Industry Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to questions, starting with Mr. Arya.

You have seven minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Arora, welcome back to the committee.

I have worked in several countries, and wherever I worked, when they were looking for quality statistics, Statistics Canada was one of the top sources. With these new changes, where does Statistics Canada stand in comparison with similar institutions across the world?

[Anil Arora]

Statistics Canada has been one of the pre-eminent statistical agencies in the world. In fact, it is operated very much in line with the legislation.

What has happened over time is that a number of organizations like the United Nations and the OECD have actually formalized a lot of the good practices that statistical agencies, at least the eminent ones across the globe, follow.

What you have now, essentially, in the proposed legislation, is a codification of what has generally been the practice. In many international fora, Statistics Canada is regarded very highly, in terms of the way it operates. The legislation essentially now takes it one step further, and codifies in law some of the responsibilities that leverage the expertise that statisticians bring to a statistical agency.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

The National Statistics Council has been here for 30 years. How is this new Canadian statistics advisory council different? What changes will it showcase?

[Anil Arora]

First of all, Statistics Canada has always looked for advice on various matters from Canadians, eminent Canadians. In fact, we have 13 advisory committees in various subject-matter areas. We have seven federal-provincial committees, with representation from every province and territory. We have international experts who provide us with advice on a range of statistical matters. As you said, the National Statistics Council has been an integral part of the advice that we've been given. It has over 40 members, of whom 33 are active.

What we're talking about, in terms of the evolution of statistical systems in the world, is the formation of a council or body that can actually speak to Canadians transparently about the advice that it gives to the minister and the chief statistician. It speaks about the health of the national statistical system in comparison to the evolution of society, in terms of where statistical systems are going internationally. That's a gap in Canada currently.

In fact, as I said, we have sufficient representation of all aspects of society in the vast array of advisory committees that we have. What the legislation proposes is the creation of a Canadian statistics advisory council to fill the gap that, as you see in many other jurisdictions, is now formalized.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Are you happy with this bill? Are you satisfied? There are some people who say that this bill doesn't go far enough. They say it doesn't make Statistics Canada more independent than before.

[Anil Arora]

We at Statistics Canada take great pride in two basic functions. One is to be able to interact with Canadians and make sure that when they give us their confidential information they can count on Statistics Canada to keep it confidential. The other is to ensure that when we put information out it is trustworthy and credible, so that when Canadians use it, they needn't worry about things such as independence.

I think we have done a good job as a country, as a nation, and as this democratic institution within it. What this bill does is remove any doubt, if there was any, that we operate in a fashion that is independent, that we bring our expertise to bear, and that Canadians can have absolute confidence and trust in what we put out.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

If there is a Governor in Council directive that you feel is not appropriate to professional statistical standards, are you obligated to ignore it?

[Anil Arora]

The way the bill is laid out, in broad terms, is to separate the “what” from the “how”. I think for Statistics Canada to be relevant, it has to make sure that it is responding to the policy needs of the nation and how they're evolving, and I think the government sets that policy direction and defines what the gaps are.

In terms of that responsibility, and the resources that go along with it for us to do our job, that's really a responsibility of the government. I think what the bill does now is it puts explicitly in writing that the chief statistician is responsible for methodology, the process of how to collect the statistics so that they are defensible. So if there is a desire, or if there is a need for the minister to intervene, it's going to be clear, because such an intervention would be put in the form of a Governor in Council directive in both Houses, and it would be a transparent process.

Similarly, should a minister decide to intervene on a content matter, the chief statistician can now publicly make that request of the minister in writing. It would be transparent who made the decision and who holds the accountability, and that would be now codified in law.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Can you talk a bit about transfer of data to Library and Archives Canada and what benefit it brings to Canadians?

[Anil Arora]

I think you have to see the landscape today. More and more people are looking at their heritage. They're doing a lot of research. Genealogists, historians, researchers, and academics all rely on that information. What this bill does is provide that information to them 92 years after a census is conducted, because a census is essentially a portrait we take of our country and of our people every five years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to our guests this morning.

I had the opportunity to go to the Blue Sky III Forum in Ghent where it was obvious that the work done for years by Stats Canada is well received. Of course, Blue Sky II was in Ottawa, and we were able to set the stage for a lot of great things being done with regard to statistical analysis. As a former math teacher, I have had students whom I'm very proud of who have worked in Stats Canada. So it's nice to have you here to talk about some of the issues that are important. From my perspective, it's certainly a case of striking the balance between getting good quality data and respecting the privacy of Canadians.

You mentioned that for 2021, for that census, you would start talking about 92 years. Does that mean we go back to 1929 and say that any information we have there is now fair game, as of 2021, or are we starting the clock at 2021 and moving forward 92 years? My point is, if it is something we're going to start at the next census, what would be wrong with having an opt-out provision for that data to be ultimately given out?

[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.

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

Basically you're extrapolating that from 50% to 80% now means that it's going to be even higher in the future, but things do change as time goes on. What might have been the factors that would have caused that increase? We're not sure just what might happen. Historically, around the world you can imagine that there are certain events that take place where all of a sudden people say, “You know what? I think we've been giving too much to the government and therefore, we'd like to have that opportunity to back out.” That's the point that I look at.

I still believe that having that option is valid. We can go 50% to 80% and assume it's got to be close to 99% by the time we get there, but that doesn't really bring into effect some of the other things that could happen worldwide. If my residency was a federal penitentiary or something like that, maybe I wouldn't want that to be known for 92 years, if that was the sort of information that was being presented, but I think there are a lot of others. That's one point that we have.

The other question has to do with the advisory council and what we did have and what we do have now with the federal-provincial-territorial consultative council on statistical policy versus the new entity that is being looked at. When the whole focus was about getting representation from each region, which is basically my conception of what the first part was about, to saying now we only need 10 and of course, we consent to have those 10 chosen in a particular manner. There's this look of impropriety to that. One could say, “Yes, we know that they're all going to be chosen and they're all going to be the best people that are going to be on this, so therefore, we don't have to worry.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I hate to cut you off, but your 40 seconds are over already. Perhaps we can get back to that answer.

We're going to move to Mr. Masse. You have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you for being here again. I appreciate that.

The relationship with Lockheed Martin is one of the things I've always been concerned about. I raised it last time, and I hope perhaps you have a little bit more that you could provide on it. Obviously, that was something that I raised immediately, the concerns related to their being an arms manufacturer and distributor of weapons across the world, including bombs, land mines, and a series of other things that we've signed conventions against. The crux of it was the fact that as it was an American company, when we were going to potentially...and it was good that we got the reversal of that...data to the United States. It was susceptible to the U.S. Patriot Act. My understanding is that once that act is engaged in the United States, a company cannot provide anyone else the notation that they're under investigation or review, or that their data is being compromised by U.S. administrative authorities, when that data is then actually requested by their system under the U. S. Patriot Act.

What other types of outsourcing are currently being done at Statistics Canada? That problem with Lockheed Martin seems to have gone away for the most part, at least the main stuff.

One of the strongest components of Stats Canada is the quiet confidence that Canadians had in the protection of their personal information. Unfortunately, we live in a world where some of that protection is at risk, even under the best of circumstances. Most recently we had Snowden, but we also have U.S. legislation, other countries' legislation, and other hacking that has been done on systems across the world. I just came back from Washington, where they are obsessed now with the Russian issue. But what comes to light as the bigger component in the protection of personal data, even in the Canadian government, is outsourcing. I've been here long enough to notice the constant accidental compromise of a person's personal data.

What type of outsourcing does Stats Canada do right now?

[Anil Arora]

First of all, every single employee of Statistics Canada, in the act as well as beyond the act, in terms of the spirit of it, takes confidentiality and privacy protection very seriously. It is something that is indoctrinated in us right from day one.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I agree. My question is on what companies you are outsourcing work to under Stats Canada. That's my interest.

This is one of the reasons I disagreed with the original outsourcing. It goes beyond the time that I was here. I have every confidence in the in-house operations and ethical propriety, which is part of the act.

What companies are you currently outsourcing to right now? For what type of business?

[Anil Arora]

Just to continue to provide that clarity, because we take that oath and that legal requirement to protect the confidentiality and privacy of respondent data seriously, the actual handling of confidential information or questionnaires, the data itself, is never outsourced to anybody else. Anybody who does the collection, anybody who is doing the processing of that information, anybody who has access to confidential respondent data—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I understand that, but—

[Anil Arora]

It's done by Statistics Canada employees.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm asking about what type, how much, and to what companies you do outsourcing. That is still part of the operations and possible compromise. I'm not looking for what you do in-house, but what you actually outsource—to whom, what components, and how much? Those are the specifics that I'm looking for. What companies are you outsourcing work to, and for what reasons? They are part of the chain.

I have every confidence in what we have in-house. I don't need that. What I need is how much outsourcing is taking place.