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.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on this occasion, as you mentioned at the outset, with regard to the tabling of the 2019-20 main estimates.

It's my intention to share with this committee the details of the continued implementation of our government's innovation and skills plan. That's what's reflected in the budget, and the estimates as well.

My comments will be brief. I want to allow the maximum amount of time for questions.

However, before I go further, I'd like to thank this committee for its ongoing review of the Copyright Act as well as its invaluable efforts and reports on the Canadian manufacturing sector; innovation and technology; intellectual property and technology transfer—which was very helpful for us when we unveiled our first national IP strategy—and broadband connectivity, of course. Your committee has also studied Bill C-25 and Bill C-36, as well as Canada's anti-spam legislation. Long story short, Mr. Chair, our government greatly values these contributions. They have helped shape our innovation agenda.

We are well on our way to accomplishing our goals, but we know there is much left to do. That is why I am here today to discuss the proposed budget allocation of $8.6 billion in the 2019-20 main estimates for the ISED portfolio and to answer any questions that you may have. I am seeking your continued support as we advance the innovation and skills plan.

Allow me to provide some examples of what's in that budget, particularly in the main estimates.

One issue that's very important to us, and that many of you are aware of, is CanCode. To develop the digital economy, our CanCode program has helped more than one million students learn digital and coding skills. It's more than simply coding. It's about collaboration. It's about teamwork. It's about preparing young people for the jobs of tomorrow.

Budget 2019 seeks to provide an additional $60 million over the next two years. Because of that initial success, we've allocated additional funds to help another million young students gain new digital skills. It's not only about the kids; it's also about the teachers. We're empowering many teachers to learn how to teach how to code as well so they can provide additional opportunities for future generations.

Broadband is another area that's very important and that's come up often in the many conversations this committee has had, and of course in our travels across the country.

To ensure we have the infrastructure to put the skills to use, which I just highlighted with regard to CanCode, budget 2019 proposes $1.7 billion for high-speed Internet access.

I look forward to working with my colleague Minister Jordan to implement this funding. Our government is committed to this initiative. It complements the connect to innovate program that we launched a few years ago, and we were able to leverage a billion dollars' worth of support in total through that program.

The next item I want to talk about is superclusters.

We've supported the creation of five innovation superclusters. These superclusters will strengthen key sectors of our economy, which will attract international investment.

In doing so, these superclusters are building innovation ecosystems that bridge the gap from idea to commercialization to growing global firms. It's really about creating this ecosystem. I think you'll find this stat very important as well. Superclusters are expected to create 50,000 jobs and to grow Canada's economy by $50 billion over the next 10 years. This is really about growth and jobs, and about continued global leadership for Canada when it comes to our innovation economy.

Complementing this initiative, we are providing new sources of capital for large-scale innovation projects, as well. One such project that is very important to highlight, and that impacts many of our communities, is the strategic innovation fund, SIF. Through the SIF, we have announced contributions of $1.2 billion, leveraging investments of $15.3 billion. We not only are making these investments but also have seen significant leveraged dollars. We're expected to create, again, tens of thousands of jobs. These range from, of course, the automotive sector, which is very critical to our economy, to the aerospace sector to food processing to digital technologies.

If you're counting, that's more than 100,000 jobs from just those two initiatives. I'm talking about superclusters and SIF. I just wanted to highlight some of those key initiatives in my opening remarks as well.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the recently launched digital charter, which is central to the next phase of our innovation and skills plan. Under the digital charter, individual privacy and business innovation are complementary, not competing, priorities. This approach supports an environment in which business models that rely on leveraging data for growth put an even bigger premium on trust. This is really about creating and building trust in the digital world. Trust and growth should be mutually reinforcing principles. You can't have one at the expense of the other.

Our government's investments under the innovation and skills plan are working. Since October 2015, Canada's economic growth has led the G7 and unemployment is at a record low.

By building on Canada's competitive advantages—the most highly educated workforce in the world, unrivalled access to global markets and low costs for doing business—companies are growing in Canada, coming to Canada and investing in Canada.

Let me give you a quick snapshot. I'm an accountant; I like numbers. In 2018, we saw the highest levels of venture capital investments since the early 2000s. It was $4.6 billion. That's clearly an indication of how we're turning a corner. We're seeing additional investments—particularly late-stage investments—in companies that are scaling and growing. Foreign direct investment grew by nearly 60% as well, which is really important to know.

We're seeing nearly twice as many Canadian companies on their way to the billion-dollar mark, which is a true sign of global competitiveness. We call them unicorns. How do we create more Shopifys? How do we create more large-scale companies that are growing and creating jobs? Right now, we have 20 in the pipeline that are well on their way to doing that.

Canada has become one of the world's best places to live and do business. We saw that recently at two conferences. Collision in Toronto and C2 Montreal highlighted again how the world is coming to Canada to take advantage of all the opportunities here.

Our world-class workforce and cutting-edge infrastructure is attracting investment and opportunities.

Our government is committed to building a strong and innovative economy that benefits all Canadians.

Once again, I thank this committee for its work and for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Criminal Code

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to parlay a little off what my hon. colleague before me had to say. It was very interesting that she very much went around the concept of standing up for violence against women.

This bill is, again, one of these things where the Liberals say they are trying to do one particular thing, and then they go off and do something completely different. When this bill was introduced, the minister said that this was going to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and reduce court delays. The Liberals then just seemed to water down a whole bunch of sentences to reduce backlogs in the courts. They also wanted to improve and streamline bail hearings.

The goals they stated off the top were laudable. I think everyone in this place has the goal to make the justice system work better. That is something I think everyone who comes to this place can agree on. How we get there is where we disagree. If Bill C-75 actually accomplishes some of these things, we would definitely be on the right track.

Conservatives always look at the justice system from the point of view of the victim. It seems to me that the Liberals always want to look at it from the point of view of the perpetrator.

My first concern about this bill is that it is an omnibus bill. It is a mashup of various other policies. We have seen, over the time I have been here, that bills are introduced, and they keep being added to. I think Bill C-36 has been put in here, and a number of other bills have been lumped in with this bill. We have seen the progression of that. Now it is this monstrosity of a bill that is fairly unmanageable. As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton pointed out earlier, we had the opportunity to fix a number of these things earlier on, but the government has dithered on some of them.

A lot of people say that I am always criticizing the government, so could I just point out every now when it does something good. There are some good pieces in here. Bill C-75 would increase the maximum term for repeat offenders involved in intimate partner violence, and it would provide that the abuse of an intimate partner would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. I am totally supportive of that.

I am also supportive of the reverse onus for bail in the case of domestic assault. Indeed, I have written letters to the justice minister on that as well. Women who have been violently assaulted by their spouses should have confidence that the justice system will protect their interests and put their safety first.

Another important element of Bill C-75 is that the act of strangulation would be made a more serious level of assault. I am totally fine with that as well.

There are a number of areas I have concerns about in this bill, particularly the way it treats human trafficking. With such significant changes, we would have expected the government to consult widely. Over the last number of years, I have been working with a lot of groups that are concerned about the human trafficking happening right here in Canada. We suggested that these folks contact the justice committee to try to become witnesses at the committee.

The justice committee heard from 95 witnesses on Bill C-75. Over 70% of the witnesses at the justice committee were justice system lawyers, which would totally make sense if this bill was about streamlining the justice system. We would want lawyers to show up. However, this bill is not predominantly about that. It is predominantly about lowering sentences for a whole raft of different offences.

When we are dealing with a bill that would lower sentences, or hybridize these offences, which I think is the term that is used, certainly we should hear from some of the groups that represent the victims of some of these offences. However, we did not hear much from them at all. Just over 10% of those groups came to committee.

With respect to law enforcement, we would think that because they are the people who have to enforce these laws and use the Criminal Code to charge people that perhaps we should hear from them as well. Do members know how many police officers were heard at this committee? Out of 95 witnesses, one police officer showed up or was asked to come. That was also kind of disturbing.

From my limited experience travelling across the country, I know that the issues people face in northern Alberta and in Peace River country are quite a bit different from the issues people face in downtown Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver and across the territories. To hear from one police officer how the bill would affect his job seems to me to be limited, particularly when it deals with a whole bunch of different areas the police work in.

The police work every day to keep us safe, and they rely on Parliament to make sure that they have laws they can use. It seems to me that we should have heard particularly from victims and police officers. To have only one police officer, out of 95 witnesses, seems a little interesting.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-75 would make significant changes to some of our human trafficking offences, changing them from indictable to these hybrid offences. As legislators, we are about to vote on these changes. It is important that we make informed decisions. Are these amendments going to be useful for police officers fighting human trafficking? We do not know, because again, we heard from only one police officer, and he was not able to address specifically the human trafficking aspect.

What we know is that at committee, not a single organization that works to fight human trafficking across the country was consulted on these changes. In fact, many of these human trafficking units across the country have no idea that these changes could even be coming into effect, which could be a problem, given that the police are investigating crimes as we speak but would now have pieces of the Criminal Code disappear or be reduced. It may be a problem for them.

I would also urge my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that there is better representation of victims and law enforcement during the Senate hearings on Bill C-75. As we know, the bill will be going to the Senate quickly, as just this morning, we were voting on the closure motion for this particular bill.

Clause 106 of the bill would change the material benefit from trafficking offence and the destroying documents trafficking offence. These offences would be changed from indictable to hybrid offences.

The chair of the justice committee was here. I have debated him before on this. He said that we need to ensure that there is leeway within the law, and I agree with him. He used the example of assault and said that there is a great variance in assault, from minor fisticuffs in the parking lot to someone being left for dead. He said that we need to be able to have variance in the law for that, from being able to issue a fine. My point to him on this particular section is that there should be a minimum for material benefit from human trafficking. Could he give me an example of a fairly minor human trafficking occasion? That seems to me to be ridiculous.

Modern-day slavery is an affront to humanity, and there ought to be a minimum sentence of more than just a fine. I think all of us standing in this place would agree. I do not care if one is the nicest slave-owner on the planet, it is still slavery, and there ought to be a minimum sentence for that and not merely a fine. I was very frustrated by that. The other thing is that this will be downloaded to the provincial courts.

We know that the vast majority of human trafficking victims in this country are female. The vast majority are very young, and about half of them are indigenous. We need to ensure that the risk of being caught for human trafficking outweighs the ability to make money from it.

The justice committee in the past, in a different study, heard that human traffickers make between $1,500 and $2,000 a day from a trafficked individual. Under Bill C-75, the trafficker would face a maximum $5,000 fine. A trafficker who is trafficking a young person in this country can make up to $300,000 a year. A $5,000 fine is ridiculous. That is just be the cost of doing business for that individual.

The other thing is that this would take away consecutive sentencing for human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are afraid to come forward because they fear that it would then just be a short time before their pimp would be back out on the street hunting them down.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Wayne Smith, the former chief statistician, said that Bill C-36—this is your bill that you had in the House of Commons—does nothing to prevent a repeat of the uproar after the 2011 switch from mandatory to voluntary long-form census.

We're back here now, and I can understand the reservations of people, because the reality is that data will be mined down to your postal code in terms of influencing consumer behaviour. Bill C-36 is different on a couple of things from the bill I had, and I would like your opinion on these things to end this meeting.

One of the biggest things was that the chief statistician would be responsible to Parliament, similar to the Auditor General, and wouldn't be the creature of the office of the Minister of Industry, as it is right now. Would you agree to that change?

Another thing would be, would you actually fulfill the promise that you had in your election platform with regard to making a new appointment process that's different from what we have right now?

Last, will the Statistics Canada department continue to be the one that actually gets the data from Canadians, and not Shared Services Canada?

Those were the divergent points. I agree that data is a very important point, but what is just as important is the quality of the data and also the empowerment and the personal confidence people have in giving it. In this situation, the chief statistician has undermined his own process, because people will change their banking ways with what's taken place.

On those three things, can you give at least some guidance in terms of whether you would change Parliament and the Statistics Act to create a culture of inclusion and accountability for the position of the office?

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

Yes, the deputy can speak to the specifics of what that's for. As I mentioned before, though, we do have a proud record when it comes to Statistics Canada. On day one, we reintroduced the mandatory long-form census. As we committed in the platform, through legislation, Bill C-36, we dealt with its independence, reinforcing and strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada.

Right now, we're going through a modernization process to make sure that it is able to succeed going forward in the new knowledge economy, to make sure that we use other datasets and administrative datasets to provide good-quality, reliable data for policy-makers.

With respect to the $7.5 million, Deputy, do you want to speak to that?

[Michael Chong]

I understand that.

Look, it's important to acknowledge that the previous government made a mistake when it cancelled the mandatory long-form census. It was clear that Munir Sheikh resigned as chief statistician as a result of that, but your government has not done a very good job of managing Statistics Canada either.

You had Wayne Smith, the subsequent chief statistician to Munir Sheikh, resign in protest to your government's management of Statistics Canada. You promised to make Statistics Canada fully independent from the department in the last election campaign. On page 37 of your platform, you said you'd make it fully independent, but Bill C-36 doesn't in fact do that.

In fact, before the election you argued that the chief statistician should be nominated by an outside committee, but when Wayne Smith resigned, you unilaterally appointed his successor. Now we have the fiasco of this pilot project, where the proposal is to obtain the personal financial data of millions of Canadians at a granular level that's never been seen before.

You know, when people fill out the mandatory long-form census, they imply their consent or face consequences for not filling it out, and they know exactly what information they're providing to the Government of Canada. With this pilot project, you're basically getting the data through the back door, through the banks, and it's very personal information. It's about whether somebody purchased personal hygiene products at Shoppers Drug Mart, or whether they paid for psychological services at a therapist, or whether they purchased a beer at a bar, and when they did it. This is data that is far more intrusive than anything we've seen before at a level that would make Alphabet and Amazon blush. We're talking about very personal information from millions of Canadians—hundreds of thousands, if not millions of households.

This is why this has raised the ire of so many people. What's particularly egregious about this pilot project is that it's going to be used by some of the largest corporations in the world. Yes, we know that the data will be scrubbed and cleaned up and aggregated on a postal code basis, but nevertheless the reality is that this data is going to be used by some of the largest companies in the world in order to market their services to Canadians. Your government proposed to use the coercive power of the state under the Statistics Act to get this data. It's a big-time overreach on the part of your government, and I think it reflects poor management of Statistics Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Bill C-36 actually moved the statistical analysis and collection from Statistics Canada to Shared Services.

Do you still support that decision? It is what led to the problem we have now. It's a new data collection, and you're describing it in House of Commons testimony as a “pilot project”. Are you going to confirm right now that this is absolutely a one-time thing that's happening, or now that it's moved to Shared Services this is actually the practice that was in the legislation?

[Natasha Falle, Co-Founder and Director, Sextrade101]

Thank you for the invitation to speak today. I'm going to briefly tell you a little bit of my background.

I am a survivor of both independent prostitution and forced prostitution. For seven years of my 12-year stint I was trafficked by a known pimp and felt pressured by the sex industry to gain his protection due to the amount of violence I dealt with on a daily basis by entitled and often abusive men. I was then abused not only by sex buyers, but by my pimp as well. Once he was shot twice by a pimp whose intention was to shoot me. He stabbed another man seven times for assaulting me. We were taught not to go to the police. We were taught to deal with violence with our own hands in the sex industry. Involving the police brought bad attention to their establishment. He would often tell me that I owe him my life for what he did and no one would love me the way he did. It's now been two decades and he is still a pimp, promoting himself as a stag manager with a website he probably built for free and a business licence he probably paid $120 for.

I'm going to talk a little bit about our coalition.

We are Canada's leading survivor activists regarding the sex trade industry and organized pimp violence. We offer public awareness and education on all aspects of the sex trade in order to eradicate myths and stereotypes about prostitution by replacing them with facts and true stories for women who have been enslaved by this dark and lucrative industry.

We are a group of very diverse and unique Canadian women. Our backgrounds and our stories are quite different. The common thread is prostitution. We have come together under the organization Sextrade101: Public Awareness and Education, to promote ourselves as sex trade experts, front-line workers, speakers, teachers, advocates, and activists for the rights of sex trafficking victims and prostitution survivors. Our reasons for this unity are personal to us. Our main goal is to offer a deeper insight into what the sex trade really consists of. Our stories differ one from the next. Some of us have horror stories, heartbreaking stories, stories that will make your jaw drop, and likewise powerless stories.

Aside from the sensationalism that surrounds prostitution, we want to be bold about telling you the truths within the trade. We have been collectively afraid, raped, beaten, sold, and discarded. Most of us were also children who were forgotten, neglected, abused, used, led astray, abandoned, and not protected. We believe every one should be shown a viable way out of the sex trade, not encouraged to stay in it. We believe in helping people understand the full picture of life in prostitution before they get involved and in helping women get out alive, with their minds, bodies and lives intact.

We are ready for a dialogue, for sensible, healthy communication with others who believe as we do. It's going to take a collective effort for us to abolish the world's oldest oppression. We offer first-hand knowledge of the barriers people face when trying to get out, and stay out, and we create opportunities for positive change for those enslaved by the sex trade and/or sex trafficking.

One of the items up for discussion today is the human trafficking strategy to combat human trafficking. This strategy is divided into four parts: the prevention of human trafficking, the protection of victims, the prosecution of offenders, and working in partnership with others both domestically and internationally. The only major comment we have about the human trafficking strategy is about prevention. These are the steps that were to be implemented for the goal fo prevention: promote training for front-line services, support and develop human trafficking awareness campaigns within sex trafficking, provide assistance to communities to identify places and people most at risk, and strengthen child protection systems within the Canadian International Development Agency's programs targeting children and youth.

That's all good, but there has been no coordinated effort do defund the sex industry. Reducing the money that fuels the sex industry requires that men be discouraged from purchasing sexual services. This is the only way we can expect to see a reduction in sex trafficking.

Some will say that traffickers are really bad and sex buyers aren't doing anything wrong, so we must go after the bad guys, the traffickers. Traffickers do it for two reasons, mainly for the money and secondarily for the notoriety. Therefore, if the market demand is high, if the money is available for the taking, trafficking will happen. Police enforcement against trafficking does not reduce human trafficking rates because being pursued by law enforcement, and even going to prison, helps the traffickers achieve the same notoriety as a gangster. Contrast that with police enforcement against buying sex; sex buyers are much less likely to buy sex if they know being arrested is a realistic possibility.

Sadly, john sweeps have been greatly reduced since the Bedford challenge to the prostitution law. Even with the new prostitution legislation, Bill C-36, purchasers of sex are supposed to be criminalized, yet very few are.

Academic studies do not support the notion that normalizing and regulating prostitution reduces human trafficking. However, there are many academic studies from around the world that indicate that enforcement against the purchase of sexual services does achieve that goal. Information to the contrary, used by the pro-prostitution lobby, is merely anecdotal. It is not credible and must therefore be disregarded.

Prostitution is violence, sexual violence, and discrimination at the hands of sex buyers for the profits of the sex trade, including pimps and brothel owners. Prostitution is gendered and preys on the most vulnerable women and girls. Of the 40 million to 42 million prostituted individuals in the world, 80% are female, and three-quarters are between the ages of 13 and 25.

Prostitution in many countries, and in Canada, under the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, is seen as incompatible with women's equality and human rights.

The PCEPA already decriminalizes prostituted women in almost every situation, so why would the Liberal Party want to decriminalize pimping?

With no debate or information provided, the Liberal Party voted in favour of a resolution calling for the decriminalization of pimping and the repeal of Bill C-36, despite the fact that both the Conservative and Liberal parties had legal experts review Bill C-36 and found it to be unconstitutional.

We are survivors, and very few of us have been asked for our input at the tables. Also, we are extremely disturbed that you would refer to exploited women and girls as sex workers. Sex work and sex worker are terms that were invented by the sex trade to normalize exploitation and mask the harm of prostitution.

We are asking why the government is being influenced by the pro-decriminalization, pro-pimping lobby, in violation of Canadian and international law.

All women and children have a right to equality before and under the law, as well as the right to dignity and the right to live free of prostitution and violence in all its forms. We have the right to be protected from men who proposition us for sex and think their money can buy all women and girls.

You must understand the relationship between prostitution and sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is the engine that pimps and traffickers use to bring their victims to prostitution. Without a vibrant sex trade, there would be no sex trafficking. It is the male demand for prostitution that fuels sex trafficking.

You already have the tools to decrease—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Well, it's funny, because I thought I heard you talk about—perhaps it was another witness—the importance of keeping the law. You certainly said that about Bill C-36. Among your recommendations at the end was the plea that we keep it, but I understand from material available to us, a report that Public Safety Canada did a couple of years ago on the national action plan to combat human trafficking, that between 2012 and 2016, there were 307 trafficking charges, cases brought, and only 45 convictions, so that law doesn't appear to be working all that well. So rather than simply keeping these laws, maybe reform is required within those laws. I just put that to you.

[Diane Redsky]

Thank you. I'm going to do a quick time check so that I use my eight minutes wisely. I'm reading from notes that I sent in advance.

I want to thank all of you for the opportunity to be here and for accommodating the video, as well as thank Joy Smith for helping me get on this important agenda.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Anishinaabe territory, both in Duluth and in Ottawa, that we all have the privilege of being on.

I have broken up my presentation into three areas. I'm going to talk fast, so I feel bad for the interpreters, but I have lots to say and I'm going to use my time wisely. Those three areas are national recommendations, promising practices, and how this committee can help the front lines. My speaking notes have been provided.

The focus of my presentation on human trafficking will be on the purposes of sexual exploitation, also known as sex trafficking. There are several intersections between labour and sex trafficking, but for the purposes of this presentation I'll only be focusing in on sex trafficking from a national, front-line, and indigenous perspective.

Please keep in mind that human trafficking is based on supply and demand. There will be always be a supply as long as there is a demand for human trafficking. Girls and women will continue to be bought and sold as long as the laws allow men to buy them. Sex trafficking is rooted in greed, misogyny, racism, classism, and sexism at its very worst. Sex trafficking is a 100% preventable crime.

Before I begin, it is important for all of us to acknowledge the survivors of sex trafficking, whether they are currently being victimized or on their lifelong healing journey. Their voice is often not heard, and I strongly encourage this committee, in a trauma-informed way, to seek their input, advice, guidance and, most importantly, their support and blessings of your recommendations.

My first point is on the national recommendations. In 2014, I was part of a national task force on sex trafficking of women and girls in Canada with the best experts and leaders in Canada. This remains the most relevant report and research on the issue and can be found on the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre website. The final task force report, entitled “No More”, outlines 34 recommendations on how to end sex trafficking in Canada. There are seven recommendations that are specific to this committee, and they are about the laws.

Number one is to enforce the human trafficking and sexual exploitation laws that we currently have.

Number two is to give trafficked women and girls a reason to come forward. We need to change the Criminal Code to focus on the traffickers' actions and not the victims' beliefs, history, or behaviour. We need to increase the civil causes of action and civil forfeiture procedures to return the profits of traffickers to victims. We need to engage expert witnesses to support victim testimony and make testimonial aids available for trafficking victims.

Number three—this is important for women to rebuild their lives—is to vacate and purge records for non-violent crimes committed as a direct result of trafficking.

Number four is to increase police capacity to provide victim-centred services.

Number five, strengthen protections for migrant women and girls.

Number six, end the municipal regulatory patchwork of Canada's sex industry.

Number seven, decriminalize women and girls who sell or who have sold sex, and undercut the demand for trafficked women and girls by criminalizing those who buy sex. This is also known as the Swedish model.

The second area I'd like to focus on is promising practices. I would ask that this committee look to the Manitoba strategy, launched in 2002. It was the first strategy in Canada to address sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. The strategy is entitled Tracia's Trust, in memory of Tracia Owen. Manitoba was the only province in Canada up until 2006 to have a strategy. Now, 14 years later, Ontario has a provincial strategy to address sexual exploitation and trafficking. I ask that you look particularly to Manitoba and the comprehensive strategy that exists, which includes a combination of services, laws, and public education and prevention, as a whole strategy .

This is comprehensive. I can't get into the whole strategy, but for the purposes of today, I want to highlight that Manitoba invests $11 million in that provincial strategy to address sexual exploitation and trafficking. This is based on a population of 1.2 million. No other province even comes close to the amount of investment that Manitoba makes, and this is still not enough.

However, as a result of the provincial strategy, several unique resources have been developed. At Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, we opened up one of the first safe houses for girls 13 to 17, and we operate the only rural healing lodge in Canada for child victims of sex trafficking. That was opened in 2010. We also have specialized training programs for survivors.

Our great success in Manitoba has been because of local action led by grassroots community, by indigenous women leaders, and by an experiential advisory committee of survivors who are guiding and directing the development of service. Who best to answer the questions and give us the answers but experiential women, women with lived experience?

Manitoba also has a dedicated provincial human trafficking hotline. We also have a dedicated prosecution office that specializes in sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Winnipeg has one of the rare policing agencies in Canada with a specialized counter–sexual exploitation unit with the best and brightest of our law enforcement officers, because we need that in order to address the demand and help women.

Most importantly, these services are developed, led, and operated by many indigenous organizations, along with survivors of sex trafficking, because of the overrepresentation of indigenous girls. I emphasize the word “girls”. These are girls who are under the age of 18 who are targeted for sex trafficking. There's a huge market for indigenous women and girls to victimize.

We have the only provincial human trafficking act, which I encourage you to look at as well. There is also collaboration with our United States partners in North Dakota. Manitoba and North Dakota have a network of agencies and law enforcement that are working together, because sex trafficking doesn't care about borders.

What we hear from our girls at Hands of Mother Earth—our rural healing lodge that we've operated since 2010 and our safe house—and what we know about the victimization of indigenous girls 13 to 17 is that their sexual exploitation started young, as young as 9. They are groomed and lured both online and in person. Girls from northern first nation communities are at particular risk.

The control by the trafficker can take on many forms. He poses as a boyfriend, a drug dealer, an uncle, a father figure, a daddy, or an older man supplying them with drugs and a place to stay. They are coerced to perform sex acts as many as six to 10 times a day, seven days a week, and hand over their money or bring the equivalent of drugs back. Survivors describe this experience as multiple incidents of paid rape.

Meth is becoming a huge factor in controlling girls. A girl is more profitable to a trafficker than an adult woman. Trauma bonding with their trafficker makes it very difficult to intervene within that relationship, and we really need to understand that power dynamic. Most are trafficked because they are children in the care of Child and Family Services, and many of them have had multiple placements in their lives.

Who makes up the demand? There are many men. It's not just a few doing lots of bad things. There are lots of men doing bad things. The traffickers are just as diverse as the demand and the men who are sexually abusing and violating our girls. Unlike drugs, which you can only sell once, human trafficking is all about recruiting and luring women and girls because one woman or girl can be sold over and over again. We don't just have a few victims in Manitoba. We have hundreds of girls in Manitoba each day.

I also have to acknowledge the power of survivors. These girls have been let down by systems and adults their entire little life. Yet, under the right kind of supportive environment—trauma-informed; indigenous-led; survivors employed as helpers, which we refer to as heart medicine work—they thrive on their healing journey, and many have become survivor leaders. In fact, our rural healing lodge and safe house currently employs several young women who were once in the program and now work for the program to help other girls.

The third part—and I've almost finished—is that I have four recommendations to this committee on how this committee can help.

One, renew the national action plan, and when you renew it, emphasize this time the funding to front-line services.

Two, data collection is critically important, but don't let that hold you back. Do that in conjunction with other policy and funding programs. We just need a coordinated way and one definition. While some are looking to answer how many trafficking victims there are, there are front-line organizations like ours, and many others on the ground, who can’t keep up with the volume of victims who are coming forward.

Three, we need a whole improvement of victim service strategy that is directly connected to lifelong healing and not contingent on being involved in the court system. We lose too many girls to suicide while they go through the court system. Women and girls need that support in order to rebuild their lives. Finally, but very importantly, to build on what Joy Smith was saying, do not repeal Bill C-36. Please, please make sure with regard to Bill C-36, the protection of communities and exploited persons act. Advocates like me and many others across Canada have worked really hard to bring the voices of victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking into this conversation. Our experience has come from many years of working on the front lines with girls and women whose voices are often not heard.

Buying sex from women and girls is violence against women, period. The most harmful impacts are to indigenous women and girls. We need the laws to benefit us and not perpetuate racism and create further harm. We have to make the laws work for indigenous women and girls rather than make it easier for perpetrators to victimize. If Bill C-36 is repealed, it will completely immobilize our ability to protect women and girls from perpetrators. You will make traffickers entrepreneurs, and tie the hands of police to address the high demand. For example, Winnipeg police made 84 arrests in 2016, doubled that in 2017, and will continue to do so. We need those tools for police in order to address the demand.

It makes sense to criminalize the demand. I am hopeful that since we looked to our Swedish friends for guidance on launching Canada’s women’s equality budget, we can also continue to keep the current Canadian version of the Swedish model in Bill C-36 that criminalizes the purchase of sex while ensuring that victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking are not criminalized.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief)—Chapter 23.

Bill S-211, An Act respecting National Sickle Cell Awareness Day—Chapter 24.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général)—Chapter 25.

Bill C-60, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain Acts and provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect—Chapter 26.

Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United States—Chapter 27.

Bill C-277, An Act providing for the development of a framework on palliative care in Canada—Chapter 28.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018—Chapter 29.

Bill S-236, An Act to recognize Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation—Chapter 30.

Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act—Chapter 31.

Statistics Act

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's interventions in the House, especially when he is particularly tired, as he is tonight. It is even more entertaining than usual.

Perhaps if he wants to look back at former prime ministers, he needs look no further than where his riding gets its name: Louis St. Laurent, one of the greatest prime ministers ever. I commend anyone to take a look at the statue in front of the Supreme Court when they have time to kill between now and when we go home for the summer.

Why does my hon. friend keep saying it was a success after 2011? Statistics Canada deemed it an absolute failure. It had to give warnings on the results: use the results at one's own peril because it could not guarantee their validity. How does he think that is a successful database for Statistics Canada to use? It did not work, it was a failure, and that is why we are here today. That is why one of the first things we did was reinstate the long-form census. We are improving it even more with Bill C-36.

I know when the member is not so tired, he will come around to his senses and support Bill C-36.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize, because I am a bit tired. I just slept three hours last night, and I have been on duty since 10 o'clock this morning. I am very tired, and I am sorry if I am not very enthusiastic tonight.

Let me talk about Bill C-36. When we change a Canadian government institution, it is quite important, and it is based on facts and based on problems. That is why 10 years ago, our government decided to fix the situation with a new way of getting information from people, and we had strong and robust results. More than 90% of Canadians participated in that survey. Everything was good at that time.

Why does the Liberal government want to change that? The Liberals want Canadians to provide their personal information to the bibliothèque du Canada. We have to be very careful when we ask people to give personal information. That is why we are concerned about those two issues in Bill C-36. That is why we hope the government will fix it with new policies, good policies, that are good for Canada and good for Canadians.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble getting a question out of that speech, but I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for giving us a tour around some very disturbing thoughts.

We had started the evening talking about Bill C-36. One of the things about the bill is it shows a legitimate role for politics, but not for partisanship. We have to look at what is best for the country.

When we look at partisanship we get things like we had in the member's speech, which really do not apply to statistics. When we are looking at the governance of Statistics Canada, we need to separate this House from that House, otherwise that is what we get.

Could the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent tell us what the role of Statistics Canada would be, in his mind, in terms of an independent organization.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a nice crowd tonight, to say the least.

It is with great pleasure that I rise tonight, at 10 p.m., to speak to Bill C-36 before such a large and prestigious audience. I know that I am not allowed to say it, but I am pleased to acknowledge the presence of the member for Papineau on this Tuesday evening at 10:05 p.m. It is hard for me to believe, but he is actually here. I am pleased to welcome him just like all other members of the House of Commons who are present and listening carefully to what we are saying.

Bill C-36 concerns the Statistics Act, in other words our approach to statistics, and the changes that the Liberal government wishes to make to it. I will quickly point out the circumstances surrounding the Statistics Act, which has been amended in recent years, the changes made to it, what the various political parties have said, and lastly, the fact that the Liberal government has introduced this bill that, in our opinion, includes provisions that are not favourable to Canada’s future.

I would like to point out that in 2010-11, the Conservative government made major changes to statistics, specifically the Canadian census. Our government decided to change the approach. We decided to change, in a fairly major way, the mandatory long form census and replace it with the national household survey. Everyone who witnessed this debate will remember the public outcry. Everyone said that it was the end of the world, that it made no sense, that from then on we would never be able to come up with proper statistics, that it was a direct attack on Canadian science, and that we would be paying for the Conservative government’s mistake for a long time, for decades, if not centuries.

However, what was the outcome? Let the experts speak for themselves. Wayne Smith, then chief statistician, said that the “National Household Survey produced a rich and robust database of information.”

All those who said that what the Conservative government had done made no sense were confused. It was Mr. Smith himself who said in the Globe and Mail on June 24, 2013 that “It’s irresponsible to try and dissuade Canadians from using what is an extraordinary rich and powerful database. To make them nervous about that is I think irresponsible.”

I will have a lot to say about so-called fake news shortly. Some people seem to think fake news is a pretty new thing, but that is not true. As a former journalist, I know what I am talking about when it comes to the spread of false information. I have seen it happen as a journalist and as a politician, especially during the 2015 election campaign, when Canada was a victim of one of the worst smear campaigns against its international reputation. One particular bit of fake news tarnished its reputation for 24 hours. I will have more to say about that later.

Anyway, there were allegations that the Conservative government's infamous survey was a disaster and that people would stop filling out their census forms. The numbers speak for themselves, however: in 2011, 2,657,000 households with a total of exactly 6.7 million people participated voluntarily. That was 9% higher than for the 2006 census, which captured 2.4 million households representing 6.1 million people.

Everyone who said that the Conservative government's changes spelled disaster for science and education and that the impact would be felt for decades was wrong. As it turned out, more people participated, we had more data, and we ended up with a robust corpus of relevant information. What the previous government did was the right thing to do.

Now this government has introduced Bill C-36 to make major changes to the Statistics Act. I want to highlight two elements of Bill C-36, which would establish a Canadian statistics advisory council and no longer require the consent of respondents to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada. The second element is the one that concerns us most.

Let us start by talking about the Canadian statistics advisory council. As Bill C-36 proposes, this council will be made up of just a few people who will have sweeping powers and who will not reflect the Canadian reality. That is our concern.

We would like to see at least 20 or so people be included on this advisory council. Such a council should be all about consulting. Yes, that is a lot people, but when it is about listening to people, in order to understand Canadian diversity and ensure that every region of Canada can have its say, of course it takes a lot of people. That is why our party proposed an amendment at committee that this government unfortunately rejected.

Did this government plan to appoint a small number of people to this advisory council for the same reason that it seems to be doing everything else for nearly two years now? Is this another new cushy job for friends of the party, depending on how much they donated to the party?

Need I remind the House that this government is a disgrace to the appointments process? We saw the sorry episode regarding the official languages commissioner, a noble, important, and rigorous position that must be respected and above all, that must have the moral authority to be brutally honest about the government's reality, without ever jeopardizing the credibility of that very strong institution, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Sadly, the current Liberal government has sullied this approach by giving a consolation prize to a lifelong Liberal who donated to the Liberal Party's coffers and the current Prime Minister's leadership coffers. She wanted a job in the Senate. The Prime Minister's chief advisor said, “Sorry, we no longer give partisan appointments to the Senate, but we have something else.” He could appoint her to a totally neutral and objective role and make her official languages commissioner.

That was just wrong and as a result of the immense pressure from the official opposition and others as well, after three weeks of the government's sorry figure skating display, Madame Meilleur finally realized that she might not be the best Liberal around to fill the role of commissioner of official languages.

Let us come back to Bill C-36. As I was saying earlier, this bill seeks to remove the requirement to gain the consent of respondents to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada.

We believe that is a direct attack on what is most precious to our fellow citizens: their freedom of expression, especially in relation to who they are, what they represent, and their personal data.

In its new obsession to want to know everything and disclose everything, the government is suggesting, through Bill C-36, that now people will no longer have the privilege of saying yes or no. They will be required to hand over information. To us that is not at all the way to go about conducting a statistical survey. This needs to be voluntary, especially when it comes to disclosing personal information. We cannot just pretend that this is nothing and that we can just hand over this information like it were no big deal.

This calls for extreme care and vigilance. The bill also repeals imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. That makes no sense to us. We urge the government to be more careful.

We believe in the importance of statistical data, but people must be able to participate voluntarily, proactively, and openly. It should not be mandatory, and people certainly should not be forced to do it or face sanctions. We can learn from the past here. In 2011, people said the statistical sky would come falling down, but the fact is that more Canadians, 9% more, participated than in the previous census. The evidence tells us that was a good way to go.

That is why we fundamentally disagree with Bill C-36 as written and urge people, especially the government, to be extremely careful

Earlier, I mentioned fake news. I mention this in the context of statistics because, during the debate in 2010-11, lots of people said this would be the end of the world and everything would break down.

Finally, the Chief Statistician of Canada acknowledged that no problems had been reported. On the contrary, response rates increased.

Must I remind the House that Canada's international reputation was terribly tarnished in August and September 2015, in the middle of the election campaign? Members will sadly recall that, when a three-year-old child was found dead on a beach in Syria in the midst of the refugee crisis, some malicious and particularly dishonest people spread the information that the child ought to have been in Canada because his name was on the list of refugees but the government had dragged its feet. In the end, none of it was true. Unfortunately, the child's name was never added to any list. His father did not do it.

Unfortunately, for 24 hours, dishonest and malicious people viciously spread the information that the Government of Canada forgot this boy in Syria. That was completely false. For 24 hours, our country's international name was dragged through the mud. This was one of the worst cases of fake news that I have ever seen. It was unbecoming of journalists and politicians to stoop so low as to use this terrible tragedy in their political games.

Regardless of who was the head of state at that moment, the child unfortunately lost his life and his name was never on any list because his father decided otherwise. That is why we have to be careful. It is important to keep statistics because it is a matter of numbers, and if anyone has trouble with numbers, it is our friends opposite. Must I remind the House that they completely lost control of the public purse over the past 18 months? They got elected by saying that they would stimulate the economy by running small deficits for three years and then magically balancing the budget in 2019. That is another number that is set out in black and white in the Liberals' election platform on which they won a majority.

I hear applause. Do I need to remind those applauding that they have forgotten their promises? What are the facts? Do we have a modest $10-billion deficit? No. Canadians have been saddled with an astounding three times more debt than that. The Liberals were elected on a solemn pledge to run modest deficits, but the fact is, their deficit is three times bigger than they promised. They also said Canada would balance the books in 2019, which is an election year. They said they would right the ship and that Canada's budget would be balanced in 2019.

Just two days ago, who did we hear on Global saying that he had no idea when Canada would balance the books? Who said that on Global on Sunday? The member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister of Canada. How sad.

Honestly, this is the first time in the history of this great land that a Prime Minister has admitted to having no idea whatsoever when the federal budget would be balanced. If I should happen to be misleading the House, please, somebody stand up and give me a date. Canadians want a date. They want to know when the government will balance the budget. Nobody knows. The member for Papineau, an honourable man if ever there was one, got himself elected on a promise to balance the books in 2019. Look at that. I see him nodding. Does he need a reminder about the document that got him elected? The Prime Minister seems to have some doubts about ever having mentioned modest deficits and a balanced budget. I would like to remind him that, on page 73 of the Liberal Party platform, it says, “the federal government will have a modest short-term deficit of less than $10 billion”.

However, he is doing precisely the opposite. We do have a number and date for returning to a balanced budget. It will be in 2055. These numbers did not come from the Conservatives, foreign observers, the Prime Minister, or Liberal MPs. They came the very people who do this kind of thing day in, day out, the senior officials at the Department of Finance.

If there is anyone that knows how the government's finances are doing, it would be officials at the Department of Finance. What does it say in the Department of Finance document released last December? It says that if nothing changes, and it looks as though nothing will change with the current Prime Minister, we will return to a balanced budget in 2055.

There is a nice story that goes with that. The Minister of Finance received this very report from his officials as early as October 5. The Minister of Finance, an honourable man whom I respect, left the report on his desk and did not release it until December 23. While Canadians were preparing their turkey dinner for Christmas, the Minister of Finance released an incriminating document confirming that the government had lost complete control of public spending. They thought it was no big deal and that no one would notice. Thanks to a vigilant opposition and an alert press, the truth came out and we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people have completely lost control over public finances, which is totally unacceptable.

Need I remind the House that when we run up deficits, we are leaving our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to foot the bill, to pay the price for the current government's mismanagement? I keep hearing the Prime Minister and all the cabinet ministers say over and over during question period that the government is investing to create wealth for our children. The problem is that our children will pay the price. The government says it is family friendly. Well, it must feel close enough to the family to send the bill to our children and grandchildren, because it does not know how to manage the country's finances. It is absurd.

I heard the Prime Minister on Global television say with a straight face that he had no idea when we would return to a balanced budget. That is completely irresponsible. I asked the Minister of Finance a completely frank and straightforward question based on his extensive and impressive experience as a seasoned executive. I want to reiterate that I have the utmost respect for the Minister of Finance. He served in his family business admirably and grew the business that his father started himself. Well done. I am very proud to have a man of that calibre as our Minister of Finance. Still, it would be nice if he made some good decisions.

Earlier, during question period, I bluntly asked him, when he was in the business world, in the private sector, whether he would have tolerated an associate laughingly telling him that he did not have any idea when the budget would be balanced and that it was no big deal. When the Minister of Finance was a Bay Street baron, would he have allowed one of his associates to behave in such a way? He would have shown him the door. It is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, it was the Prime Minister who made those disrespectful comments. I say disrespectful because it is disrespectful to our children and grandchildren who, sooner or later, will have to pay for this government's mismanagement. Over the past year, our party held its leadership race. We had serious, rigorous, positive, and constructive debates, and we came out of that leadership race even stronger than before.

Our current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, said that he got into politics to become the leader of this party because he did not want his children to have to pay, like his generation is paying for the Prime Minister's father's mismanagement. What happened in the 1970s when the government completely lost control of public spending is unfortunately happening again. We have seen this before. Canadians deserve better than that.

All that to say that Bill C-36 is a bad bill. This bill to amend the Statistics Act reminds us of the sad fact that this government has no idea how to carefully control public spending.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a late hour, and I thought some Stephen Leacock would be appropriate. Stephen Leacock once wrote, “In ancient times they didn't have statistics, so they had to fall back on lies.” However, that applies to nobody in this place, obviously.

I want to ask the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle if he does not believe, as I do believe, that it is a mistake. I realize that Shared Services can be improved, but the most knowledgeable people we have talked to in the process of looking at Bill C-36 believe that Statistics Canada should have its own information system and should not have to overlap with Shared Services Canada. There is only mischief that will come from that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be good to have a bit more French in the House. Therefore I will be giving my speech on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, in French.

The main purpose of this bill is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. At the same time, it proposes to modernize certain key provisions of the Statistics Act, in accordance with the expectations of Canadians. One of these provisions is the part of the act that deals with imprisonment.

The government recognizes the importance of high-quality statistical data and the need to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to encourage Canadians to provide information to Statistics Canada. However, the government also recognizes that Canadians should not be threatened with jail time if they fail to complete a mandatory survey, including the census.

We are not alone in thinking that this is excessive in the current context. Generally, Canadians agree that prison time for refusing to complete a mandatory survey or grant access to information is a penalty disproportionate to the offence. This is excessively heavy handed and inappropriate. That is why Bill C-36 would abolish imprisonment as a penalty for those who refuse or fail to provide the information requested as part of a mandatory survey.

The bill also abolishes imprisonment as a penalty for those who wilfully obstruct the collection of this information. In other words, once this legislation is passed, no Canadian citizen will be threatened with jail under the Statistics Act for failing to complete a mandatory survey. As a general rule, people complete the census questionnaire and all other mandatory survey questionnaires well before legal action is taken.

Statistics Canada has a thorough process that it follows before sending cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. First, Statistics Canada sends a letter to the individual and has someone visit their home. Statistics Canada does everything in its power to remind people of their civic duty before referring their case to the justice system.

Typically, with each census, approximately 50 cases are referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and the Department of Justice. Of those cases that proceed to court, the majority are resolved with the person agreeing to complete their census form when ordered by the judge. Among those cases that go to trial and where the accused is found guilty, the vast majority result in a fine.

Only once has a person ever been sentenced to jail; this occurred in 2013, after one individual refused to complete the 2011 census of population and refused other offered penalties such as community service.

The only household survey that Statistics Canada conducts on a mandatory basis is the monthly labour force survey. Statistics Canada has never referred a case to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for this survey.

All of Statistics Canada's core business surveys are conducted on a mandatory basis. Since the 1970s, Statistics Canada has not referred a single case to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for a business that has refused to comply with the act. The only time a census of agriculture case was referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada was in conjunction with failure to comply on the census of population.

Since 2010, a number of bills have been introduced in Parliament to remove imprisonment for such offences. Some may argue that removing the threat of imprisonment would increase the risk that more Canadians would choose not to respond to an information request from Statistics Canada, thereby affecting the quality of the data. However, it is important to note that the current fines will remain. The fines are fully consistent with the provisions of the Act. Also, Canadians are aware of the importance of the data produced by Statistics Canada.

We are of the view that the threat of imprisonment is not required to convince Canadians of the importance of providing information for mandatory surveys. Canadians also know and understand that Statistics Canada is a highly regarded institution, one of the best in the world, and that it values and protects the confidentiality of all data collected. With the changes we are proposing to the legislation to strengthen the agency’s independence, Canadians can be further reassured that their data will continue to be treated with the highest levels of professionalism, integrity, and confidentiality.

That brings me to another point. In the past, some people have said that, since we rarely use the provisions regarding imprisonment, it does not matter if they are removed from the act or not. We disagree. It is important that the penalties set out in the Statistics Act are in keeping with the collective vision of Canadians. Prison sentences should be reserved for more serious crimes. I think the House will agree with me on that. Let us be responsible, fair, and reasonable and eliminate that threat. That is what Bill C-36 seeks to do.

I would also like to talk a little about the rest of the bill. In 2010, the government's decision to replace the mandatory long form census with the voluntary national household survey gave rise to public criticism. Concerns were raised about the quality of the national household survey data and about Statistics Canada's independence.

In reaction to this decision, a number of private members' bills were introduced in the House that would require the collection of information by means of a mandatory long form census questionnaire that was equal in length and scope to the 1971 census.

We seriously considered that option. Instead of focusing only on protecting the census, we chose to amend the Statistics Act in order to give Statistics Canada more independence over its statistical activities. To that end, we gave the chief statistician decision-making power over statistical operations and methods. The bill also seeks to add provisions on transparency to ensure greater accountability on decisions.

This approach aligns with the United Nations’ Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics and the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development on best practices. Some might still be wondering why we would not enshrine the content of the census in law to prevent future governments from replacing the mandatory long form census with a voluntary questionnaire, as was the case during the 2011 campaign. The answer is simple: no legal provision can prevent a government from changing the content of the census.

Governments have the power to make and change laws, but more importantly, we must remember that official statistics are a public good and that Statistics Canada is a publicly funded institution. It is ultimately the government's responsibility to determine the scope of the statistical system, specifically, the country's data priorities, or in other words, the data that is collected. This responsibility ensures that the statistical information collected is sensitive to the burdens placed on citizens as respondents, that it is sensitive to the costs they bear as taxpayers, and that the information that is produced is responsive to their needs as data users.

Stastitical data must also be responsive to the government's need to make evidence-based decisions about the programs and services that affect the daily lives of Canadians, such as affordable housing, public transportation, and skills training for employment. Rather than entrench the content of the long form census questionnaire in the Statistics Act, Bill C-36 addresses the fundamental issues of Statistics Canada's independence. Let me explain why.

First, the previous government's decision about the 2011 census was not about the questions to be asked, but rather about removing the mandatory requirement to respond. The voluntary national household survey, as it was called, asked the same questions that would have been asked in the planned mandatory long form questionnaire that it replaced.

Consistent with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision making, one of our first acts as a government was to reinstate the mandatory long form census in time for the 2016 census of population to ensure that the census produces high-quality data. We also committed to strengthening Statistics Canada's independence and ensuring that the methods of operations are based on professional principles. Bill C-36 meets this commitment.

Second, entrenching the content of the census in law could reduce the government's flexibility to ensure that the data collected continuously meets the needs of an ever-evolving Canadian society and economy. We just have to look at the history of census content.

It has changed numerous times to reflect emerging issues, evolving data needs, and the development of alternative ways of collecting the information.

The first national census of Canada was taken in 1871 and contained 211 questions, including those regarding age, sex, religion, education, race, occupation, and ancestral origins.

Subject matter and questions have been added and dropped ever since. In 1931, questions on unemployment were added. In 1941, questions on fertility and housing were introduced. In 1986, questions were introduced on functional limitations. In 1991, questions about common-law relationships were introduced, and questions on same-sex couples were added in 2006. In 1996, questions on unpaid work were introduced. These were removed in 2011.

These examples signal the need for flexibility and prioritization in determining the content of a census. Entrenching census content in legislation would limit this flexibility. Amending the act every time the census needs to change would be highly impractical.

Our current approach to determining census content works. It is based on extensive user consultations and the testing of potential questions to reflect the changing needs of society and to ensure the census is the appropriate vehicle to respond to them.

Then Statistics Canada makes a recommendation to the government on the content that should be included in the upcoming census. General questions are then prescribed by order by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette for transparency purposes.

Lastly, defining the long form census content in law could potentially reduce the incentives to find alternative means to gathering census information at a lower cost and with less respondent burden.

Statistical agencies must also think about the burden that they impose on citizens and businesses to provide information, and they must do so within the fiscal resources allocated by the government.

The data world is evolving rapidly. We read and hear the words “big data”, “open data”, and “administrative data” every day.

More and more statistical offices around the world are integrating these alternative and complementary sources of information into their statistical programs.

They offer the potential to collect and publish high quality statistical information more frequently, at lower cost, and at lower response burden.

For example, for the 2016 census, Statistics Canada obtained detailed income information for all census respondents from administrative records provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. This approach will ensure that higher quality income data will be produced at a lower cost and with reduced burden on Canadians.

Entrenching the scope and content of the census in the Statistics Act may not serve Canadians well moving forward. It would tie us to one way of doing business that may not be the way of the future.

The act should remain flexible to meet the evolving data needs of Canadians and their governments. It should retain the flexibility to encourage innovation so as to take advantage of the evolving means of collecting statistical information.

Some have suggested that the census content should be the same as it was over 40 years ago and that the sample size for the long form should be entrenched in law.

The rapidly evolving world of data suggests that we should retain the flexibility to build the foundation of a statistical system of the future rather than restricting ourselves to continue to do what has been done in the past.

We think our approach to Bill C-36 strikes the right balance and will stand the test of time.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-36 regarding Statistics Canada and some of the changes that are being proposed.

As a member of the industry committee, now known as innovation, science, and economic development, I have had a large opportunity to study the bill and ask questions of witnesses. We received testimony in person and in written form.

If the bill is proceeding, Conservatives certainly have some concerns. Those concerns stem from the activity of the Liberal government to date. The government has essentially said one thing and done another. It has to do with appointments and the narrative that was proposed in terms of an objective government. We have not seen that coming from the government benches to date. I would like to go through that over the next few minutes and outline where some of these concerns lie and what we need to do to ensure they are dealt with in the future.

I try to start every speech regarding a government bill with a reading of the government's throne speech because I believe it is a good measurement to determine whether the government is reaching its mandate or following the belief system it put in front of Canadians some 18 months ago. It states:

Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.

They want to be able to trust their government.

And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.

Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

The problem is that what we have seen, whether out of the government as a whole or out of Industry Canada, and the innovation minister specifically, when it comes to appointments, they are not non-partisan. They are in fact some of the most partisan appointments we have seen to date. We can look at whether we are changing the 30 individuals currently on the advisory committee and reducing that down to 10, or we can even look at the actual members who have been appointed to the innovation council by the innovation minister to date.

I looked at who was appointed to the innovation council, and it is quite striking. When we look at the 10 individuals who were appointed to the innovation council we might think one is a Liberal donor, or maybe two. However, we would be wrong. Maybe it is three. No, five of the 10 individuals appointed to the innovation council are Liberal donors, and many of them have donated time after time.

At committee, we tried to take this on, to understand what the criteria were to appoint members to this council, or any other advisory board, by the industry minister. Unfortunately, these were shot down and we were unable to truly look into them.

As we look forward to this new committee of 10 individuals, we must also take into consideration the regional distribution. Currently, there are up to 30 members. They represent the 10 provinces and the territories. Unfortunately, there are going to be three of those 13 that will not have representation anymore. Obviously, this is a major issue.

Regional distribution on these advisory committees is essential. It is essential because the questions we may be asking, or the information we may be looking for, is different. We have a very diverse, broad, and large country. The questions we may want answered in Newfoundland could be different from those in British Columbia, they could be different from those in Ontario, and certainly the territories probably strike their own set of questions they would like to see answered and data they would like to see brought together.

The innovation council was not the only council that was cooked with Liberal donors. We also had the Advisory Council on Economic Growth from the Minister of Finance, and obviously, we had the official languages commissioner, Madeleine Meilleur, which we saw play out in the media over the last few weeks. Certainly what we have seen to date is a government that is not afraid to put Liberals into the mechanics of government to cook the pie. The reality is, if the Liberal government bakes the StatsCan pie, it can then just feed it to the Canadian people.

There is a concern that we do not have enough separation between the Liberal government and the StatsCan job, which is going to be based on the change to the advisory council and the changes that would be brought through in this piece of legislation.

The question is what possible damage could be done based on partisanship and partisan appointments. The answer is clear. In the framing of questions, if the questions themselves and the data being requested were of a partisan nature, they could be used to influence the debates within this House and influence legislation coming forward from the government. They could be used to influence the public. The reality is that we need a complete and utter separation between the two. Unfortunately, what we have seen from this government to date is that it is not willing to hold a non-partisan tone when it comes to these types of appointments.

I will give a couple of examples. The most glaring is electoral reform. There were the questions asked by the government and the way they did it, this partisan approach to gathering data. If that type of mentality is taken into this new advisory council, I think it spells a lot of trouble for our Parliament, for StatsCan, and certainly for Canadians.

On pipelines, what questions and data could be requested and used in certain ways to influence the debate in this House? The opportunities to influence the outcome of debates using StatsCan are endless.

Certainly, when we go to tax policy and economic reform, we can see the opportunity for a partisan advisory council to influence the outcome of what is happening in this place, which would inevitably influence Canadians across the country, and not in a way we would be hoping for.

Innovation and StatsCan have had a couple of run-ins since the government took office. To be fair, one of them started prior to the government taking office. That was with the resignation of the chief statistician, Wayne Smith. Mr. Smith did not believe that StatsCan should be rolled into Shared Services Canada. He believed it so strongly that he in fact offered his resignation, which was eventually accepted by the Prime Minister.

I was reading a story a while ago. I remembered it and thought I should bring it to the House today. It is from the CBC, quoting Mr. Smith:

“I made clear that if I did resign it would be with the intention of making public my concerns. So that was my last desperate bid, I guess, to persuade the government to sit down and talk about this. Didn't work,” Smith said with a smile.

I really like that quote.

The reality is that we have an objective chief statistician saying to the government—both the previous government and the current government, so I do not want to be seen as partisan—that this is not going to work for Stats Canada. Unfortunately, that was not listened to.

It is interesting because Australia and the United Kingdom both had changes to IT services, and the goal in all three countries was to save money by bringing all of the IT needs within the different government departments to a single place and obviously find savings, efficiencies, and a better and more effective way to deliver services. Those two jurisdictions, however, opted out. They determined it was not the right way to do business for their statistics agencies, for two reasons. Number one was objectivity. They wanted to maintain the separation between Stats Canada, which provides the data to those governments, almost the same type of objectivity we are asking with the appointments process. Second, they wanted to ensure that there was a quality of service for Stats Canada because at any point a failure of the IT support services can result in lost data, and lost data obviously results in bad decision-making or the potential for bad decision-making.

On that note, there is another quote that Mr. Smith made on this exact subject in the same story:

If you can't process the data, if we're constantly being interrupted by failures of equipment, then it's going to take us more time to get the labour force survey out, more time to get the consumer price index out.

Mr. Smith saw that there was a huge potential issue with the changing of the IT services and the potential for it to hurt Stats Canada. I am a big believer that good data leads to good decision-making. The more data we have on the important pieces and the priority pieces of any piece of legislation, any pieces of decision-making that a government is making, the better. If we have the right data, we will make the right decisions, unless partisanship comes into the equation, which is what we have seen happening a lot to date.

I also wanted to talk about privacy because there are some changes to privacy in terms of the census and information, the release of that information, when that release takes place, and how it takes place. We need to recognize that privacy is a freedom. It is a very integral freedom to our democracy, to us as individuals, as citizens. These changes are interpreted by some Canadians as an attack on their privacy, even if it is after they pass away. They do not want that information being disclosed or used for governmental purpose.

Privacy is an interesting item because it is the protection of ourselves from others in society and it is certainly the protection of ourselves from an overbearing government. I can understand that mentality because we have seen in the last 18 months the government that is willing to go from the cradle to the grave, that is willing to step into almost any area of a person's life and legislate. I can certainly understand and identify with those who are concerned about the changes to privacy within the bill.

When we were going through testimony at the innovation committee, we had the opportunity to ask many individuals and the newly appointed chief statistician to testify. There was a constant narrative that the objectivity and the freedom of Stats Canada was integral. It spoke directly to the integrity not only of the individuals who worked in this department but the integrity of the data being received by government departments.

As we are continuing to look forward and we are approaching the time when we will vote on the bill, it is important we call on the minister to appoint individuals to this advisory council who do not have any political leanings, who have not stepped into the political process. If that means those individuals are not Liberal donors, great. At the end of the day, Canadians need to believe in the processes the government puts in place to appoint its councils.

We can look back at the words I use from the throne speech upfront, “They want to be able to trust their government”. We have seen the way the government operate across the board, whether it is commissioners, or it is the advisory council by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and these have not been objective, non-partisan appointments. They have been incredibly partisan.

I am open to any questions that come my way, but I will call on the minister to proceed with objective, non-partisan approaches to appointing members of the new advisory council.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to an initiative that was in the last budget. However, there are more budgets to come, and there are also other ways for the different issues that Statistics Canada will be dealing with over a number of years to come to the floor of the House, such as a legislative or budgetary mechanism, or whatever else might be available for the ministers responsible.

The real strength of Bill C-36 is the support we are providing for Statistics Canada to become more independent. Although that is at its core, there are also other measures, such as removing the requirement to seek consent for the transfer of census-related data to Library and Archives Canada 92 years after the taking of a census and removing the penalty of imprisonment while retaining financial penalties for refusing to complete a mandatory survey or refusing to grant, or impeding access to, information under the Statistics Act. There are also some technical changes taking place.

All in all, this is good legislation. I am glad that the NDP is supporting it. Hopefully, that will shed some light on the member's question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that Statistics Canada is recognized throughout the world as a first-class example of how important it is to draw in information to make good, solid policy decisions. That applies whether it is the government or the private sector. That is what StatsCan is all about. This is not new for us in the Liberal Party. We have consistently argued that Statistics Canada is absolutely critical from a policy point of view.

If I may, I will start off my comments by complimenting all those individuals who work at Statistics Canada. The work they do is second to no other. That is one of the reasons many other countries around the world look to Canada and Statistics Canada and want to know how Statistics Canada has been so effective in collecting the information needed to make decisions.

I found it most interesting when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was talking about science-based decisions. He used a number of examples. I could not help but reflect on one of the moves of the former prime minister in 2010. The government of the day, under Stephen Harper, decided to get rid of the mandatory long-form census. The immediate response was amazing. It was immediate and severe, but the Conservative Party was determined, whether it made sense or not, no matter what the different stakeholders had to say, to move forward on getting rid of the mandatory long-form census. It was at a huge cost.

I was quite disappointed, along with members of the Liberal Party, the many different stakeholders, scientists, and individuals working at Statistics Canada. In fact, the chief statistician resigned over that issue, from what I understand. It was surprising, given how important those numbers are.

Let me cite a couple of examples. The member who spoke earlier talked about the private sector. The private sector very much relies on information it receives from Statistics Canada to make decisions on the direction a business might be going. It is very dependant on getting the correct numbers.

The type of information that can be drawn out through Statistics Canada is amazing. I would encourage members, and the public, to look at some of the things that come out of Statistics Canada. The most obvious are things like employment rates and population. I often will turn to Statistics Canada to talk about Canada's population. It is just over 36 million. In the province of Manitoba, it is 1.3 million. In the metropolitan Winnipeg area it is just over 700,000. Using Statistics Canada, we can see where the growth is actually taking place. I like to be able to talk to my constituents about that.

Housing statistics from Statistics Canada are often debated, whether among individuals within our own caucus making representation or by representatives lobbying the government.

The province of Manitoba has been a have-not province for many years, unfortunately. I would like to see that turn around. It cannot be quick enough. One of the equalizing factors in Canada is the equalization transfer payment for health care and social services. We are talking about billions of dollars transferred from Ottawa to the provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Those transfers are based on statistical information that is often provided by Statistics Canada.

For example, Manitoba spends well over $12 billion on health care alone. A good portion of that money comes from Ottawa to support the provincial department of health in the decisions it makes to administer the Canada Health Act and ensure that Canadians get the services they expect, whether they be emergency services, palliative care, or mental health services. We have talked in this place a great deal about hospice care. There are so many needs within the health care system. It is absolutely critical that the federal government continue to contribute health care dollars to our province.

To get the numbers right, we need to have a good understanding of the demographics in our communities. Without that level of accuracy, some provinces might not be given as much as they should to provide the same relative health care delivery as neighbouring provinces.

There are some provinces that have more wealth than other provinces because they have exports of oil or manufactured products. For many years, Ontario and Alberta contributed to the equalization fund. Provinces such as Nova Scotia and Manitoba have depended on receiving money. If they do not get the dollars they need, they cannot provide the health care Canadians expect.

In transferring billions of dollars to the provinces in one form or another, we need to understand the demographics, the social conditions, and the economic conditions of each province and territory.

To make decisions, we need to have good numbers, and that is what this legislation is really all about. Bill C-36 is about providing a stronger sense of independence to Statistics Canada.

There are four areas on which I would like to provide some comment with respect to Bill C-36. One is that we would reinforce that Statistics Canada needs to be more independent.

There are several things being incorporated in the legislation that would allow Statistics Canada to have that independence. One is statistical procedures, methods, and professional standards employed for the production of statistics. Currently, a lot of that is done directly through the ministry. It is not necessarily the chief statistician who is ultimately responsible. In essence, we would provide the chief statistician greater responsibility, thereby giving more independence. We see that as a very strong benefit, and long overdue.

One thing I love about the Internet is that there is so much information at our fingertips, but I would suggest that there are very few websites as reliable as Statistics Canada's. Releasing published information by downloading it onto the Internet at the appropriate time helps facilitate basic information. It also indicates to others who might have an interest in getting more detailed information that they can do so through Stats Canada.

The chief statistician and Stats Canada would have greater independence in the timing and method of the dissemination of compiled statistics. It is also important that we give more responsibility, through the legislation, to the operations and staff of Statistics Canada. If we look at the legislation from that perspective, Statistics Canada would have more independence.

I asked a member of the New Democratic Party what position the party was taking. I am pleased to hear that it is supporting the legislation. As for the criticisms the member made of the legislation, there is always room to improve the system. We can always make things better, and Liberals take that very seriously. Many of the ideas that have been raised will continue to be discussed. Hopefully, at some point in the future, there may be an opportunity to revisit the issue. The current suggestions, I believe, as the member opposite indicated, are worthy of support.

We are trying to increase transparency around decisions and directives, and not only for Statistics Canada. Minister after minister and individual members on the Liberal benches have talked about the importance of transparency and accountability, because we understand that it is what Canadians want of government. We want to pass this legislation to assure Canadians that we will provide more transparency and better decisions.

We would appoint the chief statistician for fixed renewable terms of five years, with removal only for cause by the Governor in Council.

We believe that this approach will provide greater confidence and comfort around the position of chief statistician. We will know that the work is being done as Canadians expect, and the opportunity to be appointed and to retain the position will be improved.

Along the same lines of creating independence for Statistics Canada, we are creating the Canadian statistics advisory council. I believe that is a wonderful move by the government. I understand the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was very critical of that aspect and made reference to Liberals being appointed to this council, but one of the things that differentiates the Harper government from this government is the manner in which appointments are being made.

The system that we have put in place represents real change from the way the Harper government made appointments. There the prime minister and the government decided who they wanted to appoint, and it had very little to do with merit and ability. People found out about it well after the fact. There was no genuine attempt to advertise or to open up the process.

In contrast, today one can do a Google search on the appointment process. There is a website for appointments, and Canadians should know that the appointments that are made today are advertised. All Canadians are welcome to apply. We believe this is extremely important. We have seen an overwhelmingly positive response to the invitation for all Canadians to get involved and get engaged in the many appointments that the federal government makes.

It has been encouraging to see not dozens or hundreds but thousands of Canadians in all regions not only understanding the difference between this government and the former government on appointments, but going beyond that by expressing their interest in becoming a part of the appointments process by applying for many of the positions that are being put forward.

The opposition will say it is Liberals. People are not excluded because they happen to be a Liberal, but Kim Campbell, who received an appointment, was not a Liberal. She was the Conservative prime minister of Canada. The appointments that have been taking place have been made in a fashion that clearly demonstrates that they are based on merit.

Diversity is also important. Earlier today I talked about the importance of diversity in our 200,000-plus corporations and the important role government plays to encourage that diversity. We have a Prime Minister who has initiated a new process to ensure that we get that diversification, and it has been working.

One statistic I recall is that of around 160 government appointments, 60% were female. The number of visible minorities who have been appointed has dramatically increased, so I have no problem in doing a comparison of our process of appointments with others.

However, at the core is the importance of having Statistics Canada being more independent, more at arm's length.

There are three other points in the legislation that I wanted to highlight, but my time has already expired. I hope to be able to expand on those other points in questions and comments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-36 with regard to the census. One thing we can be clear about in the debate on this legislation is it is critically important how we spend taxpayers' money. That is central to the census itself. It is no laughing matter, especially when we look at some of the people involved.

Shame on both the Liberals and Conservatives for their actions in regard to former chief statisticians. It needs to be identified as quite a serious situation. Munir Sheikh resigned under the Conservatives and Wayne Smith resigned under the Liberals. These are key resignations. These are chief statisticians who are respected across the planet. They were seen to have had their integrity compromised by being senior bureaucrats in an administration. They ended up being whistle-blowers. We know not just domestically but across the globe, whistle-blowers often become martyrs. They often become targets. They and their families are often affected for going public with something where they compromised their own personal well-being versus that of the state or the job they do. That is what took place with our chief statisticians.

It is important to remember who they are. Munir Sheikh, for example, was a Canadian immigrant from Pakistan who later on became a doctor of economics and worked in the Department of Finance for many years as a deputy minister, later becoming a chief statistician, and resigning from his position at Stats Canada. That was the first time I had seen a resignation like that in the 15 plus years I have been here. I had never witnessed someone take on the administration like that. That came about because of a number of things related to Stats Canada and how it was treated and valued.

Therefore, it is important to review what is so important about the Statistics Act and why it is so important for Canadians. A chief statistician is responsible for the overall act and the administration of it. The issues they monitor across the country are where, at the end of the day, taxpayers' money is spent. It is about income. It is about the labour market. It is education, housing, transportation, languages, persons with disabilities, citizenship, immigration, aboriginal peoples, and ethnicity. They even determine where to place a fire hall for municipalities. There was discussion today about high-rise buildings. We have seen tragedies with high-rise buildings, most recently in London. However, we have the necessary data accumulation on municipalities to do the proper planning for allocating resources, because Statistics Canada knows where the populations are. If we do not have that information, we not only could knowingly set ourselves up for failure but we could unwittingly do so, because we do not have that information.

It is similar with economic growth. The latest census of 2016 shows 35% of Canada's population now resides in the Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal areas. That is a significant concentration of human population for such a geographic mass as Canada. That also makes it very important for us to attract investment and innovation for other areas. The more vulnerable communities, related to not having proper statistical information, are smaller communities and smaller pockets of population. It is how housing is decided. I mentioned fire halls for municipal service. There is all of that, and even affordable housing and the cost of housing, which actually translates into economic development, where businesses decide where and what type of business they should grow here in Canada.

When I came here, I had previously worked as an employment counsellor for persons with disabilities and youth at risk and I was a city councillor in Windsor West where I represented one of the great parliamentarians for 39 years, the deputy prime minister at the time, the right hon. Herb Gray. As a city councillor, my area that he represented was pegged to be part of what is called the complete count. In Windsor West there were many new immigrants and we had a lot of issues related to language and culture, so our statistical returns related to the census were lower.

That meant that we were missing out on valuable data necessary for Mr. Gray to advocate for housing, language services, a series of things that were necessary for the production, value, and contribution of the citizens of that area because of the challenges. Because we had English as a second language growing as a concern, at around a 50% return rate for our census, we were missing out on those opportunities. We also had people who wanted to participate, wanted to do better things, but they could not.

We were one of four areas across the country, at that time, of the 301 ridings federally that did a door-to-door campaign to help people get enumerated for the census. There is a litany of reasons why that is important, but it affects the funding and the contributions. If we are coming from a community that does not have those things, as identified, it is hard to advocate for that.

It is not just about government services, it is also about businesses. Businesses use this information from labour market surveys not only to identify customer populations, but also to identify concerns about shortages of workers with certain skill sets. The information in the census is used to identify that for investment. One of the number one things we hear to this day is the fact that we are going to be short certain types of workers, whether it be engineers or mechanical workers, and not having the people to staff in those regions and not preparing other populations to either get that skill set, or having to import that labour versus educating Canadians and invest in education to do so. That affects a multitude of things and diminishes our middle class.

We did that in Windsor West. Later on as a representative of Windsor West in this chamber, I understood quite clearly the value of a clean statistical database for advocating for my community and also for this country. I became very intimate with how it works. About 50% of persons with disabilities are not working in Canada. Many have given up and are not in the system. l was part of a group that was able to include more persons with disabilities. I want to note that the good work of the public servants in helping access jobs for persons with disabilities during that time was critical. I am still grateful today because I know some people are still working and can use the job to get something else.

Ivan Fellegi, a chief statistician at that time, was under pressure to privatize our census. England, for example, had outsourced the collection of data to different third parties and Canada was outsourcing its census to Lockheed Martin. A campaign I was part of looked to protect Canadians' data from Lockheed Martin because many people had ethical concerns about Lockheed Martin collecting our data. It was an arms manufacturer predominantly based in the United States that produced weapons which were banned under Canadian law like cluster munitions and so on. It was collecting our data and not only that, it would store and implement the data. At that time, the U.S. went through the implementation of the Patriot Act. We discovered it was going to assemble this data outsourced from Canada in the United States.

Why that is important is because once the Patriot Act was implemented, the hard reality was that all our census data, personal and private information we thought was protected, was now susceptible to the United States. Under the Patriot Act, the way it worked at that time, and most of which still exists in this format today, is that if a court order was issued for information, the company could not tell the actual proprietor of that information that the information was actually being usurped and used by the American government.

It would have been against the law for Lockheed Martin to disclose to Canada that the information it gathered in Canada would be used. Credit card companies and others have faced some scrutiny since then. The Privacy Commissioner has piped in. From British Columbia, and other areas, there is quite a record on this. We fought quite hard to get that information to stay in Canada, which we were able to do.

Getting past that, we continued to have a fairly stable census, until the Conservatives came into power and created the voluntary national household survey. It was put out there as a cost-cutting measure, in many respects, and also as privacy protection for Canadians. Not having the bully of government telling people they have to disclose information or they were going to kick in doors, make people fill in the census form, or send them off to jail.

I remember the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka getting up a number of times in the chamber, talking about people being intimidated. The jail aspect was certainly the heightened element that received media attention from many facets for many months, more than a year. To this day, it is still one of the more laughable things ever pronounced by a minister in the history of Canada: that people were going to be locked up and have the key thrown away for not completing their census. The essence of it was really a side distraction, which worked.

The national household survey came back with around a 26% response rate. That 26% response rate meant that our statistics, which had been the envy of many industrialized worlds, were now a diminished response. We lost a significant portion of the reliability of that data to make decisions on income, labour market, education, housing, transportation, languages, disabilities, citizenship, immigration, aboriginal people, and ethnicity. All the intel on those things went down to 26%.

The other interesting thing about that is that it cost us an additional $22 million. We received a quarter of the results, paid an additional $22 million, and then it became very worthless in many respects. This is more the technical aspect of it that some people may not care for, but it is important. Think of the centrepiece of our census as a backstop for other labour market surveys, whether it be polling, labour market agriculture, labour market related to industrial development, or labour market for investment. All those different things would be targeted in smaller surveys, but the overall sample of the statistical census would provide some of the best statistical information. Poof, that was gone. All that continuum we had was basically disrupted by that introduction.

That is when Munir Sheikh, and I discussed some of his qualifications as an economist and a deputy at the Department of Finance for many years, resigned. He resigned because he could no longer do his job.

We pressed for changes and then the Liberals and opposition agreed with changes as well. I tabled a member's bill, as did a couple of other members, to restore the independence. This bill would do some of that. It would provide some of those elements, but it would not go far enough.

Wayne Smith, the latest chief statistician in terms of Service Canada, resigned because of that. He resigned because Service Canada has become a large, encompassing agency for intelligence and support services. The problem it has is that much of our census information that is used now has to flow into this information of shared services, creating an independence issue about the data falling in there, then getting data back and the use of it. This created quite a problem, and Wayne Smith has now resigned.

We now have the bill which will make Statistics Canada somewhat independent. I say somewhat independent, because overall it does fulfill the things I described in the first part of my speech relating to information gathering, creating the lineal information necessary for statistical information use, the gathering, and how it restores those elements. That is critically important.

We are very grateful we will have that, but it does not actually go the full nine yards, so right now we still have a situation where the minister can still make political decisions about the questions that are asked in the census. It still takes away from the scientific approach we would like to have, and the independence, because we do pay, and we do actually ask someone to come into this position. It is very much a sought after career position to have. If it is independent, we get some of the best in the world. We will still have the minister's control over that, so I worry about the fact we could have some politicization of it.

It has been mentioned, and there has been banter back and forth between the Conservatives and Liberals about patronage and the appointment process, but it is a serious thing to consider. We are just dealing in my neck of the woods right now, a patronage appointment, the Gordie Howe Bridge, and Dwight Duncan becoming quite controversial, because there is a partisanship past appointment and there are partisanship attacks, including Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the American administration, and so forth. I get the seriousness of that, and what is at stake there, but what I am worried about is, what happens next time? Now that this is enshrined in law, it becomes very difficult for us to get that independence.

The Statistics Canada Department is one of 42 agencies that are supposed to be at arm's length from the government, but unfortunately, with this legislation, it is still within choking distance. Yes, it is at arm's length, but a choking distance away. I am concerned about the fact we will not see that happening. Wayne Smith identified some of those issues and concerns.

We will eliminate the jail time. It will be completely eliminated, so it can no longer be a distraction, and in the future there will be no ability for the minister to say something that would make people run, or think about something different from what the real serious issue is, which is actually the increased cost, or the change of the census, which is important. There will also still be 92 years of census information before it goes public.

In his testimony, Wayne Smith said that Bill C-36 moves the Statistics Act substantially in the right direction, creates no new problems, but fails to fully address independence, the need for full quinquennials, mandatory census of population, or the modernization of the legislation to build a statistical system adapted to the rapidly evolving needs and challenges of the 21st century. He concluded that there is still work to be done. We proposed some amendments given to us in committee by Mr. Smith and others, but they were not taken into consideration.

We will be supporting this. It is a good step forward, but it is a missed opportunity. We get to hit a double instead of a home run out of this one, so we will take it. We advance the case, and most important, Canadians and the use of our money will be better off served with data that is reliable than not.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 and Bill C-36 were both studied at the INDU committee. We had extensive conversations about the composition of boards, in both cases, trying to reflect diversity of background, thought, and gender. Having an independent board for Bill C-36 following the regulations that we are lining out on C-25 could really help us with our working with statistics in Canada.

Can the member expand on that if he agrees with me?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act and whose purpose is to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence.

First, I want to speak about the census. In 2010, the government's decision to replace the mandatory long-form census with the voluntary national household survey gave rise to public criticism. Concerns were raised about the quality of the national household survey data and about Statistics Canada's independence.

In reaction to this decision, a number of private members' bills were introduced in the House that would require the collection of a mandatory long-form census questionnaire of equal length and scope as the 1971 census. We gave this option serious consideration, but rather than focus on protecting only the census, we chose to amend the Statistics Act to give Statistics Canada greater independence on the full range of statistical activity. We have done this by assigning to the chief statistician authority over decisions on statistical methods and operations.

The bill also adds transparency provisions to ensure greater accountability for decisions. This approach is aligned with the United Nations fundamental principles of official statistics and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's recommendation on good practices. Some may still ask, why not entrench the content of the census in legislation to fully prevent future governments from replacing the mandatory long-form census with a voluntary survey as was the case with the 2011 program? The simple answer is that no legal provision can prevent a government from changing census content.

Governments have the power to make and change laws, but more importantly, we must remember that official statistics are a public good and Statistics Canada is a publicly funded institution. It is ultimately the government's responsibility to determine the scope of the statistical system, specifically, the country's data priorities, that is to say, what is collected. This responsibility ensures that the statistical information collected is sensitive to the burdens placed on citizens as respondents, that it is sensitive to the costs they bear as taxpayers, and that the information that is produced is responsive to their needs as data users.

It must also be responsive to the government's need to make evidence-based decisions about the programs and services that affect the daily lives of Canadians such as affordable housing, public transportation, and skills training for employment. Rather than entrench the content of the long-form census questionnaire in the Statistics Act, Bill C-36 addresses the fundamental issues of Statistics Canada's independence. Let me explain why.

First, the previous government's decision about the 2011 census was not about the questions to be asked, it was about removing the mandatory requirement to respond. The voluntary national household survey, as it was called, asked the same questions as would have been asked in the planned mandatory long-form questionnaire that it replaced.

Consistent with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision-making, one of our first acts as a government was to reinstate the mandatory long-form census in time for the 2016 census of population to ensure that the census produces high quality data. We committed to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence to ensure decisions about statistical methods and operations are based on professional principles. Bill C-36 meets this commitment.

Second, entrenching census contents in law could reduce the government's flexibility to ensure that the data collected continuously meets the needs of an ever-evolving Canadian society and economy. We just have to look at the history of the content of census. It has changed numerous times to reflect emerging issues, evolving data needs, and the development of alternative ways of collecting the information.

The first national census of Canada was taken in 1871 and contained 211 questions, including age, sex, religion, education, race, occupation, and ancestral origins. Subject matters and questions have been added and dropped ever since.

In 1931, questions on unemployment were added. In 1941, questions on fertility and housing were introduced. In 1986, questions were introduced on activity limitations. In 1991, questions about common-law relationships were introduced, and questions on same-sex couples were added in 2006. In 1996, questions on unpaid work were introduced. These were removed in 2011.

These examples signal the need for flexibility and prioritization in determining the content of a census. Entrenching census content in legislation would limit this flexibility. Amending the act every time the census needs to change would be highly impractical. Our current approach to determining census content works. It is based on extensive user consultations and the testing of potential questions to reflect the changing needs of society and to ensure the census is the appropriate vehicle to respond to them. Then Statistics Canada makes a recommendation to the government on the content that should be included in the upcoming census. General questions are then prescribed by order by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette for transparency purposes.

Defining the long-form census content in law could potentially reduce the incentives to find alternative means to gathering census information at a lower cost and respondent burden. Statistical agencies must also think about the burden they impose on citizens and businesses to provide information, and they must do so within the fiscal resources allocated by the government.

The data world is evolving rapidly. We read and hear the words “big data”, “open data”, and “administrative data” every day. Increasingly, statistical offices around the world are integrating these alternative and complementary sources of information into their statistical programs. They offer the potential to collect and publish high quality statistical information more frequently, at lower cost, and at lower response burden.

For example, for the 2016 census, Statistics Canada obtained detailed income information for all census respondents from administrative records provided by the Canada Revenue Agency. This approach will ensure that higher quality income data will be produced at a lower cost and with reduced burden on Canadians.

Entrenching the scope and content of the census in the Statistics Act may not serve Canadians well moving forward. It would tie us to one way of doing business that may not be the way of the future. The act should remain flexible to the evolving data needs of Canadians and their governments. It should retain the flexibility to encourage innovation to take advantage of the evolving means of collecting statistical information.

Some have suggested that the census content should be the same as it was over 40 years ago and that the sample size for the long form should be entrenched in law. The rapidly evolving world of data suggests that we should retain the flexibility to build the foundation of a statistical system of the future, rather than restricting ourselves to continue to do what has been done in the past. We think our approach to Bill C-36 strikes the right balance and will stand the test of time.

In the time that remains, let me talk about the basic structure of Bill C-36 in terms of the independence of the chief statistical officer.

What we hope to do first of all is subject the appointment of the chief statistician to the Governor in Council process, which is open and transparent, in order to ensure that the best candidate for the office of chief statistician is found and selected according to that process.

Second, the underlying philosophy of the act is that questions of methodology in terms of statistical gathering, finding the best means, or using the best statistical techniques to gather information will be left to Statistics Canada, to the chief statistician and his or her team as it is described in the act.

Because we do have a Westminster parliamentary system in which ministerial accountability is one of the foundational or bedrock principles of the act, any political decisions that need to be made for political reasons, perhaps under exceptional circumstances where a governing party feels it needs a certain kind of information, will have to be made transparently in front of this House.

We are creating a great deal of independence and giving it to the office of chief statistician precisely so that person can go on and gather data in the best possible method, as he or she sees fit for professional reasons.

Yet, we are still working in harmony with a Westminster political system, one that has worked well so far, indeed, one that, up until 2011, allowed for Statistics Canada to have a very good reputation internationally among other statistical agencies around the world.

That is the basic underlying philosophy of the act. I would be happy to answers questions if there were any.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act, as reported without amendment from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will debate Bill C-49, on transportation modernization, at second reading.

On Monday we will debate our changes to the Standing Orders. Following that debate, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-51.

Tuesday the House will debate Bill S-3, on Indian registration, at report stage and third reading.

Following that debate, we hope to make progress on the following bills: Bill S-2, the bill respecting motor vehicle recalls, at second reading; Bill C-17, respecting the environmental assessment process in Yukon, at second reading; Bill C-25, on encouraging gender parity on the boards of federally regulated organizations; Bill C-36, the bill to give Statistics Canada greater independence; Bill C-48, the bill to impose a moratorium on oil tankers off the B.C. coast; and Bill C-34, the bill to reinstate sensible conditions for public service employment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Bill C-36 is carried.

I would just like to correct the record. We've heard a couple of comments that two legislative amendments were not heard. For the record—and I checked—in the last bill there were eight amendments. I just want to keep the record clean. There were in fact eight amendments in the last bill.

We're going to take a look at the upcoming schedule. Originally, today was clause-by-clause. The next meeting, May 9, we left open to continue Bill C-36. We don't have to do that anymore. We also scheduled an informal meeting for 10:00 to 10:45 with the European Free Trade Association.

On May 11 we have the main estimates for the first hour, and in the second hour we have the manufacturing sector, going back to our manufacturing report.

Seeing as how we have time for that on May 9, can I suggest we move that to May 9?

Mr. Masse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

This amendment seeks to amend section 21 of the Statistics Act. Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 766 and 767, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 21 of the Stats Act is not being amended by Bill C-36, it is therefore the opinion of the Chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to on division)

Shall the title carry?

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is as follows:

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 8 the following new clause:

10.1 (1) Subsection 21(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

21 (1) The Chief Statistician shall, by order, determine the questions to be asked in any census taken by Statistics Canada under section 19 or 20.

(2) Subsection 21(2) of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

I won't read the French because I do not want to offend the French language. I take lessons, but I have not mastered French in many years here in the House of Commons. I have the deepest respect for the francophone language—

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Chair, the amendment reads:

That Bill C-36, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 8 with the following:

taken, but only if the person to whom the information relates consents, at the time of the census, to the release of the information ninety-two years later.

This is an amendment that was put forward by Mr. Dreeshen, which I'm proposing on his behalf. I'd like to read some of his notes that he passed on to me.

“Bill C-36 proposes that starting with 2021, census records be automatically made available with no provision or consent if they want their information public or not. This amendment will change the original text of the bill to include a provision that will respect privacy by default. Canadians expect us to respect their right to have their information kept private should they choose to do so.”

“We can't compromise on privacy, and for an average Canadian to hear about this bill and this provision on census data will create questions about how secure the information really is in the hands of the government.”

The general message that Mr. Dreeshen is trying to get across, and certainly I share it as well, is that as we're going through this process, first of all, Canadians need to know what the changes are going to be. We need to ensure that it's properly communicated to them, but also that we get feedback from them through the process so that they understand their personal information could eventually end up out there. Certainly the general statement is to protect privacy at all costs.

I will leave that on the floor and certainly welcome any questions or debate.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

For the record, I am going to move it, yes, because there is a difference.

I won't ask you to read your decision, but our amendment is that Bill C-36 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following:

Statistician, at least 19 other members

This is the difference.

who represent a broad range of disciplines, skill sets and regions of Canada who are appointed

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

I have a ruling from the chair. Bill C-36 seeks to amend the Statistics Act by creating the Canadian statistics advisory council, composed of not more than 10 members. The amendment attempts to increase the number of members on the council. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, since the amendment proposes to increase the number of members on the council, it imposes a charge on the public treasury; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That would apply to amendment NDP-4 as well.

For the record, Mr. Masse, did you want to move yours or not?

[Larry Shute, Deputy Director General, Economic Research and Policy Analysis Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Under the existing act, both the census of population and the census of agriculture are mandatory. There is a long-established tradition of the long form being part of the census, so therefore it's mandatory. Under Bill C-36 we actually assign to the chief statistician the ability to make mandatory any request for information. He makes the long-form census mandatory. For example, he could make the national household survey, if it was continued, mandatory. It's his decision. It's part of the methodology for collecting that is assigned to him under Bill C-36.

For example, if you look at the long-form census from this year, which was mandatory after the government reinstated it, the title of it was “2016 Census of Population questions, long form (National Household Survey)”.

That power is now with the chief statistician.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment again was one recommended from the evidence that the committee has heard. As much as one would like to think that Bill C-36 made it impossible for the political interference and the collection of statistics that we saw in the 41st Parliament from ever happening again, from the decision that was made by Tony Clement, one must pause for a moment and say that Munir Sheikh is probably one of the bravest, most dedicated civil servants this country has ever seen. He lost his job rather than see Statistics Canada fail to do a mandatory long-form census while the minister pretended that nobody had told him that it would be a bad decision. I would urge the government to consider bringing back Munir Sheikh, because there you have a person of such impeccable integrity that we would know that our Statistics Canada division was run by someone who is independent.

However, the law at this point, as drafted, won't ensure that we won't see that happen again, so my amendment goes to the issue of the potential for interpretations by the court, that the questions that go to a particular segment of the population, and not to every Canadian, are somehow not mandatory. As you see, after line 36, on page 4, I would insert PV-2:

The census of population and census of agriculture are mandatory even if not all the questions are addressed to all respondents and regardless of the method used to obtain the information.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-36 in clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 3 with the following:

Statistics Canada the statistics and information that he or she considers useful and in the public interest relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and other activities that he or she may deter-

It's an amendment that may create more inclusiveness for the chief statistician, and I'll leave it at that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here not as a member of this committee but due to a motion the committee passed, which requires me to be here if I should want to put forward amendments. If you had not passed that motion, committee, I would be able to put forward amendments and speak to them at report stage. I still object to the process, but I will dive in.

First of all, I'm really overall pleased that the government is moving to improve the independence of Statistics Canada. I don't think it has gone far enough, and I wish to associate myself with a number of the comments that have been made to you by Paul Thomas and Wayne Smith. You'll note that a number of my amendments are based on their testimony.

The first amendment that we put forward is in relation to ensuring the independence of the appointment process, the fundamentals of chief statistician. We believe Bill C-36 should be amended, as Dr. Thomas recommended, to have an advisory appointment panel of three distinguished people of impeccable credentials.

You can see PV amendment 1 says that should the minister establish such an advisory appointment panel, it recommends one candidate and one alternate candidate...that the advisory panel be composed of three persons with appropriate knowledge. And I just want to explain the third subsection to committee members. It's just to ensure that we don't run into any royal recommendation issues for an amendment being put forward by a member of the committee as opposed to the government putting it in the guts of the bill. That's why we're recommending they not receive any remuneration. That's not because I don't believe distinguished people don't deserve remuneration, but I wanted to avoid any issues with the admissibility of this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome back everybody to meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 7, 2017, we have been studying Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Today we have with us, from the Department of Industry, for any questions that might be needed, Larry Shute, deputy director general, economic research and policy analysis branch, strategic policy sector.

Before we proceed, the committee was in Washington, D.C., this week, and it was an amazing time. We met with so many relevant people. I just wanted to take a moment to recognize that the success of the trip was because of the hard work of our clerk, our analysts who are with us all the time taking hundreds of pages of notes—it blew me away how fast they were writing—and our logistics person, Suzie. Everybody at the embassy was phenomenal. They kept us on track and on time. I was very impressed, and kudos to our team and to your team. Thank you.

Having said that, we are moving on. We are on clause 1. There are no amendments.

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

(On clause 2)

We are starting with PV-1.

Ms. May, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Mr. Dreeshen, can you put it to Bill C-36, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Bill C-36, Mr. Dreeshen....

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

If we can, let's keep it to Bill C-36, please.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Welcome to the committee, Minister and Mr. Knubley.

I want to acknowledge the staff behind you, Minister. They've done a great job of giving us the information we need to make sure that the questions we bring to the committee and to you are very focused.

I want to go back to the independence, specifically on the statistical method. So far, we've talked about the what and we've talked about the how. You've been very clear during your speech that the what is going to come from the government, through you, and that the how is going to be determined by what I call the “statistical method”, by the chief statistician. However, Bill C-36 leaves open the possibility of the chief statistician being overruled on methodological issues by the responsible minister, i.e., you.

What I would like to ask is, what circumstances would necessitate something like that? What is the process that's in place to make sure it brings the transparency that's needed to ensure everyone is aware when such things happen?

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Knubley, for being here. I appreciate your coming to talk about this particular bill.

The OECD framework for good statistical practices clearly states the importance of professional interdependence. I think that's important. We're getting amendments, suggestions, from both the former CSs and former members of NSC, who are telling us that there should be probably between 20 to 25 members for the new council. Of course, we've heard Mr. Arya's endorsement for the number that has been chosen.

It's important that as we look at bringing amendments to this discussion, it is realized that they come from advice that has been given to us by witnesses. We will look at that. We'll try to find a number. If it is carved in stone, we'll find that out as we go through the discussions.

I think it's important that we recognize it, and of course there's not necessarily a guarantee that cabinet directions and directives, decisions, are as transparent as one might suggest, as these things are made behind closed doors, but that has already been mentioned.

I have two things I wanted to ask. Based on the provisions of Bill C-36, who gets to call the shots when it comes to IT services? Will it be part of the new powers granted to the CS, or will it be the minister who gets to decide what kind of IT infrastructure StatsCan will use?

On the other question, was it your call or Mr. Anil Arora's call to stick with Shared Services Canada?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Minister, for being here. It's always good to have you here, and thanks to Mr. Knubley for joining us as well.

I want to build on what Mr. Masse was putting forward about Bill C-25 and the impact of that legislation on Bill C-36 and the way we would look at building the advisory council to have diversity within it. We had testimony about the number of people, but we haven't really addressed how we make sure that this strategic body has adequate diversity.

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

No, this is Bill C-36 right now, but you're talking about changes to Bill C-25.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm using Bill C-36 as an example, as it's been raised.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Since you've raised the environment, I think the number one thing, if you were committed to it as a government, would be to prohibit the OPG from storing nuclear waste next to the Great Lakes. This is opposed by my American colleagues in the U.S. Congress, so a stat won't be necessary for that.

At any rate, I want to highlight a difficulty that I have. I understand that there will be some more connections back to the House, but on Bill C-36, which is still in the House right now, your government has moved closure on an amendment I have for that bill. What confidence can we have that there is going to be improved independence when, for example, an amendment related to gender, race, and equity on a previous bill is now subject to a motion for closure? Truly, what openness is there in this government to actually accept amendments?

We've had testimony on Bill C-36 and on Bill C-25, specific testimony from chief statisticians. I want assurances that there is going to be a serious evaluation of those potential amendments. Bill C-36 received some of those suggestions. We went through the process, and now we have the House closing debate on them. The amendments of former chief statisticians are fairly significant. They're not partisan. Is there going to be an openness for amendments from your government?

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

If you will recall, the point of order was on Bombardier. As I explained to Mr. Nuttall, we need to keep the focus on Bill C-36, because that's within the scope of why we are here today.

Now, if you can relate Bill C-36 and Bombardier together, then....

[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.

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

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

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

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

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

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

[Dr. Munir Sheikh]

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

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

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

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

[Ian McKinnon, Chair, National Statistics Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I await your questions. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

I hope to make you happy today, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

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

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

Welcome, everybody.

We're going to start with Mr. Cappe.

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

[Dr. Ivan Fellegi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming here today.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome everybody to meeting number 54 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We are continuing our study of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Today, from 8:45 to 9:45, we have with us, from Shared Services Canada, Ron Parker, president; Graham Barr, acting senior assistant deputy minister of strategy; and Raj Thuppal, assistant deputy minister of cyber and IT security. I like that title.

We're going to get right into it as we have limited time.

Mr. Parker, you have 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

That was the last question of the day.

I'd like to thank our guests for coming in today. It has been very informative and I'm looking forward to hearing the rest of what's going on with Bill C-36.

We're going to break for two minutes and go in camera to discuss committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Anil Arora]

First of all, it's always great to be able to talk statistics with somebody who has had first-hand experience in using and teaching. We're glad that we benefited from your efforts in the form of students. We're grateful for the capacity that's being built across this country, which I think, in itself, is another issue. Statistics seem to scare a lot of people, so it's always great when we can actually create the capacity in an ever more complex society that needs data.

As to your question regarding the 92-year rule, maybe I can provide just a bit of context. First of all, census records have in the past been made public after periods of time. That period of time has changed over time. Records have been made available. With the evolving privacy legislation that's been brought in, and an evolution of the Census Act to the Statistics Act, and so on, there was a legal question about the assurance of confidentiality and the necessity to make those records public. How were those two things going to play each other out?

The concerns were and still are really, on the one hand, that you want to make that information available for research and genealogical and other work, while on the other hand, that you don't want to put the census collection at risk because people are concerned about their confidentiality and privacy. You could see huge numbers of people not participating in the census because they feel in some way that their confidentiality would be at risk.

There have been studies across time about this very balance. For a period of time in 2006 and subsequent to that in 2011 and 2016, the notion of a provision to seek consent was put in place. I think it's important to see how quickly people's attitudes about participation in the census, and then making it public, have evolved. In the 2006 census, just over 50% of Canadians gave an explicit consent to make their information available publicly after 92 years. In 2011 and 2016, that number jumped up to over 80%, where people are explicitly giving consent to make their information available from Library and Archives Canada 92 years later.

The landscape, and the acceptance of this, is changing. On the other side, we're not seeing a massive decrease in response rates on the census. If anything, in the case of the 2016 census, we've seen a higher response rate.

I think Bill C-36 responds to that change in people's attitudes. What it proposes now, starting with 2021, is that records be automatically made available 92 years hence and for that intervening period, between 2006 and 2016, that the wishes of people would be respected. Even in that period, people can change their mind about going from a no to a yes. In fact, the overwhelming response so far—well it's not large numbers—shows that people's wishes are going from a no to a yes, even in that intervening period.

[Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the committee for inviting me to appear today. I appreciate this opportunity to provide some brief opening remarks.

I am accompanied today by Andrée Desaulniers, a senior analyst at Statistics Canada. Ms. Desaulniers is here to help me and, more specifically, to answer any technical questions you may have about the bill.

As you know, statistics play a key role in democratic societies. Statistics Canada produces information that helps Canadians better understand our country—its population, resources, economy, society and culture. Statistics provide our elective representatives—you—businesses, unions and non-profit organizations, as well as Canadians in general, with a solid foundation that helps them make informed decisions.

We at Statistics Canada take our role very seriously. We are committed to protecting the confidentiality of all information entrusted to us, and to ensuring that the information we deliver is timely and relevant to Canadians. This as you know is no small task as in addition to conducting a census every five years, we conduct and provide high quality results from about 350 active surveys on virtually all aspects of Canadian life.

Statistical agencies must operate with a high level of independence in order to obtain the co-operation of respondents and earn the trust of the users of our information. Currently, the Statistics Act has no specific provision establishing the independence in how we conduct our business at Statistics Canada.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-36 are designed to strengthen the agency's independence to ensure the ongoing impartiality and objectivity of the national statistical system. The proposed changes aim to better align Canada's legislation with international standards promoted by the UN and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

There are limits to independence of course. We must be accountable for the decisions we make and the actions we take. Under the proposed legislation, the minister would retain authority to provide direction on material changes to the scope of the statistical program. The chief statistician, consequently, would be able to request written public direction before acting on ministerial directions relating to the statistical program. The proposed bill would now directly assign authorities for decisions on methods and operations to the chief statistician, including for the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction, and publication of statistical information.

However, should the minister deem it to be in the national interest to make a decision that directly involves methodological or operational matters, that decision would now be authorized by the Governor in Council and tabled in Parliament.

In our view, working independently does not mean working in isolation. Statistics Canada has never worked in an isolated way. For example, we work in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada on contracting and facility issues, and with Canada Post for delivery of census questionnaires.

There are advantages to working with others. One example is cybersecurity. We will benefit from the investments the government is making across the system in terms of security. We will take advantages of opportunities to move to the latest technologies and standards, and to really focus on our area of expertise which is to collect and provide high quality statistics. We have made substantial progress on our IT infrastructure challenges, and I'd be happy to provide additional details on that front.

We will continue to do our part, and hold all our service providers to do their part with no compromise to security or confidentiality, or the integrity of our statistical programs. Bill C-36 also proposes to create a new Canadian statistics advisory council. The existing National Statistics Council has been an important contributor to the work of Statistics Canada for more than 30 years. The new advisory council would fill an important gap, and focus on the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the statistical information produced. The council would provide an advisory role to the minister and the chief statistician, and would publish an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.

I for one will welcome the increased transparency the new approach would bring to the important work we do at Statistics Canada, and the perspective and advice the council would offer. If there are things we can do better, we want to hear about them, and we certainly want others to hear about them as well.

Under the amended act, the chief statistician would be appointed to a renewable term of five years. The chief statistician would serve during good behaviour and may only be removed by the Governor in Council for cause.

The bill would remove a requirement for consent to transfer census records to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census. This change responds to the growing needs of historians, genealogists, and Canadians, who require this important information for research purposes.

The bill would remove from the act provisions related to the imprisonment of people who refuse to provide information related to mandatory surveys or who impede access to such information. There is general consensus among Canadians that imprisonment for such behaviour is inappropriate and disproportionate to the offence. Provisions related to fines for the same offences will, of course, remain.

Finally, the amended act would offer a technical fix to modernize language that does not align with current operational practices, often due to technological changes such as the introduction of online rather than paper questionnaires.

In closing, Mr. Chair, let me assure members that the employees of Statistics Canada remain dedicated to their work. We will continue to look for innovative approaches to collecting and communicating high-quality information that matters more than ever in today's complex society.

My colleague and I are happy to address any questions or concerns that you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Welcome everybody to meeting 53 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 7, 2017, we are studying Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Today we welcome Anil Arora, chief statistician of Canada, and Andrée Desaulniers, senior analyst, information management division.

Mr. Arora, you have 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

It's Bill C-36.

Statistics Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege for me to stand in the House to speak. Today, I would like to address the House as the member of Parliament for the riding of Bow River and to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Back in a previous lifetime, I remember taking a statistics class and the professor saying that statistics were very interesting. The professor told us that if we wanted to tell the professor what we wanted to prove with our statistics, it would be proven both ways. We were thinking this was a political science class, not statistics class. However, statistics can be very interesting. I have heard many comments made here today, which are enlightening and very interesting.

This legislation would do a number things, as all legislation brought before us would. There are positives, but not being perfect, there is always room for differing opinions on parts of the proposed legislation. I will share some of those opinions on the pieces I feel should be redressed.

The legislation would appoint the chief statistician for a fixed term of five years, which can be renewable on good behaviour, and the chief statistician would only be able to be removed by the Governor in Council, if absolutely necessary. That is positive.

The minister would be able to issue directives on statistical programs. What the minister would no longer be able to do would be to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations. That could be limited to the elected MP and minister, and that is just a thought.

The bill would allow the chief statistician to make decisions on where all the data would be housed. This brings up major potential security concerns. Should the chief statistician choose to use a third party to store data, this could mean that Canadian statistical data could be at more risk of being breached. This is clearly not an ideal situation. We need to address this loophole. We live in a world that is fraught with cybersecurity risks. In fact, in the recent U.S. electoral campaign, one of the biggest issues discussed during the foreign policy debates was whether international hacking played a part in influencing some of their presidential and congressional elections.

There are a number of threats. We live in a time where big data is being used for many purposes. It is important that we, as federal legislators, take seriously our role in protecting the private information and data of our constituents. This will be an ever-evolving matter that will require close attention. I hope the chief statistician will be diligent in deciding where the data is stored.

Now, I understand it is with Shared Services Canada, which is an agency of the Government of Canada. Shared Services itself has a number of challenges and issues with which to deal. The question of security is an ongoing concern and one that must not be ignored when dealing with such crucial data.

Another facet of the bill is that it would allow the chief statistician to have the final say on survey questions. This, to me, would be a cause of potential problems that the government may not have considered in drafting the legislation.

Many people across Canada already feel as though survey questions are too invasive as it is. Due to this fact, a number of people will be untruthful on their surveys, and I may have been one of those. This leads to badly skewed data, which is every statistician's worst nightmare, no doubt.

One survey that is very pertinent in my riding is the census of agriculture. There are often complaints from those in the agricultural sector that these censuses are far too encroaching and prying.

The last one I will mention is where the talks about the change in membership. Subsection 8.1(2) states:

The Council is composed of, in addition to the Chief Statistician, not more than 10 other members appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure, 20 including one Chairperson.

As the council exists now, up to 40 members representing all provinces and territories in the country have a view of the survey. They work with it. Now it will be changed to 10 members. Those 10 may not be regional in representation. They may be from just one province or one city area, or they may all be urban, with no rural. We should look into that.

I do have concerns about potential issues with the legislation mentioned above. That being said, I have enjoyed hearing what colleagues have had to add to this debate.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-36, regarding some changes to Statistics Canada and some of the reporting mechanisms, as well as the council that provides advice to the minister and to Statistics Canada as a whole.

As I have looked across the aisle throughout the last 16 months, I have seen a government that has been slow to action on bills. In fact, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has tabled three bills in this House. The first was regarding copyrighted works for persons with disabilities. I know that was something that was worked on prior to the government taking office. The second one was the disclosure of corporate boards, which is actually at the industry committee right now. The third one is Bill C-36, which is on the floor of the House right now.

What we have not seen to date is legislation from the government that is going to tackle the issues that Canadians are dealing with. It actually does not matter what part of the country they are in. For Canadians who are out west, in Alberta, there are obviously many issues with natural resources, with the oil sector, etc. For those in Ontario, manufacturing had a very tough time last year and, quite frankly, it has had a tough time for the last decade. What we would like to see from the government is some action on what it outlined there would be action on in its own throne speech on December 4, 2015.

Turning to this bill, which is obviously hiring a new Statistics Canada director, as well as the 10-person committee that is going to be reporting to Statistics Canada and to the minister, it is interesting that we see a change from 13 persons down to 10. That means there is inevitably going to be territories or provinces that will not be included in this reporting structure. We also see a disbanding of this council without a change in focus, if that is what was being asked for, which essentially gives the opportunity for the government to put its own appointees on this board.

It is interesting. When I was looking through the throne speech, I found an entire paragraph regarding open and transparent government. In it, it says:

Also notable are the things the Government will not do: it will not use government ads for partisan purposes; it will not interfere with the work of parliamentary officers; and it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.

I found interesting that what was not in there was the appointing of cronies, the appointing of friends. What this bill is doing is it is eliminating 13 people who have been appointed in the past and it is appointing what I can only guess will be 10 Liberal friends. The minister appointed 10 other friends previously to the innovation council, which has travelled across the country. They have tabled a report, yet nothing has actually come to Parliament from that report.

What I would really like to see going forward from the government is a change in focus. There are certainly these bills and things we need to be working on, but it is not just what is being proposed by the government, it is also what is not being proposed by the government. The Liberals said in their own throne speech, in the opening paragraph, that Canadians:

....want to be able to trust their government.

And they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them.

Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it.

Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

I will admit that in the last year there have been some movements the government has tried. I disagree with its philosophy and the ways in which it is proposing changes for our country in terms of tax structures, but it has tried to meet a couple of these in terms of strengthening the middle class.

However, what the Liberals have not done is they have not focused on jobs. They have not focused on opportunity for Canadians. They have not focused on those who are working hard to join the middle class, because what those people need more than anything else is a job. What they need is an opportunity to be prosperous. That just is not being talked about.

We have had the minister in this place at question period. We have had him at committee, speaking about a plan and a strategy that is to come. We have waited and waited. It is now 16 months after the last election and we still do not have a plan to create jobs in our country. Nothing has been put forward by the minister, no bill, no strategy, no plan that delineates what the Government of Canada would do to create an environment where jobs could be created.

It does not matter whether we are talking about the natural resources sector, which lost over 29,000 jobs last year, or the manufacturing sector, which lost 53,000 jobs last year, or entrepreneurs, over 70,000 of whom closed their doors last year, or even agriculture, which lost over 19,000 last year. The government has failed to put a plan or strategy before Canadians.

The three bills brought forward by the minister are things that need to be worked on, but two out of the three of them were on the shelf from the previous government. Two out of three of them were started under the previous Conservative government. What has the minister been doing for the last 16 months? Why has a strategy not been tabled before the House? Why do we not, as an assembly of the people, know what the targets are for the government? What is it trying to achieve? How many jobs is it trying to create? What sectors is it seeking to grow? What businesses, what associations is it working with?

Right now we have zero information on this front, and the longer I sit on the industry, science and technology committee, depending on who we talk to, the more I realize nothing is coming forward. There is no plan. There is no opportunity being created for Canadians. There is no strategy to get those who are out of work, whose jobs have left the country, back to work.

We need to focus on this going forward. It will not be enough to deal with bills, like appointing a new chief statistician. It will not be enough to put a bill that was on the shelf from the previous government regarding copyrighted works before the House. It is not enough to talk about the disclosure of boards. What the people of Canada were expecting from the government was leadership, and what they were expecting from the minister in particular was a strategy to put Canadians back to work, a strategy to ensure that our natural resource sector would rebound, a strategy to ensure that our manufacturing and agricultural sectors would be able to move forward.

What we have is the opposite. We have a minister for jobs, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, who has not put a plan forward at all to create jobs in our country. We have a Minister of Finance who is raising taxes all over the place. It does not matter whether it carbon taxes, or payroll taxes, or eliminating tax credits, what we have seen is not a jobs minister looking at a strategy to create jobs, but a finance minister looking at a strategy to take money away from businesses that would otherwise be invested in jobs.

The industry committee has had many opportunities to talk about things like carbon tax. Unfortunately it is not something my friends on the other side of the aisle want to speak about. We have had many opportunities to talk about a plethora of items that we could use to at least determine the future of how the Canadian job market would look like. We have not gone down that road. Instead we are dealing with these three bills that are really operational matters.

I would ask today that the minister do his job, that the minister bring forward a strategy, that he follow through on his words that he spoke in this great chamber and put forward a plan for job growth in Canada, a plan to create an environment where Canadians will be prosperous and successful, earn their livings and provide for their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today on Bill C-36. As someone who was in a classroom for 34 years teaching statistics, I really do wish that I had 20 minutes to be able to speak on this particular topic. My former students would recognize that it would have been a very short lesson.

The definition of statistics is “The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data.” Therefore, when we consider this as the main focus for the Statistics Act, I think it becomes important that we look at how all of that data is collected and the rationale behind it.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa spoke earlier of many of the different procedures that are there, such as the sampling theory, and the 95% confidence intervals that we hear so often when people talk about a particular survey being accurate within plus or minus 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Well, that is where the 95% comes in. People have to understand how the standard deviation and variance are developed from all of that, the Gaussian curves or the bell curves that people are put on, and then how we start to analyze it. This is not simply for questions of politics, but business uses this as well. It is very important, which is one of the reasons why the statistics and numbers we look at are so important for everyone in all walks of life.

Some of the commentary we heard earlier was such that as long as we make sure it is mandatory, then obviously we are going to get the best answers and everything is going to work out just fine. However, having sat on committees where we have had opportunities to speak with people from Statistics Canada, yes, they would have preferred that nothing changed so that the process would have been there, but as they mentioned, there are many ways to look at statistical analysis and sample theory to get the same type of results that we had from before. Therefore, it was a political decision to change it, and it is also a political decision to go back. It does not necessarily mean that the data we are going to have in order to do the analysis is going to be any more accurate.

One of the questions I posed earlier to a member had to do with some of the results that we get from the mandatory form, such as the fact that there is a great growth in the Jedi religion, as the question of religion was on the form and people had to write down what their religion was. Some people suggested that result might not have been accurate. Again, it is a position that has been presented.

People will look at some of these questions and wonder what kind of mob approach they can use for them. As we have social media and everything that is going on now, people can pick a question and completely throw it out by putting extra pressure on it. Therefore, these are the kinds of things that have to be weeded out. The point is, Statistics Canada knows how to do that. It has different sampling processes that can manage some of those situations.

Of course, the other thing that has been mentioned is the concept of a 92-year span. If we look at that at this point in time, it would be 2109 before anybody here who has done a census when they were 18 would even have to worry about it. However, over the last 100 years, we have had life expectancies that have gone from the 60s up to the mid-80s. We saw statistical data just today that indicates it was a mistake for the government to take the OAS from 67 back down to 65. Many countries throughout the world are recognizing the fact that people are living longer and they are going to be supported by taxpayers for a longer length of time.

These are the kinds of things that statistics and mathematics certainly talk about, but we sometimes have political influence or a political expediency such that, “Well, that's what they said, and so if we say something different, then obviously we are going to be on the side of angels.” However, it does not necessarily work that way.

When we look at somebody who lives to be 110 years old, then 92 years after they did a survey at 18, they would be subject to the exposure of their data to the public. All we are saying is that there should be an opportunity for people to be able to opt out of that. We can say that 92 years sounds good, but maybe 120 years would be the number we would need.

However, we should be aware of the realities that exist and take a look at the consequences of some of the decisions that are included there.

The other question is, who should be making up these questions as we go and poll the public to find out what their thoughts are. I think back to MyDemocracy.ca and its questions. Of course, there was no political influence there because this was given to an outside group that would be able to come up with answers that Canadians would want to present to the government to make decisions on. That was fortunate. There is a possibility that maybe some of those were moving in the wrong direction. I still have people who have taken the Vote Compass surveys. I do not know if they are still in therapy, but they were told that they were Liberals and this has hurt them immensely. We recognize how some of these things happen and we realize that it is not always going to be a 100% accurate result.

My point goes back to the fact that the people at Statistics Canada know how to do this. I am extremely honoured that one of my former students had worked at Statistics Canada. I understand the process and everything that is tied into it, recognizing how important it is that it has different procedures to be able to take bias out of its information. It is really an amazing science and I have been proud to work with that for many years.

While the Conservative Party supports and respects the work that Stats Canada does, we do not agree with some of the provisions in Bill C-36. It is our position that any changes to the Statistics Act should reflect our commitment to accountability and the privacy and security of Canadian citizens.

To further illustrate the issues of the bill, let us look at the proposed amendments that would modify the Statistics Act. With the amendments proposed, the bill would enable the minister responsible for Statistics Canada the ability to appoint a chief statistician for a fixed renewable term of five years, removable only “for cause by the Governor in Council”. 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, and furthermore, the CS would be responsible for all operations and staff at Statistics Canada.

The bill would also assign the CS with “powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada”. This means that while the minister would still be able to issue directives on statistical programs, the minister would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations. The power would now be delegated solely to the chief statistician.

Here is the first red flag. These new powers would enable the CS to issue directives without it being made public. Bill C-36 provisions state that the chief statistician may publicize directives before acting on them, but does not make that mandatory. This speaks to another provision of the bill. It would no longer require “consent of respondents to transfer their Census information to Library and Archives Canada”. This is also very troubling because this amendment to the Statistics Act could actually violate the consent rights of Canadians and is opposite to transparency. Additionally, with the chief statistician's ability to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations, the CS would also be authorized to choose where it is housed. This is the second red flag.

I had the opportunity a few months ago to go to Belgium for the Blue Sky Free Forum on Science and Innovation Indicators through the OECD. There was discussion on metadata, research, and analysis and we saw how important it is to be able to take information, the massive number of data points that are there and to be able to funnel them. We have to recognize the issues that are surrounding that, the cybersecurity side of that as well, and these become critical points that should be looked at as we talk about statistics and how the world is going to deal with them. There is an interaction between our country and other countries as we have universities that do research back and forth, so the whole concept of statistics and the analysis of statistics is extremely important.

I would like Bill C-36 to go to committee so that parliamentarians can propose some much-needed amendments to the bill. Based on that, I am sure that we can work to make sure that accountability to Canadians is not lost by making the chief statistician more independent. It is our duty to make sure the changes to the Statistics Act encourage Canadians to provide full, complete, and accurate data so that when the time comes, they in turn would have access to quality data that is relevant, reliable, and accurate.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, 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. This proposes a number of amendments to the Statistics Act that are intended to provide more independence to Statistics Canada and the chief statistician. However, in order for members of the House to properly debate these changes, it is important to first list all of the sections of the act that will be amended or added.

First, these changes will give sole responsibility to the chief statistician 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.

This last sentence is extremely important, because it touches on the issue of sampling theory. There is an old saying in computer science, and we all know it, “garbage in, garbage out”. I am happy to say that my understanding of Statistics Canada, and I am old enough to remember when it was called the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is that it has developed a worldwide reputation for competence. The phrase by Mark Twain certainly does not apply to it and Twain, quite wisely, said there are “ lies, damned lies and statistics”. I think Statistics Canada has proved Mark Twain wrong.

My sampling theory is very important. This is how we get the information we need to largely run society. What we are trying to do is determine the characteristics of a population. The population, one could say, are all of the voters in Canada. That is the population. We would never be able to sample all of the voters in Canada. The essence of statistics is to draw a sample of, in this case, the voters of Canada.

We are all familiar with political polls. The first thing I look at in polls is what the sample size is, what the distribution is across the country, what the distribution is by gender and age, and what the distribution is by education level. Each of those is a parameter. When the parameters change, the results change. In terms of what Statistics Canada does, it is critically important that it gets the sample size and the distribution of the sample correctly. In order to be a good sample, it must be random and independent from all other samples of this population. That is how we get accurate information.

Under this bill, 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 would be circulated. Furthermore, 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.

In addition, the bill would establish the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would be comprised of 10 members and would replace the National Statistics Council that has been functioning since the mid-1980s. Why the Liberal government wants to replace the National Statistics Council, a model that has worked for almost 40 years, with a new 10-member Liberal-appointed council is beyond me, but this is in the bill. The new council would advise the chief statistician and minister, whereas the National Statistics Council solely advises the chief statistician. This is obviously a distinction without a difference.

In terms of the sample of the statistical experts in Canada, one would think that a council with more members on it, more representation from across the country, and more representative of disciplines, scientific, technical, and industrial disciplines, would be better in advising the chief statistician. I, for one, will be looking very closely at the qualifications of the new statistics council.

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 produced by Statistic Canada. This obviously means that these individuals had better be experts in statistics. Statistics is a very complex field. It is very difficult to generate accurate information without doing exhaustive analyses. This council would also be required to make a public annual report on the state of the statistical system.

I am going to segue into the area of education. I think this is a positive suggestion for the new council and indeed Stats Canada as a whole.

Not every Canadian is fortunate to have been trained or partially trained in statistics and few are actually exposed to the discipline itself, how it creates the information we all need. However, every Canadian is affected by statistical analysis. Whether we vote, or purchase industrial products, or we farm, statistical analysis is extremely important. We often hear poll results that are accurate to 19 times out of 20. Again, there is a very complex theory behind that. Therefore, I would make a recommendation for the new statistics advisory council that it graft on a public education program in statistics, given how vital statistics are to any industrialized country.

I am a very strong supporter of data that is gathered accurately. It is this data and the subsequent analysis that guide much of industrial policy, economic development, and also guide decision-makers as to ways they can make proper decisions for their companies, their constituents, or indeed their country.

As well, Bill C-36 would allow for the transfers of census information from Statistics Canada to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, without the consent of Canadians. We said that Canadians had to consent to do this. This is a change. Once transferred to Library and Archives Canada, this information would be made available to all Canadians.

Finally, it would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. Additionally, 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 many aspects could be of concern to Canada and will need further discussion. It is our duty as opposition to critique and highlight any issues that we find evident in all legislation put forth by the government. As such, I will shed light on some of the concerns I have regarding Bill C-36.

Our Conservative Party strongly supports the work that Statistics Canada does and the key statistical data it provides. The Conservative Party of Canada is clearly the party of working people and economic development. Much of the economic development in our country is guided by good statistical work, much of that provided by Stats Canada. Indeed, Statistics Canada, as evolved from the former Dominion Bureau of Statistics, has developed a global reputation for competence.

We know how important this information is for governments, public policy-makers, the research and academic communities, the agricultural communities, the fishing community, the industrial community, the energy community, and it is vital to anyone who uses Stats Canada data for any purpose. In other words, they need to know they can trust its accuracy and quality.

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

As we saw in the last U.S. election, the issue of the security of electronic information was front and centre. Canadians have to trust, implicitly and explicitly, that the data they provide to Statistics Canada will be kept secure. This is absolutely crucial.

If Canadians do not trust Statistics Canada, they may be tempted to provide the wrong information or segue out of the program as best they can to avoid any hint of their information getting into the wrong hands. The privacy of Canadians has to be a primary objective of Statistics Canada.

In the past, Canadians have expressed concern about the questions asked of them in the census and in surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. They found questions, such as the number of bedrooms in their home, what time of day they leave for work and return, and how long it takes them to get there, to be an intrusion on their privacy.

With the changes the Liberal government has proposed in this 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 questions he or she deemed fit on a census or survey, including those Canadians found intrusive.

The independence of scientists and technical people is very important, because without that independence, they are not able to conduct the objective research that determines the correct approach on many issues. Having said that, as this is a public agency, I have as a principle, and I think it is a principle for all Conservatives, that at the very end of the chain, there needs to be an elected official at some point. There can be all the safeguards so that the elected official does not interfere with professional and technical projects that are clearly apolitical, although it is very difficult in this day and age to find anything that is apolitical.

To have an unelected staff person, no matter how conscientious, completely out of any chain of command with an elected official would mean that citizens would have no redress if they found a census form to be offensive. They would have no way to talk to an accountable elected official and express their concerns. Obviously, not every citizen gets his or her way when talking to an elected official. However, someone who is elected listens in a different way than someone who is appointed.

Again, if this occurs, this could potentially result in the creation of distrust and cynicism towards Statistics Canada by the public and hinder the quality of data it oversees. Moreover, with the abdication of responsibility by the minister to the chief statistician, who would be responsible for answering to Canadians when they raised concerns regarding the methods used? This is an important question that, quite frankly, seems to me to be the opposite of an open and transparent government.

As well, I would like to touch a bit more on the section of this bill that amends the responsibilities of the chief statistician. The current changes state that he or she will “decide, based strictly on professional statistical standards that he or she considers appropriate, the methods and procedures for carrying out statistical programs regarding the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction and publication of statistical information that is produced or is to be produced by Statistics Canada”.

One would hope, as well, that there will be an ongoing evolution within Statistics Canada, because statistical methods do change from time to time as new research develops new methods of statistical analysis. A research and development component would be important.

It is our job, as the opposition party, to highlight any implications a bill may have, regardless of intent. Even though it may not be the intent, this 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, he or she would have the ability to do so if this bill becomes law.

Again, this is quite concerning. The security and safety of Canadians and their private information should be the top priority of any government. Any use of a third party to house this data could create security concerns, and again, damage the view Canadians have of Statistics Canada. If they do not have faith in Statistics Canada, as I said earlier, they will be reluctant to provide the information the country needs.

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. The new council would comprise 10 members. For those who do not know much about the National Statistics Council, it is already in place. According to Statistics Canada, the National Statistics Council advises the chief statistician of Canada on the full range of StatsCan'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. This is very important.

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 not have full representation from across Canada. This could result in one area of the country being favoured over the other, which is not fair to Canadians in those parts of the country.

I am going to talk a little about agriculture. I represent Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, a primarily agricultural constituency. In my time studying statistics, most of our textbooks actually came from agricultural colleges. Agriculture, and agricultural researchers, developed much of statistical theory. In fact, my third year statistical textbook was from Iowa State University and was written by two agricultural professors. They developed techniques like the Latin square and other methods for doing crop research. The research developed by agriculture has been used in all other disciplines that use statistical analysis. If I had my druthers about this particular new body the Liberals are proposing, I would strongly recommend that agriculture have a significant presence on the council, given the history agriculture has had with the development of statistical theory.

There is also fisheries. As a fisheries biologist myself, back in the days when I was doing fisheries research, everything we did was based on statistical analysis. For example, we would do things like age-length regression, where we would look at the size of a fish and determine its age and determine the growth rate. Those statistics were extremely important in developing fisheries management policy.

The natural resources industries, which include agriculture, fisheries, and energy, need to be represented on the council. Actually, I would say they need to be overrepresented. We need academics who are professors of statistics, for sure. Again, large organizations and agricultural institutions all employ statisticians. Having practical, on-the-ground people who have experience in the real world doing real-world analyses the public needs, would be very important.

In closing, we are extremely fortunate to live in our democratic society, where the rights of citizens and the protection of those rights are treated with the utmost importance, so we need to maintain the right of privacy under the new Statistics Act, Bill C-36.

One cannot overestimate the importance of statistical analysis in our everyday lives, much of which we do not see in our day-to-day lives. The decisions that governments, institutions, industries, and universities make, by and large, are based on statistical theory. Under Bill C-36, it had better be good statistical theory.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative, so one of my first questions is on the sustainability in cost-of-government programming as it relates to our fiduciary responsibility to the handling of taxpayer dollars.

The question my colleague raises about fees, etc. to obtain Statistics Canada data would be a fantastic study for the industry committee. We could look to see if there are any barriers to access, how it affects jobs and the creation of growth, public policy, the ability of NGOs or average Canadians to access that data, and how that could impact the economy one way or another. What a fantastic study for the industry committee. Yet, the industry committee will be talking about the National Statistics Council and changing it from 13 members to 10 Liberal-appointed members. I would love for my colleague to stand in the industry committee and say something about that.

I am a Conservative, so my first question would be how much it would cost the government, how much revenue would created by those types of fees, and what would be the opportunity cost of removing it. That seems like a perfectly reasonable discussion to have in the industry committee. Yet, we have Bill C-36 as the Liberals' legislative priority.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the debate on Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

My understanding is that this bill was introduced by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development on December 7 of last year. It proposes amendments to the Statistics Act with the purpose of strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada. That truly is the rub in this bill. Will this bill actually achieve that?

What this bill purports to do is it would appoint the chief statistician during good behaviour for a fixed renewable term of five years, removable only for cause by the Governor in Council. It would also assign the chief statistician powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. What does this change in the bill practically do and where do some of my concerns lie?

First of all, while the minister would still have the ability to issue directives on statistical programs, which means being able to have some ministerial or government oversight on various statistical programs, he would no longer be able to issue directives on methods, procedures, and operations.

It is incumbent on the government to provide more information to Parliament on why it feels that change needs to be made. To me, I think there is actually a functionality of Parliament that could be lost in that particular change. Certainly the minister and his department would, from time to time, require some directive on those particular issues, and making this change might impede their progress on certain efforts there. I would be interested in hearing from the government specific examples or cases which it felt led to the necessary precipitation of this particular change.

The chief statistician may require any directive given to be made public and in writing before acting on the directive. I am not a statistician. My background is in economics. However, for anybody who is doing any sort of research methodology, there might be a survey bias or sample bias or failings in statistical methods if that publicity happens in the wrong format. Certainly the minister might have some interest in that particular component of it as well. Again, I would like to hear from the government about why it is making this particular change, and if there were cases presented to the minister that precipitated this change proposed by the bill.

It is also my understanding that even though this might not be the specific intent of this change in the bill, the chief statistician could now have authorization to choose where data is housed. That is a big concern. I know that privacy and data management are concerns for many Canadians. We have been talking about cybersecurity in various forms and shapes in parliamentary committees and through different pieces of legislation here in the House of Commons.

The government needs to clarify whether or not through this bill the chief statistician would have the authorization to change the data storage locations. My understanding right now is that there is an agreement that much of our data will be stored at Shared Services Canada. There is a broader policy discussion around Shared Services Canada and data management.

I think there would be agreement on all sides of this House that any decision to be made on the warehousing of very sensitive data that Statistics Canada might decide to collect should be informed by ministerial oversight. Prior to this bill passing, the government needs to clarify whether or not it would amend the portion of the bill that might allow that to happen. I certainly would not want to see the chief statistician, who is essentially not accountable to anyone, make an overarching decision on where that level of sensitive data would be housed, especially when there has been parliamentary direction to the housing of data made to date. I might add, just to contextualize this, let us say that the chief statistician chose to use a third party to house some or part of the data. There could be security concerns.

While the whole privacy component sounds sort of dry, it is quite valid. Again, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that component is clarified and perhaps removed from this bill. I do not think that is an appropriate power for the chief statistician to have.

The chief statistician, under this change, would also have authority to develop questioning within surveys. There is a whole debate around that. We could spend hours talking about how sensitive or how invasive a survey from Statistics Canada should be and what the requirements are to that effect.

I was talking to a colleague at one point about how certain data collection around agricultural activities on farms could be used by businesses to form monopolies and price gouge and all these sorts of things. Many Canadians are very sensitive about the types of information that they share.

Again, I almost feel like the bill is a solution in search of a problem. The government has not really explained why it would give this power to the chief statistician. If there have been particular instances that the Liberals feel that removal of ministerial oversight on this particular issue is beneficial, I think they need to explain that to Canadians. Again, this is within a bill that might seem benign in so many different ways, but this is very impactful on the lives of Canadians. My question on that point is why? I do not understand.

Many of my colleagues have talked about the fact that the bill would create the Canadian statistics advisory council. It would be comprised of 10 members and would replace the National Statistics Council. The council would advise the chief statistician and the minister and would focus on the “quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility and timeliness” of the statistical information produced. Under this bill, the council would be required to “make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system”.

The government has produced no evidence as to why it would make this change. This seems crazy. We are replacing a board. I want to refer to a quote on this. The National Statistics Council, which this bill is trying to dissolve, has been in place to advise the chief statistician since the 1980s. It is made up of 40 experts and has been described by the UN as, “a bulwark in defence of the objectivity, integrity, and long-term soundness of Canada's national statistical system”.

With this bill, the Liberals are trying to replace a body that has been described by the United Nations, which the government is quite fond of, as something that is fantastic and working great with a council that is appointed by the government. Given the powers that this council is going to have and the fact that the government is changing it from something that is quite objective and working well, it begs the question, why are the Liberals doing this? Why would they replace this council with political appointees?

Again, there is no evidence in the bill and there has not been any evidence with concrete examples presented in speeches by my colleagues opposite as to why something that is functioning well needs to be replaced. I feel like this is almost something that somebody who wants to be appointed to this new board cooked up and gave to the minister and it was put in this bill. It just makes no sense.

Even so, if the government wants to come forward and say that the NSC is not functional in five or six different areas, then why not just give it a revised mandate? Look at the terms of reference under which the NSC operates and revise them.

I want to park that point for a moment, because in the latter half of my speech, I want to talk about why we are even spending parliamentary time with this bill as a priority. However, to continue on, my colleague who spoke earlier talked about how the NSC has representation from all corners of Canada. My understanding is that with the reduction in numbers, there will definitely be regions of this country that will lose their representation on this board.

That is important, because when looking at the priorities of Statistics Canada and the scope that is currently there, representation from each corner of the country is important. This is why we have Statistics Canada. It looks at regional differences in different types of datasets, which inform us on the best public policy options to take. I am concerned that the reduction in membership will remove the breadth of representation on the board right now.

The bill would no longer require “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.”

We often talk about consent rights in this place in a wide variety of contexts but consent on information sharing is a topic that Parliament should be seized with. I would suggest that the bill perhaps violates the consent rights of Canadians in this regard. That is certainly not transparency. That would be the opposite of transparency. It is incumbent upon the government to talk about something that is not in the bill right now and that is how it plans to safeguard the consent rights of Canadians as to their information being shared before the bill is passed.

The bill would amend “certain provisions by modernizing the language of the Act to better reflect current methods of collecting statistical information”. That seems reasonable to me. Our legislation in this regard should not be static. We should make sure that our legislation reflects technological advancements and new methodology. That does seem reasonable to me.

The bill will head to industry committee should it pass the House. Industry committee will be seized with hearing witnesses on some of the points that I just raised.

Why is this legislation a priority? This is going to be the third bill that comes through the House of Commons and goes to industry committee and yet none of the bills have had any sort of reference to a jobs plan, innovation strategies, or anything that could particularly help Canada. My question is just simply: why? Why is this a legislative priority of the government? Why is this a priority of the House of Commons, which could be debating issues of much greater importance?

We are talking about statistics and the importance of statistics and I would like to give the House some statistics. Right now, my province has seen a change in unemployment rates in roughly an 18-month period from essentially the natural rate of unemployment in my home city of Calgary to over 10%. This is a sobering statistic.

When I think about what industry committee and the House should be seized with as opposed to changing the structure of the National Statistics Council and spending hours of debate on this, I have to wonder why are we not talking about how Canada's trade policy could be bolstered in light of some of the decisions that are being made in the United States right now. I would love to spend hours debating some strategy in terms of how we can take advantage of the opportunities created by the Canada-European free trade agreement. These are the things that industry committee should be seized with. The fact that the government wants to send this legislation to industry committee seems like it is filibustering that committee. It is very strange.

There are some other things I would like to see come out of industry committee as opposed to this legislation.

We talk about economic diversification in Alberta, which is something I have been interested in during the course of my parliamentary career. Why is industry committee not talking about a jobs plan that could create broader economic conditions for growth? I am speaking of things like a lower tax climate, especially when we look at the changes being made in the United States.

I hear colleagues in the United States saying that the new administration is going to be lowering taxes in several key areas that are going to render investment opportunities in Canada unattractive. Why is industry committee not studying the Canadian tax system, especially the proposed tax increases by the government, and how that will affect the competitiveness of our industries and our investment climate? That would be a great study for industry committee to look at. It could refer some recommendations back to the House. Instead, we have before us a bill that would change the National Statistics Council from 13 members to 10 who are now appointed. It makes no sense.

Something else I would like the industry committee to study that would use statistical data provided by Statistics Canada is how to spur innovation in a country where we have traditionally seen very high publication rates and we have focused on academic research. I fully support academic research and a strong academic research system, but that is where a lot of our investments over successive governments have gone. Why do we not see more industry-sponsored R and D, and why are some of our key strategies for the commercialization of research and development simply licensing technology out of the country? In some of our new and up-and-coming industrial sectors like the competitiveness and the opportunities we have with clean tech, why do we see such low adoption rates of technology that is grown in Canada into Canadian industry? Why is that happening? Is there a policy that the government could undertake that could incent adoption of Canadian clean tech?

I have great respect for the current president of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. I just spent an hour talking to her about these sorts of things. Yet, I am coming into the House of Commons to debate the National Statistics Council when the government has shown no evidence that this needs to be changed.

If I were sitting on the industry committee, I would love to see the government study whether the impact of the carbon price affects mid-size energy sector companies at perhaps disproportionate ways to larger-sector companies; and whether this is the best public policy option to ensure the growth and development of the energy sector. That would be something that I know people in my riding would be very interested in because perhaps that could lead to a revocation of what I think is a very bad piece of public policy. It would not be tangential for the industry committee to even look at topics around price elasticity assumptions related to the carbon tax and potential impacts on the energy sector and various other industrial sectors as they relate to either job growth or job decline. I think that would be in the committee's scope. These are the things that parliamentarians on the industry committee could be studying.

What the government has prioritized in this bill is essentially reducing accountability from Statistics Canada to Parliament. I do not understand it. It seems bizarre to me.

Something I have heard over and over again from people in my community is that they are wondering why the government has not talked about how to retain skilled labour in Alberta during this downturn. I would love to see the industry committee spend some time in Alberta and go and talk to some of the key trade associations and professional groups like geologists and geophysicists and accountants and lawyers, and our whole services industry that we have taken decades to build up in Alberta. I would love the committee members to talk to those groups of people and ask what changes they are facing in terms of their decision to stay in Alberta or not; and then what public policy options the government can look at in terms of keeping them there, so that if there is an opportunity for further investment down the road, labour is not a deterrent to growth.

In fact, the industry committee could even look at the impacts of skilled labour availability in western Canada in terms of how that impacts jobs and growth in the energy sector. That would be such a relevant, interesting study. I have a hope that it would even get national media attention because that is something that parliamentarians could use their time on that would certainly help jobs and growth in Canada, which I would hope would be the mandate of the industry committee. Indeed, I hope it would be the mandate of Parliament.

I have significant concerns with this bill. To re-emphasize, I do not understand why the government has put this forward. More important, the government really owes an explanation to Canadians as to why it has chosen to spend the industry committee's time looking at this when there are so many other pressing concerns that the committee members could be using, and then reporting back to the House with concrete recommendations that could produce a jobs plan for Canada.

In conclusion, outside of explaining some of the key components that I had at the front end of the speech as to why these changes are being made, I hope that the government will also use the time of this House in a more effective way when it comes to creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join my colleagues in the discussion regarding Bill C-36 and the proposed changes to the Statistics Act. Although many changes are proposed in the bill, ranging from minor language updates to creating a new Canadian statistics advisory council, the broader intent of the bill is to provide greater independence to Statistics Canada, or StatsCan, as I will be referring to it in my speech.

As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, the work done by StatsCan is very important in ensuring the appropriate protection of Canadians' personal information. Moreover, I recognize that the information stored and produced by StatsCan is crucial for wise and evidence-based decision-making by governments and that it provides important information for research and academic institutions.

As a former researcher myself, I think we can all agree that this information must be accurate and trustworthy to be relevant. However, what is even more important is that the privacy of Canadians is protected and that the collected information is kept secure.

I have three primary concerns regarding the proposed changes in Bill C-36. I will begin by speaking about the intended independence of Statistics Canada and the individual serving as the chief statistician, the CS. I will also comment on the proposed Canadian statistics advisory council, and I will finish my debate with the concern about information-sharing and the importance of privacy for Canadians.

I wish to state that the independence of StatsCan and the chief statistician is not inherently a poor decision. However, it is of great importance that should independence be given, there would be sufficient guidelines on what the chief statistician's role would be in how information would be handled. Guidelines regarding where information is stored, how it is regulated, and what information is gathered from Canadians must be considered.

As Bill C-36 proposes, the minister would no longer have direct control or influence over the methods, procedures, and operations of StatsCan. Instead, all of those decisions and processes would be determined by the chief statistician.

We must remember that it is elected officials who are accountable to Canadians, and when we give too much independence to departments, such as StatsCan, we are limiting the accountability of that organization to Canadians.

We answer to the people, and when the people are those involved, as they are in the circumstance of personal information and data, there must be a source of accountability. This notion of accountability extends further to those who oversee the programs and activities of the organization. This leads to my next concern.

Currently, the National Statistics Council serves as an overarching advisory committee. It was established in 1985, with members from all territories and provinces. The council provides insight and advice to the chief statistician regarding StatsCan's activities and programs, as described on StatsCan's website. The proposed Canadian statistics advisory council would not include representation from across the country. Instead, the new council would have only 10 members. They would report to both the chief statistician and the minister and would be tasked with producing an annual public report on the current statistical system.

It is simple math. Three territories or provinces would not be represented on the new council. Their feedback would be eliminated. This shows incredible disrespect for the provinces and territories.

I understand that the government enjoys creating new boards as a means to appoint its friends to new positions. I cannot understand why it could not have simply altered the current council to incorporate new responsibilities. This would help maintain equal representation from across the country.

When we are dealing with Canadians' personal information, we must ensure that those interacting with the data at StatsCan, as a whole, are not seeking to further the government's agenda. This would not only fly in the face of independence but would also undermine the government's accountability to Canadians.

As I previously mentioned, the protection of Canadians' security is of utmost importance. Furthermore, the information collected must be appropriate and not viewed as invasive and too personal. With the independence of the chief statistician, he or she would be required to generate the questions included in the census or survey. It is important that there be accountability and that the questions generated are not deemed to be invasive, as that could skew results should individuals feel the need to inaccurately represent themselves. I understand that this is not the intent of the bill, but it is one of the concerns I have.

One last point on privacy is that Bill C-36 would remove the requirement for consent to transfer and store information records after 92 years. When information has been stored at StatsCan for 92 years, the data would be moved to Library and Archives Canada, where it would be accessible by all Canadians. I think many of my colleagues would agree that in the case of StatsCan data, it is not the place of the government to determine what personal information is kept private or made public without the consent of Canadians. When we are discussing private information, it is always the right of citizens to give their consent. It is not for the government to determine at what point consent for information-sharing should be waived.

As a former professor and self-proclaimed lifelong learner, I value the academic and research communities and the importance of having relevant, quality data. For this reason, I understand the importance of Statistics Canada and all the work it does. However, I too have participated in research and believe in the respect for and protection of citizen information. The government must strike the appropriate balance between protecting the privacy rights of Canadians and collecting good-quality data.

I look forward to continued debate on the bill, and I hope the concerns I have highlighted throughout my speech will be considered.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak this morning. I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre.

Like the members who have already spoken today, I want to talk about Bill C-36, which is meant to strengthen Statistics Canada's independence. Together, we will look at whether this bill can achieve that official objective because it might also have unofficial objectives.

I think it would be useful to explain to our constituents, including the wonderful people of Beauport—Limoilou, that Statistics Canada was created in 1971 because the federal government has a duty to collect and compile statistics on Canada and its people. Its duty is right there in the law that sets out the federal government's responsibilities. Statistics are therefore under federal jurisdiction. Even provincial statistics are within the agency's purview.

Statistics Canada has been serving Canadians for 40 years. It has produced many studies that I am sure have formed the basis for many of Canada's public policies. Those studies have led to positive outcomes for all Canadians.

In our Liberal democracy, data are extremely important. I used data when I was studying political science, and I use them now in my day-to-day work.

Statistics Canada seeks to produce statistics on the country's populations, resources, economy, society, and culture. Statistics Canada is currently conducting over 300 studies, which will provide us with objective information that will help us make informed decisions while ensuring that the source of that information, the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians, is kept confidential.

I use these data in my capacity as an MP and so do my employees. The data are also used by businesses, universities, and scientists. They are used by the parties to determine their political platforms so that, when a party wins the election and takes office, it can develop informed public policies.

What does Bill C-36 do exactly? After reading the bill, my understanding is that it makes changes to four key areas.

First, the chief statistician would be appointed for a fixed term of five years, renewable for good behaviour and removable only for cause by the Governor in Council. That seems commendable. Although it is not the bill's intention, the chief statistician would nonetheless be authorized to choose where the statistical data would be stored. We think that could be problematic since the government gave the new Canadian statistics advisory council its name and so it obviously expects that council to advise the chief statistician.

Second, the bill provides for the creation of a new Canadian statistics advisory council made up of 10 members. It would replace the National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members. I will come back to this later since it seems that this change will negatively impact provincial and territorial representation.

Third, under the bill, the consent of Canadians will no longer be required to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada.

Fourth, the bill will remove the penalty of imprisonment for Canadians who fail to fill out the census forms, a change that we strongly support.

I would like to say that one of our Conservative colleagues in the previous Parliament, Mr. Preston, had brought forward a bill to repeal the penalty of imprisonment for all surveys. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive royal assent before the writ was dropped.

Obviously, we support this aspect of the bill given that we wanted to make this change.

I will now speak to our position on this bill. We want to debate it in the House and vote to send it to committee for more in-depth study in order to make some amendments. In particular, we find that it is very important to amend the provisions of the bill that would change the National Statistics Council to the Canadians Statistics Advisory Council, a body with 10 members instead of 13.

We believe that this new advisory council would give the Liberals another opportunity to appoint their cronies. We have another concern. Since the council will provide advice about relevance, the surveys could be biased towards the Liberals and even friends of the council.

We find it hard to understand why the government must establish a new council rather than just revising the mandate of the current National Statistics Council, which currently has 13 members representing the 10 provinces and three territories.

Much like we did during the debate on the selection of the next Supreme Court of Canada justice, we voiced our grave concerns regarding the importance of ensuring strong representation from all regions of Canada on the Supreme Court.

Because the council is going to have only 10 members instead of 13, we find ourselves debating the issue through the lens of defending the federation. Obviously, the representation of three jurisdictions in Canada will have to be cut from the council. Does this mean that three of the 10 provinces will no longer be represented on the new council, or have the Liberals decided that the three Canadian territories, that is, Nunavut, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, will no longer be represented? In either case, whether representation on the council is taken away from three provinces or the three territories, we think it is appalling.

As I said earlier, the mission of Canada's statistics agency is to provide information to Canadians, particularly for the development of sound public policies with objectives based on reliable hard facts. At present, the council that is supposed to support the work of the chief statistician so that he can effectively run the agency will not have the support of people who understand the realities of the provinces and territories.

Furthermore, the bill does nothing to address the concerns raised by Mr. Smith, the former chief statistician. He resigned last summer after voicing his concerns, which are being ignored. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on November 16, 2016, Mr. Smith shared his three main concerns with us. This first was this:

...Shared Services Canada represented a major and unacceptable intrusion on the independence of Statistics Canada.

His second concern was as follows:

...the arrangement with Shared Services Canada imposed on Statistics Canada was inconsistent with the confidentiality guarantees given by the Statistics Act to persons and organizations providing information to Statistics Canada for statistical purposes.

His third concern was:

...dependence on Shared Services Canada was hobbling Statistics Canada in its day-to-day operations, reducing effectiveness, increasing costs, and creating unacceptable levels of risk to the delivery of Statistics Canada's programs.

The former chief statistician says he was not satisfied with the government's response to his concerns. I get the impression that this new bill does not fare much better.

For all these reasons, we hope that during review in committee, the government will accept our key amendments.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, an act with the stated purpose of strengthening the independence of Statistics Canada.

I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleague the member for Haldimand—Norfolk for her leadership on this file, and I would like to start by stating my support and the support of my colleagues for Stats Canada and its staff for the great work they do. Whether Canadians realize it or not, we use that information provided by Stats Canada quite frequently, and it has done and continues to do some very good work.

To be completely honest, I did not know much about the Statistics Act prior to reading Bill C-36, but the changes proposed in Bill C-36 would have a direct and significant impact not only on Stats Canada but also on the way data is recorded, stored, and used here in Canada.

The Liberals have touted themselves as the party of transparency and accountability, and they would also argue that the bill is a continuation of this pledge. Yet, when reading the bill, I find it becomes clear that instead of increasing accountability and transparency, the bill does the exact opposite.

I should say that the bill is not all bad. In fact, at this moment there are many sections with which I do agree, but I plan to break the bill down into four major components and discuss each one separately.

First, the bill would appoint the chief statistician during good behaviour for a fixed, renewable term of five years, removable only for cause by the Governor in Council. It would also assign the chief statistician, or CS, the powers related to methods, procedures, and operations of Stats Canada.

Section 4 of the act would be replaced by subclause 4(1), which I will read:

The Governor in Council shall appoint the Chief Statistician of Canada to be the deputy head of Statistics Canada.

What my colleagues opposite would argue is that they would be giving the CS more independence and making him or her more accountable. Yet, as this above subclause states, the CS is appointed by the minister. This could easily be used as a partisan appointment, and we would be essentially assigning this person power related to methods, procedures, and operations of Stats Canada.

My point here is that the Liberals' pledge openness and transparency, yet there are other instances including just a year ago when parliamentary oversight of federal spy agencies was brought before this place. The Prime Minister unilaterally appointed my friend from Ottawa South as the committee chair, not to mention the PM's power to direct the committee to revise its annual and special reports to him if he believes the disclosure would injure international security, defence, or international relations.

Further, while it may not have been intended by the bill we are debating today, as it is currently written, the CS would be authorized to decide where Stats Canada data is stored. It is my understanding that there is an agreement to house the data with Shared Services Canada, but under the bill, the CS would be authorized to move it, or could be authorized, which might result in some security concerns.

This data is about Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and it is our job to ensure that any information they provide is kept private. After the most recent census, many concerned citizens reached out to me regarding the invasive questions they were forced to answer for fear of prosecution.

Under Bill C-36, the CS would have the authority to develop questioning within those surveys. We could potentially have a partisan appointee developing the questions within those surveys. It seems to me that this could potentially skew the important data collected by Stats Canada.

The second issue is that Bill C-36 would establish the Canadian statistics advisory council, which would be composed of 10 members and would replace the National Statistics Council, the NSC. The council would advise the CS and minister and focus on the quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timelines of that information produced. The council would be required to make a public annual report on the state of the system.

Much like with my previous concerns, let us take a look directly at Bill C-36, regarding membership:

The Council is composed of, in addition to the Chief Statistician, not more than 10 other members appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure, including one Chairperson.

The chief statistician would be an ex-officio member of that council. Therefore, we now have a CS appointed by the minister and an advisory council appointed by the minister. This is just another opportunity for members to give their Liberal friends appointments.

Why does the government require a new council when there is already one in place, which has been working very well since the 1980s? It seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars just to replace one council with a new one. Perhaps the government should consider the taxpayer in this instance.

Another problem with the new Canadian statistics advisory council is the lack of proper representation. The current council has representation from all provinces and territories, but under the new council, there would be only 10 representatives. Therefore, my question is this. Which provinces or territories is the government planning to leave without representation on this council?

The third issue I have is that the bill would no longer require the consent of respondents to transfer their census information to Library and Archives Canada, and would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. This suggested change in Bill C-36 is full of potential issues. I understand that the transfer of Canadians' data after 92 years might seem insignificant, but at the end of the day, this information is about Canadians and what belongs to them.

The government should not be deciding what can and cannot be transferred without the consent of respondents. This is the exact opposite of the transparency that the government is hiding behind. It is our previous government that was responsible for repealing the penalty of imprisonment for every survey except the mandatory short form census.

Finally, the bill would amend certain provisions by modernizing the language of the act to better reflect current methods of collecting statistical information. Ensuring that our acts use language that is appropriate to reflect new and upcoming methods of collecting statistical information is important to keep Statistics Canada up to date. In this quickly changing global environment, I would note that the bill would do nothing to change the fact that the long form census and census of agriculture are both mandatory, which leads me to my next issue: the mandatory long form census.

It was our previous government that introduced the voluntary national household survey, which replaced the mandatory long form census. When the Liberal government reinstituted the long form census, I was surprised by the number of constituents who expressed their concerns about the invasive questions that they were forced to answer. This is something on which I strongly disagree with members opposite. I do not believe that we should be forcing Canadians to give out this personal information under threat of prosecution.

As an MP, I have always given top priority to the privacy and security of Canadian citizens, as does everyone in the House, I am sure. I would like to quote my colleague the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, who said:

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.

As I said at the beginning, I find myself supportive of a number of clauses of the bill, but I am also concerned about others. I seriously hope that the government will take into account some of the issues I have raised as we move forward to enhance Statistics Canada and the Statistics Act.

I would like to reiterate my robust support for the employees of Statistics Canada for the job they do each and every day on our behalf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics Canada has gone through all the decisions.

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statistics Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House late in the day, after hearing so many contributions to the debate.

I will say that, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am not happy to be back. I would much rather spend more time with my family, probably like some members here. I like them all, but not enough to lose that time with my family.

Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, is an interesting subject to bring up on a Monday.

As I always do, I have a Yiddish proverb today. It is more of a saying. If one has two bundles, a bundle of books and a pouch of gold, and one drops both of them, the saying is that first one would pick up the bundle of books. The knowledge it represents is far more valuable than the gold one would lose in a pouch of gold. I think that saying speaks to how much we as a society, as communities, working together, value knowledge first and foremost.

We pay for knowledge. Very often companies or individuals pay large sums of money to obtain information they consider of value to them, either for market purposes, if they are expanding a company, or for personal genealogical reasons. Perhaps they are interested in their family's past. We have large companies that profit from this sharing of information. They produce information for people who want or need it for purposes of their own design.

I think this Yiddish saying speaks to the worth of knowledge and the value we place on it. In Canada, we place so much value on it that we have an entire agency of government devoted to the collection of information and the dissemination of information across society to community organizations, businesses, and government officials so we can make better decisions on behalf of Canadians.

The bill purports to modernize Statistics Canada. There are certain sections of the legislation I want to go through to lay out what I think are opportunities lost. I have some questions on some sections and how they work with others. I have not yet taken a positive or negative stance on the bill. Mostly I want to go through the legislation with members of the House and mention some concerns I have and things I would like to know about.

Under duties for the chief statistician, there are three or four points laid out on what he or she must do to fulfill the requirements or obligations under the legislation. In the bill, under proposed paragraph 4(5)(b), we have:

advise on matters pertaining to statistical programs of the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, and confer with those departments and agencies to that end;

I wonder if this will be made public. The government has made a big deal of being open and transparent. I am wondering if in the future, the government will be making that type of information, those discussions between departments and the chief statistician, public. Will they share with Canadians the conversations departments are having on how they are using, sharing, distributing, and disseminating the private information of Canadians that they have collated?

In this day and age, that is a concern many Canadians have, and businesses as well. How is this information they are providing the government being protected, and how is it being used? I think it would be great if they perhaps clarified for us in the House, either the minister or the parliamentary secretary, whether they intend to share this information with the public.

Proposed subsection 4.1(1) reads:

Directives on any methods, procedures and operations may only be issued to the Chief Statistician by the Governor in Council, by order, on the recommendation of the Minister.

There are a bunch of commas in there that make it really unclear what the purpose is. It is actually quite broad. It is not quite clear whether the chief statistician will be told what to do in certain circumstances, under the operation of a particular survey program, or whether it will, in fact, be the minister, upon a recommendation, who will be passing ideas that the chief statistician believes to be right.

Having worked before with statistical data for a professional association in Alberta, I had a chief executive officer and a board of directors I was responsible to. Like any CEO or head of an agency, a person does do not want to be micromanaged by a board of directors. One would want to be given a broad mandate that would be in the contract signed, in this case with the government, and one could then go forth and fulfill the mandate. The last thing one wants to have is, by directives, being told to do something a certain way.

In proposed subsection 4.1(1), exactly how would that be applied, and is this the clarity level the government wishes to have?

Another proposed subsection I am interested in is 4.2(1). If independence is to be assured, why would this particular clause exist? It says:

The Minister may issue directives to the Chief 5 Statistician on the statistical programs that aim to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics on all or any of the matters referred to in section 22.

Again, more information being made available would help us understand exactly how this section is going to be applied to the chief statistician. It is not a value judgment, good or bad; it is more information about how exactly it is going to work in the day-to-day life of the chief statistician.

The points I am going to be touching on are mostly about the replacement of the existing National Statistics Council with a new council, the technological issues that happen in the news and are covered by national media that talk about the delay in the release of economic reports that depend on the collection by Statistics Canada, as well as some of the IT problems that the previous chief statistician at Statistics Canada kind of laid out for us and potential delays that may happen if information is shared or not shared in a timely manner.

As well, I want to touch upon the influence Shared Services Canada can have and the substantial control it may be able to exercise on Statistics Canada's work, whether good or bad. In my previous professional life, I worked for a professional association that was going through a major software upgrade. There are always issues with it. There is always a question about where our data is actually being stored, who has control of the data, how we can change it or not change it. A lot of those questions can be resolved pretty quickly just with more information. It is not a value judgment. It is just that more information would be of interest to us. Can the minister still issue directives to the chief statistician on statistical programs? I mentioned those two sections. It is not quite clear how those would work.

We know that Statistics Canada will be made to use Shared Services. There was a recent report entitled, “Heightened Program risks at Statistics Canada”, which enumerated the challenges in terms of reliability, timeliness, effectiveness, and affordability that are being experienced, according to the director general of the Statistics Canada informatics branch. The report went through some of the issues it could see potentially happening down the road.

According to a CBC article in July 2016, Statistics Canada put $38 million toward Shared Services Canada “with the promise to upgrade IT infrastructure”. It was told that Statistics Canada would then have to cover the cost of migrating all information to new data centres. In general, my thought on this is to move forward carefully with an agency such as Statistics Canada. Again, with experience in my past life at a chamber of commerce and with a professional association, it should be careful about how data is being transferred to different places.

The last thing it wants to do is to go from an older system to a new system and realize it has lost 20% of the data that it used to have for historical purposes. It would always want to keep it. A lot of that historical data is very good for graphing trends. Trends are the most important thing that businesses are interested in. One data point does not tell the whole story; a trend tells the story. It is how businesses sell products and convince people to take policy decision A versus policy decision B. The historical data is needed to make the case to individuals in business, charities, and whatever type of environment one is in.

Another thing I want to mention is the recurring theme that surfaced in the report that Shared Services Canada had, that it cannot or will not meet Statistics Canada's IT requirements, because it refuses to upgrade computer infrastructure. It goes back to the point that we do not want to be losing data potentially or constricting the type of data that can be collected because of moving from one type of software to another.

I again want to quote from an analysis of the report, which states:

Having to delay their release would be unprecedented and will impact the ability of key users (e.g. Bank of Canada, Department of Finance, commercial banks, etc.) of making timely decisions, translating into considerable embarrassment to the government of Canada.

Of course, we want to avoid situations where a Department of Finance document cannot be released because there are missing valuable Statistics Canada tables that we may want to use for a release.

I want to mention a Reuters article with the headline, “Canada to make statistics agency independent amid data concerns”. It says, “The agency was criticized earlier this year for technological issues that delayed the release of some economic reports on its website”. Again, going back to my time working for the Alberta government, when it was upgrading the licensing system at the time, Telus was responsible for an analog system when moving it online. With large IT infrastructure projects like this, the historical data is very valuable for organizations. Retention, production, and transferring of the data are all important, especially when it is a government agency like this one, where the Government of Canada has collected large volumes of very personal information. It should make sure the businesses and individuals affected do not somehow have that data compromised during the transition between different systems.

In another Canadian press article, this time in December 2016, with the headline “Liberals Move To End Political Interference At Statistics Canada”, the background says that ministers:

...would retain the right to decide on the “scope of the statistical program,” or what information Statistics Canada collects.

The government would also be able to make changes to “methodological or operational matters” — which includes how data are collected — through a cabinet order should the government “deem it to be in the national interest.”

Again, I would like to know how the government will be defining that national interest. I could not find it in the legislation. I am just curious to know how that will be defined and what will be the conditions under which cabinet will be able to order Statistics Canada to produce or not produce certain data on a certain form, and what those national interest grounds would be. Again, it is not in the legislation. I am interested to know how that will work, whether that will perhaps be published online somewhere or if the government intends to bring another piece of legislation on it. It is an open question. We do not really know.

We know that we had a resignation. One of the chief statisticians of Canada, Wayne Smith, resigned. At the time he mentioned, “It is my view that the Shared Services Canada model does not respect the provisions of the Statistics Act which does not permit that such information be in the hands of anyone who is not meaningfully an employee of Statistics Canada...”.

Again, I wonder how the amendments to the act would address the concerns that Wayne Smith expressed at committee, and whether this would fully addresses his concerns. I have not heard from him in particular, so again I do not know whether it fully addresses all our concerns. However, some of the sections I mentioned earlier, like section 4 and subsection 4.1, kind of indicate that perhaps there will not be that independence.

I also want to take a moment to highlight a section I do like. Section 31 would remove the jail time for non-completion of the censuses or the survey work that Statistics Canada would produce. We know that in 2011, Statistics Canada received 13 million completed census forms, a 98% response rate, not necessarily completion rate. As well, the 2016 survey had 98% and 14 million households completed the national census, 96% for the long form. It had 330 refusals back in 2011, and overall Statistics Canada referred 54 people at the time for prosecution for failing to complete the mandatory census form. We have known this. People could face a fine of $500 at the time, or three months in jail.

There are three people I want to highlight who actually went to court on this.

Janet Churnin, 79, who refused to fill out the mandatory census, was handed a conditional discharge, which means she will have no permanent criminal record after she completes her sentence of 50 hours of community service within a year.

Audrey Tobias, 89, was a peace activist who refused to fill out the census because of its link to a U.S. military contractor, whose name has been mentioned before in debate. She was found not guilty of violating the Statistics Canada Act. That was the decision of a Toronto judge at the time.

Sandra Finley, 61, was found not guilty of not filling out her long-form census in 2006. Again, she appealed her census case in which she received an absolute discharge. After losing an appeal of her conviction for not filling out the federal form in 2006, again she received a conditional discharge.

Now I see the government has moved away from this jail time hanging over people, kind of like the dagger of Damocles over them. I do want to ask questions, though, on why the Liberals have kept $500 and $1,000 penalties. We note here that they are kept in section 32, that by summary conviction people could face being liable for a fine of up to $1,000. The government has also kept a $500 fine. For refusal to grant access to records, it is $1,000.

I want to compare it to some other fines people may face from different provincial and municipal governments. If I am caught speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit set by the Alberta government, I could face a $253 to $474 fine from the peace officer. That is by summary conviction. Speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit is far more dangerous than my not filling out a census or a survey from the government, just in comparison. Say I run a red light. A red light violation carries a fine of $287 in Alberta, and speed-on-green infractions are on a sliding scale. Again, it is $287 if I run a red light with the camera present taking a picture of my licence plate and a potential $500 fine if I do not fill out a survey because I may have lost it, I may have moved, I may have gone on vacation, or I may have shredded it for whatever reason. How much are we fining people, and why are we fining them?

Say I run a red light and I am actually stopped by a peace officer. That carries a $488 fine back in my home of Alberta. Failing to stop at a signal or a crosswalk, or advancing into an intersection controlled by a flashing red light in an unsafe manner is $233. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a survey or not being willing to release information in the case of a business or I could be fined a $1,000.

In 2015 by comparison, a man was fined $1,400 for selling fur animals without a licence in Alberta. Off-leashing a dog in a provincial park in Alberta can set an individual back $1,000 by court order. Building and cleaning an illegal bike path in a provincial park, Bow Valley, which does happen, is a $400 fine, plus penalties assigned to the individual by the court.

As a father of three kids, all of whom use car seats, I know this one very well. I double-check my car seats, because if I am stopped by a police officer, it is $155 fine. I think that is a far more egregious violation of the law as there are danger and safety concerns for small kids. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a census form and being fined $500, or a business not willing to release proprietary information and being fined $1,000.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the former MP for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Joe Preston, who tabled private member's C-625, the removal of imprisonment in relation to mandatory surveys, which received unanimous support and moved on to committee.

This is just a concern of mine. I have open questions for the government to consider. Do the fines outlined in the legislation fit with other similar federal legislation? Was there an assessment done on whether these fines would pay for the administration and collection of the fine? Did the government undertake any work on how many fines it expects to hand out? If the fine levied is actually higher than the cost to government of collecting, then why are we doing this? Again, maybe more tongue in cheek, do the Liberals expect these fines to fill the government coffers to pay for perhaps some of the $30 billion deficit they have managed to run up in the past year, because with the 40 million Canadian households, I think we ought to stop taking the census for several years in order to pay off the deficit.

These are open questions wondering what the government is doing. This is not the first time I have asked. I actually tabled an Order Paper question, Question No. 255, way back last year and did not receive an answer regarding exactly who is being referred for prosecution by Statistics Canada.

We heard earlier today from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development who said that the National Statistics Council would be replaced by the Canadian statistic advisory council under proposed section 8.1. Again, what will happen to the previous members? The understanding I had from his speech in the House was that they would all be dismissed. They would all be removed from the council. I just wonder, why are we reducing it? Why are we reducing it to 10 members from 13 members, which is my understanding of how many members there were before, and what did these particular individuals do that was so egregious that they should be removed? I have heard no complaints in my constituency office on the work they were doing. Judging from the members who served there in 2010, they were university provosts, professors, very senior members of the academic community, as well as journalists. I just think it is perhaps arbitrary to move in this direction, but perhaps there is a great reason for it. I just did not hear it from the minister on exactly why we are moving in this direction.

On the Statistics Canada website, the mandate was to advise the chief statistician on the full range of Statistics Canada's activities, particularly on overall program priorities. We know from the proposed legislation that they are moving to a smaller group of people. Perhaps this is the right way to go, but they have not really explained the rationale for it and why they have changed it. Perhaps they will be keeping some members of the previous group as they go forward. Again, there is no rationale. I am just asking an open question.

We know that Statistics Canada also uses professional advisory committees in major subject areas. It has bilateral relationships with federal departments. It has federal-provincial-territorial consultative councils on statistical policy with a focus on health, education, and justice.

Statistics Canada already broadly collaborates with civic society, with organizations like the Canada West Foundation, universities and others. I am just wondering how that knowledge would be used, how it would be disseminated, and how these relationships would be leveraged. I do not see that really in the legislation.

I will mention one last thing, because I am running out of time. How does proposed section 8.1(1)(b) fit with section 6? In one section it talks about being forced to table an annual report with the annual report of the minister, and then in section 6 it talks about tabling a different report on statistical policy in Canada, one for the council, one for the chief statistician. The two do not really match, because one would be tabled here in Parliament with the minister's tabling of his annual report, and another one would be perhaps tabled publicly. It is not very clear whether the council has to table with Parliament, table with the chief statistician or whether it tables with the minister's report.

Those are the open questions I have. The tabling of new reports is nice, but I just want to know in exactly which direction they are going.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill also proposes the creation of an advisory council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)