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

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and address this important legislation.

It is good to be back in this place. Maybe I am the only member who thinks this, but when I am away on the long breaks, I do kind of miss the House of Commons, so it is good be back and speaking again.

Before I proceed to discuss this legislation, I hope members will indulge me with a few brief remarks on the events of the weekend.

Canada as a nation is defined by unity in the midst of our diversity, and an attack on one person or one community is an attack on all of us. Indeed, we must respond and we have already responded together across faith lines and across party lines, and that response has to continue.

Details remain unclear about the motivations of the attackers, but in whatever sense, I think we know that this terrorist attack which targeted the Muslim community in Quebec seeks to undermine our unity. I have already seen comments by those who want to blame this on our commitment to pluralism, and this is precisely what terrorism seeks to do: to undermine our values and our sense of solidarity. Terrorism does not just seek to take life, it also seeks to undermine our way of life, so today we must continue to stand together, fight back, and downgrade and defeat radical violent extremism in all of its forms.

I also want to extend my well-wishes to those across the way who have been affected by the cabinet shuffle. We know that in the current government, there are those in cabinet and there are those working hard to join it. Therefore, congratulations to those who have succeeded.

In particular, I want to extend my best wishes to the former foreign affairs minister. The member has been relentless in his service to Canada. Of course, given my interest in the foreign affairs file, we have had a chance to cross swords quite a bit over the last year and a bit. I know the member is intelligent and deeply thoughtful. His vision for foreign policy was one with which I passionately disagreed, but it must be said that he did articulate a vision for Canadian foreign policy which reflects his values, and it was a vision he developed with sincere motivation. Perhaps more importantly, his ideas about the commitment to the idea of a unified Canadian nation have stood and will stand the test of time. I wish him very well in whatever next steps he takes.

I look forward to debating with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, although I was hoping that the member for Winnipeg North would get that position so that he would be travelling more and I could finally catch up to him on the word count.

Today we are debating Bill C-36, which is an important piece of legislation about the Statistics Act. The government introduced this legislation on December 7, so we see that we are moving along relatively quickly with the debate and discussion on this. Certainly, it contains some important measures that we are looking at. We have heard different and thoughtful arguments from members throughout the House today. I will start by reviewing some of the substantive content and also what appear to be the objectives of the bill, which I will react to and discuss.

I will say at the outset that my objective in rising today is not to speak definitively for or against the bill, but rather to raise some issues that I think require discussion and consideration in the context of this legislation. Following that, I intend on listening to the ongoing conversation that happens on this legislation and evaluating some of the pros and cons going forward.

With that in mind, certainly for those who are watching or perhaps reading the transcript of the debate afterward, I look forward to hearing substantive feedback from my constituents and others on how they see this debate proceeding with respect to this important legislation.

When most people hear that we are talking about the Statistics Act, they might imagine something fundamentally dry and technical. Of course, there are technical aspects to all legislation that we deal with in the House, but the bill before us is very practical and important for the collection and use of statistics in the real world. Indeed, it is the kind of information gathered by government, the way that the gathering of this information is overseen, and the way that information is shared and used that can influence research, which then touches on every aspect of our lives.

Before being elected, I had the honour of working for an opinion research company. Being involved in this process first-hand I saw all kinds of different ways research and statistical information impacts all sorts of practical aspects of our daily lives.

We live in a world today of big data. Every aspect of our lives is influenced by data, from the choices and prices we see at the store to the social outreach activities of religious institutions. These things are often informed by all kinds of complex calculations involving data.

Certainly, with the advent of the Internet and then of social media, there is more data out there about the world, as well as about us, than would have been imaginable even a short time ago. This use of data has many positive impacts for our lives. It also raises lots of different kinds of questions that perhaps were not at the forefront of our public conversations, again, a relatively short time ago.

The role and approach of government in the collection and use of statistical information is a critically important and very interesting discussion, especially if that information interacts with other data sets that are collected privately. The information gathered by the government can be used as a basis for weighting other kinds of data, everything from social research to medical research, to market research, to political polling. I generally believe that the government should stick to doing the things it does best, but gathering important baseline data is certainly one of those things, and there is a very important role for government involved in that.

As I mentioned, my prior life of working in the private sector, as the vice-president of an opinion research company, involved using data gathered by government as part of the benchmarking for the various research initiatives in which we were involved. The use and also, by the way, the misuse of data, which we often see in the context of politics as well, shapes and will continue to shape many different aspects of our regular daily lives. Of course, the government does not just gather data for the use of others. It also conducts policy research that shapes its own decisions, and I will return to that insofar as how this legislation might interact with policy research as well.

Here again, we can see both the use and misuse of data. I think we would agree in principle, notwithstanding the possibility of misuse, that governments should always try to base their decisions on the best available information and be diligent about identifying and utilizing opportunities to actually gather that information.

With that general introduction about the importance of this area, let me return to the specific provisions of the legislation we are talking about.

Bill C-36, introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development in December of last year, proposes amendments to the Statistics Act with the government's stated objective of strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada. Part of what we are evaluating is whether it actually would succeed in those objectives, and there are some other things that are, at best, tangentially related to that identified objective.

Under this legislation, we would have the appointment of a chief statistician for a fixed, renewable period of five years, removable only for cause, as identified by the Governor in Council. It also assigns to the chief statistician the powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. The minister would still be able to issue directives on statistical programs, but would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations.

The chief statistician might require that any directive given be made public and in writing before acting on that directive. Therefore, there is still the opportunity for the government to direct a particular statistical program, but there is a level of independence within the general ambit of that in terms of the chief statistician being able to define exactly what kinds of operations, methods, and procedures make the most sense in that context.

This may perhaps not be the direct intent, but the legislation also means that the chief statistician might have authorization to make decisions about where the data is housed. This raises, of course, another set of questions in terms of what this means for the practical use of data.

The chief statistician, in the context of methods, procedures, and operations, would have authority to develop questioning within surveys. That is quite a bit of flexibility to be held independent of the government, and there is a discussion to be had about what the role is for the elected government in terms of the development of those things versus an independent officer like the chief statistician.

I raised this separate issue in questions and comments a number of times. The bill would establish what it calls the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the National Statistics Council.

The new council would comprise 10 members. This council would advise the chief statistician and the minister and focus on the quality of national statistical systems, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of statistical information that is produced. As well, as part of its responsibilities, the council would be required to make an annual public report on the state of the statistical system.

The question I would ask the members of the government, and maybe we will hear an answer to this soon, is just what motivates this replacement. This is an opportunity to appoint new people to this body. It would be important, if the government felt there was a need for something new to exist, for it to develop some arguments about what was wrong with the old model and new about the new model. It is the sort of thing that needs to be explained, and so far, I do not think it has explained what the objectives in mind are.

The other thing to note, which has been raised by other colleagues as well, is that the existing National Statistics Council being replaced by the Canadian statistics advisory council has representation from 13 provinces and territories, hence the number of members. We can presume that the new council means that three provinces or territories would lose representation. Again, this speaks to the question of why we are moving from one council to another. Those of us participating in the debate are asking legitimately why this is happening.

The bill no longer requires the consent of respondents to transfer census information to Library and Archives Canada, and that is a point of important discussion in terms of whether that consent should be required. It also repeals the penalty of imprisonment for every survey except the mandatory short-form census. As members of the government have said, I think this particular provision is a common-sense change, that people not be imprisoned for failing to fill out the long-form census. This was a concern we had when we were in government and that we spoke about; again, not doing away with the long-form census but moving back on those mandatory provisions, with a concern about some of these issues, for instance the possibility of imprisonment.

It is worth underlining, in the context of the discussion about mandatory versus not around the long form, that the bill does not change whether the long-form census is mandatory. That specific element is not affected one way or the other by specific provisions of the bill.

Those are the different details we are debating. Some of them have a clearer rationale than others, and hopefully, over the course of this debate, we will hear a little more about those rationales.

On the question of independence with respect to methods, with respect to the types of questions we are being asked, there is an important discussion to be had here, because on the one hand, it is important for the government, which is elected by the people, to be able to get the statistical information it needs to answer policy questions that they feel are important and need to be answered. On the other hand, it certainly makes sense to have experts defining what methods make sense for achieving those objectives.

That is generally the model that is envisioned, but we could also imagine a case where a minister might have an opinion about the kind of method that was most suitable for getting certain kinds of data. We could also imagine possible problems with that.

In the context of this debate, we should think about the government's experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website, because it was an example of the government wading into what it claimed was an exercise in research, in gathering Canadians' opinions. However, we know that there are horrendous problems with the kind of survey that was developed and the way it was developed. It did not actually ask clear, direct questions in terms of people's opinions about specific issues. It did not get clear feedback from people, and there was ambiguity about whether people had to actually give their information or not.

This, perhaps, speaks to the importance of having independence when it comes to developing statistical surveys because it really looks like MyDemocracy.ca was developed, clearly, with certain objectives in mind by the government, which is to obscure the information, to not actually do what seems much more natural and straightforward and obvious, which is to ask people questions about their opinion.

There is a worry, when it comes to an elected government being involved in information-gathering, that there is a loss of independence and that the government seeks to use its desire for certain policy outcomes to obscure the collection of information.

Over the break, I had a constituent write to me about his experience with the MyDemocracy.ca website. It speaks to some of the problems with statistical information, so I want to share what he had to say. His name is Mike, and he said I could share his name because I think this is important information.

He wrote, “I live in Sherwood Park and I received a card to fill out the survey at MyDemocracy.ca. I went to fill it out and ran into a major issue. I spent a bunch of time and when I got to the profile section, which states that it's entirely optional, it would not let me proceed. I called the number and spoke to someone. He told me that it was a failsafe to ensure it was filled out, even though it is optional to fill out that portion, and he suggested that I could put in false information if I did not want my real info in.”

He continues. “This is insane and defeats the entire point of the survey. For a federal government employee to suggest putting false info in is unbelievable. It's clear this a skewed survey. At the end of the day, my opinion was not registered, and something is wrong with that. The deadline for this survey is December 30. I received this card yesterday, December 7. The fact that the government sent this out at the busiest time of year, with only three weeks to contemplate it and with a major flaw that eliminates certain people's responses, is a major problem. Most people will not take the time report this problem. Who knows how many people's opinions have been excluded. This survey has no validity now. I cannot adequately express how troubling this is and makes me wonder what the federal government's real motivation is. Further to the above, the survey questions are very repetitive, and they basically ask the same questions two or three times.”

That is correspondence that I received from a constituent about MyDemocracy.ca. Of course, it is correspondence that has important implications for the electoral reform discussion, but it also has important implications for our examination of what the relationship should be between the elected government and those developing statistical tools. It speaks to the fact that we have a government here that is, I believe, trying to set up a system for gathering information that is designed to produce the kinds of outcomes that it wants, rather than engaging in a more serious, sincere consultation or survey to figure out what either those who want to participate in giving us information think or what a representative sample of Canadians think.

This speaks to the importance of independence. On the other hand, would the change to the Statistics Canada Act actually affect this kind of ad hoc, one-off policy research the government might choose to do?

Maybe we should look at saying that, specifically, when the government has these kinds of political objectives in mind, that is where that independence would be critically needed so we do not run into this sort of false research exercised by the government when it is trying to get specific outcomes it wants in order to justify a course of action that it has already identified. That is not meaningful research. That is certainly not meaningful consultation.

Another point I want to make, just on reflecting on the content of the bill, is that we would be changing the council that provides oversight to the activities with respect to statistics. Again, the old council was the National Statistics Council, or NSC, and we would be moving to the Canadian statistics advisory council.

There is a possibility that this is actually a tactic that compromises independence because it opens up an opportunity for the government to appoint an entirely new council whose members, presumably, would all be appointed by the government, which might not be as effective in exercising oversight as the existing council, with the existing people, with the existing infrastructure that is in place. That transition would create an opportunity for the government to appoint a wholesale group of new people.

Again, we have yet to hear from the government some degree of explanation or rationale with respect to what the objective is, what it would be trying to achieve with this new council.

To summarize, the ongoing discussion on the bill before us is important. There certainly are some important objectives here, but there are also some outstanding questions about what the real objectives are and whether some of these changes would actually achieve the objectives that the government has defined. I look forward to that continuing conversation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how not having the census be mandatory in the past impeded historians, genealogists, scientists, and many other researchers, and how implementing Bill C-36 will benefit researchers in his community and across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this very important legislation. Many listeners, or members, will recall that there was a campaign commitment by the government just prior to the election. We said that we believed in Statistics Canada and the fine work done by it. There are a multitude of reasons why it is so important to our nation.

We made a commitment to bring a higher sense of independence and to provide assurances to our chief statistician in an effort to see a stronger Statistics Canada and a more independent approach to dealing with what was so critical when it came to the gathering of information in order to see good, sound policy decisions being made. Therefore, it is a good day in Ottawa. We see another commitment that is being fulfilled by this government. We have consistently talked about the issues of transparency and accountability, the importance of information and science-based decisions. We have heard a lot about these types of things from the Prime Minister. Today we have before us yet another piece of legislation that advances the election commitments we made to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Therefore, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-36.

It is important to point out right at the beginning some of the things the bill would do. When I talk about reinforcing Statistics Canada's independence, I am talking about things such as assigning authority to the chief statistician to make decisions on a number of things, such as statistical procedures, methods and professional standards employed for the production of statistics, the content of statistical releases and publications, the timing and methods of dissemination of statistics that have been compiled, and the operations and the staff at Statistics Canada. We are looking at increasing the transparency around the decisions and directives, all of which are in the legislation we are debating today. We are also appointing the chief statistician during good behaviour for a fixed renewal term of five years. I am very much aware of the concerns of the New Democrats, and we look forward to them presenting those concerns at committee.

The legislation deals with the creation of the Canadian statistics advisory council, and makes some changes which the Conservative Party across the way has expressed some interest. Again, we look forward to seeing this bill go to committee to hear in more detail with respect to this, as well as listen to possible amendments being brought forward.

It is important to recognize that we are removing the penalty of imprisonment, while retaining financial penalties. As a member of Parliament, I have often heard, “If you don't fill out the form, the Government of Canada will throw you in jail.” This is one of those things that is probably long overdue because it never really happened in reality. I think it might have happened once over the years, and it was likely because of the individual wanted to protest it by going to jail. Therefore, it is good to see that aspect being removed.

We are removing the requirement to seek consent for the transfer of census-related data to Library and Archives Canada, 92 years after the taking of the actual census. In the bigger picture, with respect to the way we have evolved, that is a positive initiative.

There would be a number of technical amendments made, such as modernizing the language to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistics and information, correcting errors in the wording of statutes, and so forth.

I have already had the opportunity today to ask a number of questions of others.

I have always recognized the important and critical role Statistics Canada plays, whether it is with respect to governments at the national level, the provincial level, municipal level, school division level, and non-profit groups and private groups. A great many stakeholders have a huge interest in what we are talking about and the type of mandate and legislation that provides the guidance that is absolutely necessary for us to continue to be proud of Statistics Canada well into the future. This legislation would be a step forward.

It is important for us to recognize that Statistics Canada, and the public service that has made Statistics Canada what it is today, is virtually recognized around the world as a professional organization that knows how to get it right. When the previous Harper government changed the mandate by saying it no longer wanted the long-form census done in a mandatory fashion, people were quite disillusioned. They could not understand why a government would make such a decision. The Liberals indicated that we would bring back the long-form census. I look at from a practical point of view. Often there is a difference in approach in dealing with Statistics Canada, but I want to raise the issue of why we need it from a practical perspective.

Prior to getting involved in politics I was quite involved in community revitalization. I was on a western revitalization board. I was on a housing co-op board. Having strong and sound information and statistics was really important. I can remember community profiles. Municipalities still invest a great deal in community profiles. The type of information that community profiles draw upon often comes directly from Statistics Canada. It is the things that really matter in deciding what sort of program is needed in a community that would allow it to be safer, or an area that needs a bit more attention with respect to revitalization than another, or getting a better sense of the economics of that particular community, such as what types of stores might be necessary. There is a litany of things and when broken down into those small communities, it really makes a difference to have accurate information. There is no other organization like Statistics Canada. It is second to no other organization that I am aware of, not just nationally but in the world, with respect to providing critically necessary information. That is talking strictly at the community level.

At the national level, we can talk about how important it is to the provinces that Ottawa gets it right with respect to everything from population numbers to demographics to transfer payments. Many provinces are have-not provinces and they are dependent on those social transfers or equalization payments. Those billions of tax dollars are absolutely critical to the provinces to assist them in ensuring they get it right. Imagine the importance of health care and long-term policy development in health care. Imagine knowing where our senior population is based and being able to predict how to provide sound health care policy that could see access centres opened up, certain types of home care services delivered, all of which are dependent on good, sound statistical information for both long-term and short-term planning.

By making Statistics Canada that much more independent in the way it operates, by providing the type of support this government has provided in legislative and moral support, it will assist Canada and the many different stakeholders to make good, sound, solid policy decisions which would be to the betterment of all Canadians. That is why I would encourage all members of the House to get behind the bill. Let us get it to committee, because it would be good for all of us.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 proposes to make some changes to make our Statistics Canada more independent and ensure that its decisions are made based on the evidence and the studies. We also make this process more transparent.

Bill C-36 proposes that the new Canadian statistic advisory council will produce an annual report on the state of its job. Canadians will have access to review its work and to make comments.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

That is exactly the purpose of Bill C-36, Mr. Speaker. In this society, where there is such a high pace, data is so critical, and we have to make decisions based on the accuracy of data and in a timely manner. This is why we have given the chief statistician the authority and have made the position very independent. We even introduced a fixed five-year term for the chief statistician so he could work independently, based on the evidence and the studies, and not under the influence of other political tendencies.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 would introduce the requirement that the new council's work be done in a transparent manner. It would also require that the council make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.

The new council's membership would also be much smaller and more focused compared with that of the existing council. The council would consist of a chairperson and up to nine additional members who would be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure. The chief statistician would also be a member of the council.

Unlike members of the current council, all members would be paid. The pay level would be fixed by the Governor in Council. Members would also be entitled to be paid any reasonable travel and living expenses incurred while absent from their ordinary places of residence to perform their duties under this act.

Given the reduced number of members compared with the current council, there would not be any additional costs associated with the new council.

Establishing the new Canadian statistics advisory council in the Statistics Act, as proposed under Bill C-36, would be beneficial in at least three ways.

First, it would strengthen the accountability of Statistics Canada, which would balance the increased independence secured under other suggested legislative changes.

Second, it would increase the transparency of the council's work, thereby increasing its own accountability in addition to that of the minister and the chief statistician.

Third, it would publish an annual report on the state of the statistical system, including the quality, relevance, accessibility, and timeliness of the data it would produce. This is particularly important given the critical role statistics play in evidence-based decision-making.

The statistical information produced by government must be high-quality and responsive to stakeholder needs. Otherwise, it will not be trusted, nor will it be used. Businesses, governments, non-profit organizations, the research community, and the public rely on the integrity and accuracy of this data.

Statistical information helps us better understand ourselves, our past, and our future by providing information on our economic, demographic, social, and environmental situation. As such, it is essential that statistical information be impartial, reliable, relevant, accessible, and timely. In essence, it must be of the highest possible quality.

The new Canadian statistics advisory council would play an essential role in ensuring that Canada's statistical system continues to be one of the best in the world.

This government is committed to ensuring that its decisions are evidence-based and reflective of the needs of businesses, institutions, non-profit organizations, and Canadians.

To meet this commitment, we need quality data. That is why we reinstated the mandatory long-form census, and that is why Bill C-36 is so important.

Together, the legislative amendments proposed to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence will ensure that Canadians can rely on and trust in the official statistics produced.

The House resumed 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.

[Geng Tan, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

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

As we know, the bill aims to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence. To achieve this, the bill introduces three key legislative amendments. The first would assign authorities for decisions on statistical matters and operations directly to the chief statistician. This amendment would ensure decisions of a technical statistical nature would be based strictly on professional considerations.

The second key amendment would change the appointment of the chief statistician from one of “at the pleasure” to one of “during good behaviour” for a term of five years, with the possibility of reappointment. This would protect the chief statistician from being potentially dismissed for unfair and unjust reasons.

The third key amendment, which I would like to spend a bit more time on today, is the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council to replace the existing National Statistics Council. This new council would be created to increase transparency and ensure that Canada's statistical system would continue to meet the needs of Canadians.

The National Statistics Council has been a useful consultative body. Established in 1985, it is a non-legislated consultative body, with a mandate to advise the chief statistician in setting priorities and rationalizing Statistics Canada programs. It currently consists of 35 to 40 experts who serve in the public interest without pay. This council has made important contributions to the work of Statistics Canada, including helping to revise and update the Statistics Act. However, its mandate, structure, and composition have not evolved to match the changing nature and demands of the statistical system under Statistics Canada.

I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Winnipeg North.

The new council's mandate would be to advise both the minister and the chief statistician on any matters either of them may refer to it. Its focus would be on the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of data it produces.

Unlike the current council's work, which is not in legislation or mandated to be done transparently, Bill C-36 introduces the requirements that the new council's work be done in a transparent manner. It also requires that the council make public an annual report on the state of the national statistics system.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments that have been made by our Prime Minister, the hon. leader of the official opposition, and all of the party leaders. What a sad day it is. I woke up this morning and heard of the shootings in Quebec City. Our national caucus was just there over the weekend. Words cannot express enough our heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of the victims.

At first glance, Bill C-36 carries a few concerns. The government would like to centralize the role that Statistics Canada has and take away the role of three provinces and the territorial governments as well. I fail to see the necessity of that.

We are constantly hearing about cyber-attacks in which Canadians' private information has been given away by a third party for nefarious reasons. We are concerned about this. With Bill C-36, under the authority of the chief statistician, Canadians' information could be moved to a third party without Canadians consenting to have their information shared with anyone. Canadians' privacy should be paramount. Canadians should have a say as to whether their information is to be shared or not. They should also know where that information is going to be stored. Bill C-36 would allow the chief statistician to move this information to a third party, which in today's world of cyber-attacks would end up who knows where. I shudder to think about it.

I wonder if our hon. colleague from Windsor West has the same concerns regarding privacy and housing the information of everyday Canadians with a third party that to this day has not been vetted.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, one of the provisions in Bill C-36 is it is replacing one existing review or advisory committee with another. It is not clear to me at first glance what the purpose is of moving from an existing oversight committee to a new committee.

I wonder if the member has reflected on that particular provision of the bill, and if he has any thoughts on why the government might be making this particular change.

The House resumed 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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone will be enthralled by my speech and will remain in the House, hopefully, to participate in debate.

It is important to note that, on the issue of the transition and politicalization, it was a challenge for our country, and it has been a loss. Here is where I would give the previous Liberals some credit. It was a co-campaign, as New Democrats and Liberals fought about some of these things. There were lots of shiny things thrown out there to follow. Most important is the one being addressed in Bill C-36, jail time. It was certainly one of those things that was seen as raw meat on the issue, thrown out by the Harper administration, quite embarrassingly, because we found that the facts did not basically matter in that debate. Bill C-36 would get rid of jailing individuals for non-completion and non-compliance with the census.

When we think about all the court cases and issues that we are dealing with right now and the challenges, we see there are several issues that I will not get into but are highly complex. However, the reality is that we have a serious issue with them. Trying to send someone to jail for not filling out a census form is not the appropriate use of public enforcement or our court system, and in general, not an appropriate way to convince people that the census is a value added for them, their families, and our country. I support wholeheartedly the elimination of that distraction and shiny bauble that is thrown out from time to time. It really was quite an interesting situation.

The problem we have with the census is still the independence issue, and we will see it at committee. One of the things I have raised at committee is the insinuation that there is a 92% response rate. I have not had a satisfactory response to the 92%, and we are still waiting for information on it. That would be helpful, coming from either the census or the minister's office. As I understand it right now with the system we have in place, essentially they could be counting full census applications, returns, or notes saying “no, I do not want to participate” stuffed in an envelope and sent back. We do not know the full extent, but at least there has been a high participation rate.

One of the other things is an understanding of privacy and when the information is released. That is critical. There is going to be a release after 92 years, and there are rules with that. That may sound irrelevant upfront, but I know from speaking with a lot of the community that there are people who are worried about their privacy and the use of that information. Having confidence is very important, so the 92-year set example is critical for us to ensure that. This way, there is no distinguishable difference. People will understand that, if they want to change the 92 years, there has to be amendment to legislation, and if there is amendment to legislation it would require a process in the House of Commons, a separate bill that would have to go through the Senate as well. There would at least be some stability there and some protection. Even though it might sound trivial, there are a lot of people concerned about the 92 years.

I mentioned that one of the troubling aspects we still have is around the concentration of power to the minister. It is diminished in the bill to some degree, but it would not separate it from Shared Services. It would accumulate and dominate any information sharing out there. We would like to see the preservation of the census independence. Shared Services Canada is one of the reasons Mr. Smith, the latest chief statistician, has decided to leave the position. Therefore, at committee we will be looking at an amendment or change to continue to improve that type of independence.

As New Democrats, we value the public service, not only in terms of saying that but also in delivering on that. It is the central backbone of how we actually do business and operations.

I have been at committee when we have had chief executive officers complain about not getting their subsidies, because they want this incentive from a program or this other tax break or this other measure in place.

It is interesting. A lot who often complain that the government has to get out of the way are often the first to come and ask for something. In fact, I cannot remember a lobby situation by any business in my office or at committee that did not have a request attached to it. That is fine. That is fair, but they had also been actively lobbying about the elimination of the so-called fat in the public service, and they were complaining that they could not get stuff done, because there were not enough people. I question the fact that they had been champions of diminishing this group, and now that they could not get their paperwork done without assistance, their tactics were shameful.

This connects, very importantly, to the Phoenix situation we have right now. In this Liberal administration, there is disdain and a lack of concentration by a government that is more worried about where it goes, how it parties, and how it plans its next wave than about actually paying employees. There is no doubt that the Phoenix situation has gotten worse under the current administration, but there is a connection to the Conservatives. They cannot get out of that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to talk about the Canadian census. There have been several debates on this issue over the last number of years, and Bill C-36 is the latest machination of that.

Basically, the census is a particularly important piece of information gathering that is critical for our economic, social, and societal planning. It is important to note that information collecting through the census is important for not only its particular use but also for other surveys and other types of public opinion research that are done on a multitude of issues, where the census is used to backstop those types of surveys, whether on agriculture, economics, public housing, or transit. As well, the census is important for our democracy. The fact is that it helps generate the information necessary for everything from locations and geography of where and how people live to the distribution of seats here in the House of Commons, as well as ensuring that different population-analysis requirements are looked at; for example, on issues of urban transit planning more recently, but also the use of land in Canada.

There is no doubt that there are dozens upon dozens of Canadian professional associations that support a solid, robust census: one that remains independent, protects personal privacy, and can be valuable, as well patterned so we can look at historical changes in all of the areas I mentioned before.

The challenge we have had in the previous Harper administration, the current one now to some degree, and more importantly, the past Liberal regimes has been the inconsistencies and anomalies from playing politics with the census.

The first I would mention is the ideological drive by the Liberals to outsource public service jobs. That was essentially the first attack on the census, in the sense that we had one of the best-recognized information gathering and census distribution systems in the world. In fact, I participated in the year 2000 complete count as a city councillor, because the area that I represented often had a lot of people with different languages, some of them had not become Canadian citizens at that time, and others were not part of the community because of university and college during the full time of when the census was distributed and when it was returned. As well, we had the fact of absentee and other landlords who decided not to respond to the census. That was during the Chrétien regime, and there was an attempt in a number of small areas, ones that I represented as councillor, to improve that so we did not miss out on opportunities to improve the interaction and activity with government. Then the Right Hon. Herb Gray represented the riding, and it was a good indication and a good measure of working together with the city and with me as a councillor on how to improve the response rate, which was less than 50%.

All that connects to Bill C-36 and what has taken place since that time, because I come from a time when it was not politicized. We saw that when the Martin regime of the Liberals wanted to privatize the census, it disrupted the long-standing and secure foundation that was set up nearly two decades before that, with regard to its implementation. In fact, Canada was often touted as one of those places to examine for census improvement.

However, the outsourcing to a private arms manufacturing company that was doing other privatization measures across the globe created certain problems when it actually went to implement that. First was the intervention of the Patriot Act in the United States. The Patriot Act breached Canadian privacy regulations because under the Patriot Act, U.S. companies are not allowed to tell clients that they are actually giving their information to the federal government of the United States.

Therefore, when the attempt was made to outsouce this to Minneapolis, if my memory serves me correctly, there was a long battle that took place in this House of Commons, with us as New Democrats, to retain that information in Canada. In fact, the contract ended up having to be amended so that the information was retained here.

Then we entered into the age of this outsourcing, which clearly became a problem for the many Canadians who were not supportive of it. However, we did not have the census in headlines until that time.

If we move forward to the next set of governments under the Harper administration, we quickly go through a number of different problems that emerged, the first and foremost being the move to a small census that was not mandatory. The challenge there and the outrage that we heard from a number of different scientific-based organizations, universities, and colleges with research capabilities was not only that the census information was at risk but that there was no doubt a break in the lineage that could be used to make further assessments and the continuity that was not there because we moved away from a long form stable census to that of a short-term short form one that certainly did not cut the mustard in any way, shape, or form. It became a controversy in the House of Commons for a number of years, eventually leading to the resignation of Munir Sheikh, who was the previous census chief executive officer. We have had other resignations since because there has been quite a connection between the political office and that of the census office.

I think that something of primary importance to Canadians is the recognition that we have—

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the start of the new year, I would like to welcome back all of my colleagues. I hope that they and you, Mr. Speaker, had a wonderful break and are charged up and ready to go for this new session.

Before the House rose in December, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development introduced Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Statistics Act that are intended to provide more independence to Statistics Canada and to the chief statistician, at least that is the claim. However, in order for us as members of the House to properly debate these changes, I think it is important to first list all of the sections of the act that would be modified or added.

First, these changes would give sole responsibility to the chief statistician, or the CS, to decide, based on his or her professional opinion, how to carry out the methods and procedures of all statistical programs. This includes the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction, and publication of all statistical information.

The chief statistician would have full authority over the content within statistical releases and publications issued by Statistics Canada and how and when this information is circulated. What is more, the chief statistician would be responsible for all operations and staff at Statistics Canada, and would be appointed for a fixed renewable term of five years.

The bill would establish the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would be comprised of only 10 members and would replace the National Statistics Council, which has been functioning since the mid-1980s. The new council would advise the chief statistician and the minister, whereas the National Statistics Council solely advises the chief statistician, which is a key difference. The Liberals are saying that they are giving the chief statistician more independence, and yet they would increase indirect supervision by the council through the minister.

Within its mandate, the Canadian statistics advisory council would focus on the quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information that is produced by Statistics Canada. It would also be required to make a public annual report on the state of the statistical system.

As well, Bill C-36 would allow for the transfer of census information from Statistics Canada to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, without the consent of Canadians. Once transferred to Library and Archives Canada, this information would be made available to all Canadians.

Finally, the bill would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent, and it would amend certain sections to make the language more modern and eliminate discrepancies between the English and French versions of the act.

After reading the bill at length, it has become evident that there are many aspects that could be of concern and possibly should be of concern to Canadians and that merit further discussion.

As Her Majesty's official opposition, it our duty to critique and highlight any issues that we find evident in all legislation put forward by the Liberal government. As such, I will be shedding some light on some of the concerns that I have regarding Bill C-36.

Our Conservative Party supports the work that Statistics Canada does and the key statistical data that it produces. We know how important this information is for governments, public policy-makers, and the research and academic communities. It is essential for anyone who uses Statistics Canada data for any purpose, be it businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or individuals, that they find the data relevant and reliable. In other words, everyone needs to know that they can trust the accuracy and quality of the data.

However, the privacy of Canadians is also fundamental, and fostering an environment that builds trust between Canadians and Statistics Canada is therefore crucial. The Liberal government must ensure that the right balance is struck between protecting the privacy rights of Canadians while collecting good quality data.

In the past, Canadians have expressed concern with the questions asked of them in response to the census, particularly the long-form census, and in surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. They found questions such as the number of bedrooms in their house, what time of day they leave for work and return, or how long it takes to get there to the intrusion of their privacy, and indeed in some cases, they perceived the cumulative answers as a risk to their very home security.

With the changes that the Liberal government has proposed in the bill, the minister would no longer be able to issue directives to the chief statistician on methods, procedures, and operations. This means that the chief statistician would have sole authority to ask any and all questions that he or she deems fit on the census or survey, including those that Canadians could find intrusive.

As a result of that, it could potentially result in the creation of distrust and cynicism between Statistics Canada and the public, which would then of course hinder the quality of the data that StatsCan receives from those being surveyed.

With the abdication of responsibility from the minister to the chief statistician, who is responsible for answering to Canadians when they raise concerns regarding the methods used? This is an important question, and quite frankly seems to be the opposite of the open and transparent government that the Liberals keep touting.

In addition to this, I would like to touch a bit further on the section of the bill that amends the responsibilities of the chief statistician. The current changes state that the chief statistician will:

...decide, based strictly on professional statistical standards that he or she considers appropriate, the methods and procedures for carrying out statistical programs regarding (i) the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction and publication of statistical information that is produced or is to be produced by Statistics Canada.

As a member of the official opposition, it is my duty to highlight any implications that a bill may have, regardless of intent. Even though it may not be the intent, the bill authorizes Statistics Canada to house all of its data wherever it chooses. If the chief statistician would like to move the private information of Canadians to a third party, it would have the ability to do so if the bill became law.

This could be quite concerning. The security and safety of Canadians and their private information should be a top priority for the government. Any use of a third party to house this data could create security concerns, and again damage the view that some Canadians have of Statistics Canada.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has also suggested that a Canadian statistics advisory council be created to replace the National Statistics Council. As I mentioned earlier, this new council would be comprised of 10 members, and would focus on the quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information provided.

For those who do not know much about the National Statistics Council, which is already in place and has been since the mid-1980s, I will provide a brief background, so that we can complete a full comparison of what is in place with what the government is proposing to change it to.

According to Statistics Canada, “the National Statistics Council advises the Chief Statistician of Canada on the full range of Statistics Canada's activities, particularly on overall program priorities.” The council was created in 1985 under the Mulroney government and currently has representatives from all 13 provinces and territories.

While the new council would provide insight to the chief statistician and the minister, as opposed to only the former, and would produce annual reports on the state of our statistical system, it would no longer have representation from right across Canada. This could result in one area of the country being favoured over another, which certainly would not be fair to Canadians in those parts of the country without representation.

As an example, if there is no representation for many of the east coast provinces, the council could fail to advise on potential questions simply because it does not have a strong knowledge of the area and of what matters most to Canadians who live there. As a result, we could miss out on important data that is crucial for making good quality decisions on behalf of Atlantic Canadians.

I have to ask why the Liberals would decide to create a council that does not fully represent Canada as a whole when we already have one that does instead of simply altering the mandate of the National Statistics Council, which already provides insight from all parts of Canada.

We have already seen the Liberals give out benefits to their friends, especially if they are Chinese billionaires or can pay $1,500 for access to government. Perhaps this council would be another way they could appoint and reward their friends, because quite frankly, I do not understand why the government would actually choose to create in legislation an advisory body that does not represent all Canadians.

As Canadians, we are extremely fortunate to live in a democratic society where the rights of citizens and the protection of those rights are treated with the utmost importance. Canada has enshrined those rights in law and without them, our society and Canadian way life that we cherish would cease to function as it does today. Some of these rights include the right to freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and the right to consent. The main job of any government is to make sure that these rights are preserved and protected.

Since the government has a crucial role to play in the conservation of these rights, I have a hard time understanding why the Liberal government would choose to remove certain rights from Canadians. I am speaking here of the right to consent. As I stated earlier, the Liberals want to take away the ability of Canadians to decide whether they want their personal census records made available to the public after a period of 92 years. Canadians should always have the right to consent to the transfer of any personal information obtained through the census. As a government that claims to be open and transparent, frankly, I see this as yet another failed attempt.

Canadians should have the comfort of knowing that their privacy is being respected and have the opportunity, if they so choose, to make their information public. It is not the right of the current government or indeed any government to decide what information should remain private and what should become public and when. The Liberals say that they are attempting to generate a system that is more accountable to Canadians, but by giving more independence to the chief statistician and passing off their responsibility, they are in fact creating a system that is less accountable to Canadians.

Finally, this bill would repeal the imprisonment consequence for not responding to a mandatory question or for giving false information while maintaining the established fines. These fines include up to $1,000 for not completing a mandatory census and up to $500 for providing false information. Canadians have always believed that jail time for not completing a census or for giving false information on a census because they felt uncomfortable was an extremely harsh punishment for this type of offence.

When the previous Conservative government consulted Canadians on issues surrounding requests for information from Statistics Canada, this was a main concern. That is why the Conservatives revoked the criminal punishment from all censuses and surveys that were not mandatory from 2011 onward. Further to this, in 2015, former Conservative member of Parliament Joe Preston proposed a bill to repeal the jail time associated with all mandatory surveys, which all members of the House voted in favour of. Unfortunately, because of the 2015 election, the bill was killed before it could reach royal assent.

In closing, there is no doubt our society relies on information that it receives from the work done by Statistics Canada. It is important work, but the private lives of Canadians should never be put in jeopardy. Canadians, in their personal and business affairs, need to be able to trust the data that they give and get from Statistics Canada, and betraying that trust does not promote a stable environment where quality data can be obtained.

The Liberal government must ensure that it has the right balance between the rights of Canadians and the collection of data. It must be answerable to Canadians for its decisions, such as the decision to create another statistics council instead of altering the mandate of the council that already exists. It is crucial that we continue the debate around this bill to make sure that it protects the rights and the interests of all Canadians.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved that Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted and pleased today to rise to discuss Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

As members well know, statistics play a critical role in democratic societies. Information is essential to understanding ourselves, our past, and our future. Businesses, civil society, researchers, the public, and the government itself rely on the integrity and accuracy of data.

High-quality data is needed for planning services, improving social conditions, and helping businesses expand. That is why statistical information produced by the government has to be of good quality and satisfactory to its users.

Impartial data is essential for making informed decisions about the services upon which all Canadians rely. I am talking about issues around housing, education, public transportation, and skills training, among other things, because these services touch every Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

Our government believes that decisions regarding official statistics should be made exclusively on professional considerations. Indeed, there is widespread agreement internationally that statistical agencies must operate with a high level of professional independence, in day-to-day operations, from direction and oversight by the government.

What do we mean by independence?

We mean that national statistical agencies must be guided exclusively by professional considerations on decisions related to their operations and data-gathering methods. The same goes for every other aspect of statistics production. These agencies must also be free of interference from the government or interest groups.

That is how Canadians can be confident that the statistical information produced on their behalf is impartial and of the highest possible quality.

Internationally, approaches to independence vary. For example, the Netherlands, Ireland, and New Zealand have explicit provisions on independence in their legislation. The United Kingdom Statistics Authority is a non-ministerial department that reports directly to Parliament. Meanwhile, Statistics Netherlands is an autonomous body.

Regardless of how countries around the world define independence, they all follow a common set of principles.

Canada endorses two documents that outline these international principles. These documents are the United Nations' “Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics” and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's “Recommendation of the OECD Council on Good Statistical Practice”. These are the two principles we follow.

I am proud to say that the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act are aligned with these documents.

These amendments will ensure that data produced by Statistics Canada continue to be accurate, reliable, and of the highest quality. They will also help ensure that Canadians remain confident in the impartiality of the information gathered on their behalf.

The first point I would like to mention is the need for formal independence. Currently, Statistics Canada is treated, by convention, as an arm's-length agency, with little direct involvement by the minister overseeing it. That is the current practice. However, the agency's independence is not formally legislated, so it is more by convention and not by legislation.

The previous government's decision to replace the 2011 mandatory long-form census with the voluntary survey exposed a vulnerability in the Statistics Act. This is an issue we heard about often, at times, when we were at the doors during the campaign. The legislation allowed the government of the day to make a key decision on a statistical matter, and the decision was made with very little openness and transparency.

Replacing the long-form census with a voluntary survey compromised the quality and accuracy of data about Canadians. Several small communities did not have access to information that was important for local decision-making. The decision to eliminate the long-form census was condemned by Canadians who use statistics.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-36 would enshrine in law the long-standing convention of independence in statistical matters conferred on Statistics Canada. Again, we would take the convention and put it into law. These amendments would safeguard the quality and impartiality of the information produced by Statistics Canada.

Let me outline the proposed amendments contained in this bill, because details matter.

Under the current act, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada has overarching authority for decisions about the agency's operations and methods for gathering, compiling, and producing statistical information. In practice, this authority is delegated to the chief statistician. The bill would amend the act to formally make the chief statistician responsible for all operations and decisions related to statistical products. That includes the long-form census.

As part of the amendments in the bill, the minister would retain the authority to issue directives on statistical programs. Again, the minister would still be responsible for what statistics and information were needed. For example, in the context of our government, as members know, we are investing a great deal of time, effort, and energy in clean technology. If we needed information about clean technology and about companies and growth in the market, we would say that is what we need. How that information was obtained would be the responsibility of the chief statistician.

The bill would ensure greater transparency around these directives as well. It would empower the chief statistician to publicly request written direction before acting on the minister's directions for a statistical program. In addition, should the minister deem it to be in the national interest to make a decision that directly affects matters related to operations, or even data-gathering methods, it would have to be authorized by the Governor in Council and also tabled in Parliament. That is the key component of the open and transparent aspect of this particular legislation.

The bill also proposes to create a new Canadian statistics advisory council, which would replace the existing National Statistics Council. The new advisory council would focus on the overall quality of the national statistical system. That includes the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information produced. The goal of this new council would be to increase transparency and ensure that Canada's statistical system continues to meet the needs of Canadians. The council would provide advice to the minister as well as to the chief statistician. To continue to improve transparency, the council would publish an annual report, accessible to all Canadians, on the state of the national statistical system.

In anticipation of the bill's passage, I would like to thank the members of the National Statistics Council for their service. They should be proud of the important contributions they have made over the past 30 years to the work of Statistics Canada, so I thank them once again.

The bill would also change the appointment of the chief statistician, and this is another important detail. This appointment would be for a renewable term of no more than five years.

The appointment would be made through an open, transparent, merit-based selection process in accordance with our government's new approach to Governor in Council appointments. This is the process we would follow with respect to the selection of a new chief statistician.

The chief statistician will serve during good behaviour and may be removed by the Governor in Council for cause. It is based on merit and performance. This change will strengthen the independence of the chief statistician in his or her decision making.

It is also important to highlight that the minister would remain accountable to Parliament for Canada's publicly funded statistical agency. As the minister presently responsible for this agency, I will be personally responsible, and so will my office, for the accountability of this agency.

The amendments to the Statistics Act have been drafted to ensure the responsibilities of the minister and the chief statistician are more clearly defined than they are currently.

The bill also has provisions concerning Canadians who refuse to complete the census and other mandatory surveys. The general consensus is that a prison sentence is a disproportionate penalty for the offence. The bill would amend the act to eliminate prison sentences for Canadians who refuse to answer mandatory surveys.

Canadians who do not comply will continue to face the possibility of fines of up to $500. The updated act will also the transfer of census records after 92 years to the Library and Archives of Canada. That will apply to all censuses of populations conducted from 2021 onward. For censuses taken in 2006, 2011, and 2016, and the 2011 national household survey, the records will be released, where the consent has been given, to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years.

We will respect the previous censuses and the information provided by the individuals who fill them out, and also ensure we protect their privacy. This change in the act will make a rich source of information available to historians, genealogists, and other researchers. It is so important that we understand our past if we are to understand and appreciate the possibilities going forward.

Amendments would also update the language of the act in order to reflect technological changes to data collection methods, which include the use of electronic surveys rather than paper surveys.

The amendments in Bill C-36 will better align Statistics Canada with the guidance of the UN and the OECD. They will ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on the integrity and accuracy of the data produced by their national statistical agency.

I also want to highlight the outreach presently taking place with respect to this bill as well, because it has a key component. The amendments in the bill were developed based on consultations with many Canadians, as well as with international experts and bodies. They include the OECD, as well as the former heads of statistical offices in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia.

The government also conducted a review of statistical legislation in six countries. They include, again, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, United States, Netherlands, and Ireland. These consultations allowed us to consider various approaches to international norms. We also worked closely with stakeholders across the country as well.

Statistics Canada consulted extensively with the National Statistics Council and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultative Council on Statistical Policy. The agency also engaged with 16 other federal departments that are major users of its information. We really wanted to get a sense of the information, and the concerns and the viewpoints from the users. They all support the proposals contained in the bill.

I also want to take this opportunity to highlight some of the actions already taken by our government. Reinforcing the integrity and independence of Statistics Canada is a key priority of this government. It is something on which we campaigned, something we put in our platform, and something we are delivering on.

My first official act as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and I vividly recall this day, was to restore the mandatory long-form census. Canadians have responded overwhelmingly to the return of the long-form census. I am proud to report that the 2016 population census was the most successful in our country's history. After I made the announcement, I had the opportunity to go out into my constituency, knock on doors, meet with Canadians, and talk to them about what our government was doing. They all mentioned this issue to me because they were paying attention to the news and really cared about this issue. That was reflected in the overall response rate as well, with more than 98% of people responding, which was higher than 2011 and 2006. Frankly, it was the highest response rate in the history of the census.

I also have to say that the response rate of almost 98% was the highest ever reported. These impressive results show Canadians' commitment to the census program. They prove that Canadians believe that it is important for decision-making to be based on accurate and reliable data.

Our government has also taken steps to reinstate the University and College Academic Staff System survey. I met with individuals from academia in the lobby who were so proud of this decision. This survey provides up-to-date information about the composition of faculty members at Canadian universities and colleges. Data compiled through the survey will be used to recruit faculty who reflect Canada's diversity.

This survey supports the government's innovation agenda, which was implemented in order to establish favourable conditions for economic growth, create well-paid jobs, and grow the middle class. Encouraging diversity and inclusion in Canada's knowledge institutions is key, because an economy based on innovation needs good ideas from people of all backgrounds.

The amendments contained in Bill C-36 also support our government's commitment to promoting innovation. By making decisions that are informed by reliable and accurate data, Canadians can turn information into useful insights or solutions that benefit everyone. This is a key part of our government's innovation and economic agenda as well.

In conclusion, we live in a world where knowledge drives innovation, and innovation depends on the free flow of reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information. I am proud that this bill reflects that direction and our government's desire to follow through on a campaign commitment to end political interference with respect to our statistical agency.