Industry Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I think I have three seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You've used them all up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have five minutes.

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

I knew someone had five minutes. Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Certainly, from listening to what has taken place here, I'm going to go over the transcript of the testimony quite carefully and I would hope that everyone can do that, because I think it's really critical.

Mr. Smith, you had gone through three basic themes, and then you said you had three amendments. I'm not sure whether we could tighten that up a bit, and maybe I could get some commentary from you as to what you think might be amendments, the succinct points that you could make that would tie in, that would help us again on the testimony side.

I do want to ask this one question because I've asked it of others as well. The discussion is that after 92 years, whether a person has said they wanted it or had that option of opting out of it or not, this information should therefore be public. Really, most people look at the census and say, okay, it says in here it's not going to be shared with anybody and so we can be comfortable with what we put down.

I'd like to have your comment on that. There are a couple of questions that are asked, on religion and so on, that I'm thinking of. I'll mention the story of the number of people who have chosen the Jedi religion. Those kinds of things, after 92 years, might seem insignificant, but where do you pick the number when we don't know what life expectancy is? We don't understand the scenarios in there.

Is it something that needs to be in that legislation, or can it simply be left out? That's my first question on that part, and then maybe you could flesh out what you think the amendments would be.

[Wayne Smith]

The issue of the 92 years is not really a statistical issue. This is an issue for genealogists and historians. The tradition has been in Canada that after 92 years, generally speaking, public records become accessible, and that used to apply to the census.

A long time ago, the 1918 Statistics Act applied to the censuses conducted prior to it. Then the Statistics Act came along and said that all data was confidential and gave the impression that it would be in perpetuity.

The issue was raised about whether the data from Statistics Canada should be made public. There was strong lobbying by genealogists and historians that this data were important, and in making data public after the normal life expectancy shouldn't be that controversial. Proposals were adopted in the Statistics Act that asked for consent. They've been ineffective in getting people to respond to them, let alone whether they.... Some people won't respond for their children, because they want to wait until they're adults. Other people won't respond for their spouse. Other people never get to that question and stop before they get there.

Even the noes aren't necessarily noes and the result is that genealogists have lost a significant level of access. It's no longer a 100% record. They would like to see it restored.

We thought there might be an impact on Statistics Canada's operations if, in fact, we did not ask for consent. It was seen that that's not the case, so we, Statistics Canada, during my appointment when I was there, were of the view that we saw no harm in accommodating the genealogists and the historians in making the data available without bothering to ask for consent after 92 years, or any other period that Parliament might want to adopt: 108, 114, the maximum life expectancy of a Canadian.

In terms of the ability of Statistics Canada to carry out its mandate, this is not critical to Statistics Canada's operations, so it really is a decision for Parliament to decide whether they would like to continue with consent, whether they'd like to go back to the case where Statistics Canada information is no longer available ever, or whether Parliament wants to adopt the 92-year rule and automatically make the data available to the public archives after a fixed period of whatever length.

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

Quickly, on amendments to that potential—

[Wayne Smith]

On the amendments, I think Dr. Fellegi and I both indicated the key elements. We need amendments around the selection process absolutely, in my view. It needs to provide for a selection committee. The selection has to be based on merit, on demonstrated ability to run large organizations, knowledge of officials, and demonstrated experience with official statistics to create a short list for consideration by the government. Appointments and those kinds of provisions need to be there.

The census provisions need to be altered. If you look at the transcript, you'll find that I did enumerate the various pieces that need to be done.

The last piece from me doesn't require any change to the Statistics Act. The government could easily remove Statistics Canada from Shared Services Canada or alter its arrangement. It has done so already with respect to the Federal Court system. The same approach would apply to restore Statistics Canada's meaningful control. It doesn't require an amendment to the Statistics Act. It requires a small change to a schedule of the Shared Services Canada Act, which can be done by the Privy Council in isolation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you. We're going to have to end it right there.

Before everybody leaves, just hang on.

Thank you, gentlemen, for sharing your time with us today. You leave us with a lot of questions that we need to answer.

Gentlemen, before we go, I have a couple of things to deal with, just quick housekeeping. On Thursday for those who are interested in staying, we have Clare Adamson coming from Scotland. She will likely sit in toward the end, and then we'll do an informal session from 10:45 to 11:15. Some people have expressed interest in staying. We'll send her bio to your email addresses.

I'm going to pass around another thing. For our trip to Washington, I want to make sure that we are going with a specific goal in mind, so we worked with the clerk. This is just an example. It has already been passed around. Take a look at it. Be prepared to have a chat if there is more in there that you want, but we want to be able to come back with very specific—rather than just going willy-nilly and doing whatever.

Brian.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just on this, I think it is important to note this is coming from a parliamentary secretary outside this committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

No, sir.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I know, but the initiative to have committees go to Washington comes from a parliamentary secretary outside this committee. In terms of all committees in the House engaging with the United States, and also parliamentary associations, I just want to make sure that if we are going to do this, we are cognizant of the fact it's going to be with this committee in mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Absolutely, we're going down as a committee. That's what we discussed previously, and that's why I want to make sure that we have a clear objective for going down.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Is there any way we can officially tie this to our manufacturing report, which is still pending? Is there any process by which that can take place, or is that the will of the committee? I have never gone down this road for procedure, so I don't know if that was possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

We can ask those questions. Whether we're going to add anything to a study that we ended in December, I can't speak to. That's a conversation we should have at a later date.

Again, we want to be able to have a clear mandate when we go down.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

My fear is that we have so many people going down to the States that the Americans are going to get tired of us, or that we will all be seeing the same people.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's what I thought. Yes, you're seeing it as I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Are there any further questions?

Thank you.

We will send these out by email, so if you have any comments, please respond.

The meeting is adjourned.