Okay.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was statistics.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was statistics.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
In 1918, another amendment was made to the act. At that time, it was clear that data was confidential and there were no provisions that made it possible to make census data public after any period of time. In 2005, an amendment was made to the Statistics Act to decide what do to with data collected between 1921 and today.
It was decided that consent was not needed and that the data would be made available.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
We are talking about data going back more than 92 years.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
Exactly. That is what was revised in the act that is currently in force. However, it was requested that consent be tested. That was done from 2006 to 2016.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
We didn't know how Canadians would react to the fact that they would now be asked for consent. A re-evaluation had to be done.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Arora said that Canadians seemed to be fairly open to the idea of data being made public. Is that right?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
According to the figures, yes, absolutely.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Let's say that a 92-year period seems to be a good balance. Can we say that?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
I will not pass judgment on that. However, I can give you more exact figures, if you are interested.
Today, the legislator's duty is to decide what will be done with that data.
Should we continue asking for consent or should we go back to the previous practice of making data available without consent?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
Yes, after 92 years.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
It was my pleasure.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Information Management Division, Statistics Canada
Do you want to add anything?
9:40 a.m.
A voice
No, it's fine.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
All right. Then you've got none. I'll take it away.
Mr. Masse, you can have the extra 10 seconds for the last question, three minutes and 10 seconds. I'm sorry, two minutes and 10 seconds.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
At any rate I owe Frank 10 seconds and that's fine.
I want to follow up and make something clear. How does the public and how do MPs get a list of the companies that you're actually providing some sources to and for what reasons? I'm looking for confidence in what's taking place there. How is that done?
9:40 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
That's an excellent question. It depends on the vehicle and the mechanism. If it's above a certain dollar value and a threshold, as you know—
9:40 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
Yes, we can certainly point out what you have to go to procurement services Canada for, what would be available from Statistics Canada.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That would be wonderful.
Thank you, because privacy is a huge issue for many Canadians. Even under the most stringent rules and measures, it's being compromised, not just in Canada, of course, but across the world. It's one of the biggest things that is coming up, the relationship between privacy and security in data management.
So we're moving to a system right now—I just want to make sure—for the appointment of the advisory roles and positions. Where before it was approved by the chief statistician, it is now going to be basically an appointee of the minister. Is that correct?