As to efficiencies, there is an issue about standards and common practices across all federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations: I would hope they would disseminate and aggregate data in that way, but in fact they don't. There's no standard practice.
CIC captures data according to landings. Well, landings could be anything, anywhere in Canada. Other agencies capture their data by postal code. Well, those postal codes don't line up with neighbourhoods, etc.
I would suggest that we roll up our sleeves and consider the geographies that Canadians once used to describe themselves, to talk about their communities, and to organize themselves. Then let's make a policy of aggregating these data according to those geographies. That would be efficient for the federal government, because you would have a standard that would span the country. Everybody collects point data, but everybody aggregates it differently, and they don't talk to each other.
The other efficiency is that you would have interoperability between the different institutions. I have great fondness for community groups, because they're the ones who keep our communities vibrant. They're the ones who keep us all accountable and make sure that we do the things we're supposed to do, in cities in particular. They need those data at that scale to focus their efforts. For example, a school board needs to understand its catchment area. On population health, there was a great Senate committee that looked at social determinants of health. We need local micro-geography so that we can actually look at where these health issues are occurring, so there would be an efficiency there as well.