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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

This is on Bill C-36—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I would agree that we need to keep it within the scope of Bill C-36. That is the scope. When the minister comes for main estimates, that would be an appropriate time.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a minister with us, Mr. Chair, and it's very important that our focus should be Bill C-36. When we talk about Bombardier, I think it is out of order. We want to make sure that the minister's time is well spent and is focused on that.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you for that question.

On basketball, I hopefully look forward to the opportunity in the near future to play with you and our other colleagues to raise money for charity.

With regard to the fund you're talking about, obviously it's not within the scope of the conversation, but I'll quickly speak to it. Then I'll get to the specific matters pertaining to Bill C-36. The $800 million in terms of the super clusters investment was actually a campaign commitment that we had made. It was not a reflection of who we appointed as innovation advisers. That was a campaign commitment that we honoured in our first budget, a while before we had identified innovation leaders across the country.

With regard to this bill, you're absolutely right, we're very sensitive to the fact that we want to end political interference. We learned some hard lessons in 2011, when a voluntary form was brought in which compromised the quality of data. Hundreds of communities did not receive data because the sample size wasn't sufficient. Particularly in our rural or remote communities, which need this information for planning purposes—to build schools, for social services—this really undermined our ability to proceed forward in a meaningful way to address those issues.

The quality of data has a significant and direct impact on Canadians. Based on those challenges, based on those issues, we took immediate action by reintroducing the mandatory long-form census. That's why, for our going forward now, what we want to accomplish is taking what's in convention right now in terms of Statistics Canada and enshrining it into law.

We have a very balanced approach to this.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm pleased to be here to address this committee regarding Bill C-36. I'm here accompanied by my deputy minister, John Knubley. If you have any difficult questions, feel free to direct them towards him.

Today I would like to outline the elements of the legislation that is before the committee, explain the intent behind some of the provisions, and address some of the concerns raised during the committee's study of the bill.

We all agree on the importance and value of impartial and high-quality statistical information that responds to stakeholder needs. Statistics are a public good.

Governments have a responsibility to ensure statistics are of the highest quality possible. People from all walks of life—individuals, businesses, non-profits and governments—depend on them.

High-quality statistics are necessary to properly plan services, improve social outcomes, and help businesses grow. Obviously, we know the benefits are very important, and as we've heard from many in this committee, statistics should not be a partisan issue.

Clearly, there's need for formal independence, and currently Statistics Canada is treated by convention as an arm's-length agency with little direct involvement by the minister overseeing it. However, the agency's independence is not formally legislated. The decision to replace the 2011 mandatory long-form census with a voluntary service exposed a vulnerability in the Statistics Act. That's clearly what prompted this discussion. This was obviously a platform commitment, and hence we're here today. It allowed the government of the day to make a decision on a statistical matter with little openness or transparency.

This decision compromised the quality of data and the level of detail about the Canadian population. It deprived smaller communities of the information they needed to make informed decisions at the local level.

That's why the government quickly reinstated the mandatory long-form census, but more action is needed to ensure decisions on statistical matters are made independently and based on professional considerations.

The proposed amendments respect that Statistics Canada is recognized as a world-leading statistical institution. They enshrine into law the long-standing convention of independence conferred to Statistics Canada, and they will safeguard the quality and impartiality of the information produced by Statistics Canada.

Let me outline the amendments proposed in this bill and provide more detail on certain aspects on which questions were raised during the committee's study of the bill.

Under the current act the minister responsible for Statistics Canada has overarching authority for decisions about the agency's operations and its methods for gathering, compiling, producing, and disseminating statistical information, but in practice, this authority is delegated to the chief statistician. The bill will amend the act to formally make the chief statistician responsible for all operations and decisions related to statistical matters. This is a key important feature of the bill. This is the essential element of meeting our commitment to strengthening Statistics Canada's independence and bringing our legislation into alignment with the United Nations' principles and the OECD's recommended practices.

Given that statistics are a public good, however, the minister will remain accountable to Parliament for Statistics Canada.

The amendments have been drafted to balance independence, quality, and relevance while increasing transparency to ensure the government can be held accountable. Again, it really is about independence, transparency, and accountability. They ensure that the responsibilities of the minister and the chief statistician are clearly defined. They also ensure that these responsibilities come with the requirements for transparency and accountability to Canadians, and that the minister will retain authority to issue directives on statistical matters or programs. This is an important power that must remain with the executive.

Information and data needs are constantly evolving with societal and economic changes. This reality highlights the importance of why governments must be able to work with Statistics Canada to collect information on topics that are important to Canadians.

However, the bill ensures greater transparency around these directives, and it empowers the chief statistician to request written and public direction before acting on them. The bill clearly assigns to the chief statistician the responsibility of deciding what methods to use to collect data, including whether surveys will be mandatory or voluntary. Because mandatory surveys can be intrusive on respondents and are tied to penalties, the bill also requires that decisions to make a survey mandatory be published for transparency purposes.

It also requires that the minister be advised of such decisions before they take effect. Should the minister deem it to be in the national interest to make a decision that directly affects statistical matters, the bill requires that such decisions be authorized by a Governor in Council and tabled in Parliament as well.

As you can see, this bill ensures that independence does not come at the expense of transparency and the capacity to hold the government to account for decisions that impact Canadians.

The bill also proposes to create a new Canadian statistical advisory council—I know there's been a fair amount of discussion in this committee about that as well—which would replace the existing National Statistics Council. The new council will provide advice and will help ensure Canada's statistical system continues to meet the needs of Canadians.

During the committee's study of the bill, we heard questions about the council's purpose and how it differs from the existing council. We also heard concerns about the representativeness, or the number of representatives on the new council, and the potential for partisan appointments.

First, I would like to thank all past and current members of the National Statistics Council.

Their contributions to Canada's statistical system are an important reason why Statistics Canada is recognized as one of the world's best statistical agencies. I would especially like to thank the current members of the National Statistics Council for their recent contributions. This includes consideration of options and advice on how to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence.

As for why we're creating a new council, the rationale is simple: transparency and strategic focus. Entrenching the new council in legislation will increase transparency around the work it does and the advice it provides.

I'm told that it's difficult to find out who the current members on the National Statistics Council are, and that it's difficult to find out what issues the council has considered and what advice it has given to the chief statistician. This will not be the case with the new council.

The members of the new council will be asked to provide advice on specific issues related to the overall quality of Canada's statistical system. And the bill will require the council to prepare an annual report on the state of our statistical system.

Having 10 members will enable the new council to provide depth and strategic focus to the advice that it will be asked to give. The new council is meant to be highly strategic, and I fully expect it to formulate its evidence and advice based on a variety of sources, including the chief statistician and Statistics Canada's extensive advisory structure.

The new council will compliment the comprehensive advisory committee structure already in place at Statistics Canada. As you heard in previous testimony, this includes the seven provincial and territorial committees—including the federal-provincial-territorial consultative council on statistical policy—and ensures that all provinces and territories have an effective voice on statistical matters.

There are also 13 advisory committees in various subject matter areas, which include nearly 200 members from every province and territory, and a cross-representation of Canadian society. Council members will be appointed by a Governor in Council in an open and transparent manner, based on merit. This process will limit the potential for partisan appointments.

Colleagues, I read with interest the comments of Mr. Ian McKinnon, chair of the existing National Statistics Council.

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

Clearly, colleagues, I agree with Mr. McKinnon's assessment.

The bill will also change how the chief statistician is appointed. This is another area that I know has come up for discussion. The position will be a renewable term of no more than five years, and the appointment will be made through an open, transparent, merit-based selection process, in accordance with the government's new approach to Governor in Council appointments.

The chief statistician will serve during good behaviour, and may only be removed by the Governor in Council for cause. This will strengthen the independence of the chief statistician in his or her decision-making capacity.

Mr. Chair, let me highlight a few more amendments.

This bill addresses situations in which Canadians refuse to provide information related to the census and other mandatory surveys.

It will remove from the act the penalty of imprisonment for those who do not comply with a mandatory request for information. Again, this was an issue that was discussed extensively in the media when the previous changes were made. Canadians who do not comply will continue to face the possibility of fines of up to $500.

The bill will also allow the transfer of census records after 92 years. This is consistent with our commitment to open and accessible data. This will benefit researchers and historians, as I mentioned before.

Obviously, the response rate to the census has been very successful. In 2016, we saw that, and we want to make sure that we share this information in a timely manner.

Finally, the bill updates some of the language in the act as well, which is important.

The amendments in this bill were developed based on consultations with many Canadians as well as with international experts and bodies.

As I mentioned, they include the guidance and the principles of international organizations like the OECD, the UN, and other jurisdictions. We worked very closely with many other bodies as well.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we understand that trusted information is essential for making informed decisions.

I would like to thank all the individuals who took the time to appear before this committee to offer their advice and input to the important work you have undertaken in the review of Bill C-36. The amendments contained in Bill C-36 will enhance and protect the independence of Statistics Canada, increase transparency, and support evidence-based decision-making.

I look forward to the swift passage of this legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome back, everybody, to meeting 57of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

We are continuing our study of Bill C-36. Today we have appearing before us the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

We're just going to get right into it.

Minister, you have 10 minutes.

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

That's a fair statement.

Could you elaborate on the independence of Statistics Canada and the importance of its being independent from outside authorities? Will Bill C-36 make Statistics Canada more independent than it was before?

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

Those are good statements.

My next question is for Jean-Guy.

The proposed amendments being put forth in Bill C-36 are intended to reinforce the credibility of Statistics Canada and the ongoing trust of Canadians in their national statistical agency. My first question is, how will formalizing Statistics Canada's independence be better for Canadians in terms of the quality of the data?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Schreyer, do you have any other comment on that?

Mr. Schreyer, Bill C-36 could make the census of the population mandatory but grant the Governor in Council the exclusive authority to determine the census questions. I am wondering how other countries with a population census similar to ours at StatsCan determine what the census questions are going to be.

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

Thank you very much to all our presenters. It's been very informative and a great discussion thus far.

My first question is for Brian Allen. I've asked the question before. I'm from Sault Ste. Marie, and when the long-form census was not there, we, as a community, didn't get very good data for planning. We also heard testimony that it was not only the communities like Sault Ste. Marie, but also chambers of commerce, businesses, and non-profit organizations that just didn't quite get that data that was available.

Bill C-36 is trying to ensure that Statistics Canada has a clear mandate and remains responsive to the needs of Canadians and their governments. How does it do this? Could you comment also on the importance of that statistical data being available for those organizations?

[Jean-Guy Prévost, Professor, Political Science Department, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you.

My name is Jean-Guy Prévost. I'm a professor in the Political Science Department at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Over the past 30 years, my research has focused on the census and on the functioning of statistical offices, not only from a Canadian perspective, but also from a comparative perspective.

The tabling of Bill C-36 arose largely from the 2010-11 census crisis, which resulted from the government's decision to remove the obligation to complete the long-form census and replace it with a national household survey, participation in which would be voluntary. The decision was consistent with the Statistics Act, but it raised a huge public outcry, in large part because the decision was made very quietly, meaning that the public wasn't informed until the matter was resolved.

The issue the requirement to respond and the issue of penalties for refusing to respond are, of course, political in nature, but the government's decision also had a technical dimension. We now know, with evidence, that despite the enormous resources provided by Statistics Canada, the quality and reliability of the results of a survey of a sample of volunteers is unsatisfactory.

The government's decision to impose its point of view led to the resignation of the chief statistician at the time, and that major event is one reason why the decision was considered a breach of the agency's professional independence.

We can legitimately wonder what the independence of a statistical agency is. This concept wasn't widespread in the 1980s, but it is becoming more common today. Of the 34 OECD member countries, 29 have adopted legislation that, in connection with Statistics Canada and its chief statistician, include explicit reference to the term “independence” or one of its correlates, such as “autonomy”, “objectivity”, “impartiality” and “neutrality”. The 1985 Statistics Act is one of five acts that do not contain such a reference.

The reason we have witnessed a movement in favour of an explicit reference to the concept of independence in statistical legislation is that independence and the appearance of independence are indispensable conditions for establishing the credibility of statistical data in a world where data should play an increasingly important role.

In addition to incorporating the idea of independence or one of its correlates into the legislation, OECD countries have resorted to other means to ensure their protection. For example, some have clarified the appointment and dismissal procedures of the chief statistician. Others have set up a body to advise the chief statistician and assess the quality of the work done by the office. Several other countries have opted for codes of best practice and quality assurance programs.

Lastly, we should keep in mind that independence, understood in the sense of protection against intervention by the political authorities in the professional or technical dimensions of statistical work, is never enough. A statistical office must also have clear mandates and authority as well as means to carry out its task. The more recent resignation of chief statistician Wayne Smith illustrates the complexity of these issues.

How does the Bill C-36 address concerns about the independence of Statistics Canada? The proposed amendments contain a number of welcome clarifications, but they also contain ambiguities. I will limit myself here to a few points.

The first point concerns the appointment of the chief statistician. The irremovability of the chief statistician for the duration of the term constitutes an appreciable protection, and there is an equivalent precision in several countries. However, nothing in the act confirms what is mentioned in the notes that accompany the bill, namely that this appointment follows an “open and transparent” selection process.

The second point concerns the professional independence of the chief statistician. Subsection 4(5) as amended reads: “The Chief Statistician shall ... (a) decide, based strictly on professional statistical standards that he or she considers appropriate, the methods and procedures for carrying out statistical programs ...”

This reference in the bill to what is generally understood as “independence” is the clearest to date—even though the term is not explicitly used. The list of specific items to which these professional statistical standards apply is consistent with what we have seen in other countries.

However, subsection 4.1(1) states: "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.”

It seems to me that we are going right back to what we saw in summer 2010: the possibility of intervention by the political authorities in the field that should come under “professional statistical standards” without prior public debate. If we absolutely want to keep the possibility for politicians to intervene on this issue, the only way, I think, is to allow public debate and to authorize the chief statistician of Statistics Canada to make his opinion publicly known. Otherwise, in the event of disagreement, the outcome will be the chief statistician's resignation, which ultimately results in a loss of public confidence. The fact that the section of the 1985 Statistics Act dealing specifically with census matters remains unchanged in this bill curiously leaves such a possibility open.

A somewhat different problem arises with respect to subsection 4.2(1), which refers to directives on statistical programs. It is legitimate for a government to want to obtain statistical information on areas previously ignored, or for budgetary or other reasons to end certain programs. The bill provides that the chief statistician may require that such directives “be made in writing and made public before the Chief Statistician acts on it.” It is difficult to understand why the chief statistician's ability to require the publication of such directives does not extend to those that would more directly affect what should be his or her area of concern, namely the methods and procedures.

The third point relates to the existence of a quality assessment and consultation body. The existence of such a body is also a way to strengthen and guarantee the independence of Statistics Canada. The National Statistics Council, which was established in 1985, has been an almost invisible structure: this doesn't mean that its members haven't played an advisory role to the chief statistician, but the council had no public profile—no website, two lines on the Statistics Canada website, no list of members anywhere, and so on.

The notes accompanying the bill provide the council with a considerable mandate, but as there are no resources planned to meet the required profile, there is no certainty that this new council will be able to do much more than the previous one.

Furthermore, Statistics Canada's independence is also based on means that exceed the legal framework, including, the body's adoption of a code of conduct comparable to the one that European countries have.

In conclusion, in a comparative study of all OECD countries, Canada appears to be one of the few countries where the independence of the statistical office is not legally or formally protected. While Statistics Canada has long enjoyed broad independence in practice, it was based on a gentlemen's agreement that ceased to exist in 2010.

In this regard, the bill brings two notable improvements: one to the chief statistician's irremovable character during the term of office and the other to recognition of his or her authority over professional standards, methods and procedures.

However, the bill should be clearer on these two points: with regard to the first, by including a reference to the selection process for appointing the chief statistician; in the case of the second, either by deleting section 4.1, thereby recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the chief statistician regarding methods and procedures, or by providing, as mentioned in section 4.2, that directives on methods and procedures “should be made in writing and made public before the Chief Statistician acts on it.”

At the present time, there is still a considerable gap between the explanations published on the department's site that reflect a considerable ambition and the bill itself. Basically, in contrast to the current legislation, this contains fairly modest changes to the independence of Statistics Canada.

Thank you.

[Dr. Brian Allen, Past President, Statistical Society of Canada]

Good morning, everyone.

It is indeed a pleasure to be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Although the invitation to appear before this committee didn't specify, I view my invitation as representing the Statistical Society of Canada. I'm currently past president. The president, who might normally be invited to appear in my place, is employed by Statistics Canada, and so was recused.

The Statistical Society of Canada is Canada's only national scientific organization representing statisticians in academia, government, and industry. Its mission is to encourage the development and use of statistics and probability through research, education, and the development of public awareness of the value of statistical thinking. One of the bullets of our mission statement is directly relevant to today's hearings, namely, to ensure that decisions affecting Canadian society are based on appropriate data and valid statistical interpretation.

The Statistical Society of Canada has always had a close relationship with Statistics Canada. Indeed, its current president, Jack Gambino, is employed by Statistics Canada. Five additional past presidents have come from Statistics Canada: David Binder, 2005-06; Jane Gentleman, 1997-98; Geoffrey Hole, 1989-90; Martin Wilk, 1986-87; and Ivan Fellegi, 1981. Two of these, namely Wilk and Fellegi, also served as chief statisticians of Canada.

In addition, the society has benefited greatly from the involvement of many members from Statistics Canada. The society has six sections. Each focuses on an area of special interest to members. The survey methods section was one of the first two established, and it has always had dedicated support of members from Statistics Canada. This includes organizing invited paper sessions at the annual meetings and the organization and delivery of workshops on topics of interest to survey methodologists and graduate students.

The society believes that policy decisions should be based on evidence, and this usually involves data. Good data, whether from a survey, census, or other source, rely on both statistical design used to generate the data and on the choice of appropriate statistical methods to summarize the data. Administrative data—for example, tax data and health records—play an increasingly important role in official statistics. The use of appropriate statistical methods is important there as well. For example, the use of such data often involves record linkage, requiring both probability and statistics, and hence the importance of appropriate data and valid statistical interpretations.

The society participated in this committee's hearings, and lobbied extensively, regarding the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census in 2011-12. It also provided a letter of support of a private member's bill, to reinstate the mandatory long form, in early 2015. The society welcomes the opportunity to continue to provide its expert guidance on matters of statistical methods and procedures for the collection and summary of data.

In the brief time I've had to consult with colleagues, the views expressed on Bill C-36 have been unanimously positive. It's a step in the right direction, and it's making important changes to the Statistics Act.

I have a few recommendations, mostly related to how the Statistical Society of Canada can continue to make a positive impact on the collection and summary of official statistics in Canada.

The first recommendation is to have a formal search committee for chief statistician that would search widely, worldwide, for the best candidates. This short list of candidates would then be submitted for cabinet's consideration.

Second, consider consulting with the Statistical Society of Canada when seeking members to serve on such a search committee for the purposes of putting forward this short list of candidates.

Third, the Statistical Society of Canada is supportive of the establishment of the Canadian statistics advisory committee. It is recommended that it include members of the Statistical Society of Canada. This could be the president, but it might also be his or her designate.

I thank you and would be happy to answer questions.

[Dr. Margrit Eichler, President, Our Right to Know]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to speak before you. Permit me to briefly introduce myself. I am a retired professor of sociology and equity studies. I taught at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto until 2011. I am here in my capacity as president of Our Right to Know. We are a registered advocacy group with the mandate to advocate for the free conduct, communication, publication, and archiving of research. Our slogan is “Public Science for the Public Good”.

The major data gathering institution in Canada is Statistics Canada. The well-being of Statistics Canada is therefore close to our hearts. Although there are a number of issues that could be addressed, I will restrict myself to only one point: the relationship between Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada. When we learned that the former chief statistician had resigned in protest over the lack of independence of Statistics Canada, we contacted him to learn more. While I have never met Mr. Smith face to face, there have been many written and oral exchanges. What we learned from these alarmed us. We then contacted a number of experts to compare their view of the situation with that of Mr. Smith's. We found no reason to doubt his integrity and veracity.

The minister, in his remarks during the debate in the second reading of Bill C-36, made it clear that high-quality data are needed to be able to make informed policy decisions. He makes a strong and convincing case that this requires independence of the national statistical service. If passed, the bill will increase the political independence of Statistics Canada. We strongly applaud the intent of the bill on this count. However, given such clearly stated intent, it is puzzling that there is no assurance of administrative independence.

Imagine that you were the chef for a huge gala dinner for hundreds of people. The contract has been signed. The overall framework has been agreed upon, the menu has been decided, the serving times have been set, the sous-chefs will be hired. Then, you find out that there is an unanticipated wrinkle: there is a housemaster who will determine which and how many pots you can use at what time, how many burners you may use at what time, and how many and which sous-chefs you may hire. In other words, you realize that you would be in a position of responsibility without the authority to make sure that the menu can be served as planned. At this point, you would probably tell your employer to cook the meal himself.

While Statistics Canada's job is infinitely more important and complicated than creating a gala dinner, however splendid it may be, the agency does find itself in a similar situation. Bill C-36 says this, and I will quote it in an abbreviated manner:

The Chief Statistician shall.... decide, based strictly on professional statistical standards that he or she considers appropriate, the methods and procedures for carrying out statistical programs.... [and] control the operations and staff of Statistics Canada.

However, according to Wayne Smith, Shared Services Canada has complete control of the critical informatics infrastructure supporting Statistics Canada. This amounts to an effective veto power on the part of Service Canada over any project, program, or initiative of Statistics Canada that requires modifications to informatics infrastructure—and, in the world of official statistics, any significant change does.

What are the consequences of this arrangement? They include delays of major transformational projects, for instance, the integrated collection operations system and the integrated business statistics platform; an unwieldy, user-unfriendly website; idling project teams; delays in delivering needed hardware; problems in maintaining aging equipment; cost estimates disconnected from reality; and unnecessary financial difficulties.

In other words, for a statistical agency, whose primary objective is the production and dissemination of data and information, Service Canada is an inefficient system. It does not allow Statistics Canada to operate at a peak level of performance. It wastes human and financial resources.

We consulted with my former classmate and distinguished CRC Chair Monica Boyd. She is an expert user of Statistics Canada data and has been seconded three times to Statistics Canada on a visiting senior fellow basis. She described to us three of the recent problems associated with the shift to the Service Canada platform: it has become very difficult to find information; how issues are arranged is not always logical; posting of information that normally was routine now appears to be erratic. Recently a major set of analytical papers produced at Statistics Canada could not be accessed for two weeks.

She considers the relationship between Service Canada and Statistics Canada as a cancer that is slowly affecting the entire system. We argue that this is probably due to the fact that Statistics Canada has a different structure and a different logic from the other departments that are serviced by Service Canada. Most departments deliver programs and services; Statistics Canada delivers data analyses.

We also want to mention that we're not aware of any other national statistical service in a developed nation that does not grant administrative independence to its statistical service. To pass the legislation without at the same time removing Statistics Canada from under the control of Service Canada creates a serious set of problems that cannot but hurt what we all want: a truly independent Statistics Canada.

We therefore strongly recommend that complete authority to run its own operations be returned to Statistics Canada in order to enable it to fulfill its duties as outlined in Bill C-36.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We're going to get started, as we have quorum.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 56 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 7, we are continuing our study on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act.

Today, from Our Right To Know, we have Margrit Eichler, the president, and from the Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development, we have Paul Schreyer, the deputy director of the statistics directorate, who is with us by video conference all the way from France. Bonjour.

We also have, from the Statistical Society of Canada, Brian Allen, the past president and, as an individual, Jean-Guy Prévost, a professor in the political science department at Université du Québec à Montréal.

We're going to get right into it.

Margrit Eichler, you have up to 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

A hearty thank you to our panellists; you've been very informative and given us lots to think about.

Before we break I just want to do a quick housekeeping. On the 11th of next week we have three more witnesses, perhaps four, we're still working on a fourth. The 13th—as you know, it's the day before Good Friday—is going to be a regular committee day for us. We are pushing the minister from 8:45 to 9:45. He's going to go from 9:45 to 10:45. In the first hour we're going to talk about our Washington, D.C., trip because we won't see each other before then. We really need to button down our witnesses and so on. Beyond that we're in Washington, and when we get back on the 4th we will be doing clause-by-clause. I did forget to say that on April 20 your amendments are due for Bill C-36; that's very important. We're leaving the 9th open for potentially more clause-by-clause if we need it. If not we can move other things forward to that day.