concern.

Of course, if it was left as it is, as we think it possibly should be, and some of our amendments may deal with this going forward, then it is working, it is working well, and representing the complete country.

It begs the question, why would the government want to redesign it so that all Canadians are not represented? It could be said on this front that this shows incredible disrespect for the provinces and territories. Instead of revising the mandate of the current statistics council and keeping it in full provincial and territorial representation, as it currently provides, the Liberals have chosen to construct a new council to eliminate the feedback from three provinces or territories.

The redesign of the board to create independence brings up other concerns of promises made by the government, which as we have seen lately have basically been altered, either thrown in the garbage bin or arbitrarily overrun, such as the overrun on the promise of $10-billion deficits, now currently sitting at $25 billion.

We question today, as we debate the bill, what really is the purpose of the bill? What is the purpose when we see some of these changes?

Again, it is all about balance. It is all about striking the right balance between collecting data and privacy of Canadians. I will underscore that because there is no doubt about the information that it receives and the importance of work done by Statistics Canada, however, the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I generally favour Bill C-36, but I would like to see more independence for Statistics Canada, and I am concerned about the sharing of data with Shared Services Canada.

I have a specific proposal and I hope it is not inappropriate. We know there is an opening for chief statistician and we also know that one of the bravest people who ever served this country in its civil service is the former director at Statistics Canada, Dr. Munir Sheikh. It may be unorthodox, but I would urge the minister to request cabinet to find a way to replace our chief statistician with someone who deserves our thanks and is entirely trustworthy to every Canadian. That person would be Munir Sheikh.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

First, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, for working so hard on drafting this very important bill. The main objective of this bill is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. The bill strikes the right balance between strengthening the agency’s independence and ensuring that the statistical information it produces continues to be of the highest quality.

Statistics play an essential role in democratic societies. They serve governments, businesses, non-profit organizations, the research community, and the public. Statistics provide Canadians with information about our society, economy, and environment. They help various stakeholders identify the challenges and opportunities we face as a society, design and implement policies and actions, and hold our governments to account. There is widespread agreement internationally that national statistical offices must have a high degree of independence from political intervention.

Decisions on statistical matters must be based strictly on professional considerations. That is how statistical agencies can preserve the integrity, impartiality, and quality of their data. This independence is essential if Canadians are to have confidence in official statistics.

That said, the quality of statistical data must be balanced with other important considerations, including the fact that statistical information must be relevant.

As the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I have the important privilege of implementing measures that have a major impact on the lives of our families. That includes finding efficient and inclusive ways to support early learning and child care, supporting the development of affordable housing, and helping the most vulnerable citizens in our society exit poverty and live better. To meet these responsibilities, my department and I require data that is accurate, reliable, accessible, impartial, timely, and relevant. High-quality data is critical for making informed decisions about all the programs and services that affect the daily lives of our citizens. Therefore, our government made a commitment to decision-making that is informed by sound evidence. That is why our government moved quickly last year to reinstate the mandatory long-form census in time for the 2016 census of our population.

The decision made by the previous government to replace the 2011 mandatory long-form census with a voluntary survey compromised the quality of information that is essential to responsible public policy-making. In my earlier life, I had, unfortunately, the opportunity to see the bad impact of that in the lives and work of many of my colleagues. As a result, Statistics Canada was unable to release accurate and detailed census information about some communities, particularly in rural areas of our country.

The government's decision to replace the mandatory long-form census with a voluntary questionnaire also highlighted vulnerabilities in the Statistics Act, which we will now solve.

In particular, the legislation allowed the previous government to make decisions on a statistical matter in an arbitrary and non-transparent way. Bill C-36 will ensure that our government can continue to make decisions on behalf of all Canadians that are evidence-based. The bill will also ensure that Statistics Canada can continue to deliver high-quality, reliable and relevant information.

There are three ways in which Bill C-36 strikes the right balance between strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada and safeguarding the relevance of the information it produces.

First, the bill formally assigns to the chief statistician the authority to make decisions about the methods and operations of Statistics Canada. This will limit the potential for political intervention in the data-gathering methods and other technical matters directly related to the operations of Statistics Canada.

The bill also recognizes the overall responsibility of the minister and the Government for ensuring that the statistical system remains relevant and responsive to Canadians.

For example, if the minister decides it is in the national interest to issue directives related to the data-gathering methods and other statistical operations of Statistics Canada, he or she can make a recommendation through the Governor in Council.

Any directives issued by the Governor in Council would be tabled in both Houses of Parliament to ensure full transparency and accountability.

Second, Bill C-36 would strengthen the independence of the chief statistician. Under the current Statistics Act, the chief statistician holds office at the pleasure of the government without set terms. He or she can be removed at any time without explanation by the Governor in Council. Bill C-36 would amend the act so that the chief statistician would hold office on good behaviour. He or she would be appointed to the position for a renewable term of not more than five years. That means the Governor in Council could only dismiss a chief statistician for cause. In addition, the chief statistician would be appointed through an open, transparent, and merit-based selection process, as should be the case. This process would be in line with the government's new approach to Governor in Council appointments.

Third, the bill calls for the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council. This group would advise both the minister and the chief statistician on the overall quality of the statistical system. That includes providing recommendations to ensure the continued development, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the information produced by Statistics Canada. In the interests of openness and transparency, the advisory council would publish an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.

Taken together, these three amendments to the Statistics Act will strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. They will increase the transparency and accountability of this important agency. They will also ensure that statistical information produced on behalf of all Canadians continues to be reliable and relevant.

The bill contains three other amendments to the Statistics Act that I would like to note. First, there is general consensus that imprisonment is a disproportionate penalty for Canadians who refuse to provide information for mandatory surveys. The bill removes this penalty from the act. Fines will remain to ensure compliance with certain provisions of the act.

Second, the bill removes the requirement for consent to transfer census records to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census of population. This change responds to the needs of historians and genealogists who require this important data for research purposes.

Finally, the bill amends the Statistics Act to modernize some of the language in the act. These language changes reflect technological advances in data-gathering methods. That includes the use of electronic surveys in place of paper questionnaires.

Taken together, the amendments safeguard the independence of Statistics Canada and enable it to continue to produce high-quality information, while ensuring that the agency we are so proud of is better aligned with international standards.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged that this is a step forward. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill at second reading. My speech was more about the fact that this is only a half measure compared to what the Liberal Party promised.

If I look at the Liberal platform from the last election, on page 37, it says, “We will make Statistics Canada fully independent”.

Fully independent also means ensuring that the process of selecting the chief statistician is actually an independent process. It also means that if there are some problems, such as the intrusion of Shared Services Canada into the ways of collecting data within the system Statistics Canada deems essential for its work, the government will actually not go in that direction. Neither of those measures is in the bill. Shared Services Canada is of primary concern, especially since StatsCan is saying that it will impede its ability to do its work currently.

If the Liberals really wanted to respect the independence of Statistics Canada, as they promised, they would have listened to the chief statistician. They did not, and he had to resign in protest. That is why Bill C-36 is a step forward. That is why we will vote for it at second reading, but it is far from fulfilling the commitment made during the election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in Bill C-36 is a positive piece of legislation that would reinforce Statistics Canada's independence. It takes a number of initiatives, such as assigning to the chief statistician authorities for decisions on several things: statistical procedures; methods and professional standards employed for the production of statistics; the content of statistical releases and publications; the timing, methods, and dissemination of the statistics compiled; and the operations and staff of Statistics Canada.

This government has recognized the important role Statistics Canada plays in Canada. We understand the importance of science and statistical information, not only for the national government but for all levels of government, along with many non-profit organizations and the private sector, that use and rely on Statistics Canada. In fact, this party and this government have been very supportive of Statistics Canada and its independence. It is something that we recognize is administered through excellent civil servants.

I would ask the member if the professional standards we have seen at Statistics Canada over the years have elevated it to being second to no other data collection agency, not only here in Canada but abroad. Would the member not agree?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as an economist by training, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-36, which deals with amendments to the Statistics Act and of course pertains to the operations of Statistics Canada.

This House will recall that, when the Conservatives were in power, the decision to eliminate the long form census provoked quite a public outcry, which came from nearly every sector of civil society. The scientific community was particularly vocal, including social scientists and economists in general.

Eliminating the long form census created problems with respect to the analysis of demographic data. Even though the long form census is being restored, the disruption means that, ultimately, vital information will not be available to study societal changes.

Just as we had done during the election campaign, the Liberals also promised to bring back the long form census. We have to credit them for that. They have done so, and we must thank them for that, at least. The scientific community is also very grateful.

However, this bill is not about the long form census as such. According to the Liberal government, this bill seeks to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada, and make changes and modernize it. We will not oppose the measures that are included in the bill. They are good. Unfortunately, they do only half of what was promised during the election campaign. Hon. members will certainly remember that during the election campaign the Liberal Party promised to give Statistics Canada full independence.

When the then Conservative government cancelled the long form census, the chief statistician resigned in protest of this interference. In September, many Canadians were surprised to see his successor, Wayne Smith, also resign, this time over the Liberal government's decision to force Statistics Canada to used Shared Services Canada's information technology services.

The government did not waver despite the fact that for three months there were intense discussions between the government, Shared Services, and Statistics Canada. During those discussions, Statistics Canada clearly demonstrated that being forced to use the agency's IT services would compromise not only its independence, but also the efficiency of data collection.

Although the bill makes public the cabinet decisions or ministerial orders that the statistician is opposed to and removes the possibility of imprisonment for those who refuse to fill out the mandatory survey, it still falls short. It does not make Statistics Canada independent, particularly when it comes to the process for selecting the chief statistician. In that regard, I would like to point out the work that has been done by my colleague from Windsor West, who introduced a bill to address that issue.

The bill also does not make it mandatory to complete the long-form census; does not make it possible to modernize the Statistics Act so that information can be better disseminated to the public; and does not, as I mentioned, do anything to prevent the interference of Shared Services Canada, which compromises Statistics Canada's independence and is the reason why Wayne Smith resigned.

In September 2016, La Presse published an interview with the chief statistician, which clearly demonstrates the importance of this issue. The article states that:

In a June report [so three months before the chief statistician resigned] obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, the [National Statistics] Council wrote that the Liberals' intent to have Statistics Canada find new ways of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data was inconsistent with their insistence that the federal agency use the new centralized platform...

On one hand, the Liberal government is asking Statistics Canada to do a better job of collecting the data it needs to better inform the public, as well as the federal and provincial governments, on what measures ought to be taken. On the other hand, the Liberal government is trying to force Statistics Canada to use the Shared Services Canada computer system, which will prevent Statistics Canada from doing what the government asked it to do in the first place.

If there is one element that needs to be included in Bill C-36, it is independence and the ability of Statistics Canada to make its own decisions, because it knows best what it actually needs, in terms of data collection, to report and to inform the population better, and not only the population, but all levels of government.

Did the government actually listen to the chief statistician? Of course not. That is why he resigned.

We have, at this point, a process to replace him. He was actually replaced by his assistant, but to fully replace him, we have a process that still involves the government, so it is still not independent and autonomous. This means, by extension, that the process remains politicized.

Given all the upheaval that Statistics Canada has gone through since 2011 or 2012, the government should have addressed directly the serious promise it made during the election campaign. It was to make Statistics Canada fully and not just partly independent, give it a few more powers, and provide direction for the rest.

The Liberals promised to make Statistics Canada fully independent. Bill C-36 does not do that and the government has not yet indicated that it is willing to do it after this bill is passed.

I would like the various Liberal members to tell us, in their speeches, what the government intends to do with Statistics Canada. This is a fundamental issue that affects the fabric of our society.

As I said before, I would like to commend the member for Windsor West, who has presented a bill that would address the issue of the selection of the chief statistician at Statistics Canada. The reason he did so is that he felt there was reluctance by the government to abandon some of the powers it currently has over a service that is traditionally viewed as independent and whose services are critical for the elaboration and analysis of the policies government puts forth. It is also of use to provincial and municipal governments, because they need to have information on the composition of their societies and the evolution of their societies and communities.

The member for Windsor West saw this very important element that was, once again, promised by the Liberals. He felt that the government was not going in that direction.

I have the feeling that other members on this side of the House will actually do the exact same thing on other commitments regarding Statistics Canada, and general commitments made by the government, on which it does not seem to be willing to deliver.

The issue of the long form census received a lot more public attention, but the independence of Statistics Canada is also deemed important by scientific communities.

I believe that this type of half measure brought forward by the government not only fuels the cynicism of Canadians, but also the cynicism of the people whose work relies on these government organizations.

Statistics Canada has gone through all the decisions.

Considering all the turmoil that Statistics Canada has been through, we would have expected the government to address this issue immediately, but it refuses to do so.

We will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading. In committee, of course, we will try to ensure that the commitments dealing with Statistics Canada that the Liberals made during the election campaign are included in the bill. That would be an improvement and, in that sense, we could help the government meet the commitments it made during the election campaign.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate that we began this morning on the Conservative Party's motion. Tomorrow, we will begin the report stage debate of Bill C-30 on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Monday, we will resume debate of that bill.

Next week, we will also continue the second reading debate of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, and Bill C-31, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next Thursday, February 9, shall be an allotted day.

Last, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That a take-note debate on the subject of job losses in the energy sector take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, February 8, 2017, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, (a) any member rising to speak during the debate my indicate to the Chair that he or she will dividing his or her time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Statistics Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be splitting my time.

Before I start speaking about Bill C-36, on this day I feel it is very important to add my voice to those of all the hon. members who have spoken before me, to express my condolences to the families and friends of those victims in Quebec City, and to say that I stand here in support of my Muslim brothers and sisters against racism, xenophobia, fear, and intolerance, and that everyone in this House stands with them today and later tonight at the vigil.

Today, we have been debating Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. From the preamble of the bill, we know that this bill's aim is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. It would assign to the chief statistician powers related to the methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. It would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. It would also modernize the language of the act to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistical information.

These are all changes that New Democrats agree with. We, of course, will be supporting this bill at second reading because we believe it deserves to go to committee so that we can call witnesses to give the expert testimony and feedback, to see if there are ways that we can make this bill an even better one.

We have long stood for the transparency and independence of data from Statistics Canada, because we know how important that data is to public policy and to all of the various levels of government and civil society that depend on it.

I would like to give a shout-out to the hard-working men and women who work at Statistics Canada, because I do not think we, as elected representatives, often give acknowledgement to those hard-working men and women and the data that they supply us. It is their data that allows us to make the policy decisions that best reflect the needs of Canadians.

I want to extend personal thanks to all of those hard-working members of Statistics Canada. They provide statistics that help Canadians better understand their country, whether it is the population, resources, economy, society, or culture, just to name a few. In addition to the census that is held every five years, there are an additional 350 active surveys on all aspects of Canadian life.

In their words, “Objective statistical information is vital to an open and democratic society”.

I would love to carry on with this point at a later date. I see my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to open my remarks on this bill.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a curious experience to hear the Conservative Party debating Bill C-36, the restoration of data and evidence and the restoration of the long-form mandatory census. We are in another universe now.

I was elected to local government at the time that the mandatory long-form census was removed by the federal government. I was part of the movement of elected people who were deeply alarmed at the lack of data, the brokenness of our access to data, whatever it was we were measuring, whether it was measuring success, whether it was environmental protection, or whether it was service delivery. Then the alarm went through every local government convention around how we were going to know that we had the data that was going to point to where our federal and provincial dollars should go to support the social safety net. It was very alarming. We are glad to see this moved back.

I am curious as to whether the member wants to update the House on whether he shares the former views of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who said the value of the data is not worth the intrusion of privacy rights, and that is why the Harper Conservative government removed the mandatory long-form census.

I would love to hear the member say that he now recognizes the importance of data for service delivery and the strengthening of our social safety net.

[Tom Kmiec, 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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments that were made earlier today about the tragic murders in Quebec. I did not think I would ever see the day when people would be murdered at worship in Canada. Our hearts go out to them. Our prayers are with them, certainly.

That said, I want to say how nice it is to be back in the House of Commons and to welcome all my colleagues back. What a delight it is to be discussing an issue that is near and dear to my heart; I may be one of the few, but I will try to keep this lively.

I am rising to speak on the subject of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. First, I want to thank the minister for the work that he put into the bill and for recognizing the importance of meaningful, accurate statistics.

I do know a bit about the subject of statistics. As a chemical engineer, I did study statistics at Queen's University. Later in my career, I was fortunate to receive a degree in statistics from the University of Tennessee as part of Dow Chemicals' implementation of Deming's quality practices. I was then certified as a black belt and master black belt under GE's Six Sigma statistics program, and I served as a statistical specialist to a global business for several years. So I do know a little bit about the subject.

The bill aims to change the role of the chief statistician, making the position more independent, change how respondents' information is archived, and amend the penalties for offences committed by respondents. The bill also seeks to change the terminology used in the Statistics Act to modernize it, as well as ensure French-English concurrence. In addition, the bill would replace the National Statistics Council with a Canadian statistics advisory council.

First of all, I would like to outline some of the principles that I think should apply to this discussion. Canadians need to be able to trust the data that comes from Statistics Canada. The government needs to support the work that Statistics Canada does. The government needs to be accountable to Canadians to strike the right balance between protecting their privacy rights and collecting good quality data.

I am going to highlight some of the things I like about the bill and then I will highlight some of my concerns.

First of all, it has been very concerning to have had two chief statisticians quit their job over issues which I believe have now been addressed in the bill.

The first issue was the long-form census. I have been clear that I support a long-form census and that the only correct statistical method for a census is the mandatory one.

When I first took the role of science critic, I made my census position known in my party and in the House. I believe that Canadians, through one of the best participation rates in history, have also shown that they value the census and the statistics it collects. They know that many organizations use this information to make plans to improve our country. To be better able to provide for Canadians, we need to understand the Canadian makeup, including age, gender, region, and culture. From a wider scope, having data on economic, social, and regional variables in Canada is also invaluable for legislators as well as for our countless researchers.

However, I want to say that with the implementation of the long-form census, there were quite a number of problems which I did highlight for the minister as soon as they were brought to my attention. Many people were unable to log on. There was a huge overload on the system. Some people did not receive their log-in IDs properly. There were really long wait times on the line if people were phoning in to address a concern. Those are things we would want to see fixed going forward.

One of the questions I had personally was that I received a form at my apartment in Ottawa and the same one also at my home in Sarnia. I filled both of them out, but no one seemed able to answer whether that would result in doubt counting or not. That would be fundamentally important from a data integrity point of view.

When it comes to the responsibility of the chief statistician, I am happy to see that under the bill the responsibility to select statistical methods and the data to be collected is to be the responsibility of the chief statistician, as it should be. I believe the autonomy provided to this role under the bill would ensure good science aligned to world statistical language and good practices would result.

As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I have seen countless witnesses, both inside and outside government departments and agencies, testify that there simply is not the data available to answer certain vital questions. More specifically, segregated data is lacking to continue much needed research in the fields of women in the Canadian economy or more broadly on the subject of violence against women.

For all of us who took gender-based analysis training, and I believe there were 1,000 parliamentarians and staff who did so, we will know from the training that segregated data is very important in making sure that we can see that all of the legislation we are putting forward is fair for all. Again, we need to have the correct data.

I look forward to having a chief statistician who, upon receiving the requests for data which are needed to address, based on good science, the difficult issues of our time, has the autonomy to act.

The term of office being five years with good behaviour seems reasonable, but there is no definition of what constitutes a cause for which the Governor in Council could remove him or her. I am assuming that it must be the standard government employee criteria; otherwise, it needs to be clarified in the bill.

I do not see where the qualifications required for a chief statistician are defined. I would expect as a minimum that someone serving in this capacity would have training in statistics, but I am not familiar with the credentials the current chief brings and the parliamentary secretary was unable to comment. I would like to see a minimum of university statistics training as a requirement. In order to apply methods, define data collection, and interpret the data, people actually need to know something about statistics or they could get into trouble. We have all heard the saying, lies, lies, and statistics.

One thing that was not clear in the bill was how the budget for Statistics Canada would be proposed and approved. One would expect that if the chief statistician has the ability to determine what data Statistics Canada would be collecting, and to have control of the operations, the hiring of temporary, contract, and full-time employees, he or she would be in the best position to propose a budget that the minister would submit for approval. What would happen if the finance minister decided not to adequately fund Statistics Canada? This would limit the ability of the chief statistician to really have autonomy over the department and what if he were fired for the cause of not achieving his goals because he was underfunded?

This bill also seeks to modernize the language of the Statistics Act to better reflect linguistic standards and current methods of collecting statistical information, and to make the English and French consistent. It is important to ensure that we are saying the same thing in both official languages. It has been known to happen that officials say one thing in English and quite another in French. We do not want that to happen at Statistics Canada.

Given the ongoing evolution of data collection and analysis in Canada, revised legislative language will enable statisticians to use the most effective and current technologies to better understand Canada's population, society, and economy.

I am also glad to see some ability for the chief statistician to ensure that data is kept secure and tamper free. This would address the concern of protecting the independence of Statistics Canada from decisions made by shared services that could be detrimental to the operation of Statistics Canada.

One concern I do have is that with this ability to choose data storage solutions that may not align to shared services, we must also add protections to ensure that our data is not stored with a third party that could lead to security concerns. We can imagine, for example, if the data was outsourced to a company with any linkages to terrorists or other organizations that would be interested in having the private information of Canadians, that would not be a good thing.

Having already had the Chinese hacking into our systems and with the government currently allowing the Chinese to buy an IT technology firm in Canada against the recommendation of CSIS, we certainly need to have Canadians interests top of mind. We can be aware that this IT technology firm that is being allowed to be purchased by the Chinese did research into anti-hacking with specific recommendations around the Canadian systems. Therefore, that is a real area of concern for me. We have seen in the past where the Canada Revenue Agency had leaks. Certainly protecting the data security, this is the private information of Canadians, is top of mind.

One of the other mandatory census items I wanted to discuss is that of the agriculture census. We heard something about it earlier from one of my colleagues. I strongly support the need for the census, but I will share with the House some concerns I have heard from farmers on this subject.

Many farmers have told me that they have received a call at the worst possible time, while they are in the fields, from Statistics Canada, not a form or an email survey. Several have been on their tractors when they get the call and are asked about specific facts and figures regarding their agricultural operations.

When they inform Statistics Canada that they would rather check their numbers and call back when they are in their office, they are told to just guess or estimate the numbers, and that they cannot do the call later when they are in the office.

This calls into question the integrity of the numbers, so I would definitely like to see an amendment to the method of collection for the agricultural census to be along the same lines as the long-form census, with a deadline to complete and hopefully at a different time than when they are in the field.

There is an opportunity to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of data collection. A large percentage of the population are computer savvy and are quite capable of completing information online, thus making it much less costly to collate the data. Wherever possible, we should move in that direction, since in very short order everyone will be computer literate. I know there have been improvements from the 2011 census, which 60% of people responded electronically to an even better time, but we need to continue to move in that direction.

The bill also proposes the creation of an advisory council.

The role of the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council would be to advise the minister and the chief statistician in a transparent manner on many different subjects, particularly the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of its data. The council would also make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.

Personally, I would be pleased to have an annual report on the state of Statistics Canada, because I see the real value in accurate and well analysed statistics. I believe that an annual report will show both the progress made every year by Statistics Canada and the areas where progress is still required. We cannot underestimate the importance of quality statistics and ensuring that our statisticians have the feedback and the support of the House and Canadians.

I do have a concern about this new council. The previous National Statistics Council had 13 members, one from each province, to ensure that geographic representation existed. The new council would have 10 members appointed by the Liberals. I worry that we would lose the geographic representation and that if the Liberals appoint their buddies to the council as plum appointments, there would be a partisan interference potential, which has no place in science and statistics.

I have also indicated that it is important for people in this kind of advisory role to have some background in statistics. I also do not see that requirement for any of the people on the council.

The terms of office specified for everyone, such as the chief statistician for five years with a chance for a second five, and others at five years and three years, are fine. However, if people are doing a great job, then why limit them? If we get people in these roles and they are experienced, it can be an efficiency and reduce the waste of turnover.

In addition, there is another aspect of this bill that might be controversial. Bill C-36 would make it so that Statistics Canada would no longer require the express consent of the respondent to transfer information to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years. Personally, I do not have an issue with that. Once my seven years of tax records that are required by the CRA are taken care of, it could archive any of my other information and it would not matter to me. However, there are Canadians who are more sensitive on the issues of privacy, so perhaps a checkbox on the information collected that grants permission to archive after 92 years would be a good amendment. I do realize, though, that even if we had filled out our first information at age 18, and it was archived 92 years later, we would be 110 years old. Therefore, I think it may not be such a huge concern.

This bill would eliminate the penalty of imprisonment for any offence committed by a respondent. We have heard today that everyone is happy to see that because it is ridiculous that one would go to jail for not filling out a form. The financial penalty that remains is an adequate control. If we look at history, there have been very few instances, in fact I could find none, where people were imprisoned for not filling out the census. There were several where it went to court but was not pursued. Therefore, the controls outlined for ensuring that information is forthcoming from corporations and other organizations is also adequate and appropriate.

In summary, I believe the bill addresses the need for more autonomy for the chief statistician. However, I would like to see additional protection for data storage that would recognizes potential security threats.

Mechanisms to allow ministerial intervention are adequate. Penalties for not providing data are appropriate. I would ask that the archiving of information without consent be revisited for those Canadians who may have a concern. While I support the mandatory census for agriculture, I would ask for enhancements to ensure the responses received reflect the best data integrity possible. I would also ask that the National Statistics Council be maintained, with its geographic representation of all provinces and territories, and with non-partisan appointments.

I would like to again thank the minister for his bill and to thank all the other members who took to time to speak to this matter this afternoon. As a statistician, engineer, and parliamentarian, I understand the real value to our country of accurate statistics that are properly collected.

At the end of the day, statistics reflect the Canadian population. The closer that reflection is to reality, the more closely the government can respond through well-informed and well-thought-out legislation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a moment to express my grief for the victims and family members of the terrorist attack in Quebec against our Muslim brothers and sisters. I know that all of my colleagues stand with me in solidarity with them at this terrible moment.

I am pleased to speak about one important particular amendment to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, which relates to the release of census records 92 years after any given census. Consistent with this government's commitment to open and accessible data, Bill C-36 proposes to remove the requirement to request consent before transferring census records to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census of population.

Researchers, historians, and genealogists require this information to conduct research to help us better understand our past and to build our future. There has been little opposition to the release of these records and as many other countries have come to understand, preserving information about our past is of great value.

The U.S., New Zealand, the U.K., and Australia are among many countries that preserve census records for release. In the U.S., the time lapse is 72 years. In New Zealand and the U.K., it is 100 years. In Australia, it is 99 years. Until recently, Australia's and New Zealand's census records were actually destroyed. Then they passed laws, in 2000 and 2005 respectively, to allow such records to be released. They recognized the value of these records. They did this after campaigns by networks of family historians, genealogists, and interested citizens.

In Canada, we are fortunate that there has never been a policy to destroy census records. The notion that such records provide valuable historical information has always been upheld in our country, Until 1993, census records were routinely released after various lengths of time, ranging from 70 years to 98 years, with no restrictions. In fact, it was not until requests for the release of the 1901 census records that an impasse over access arose.

It was noted that legislation at the time did not allow for the release of individual records from censuses after 1901 because of confidentiality provisions. On the other hand, the National Archives, heritage and genealogical groups, and others argued that census records constituted a national historic treasure that should be preserved. They argued they should be made available after a sufficient number of years for privacy concerns to no longer exist or hold sway. They believed 92 years to be in accordance with existing regulations in the Privacy Act.

Why 92 years? At the time that the Privacy Act was adopted in 1983, data from the 1891 census had yet to be released. To facilitate its release, the Privacy Act regulations included a provision for the release of census records after 92 years, the number of years between 1891 and 1983. That 92-year precedent was applied to the Statistics Act when a section about releasing census records was added as a result of the passage of Bill S-18 in 2005. The enactment required that Canadians consent to release their census records beginning with the 2006 census. It also provided for a parliamentary review of the administration of that requirement. The experience of the past three censuses indicate the support of Canadians for the release of census records after 92 years.

It is important to note here that in 1999, the hon. John Manley, the minister of industry, called for the creation of an expert panel on access to historical census records. That panel, which was chaired by a former Supreme Court justice, issued a report after an in-depth inquiry. It found no evidence that legislators in the early census days intended census records to perpetually be confidential. The panel recommended allowing public access after 92 years. The government at that time stated that this issue would be considered as part of the review of privacy legislation. In our view, the passage of Bill S-18 only partially resolved this issue.

Our government believes that census records constitute a national historic treasure and therefore should be preserved, and more importantly, should be released for research purposes after 92 years.

Census records are essential to understanding our society's past, present, and future, which cities like Brampton, the city I am from and represent, that have large immigrant populations, can definitely benefit from. There are so many Canadians who are desperate to find out more about their roots. That is why Bill C-36 proposes amendments to the Statistics Act to remove the requirement for consent for all census records, beginning in 2021.

As Canada becomes more diverse, cities like Brampton could use this historical data to see if policies made by previous governments reflected their populations. It would also help emerging cities compare their growth patterns to Brampton and better compare policies that did or did not work for their people.

Records for the 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses, for which consent was required, would be released only if consent was given.

Two key considerations in deciding to include this amendment in the bill related to privacy concerns and response rates. On the privacy front, as in other countries, the proposed amendments strike a balance between the right to access and the right to privacy. We believe that 92 years is a sufficient lapse in time.

The other issue relates to the potential, however remote, for response rates to fall if people think the data will eventually be released. We are talking about more than nine decades after a person has taken the census. Experience has shown that the automatic transfer of census records after a sufficiently long period of time does not adversely affect census participation. Response rates to a census have remained high over time, whether or not consent was sought before the release of census records.

In making this change, we are ensuring that researchers can eventually access what many consider a national historic treasure, a treasure that may help us understand both our own individual lineage and the evolving social fabric of our country.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I should note that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton North.

It is an honour to take part in this debate after two illustrious members of the House from both sides. While I will not claim that my word count is anywhere near either one of theirs, I think I am not too shabby myself.

I rise to speak about Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. The government is committed to evidence-based decision-making. This bill supports the production and distribution of statistical information that is reliable and impartial.

Bill C-36 ensures that Canadians can have full confidence in their national statistical agency and the quality of the information it produces. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that decisions made about data collection, analysis, and dissemination rest with the experts in the field of statistics, not the politicians.

Statistics play an essential role in modern democratic societies. They are critical to good government and evidence-based decision-making. They inform the decisions made by businesses, non-profit organizations, governments, and the public. Public confidence in the quality of official statistics is critical, as is the public trust in the institution that produces official statistics.

For those reasons, Canada's statistical agency is a world-leading organization and must have a high level of independence. In fact, the agency must be able to operate at a healthy distance from day-to-day political direction and oversight. Statistics Canada must be guided exclusively by professional considerations on decisions relating to its operations and data-gathering methods. Any perception of interference inevitably leads to a loss of public trust.

The decision by the previous government to turn the 2011 mandatory long-form census into a voluntary survey highlighted a vulnerability in Canada's statistical legislation. It raised public concerns about Statistics Canada's independence, and it compromised the quality and detail of the census data. This unilateral decision prompted a swift reaction from Canadians who objected to this change.

Historically, Statistics Canada has been treated at arm’s length by convention rather than by legislation. Because this practice was not enshrined in the Statistics Act, it left the agency and the chief statistician of Canada vulnerable to political interference in statistical matters.

This bill strengthens Statistics Canada’s professional independence by enshrining it in law. The bill accomplishes this goal in a number of ways. First, it protects the independence and integrity of the chief statistician. Under the current Statistics Act, the Governor in Council appoints the chief statistician of Canada to be the deputy of the minister. The chief statistician also holds office during pleasure of the government.

The act sets no specific terms or conditions about the employment of the chief statistician. In effect, the chief statistician can be removed arbitrarily from office at the government’s discretion with or without cause. This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician’s ability to make decisions based on professional statistical and ethical principles. Furthermore, the chief statistician could effectively be dismissed at any time without public justification.

This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician's ability to make decisions based on professional, statistical, and ethical principles.

Bill C-36 would address these legislative gaps. It proposes to appoint the chief statistician, on good behaviour, for a five-year renewable term. It would protect the chief statistician from being dismissed for arbitrary reasons. It would provide greater clarity on the chief statistician's terms and conditions of employment. As well, it would place a greater onus on the government to explain a decision to remove the chief statistician.

Taken together, the proposed changes contained in Bill C-36 will protect the integrity of Statistics Canada. They will strengthen public confidence in the agency’s ability to protect the confidentiality of their information. They will also enable Statistics Canada to continue to produce high-quality statistical information that all Canadians can rely on. A fundamental role of government is to safeguard the integrity and quality of the statistical data that is produced on behalf of all Canadians. Bill C-36 allows this government to fulfill that responsibility.