Industry Committee on April 11th, 2017

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Do you agree that the current system is working fairly well?

[Dr. Brian Allen]

I couldn't comment on that with any great inside expertise.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Okay, that's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much. We're going to move to Mr. Dreeshen.

You have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all our guests this morning.

I had the the opportunity last year to go to the OECD's Blue Sky Forum in Ghent. As a former math and physics teacher, I enjoyed talking to people about some of the new things that are being done in statistics: data analysis, and megadata, so I certainly appreciate this opportunity as well, to be able to expand and talk about some of the things that have come about.

As I think we've noted from everyone this morning, there's still a concern about a lack of independence as far as the chief statistician is concerned. Some of the concerns are in regard to Shared Services Canada, as Ms. Eichler mentioned. I think we've heard a lot of that as well from various witnesses throughout the last number of weeks.

Perhaps, Ms. Eichler, you could just quickly pinpoint some of the issues that you have with Shared Services Canada. There was a discussion earlier, I believe, in Mr. Arya's question about cybersecurity, the thought being that Statistics Canada would be more protected if they were with Shared Services Canada. I think there are people who would suggest that might not be something that makes it more secure.

I wonder if you could just quickly give a few comments on that.

[Dr. Margrit Eichler]

I'm not an expert on cybersecurity. I notice that the Supreme Court is not part of Shared Services Canada and that seems to me an indication of the reasons they would not want to be part of this aspect.

Another aspect that I didn't mention on this issue is the problem of confidentiality. Everybody who is employed by Statistics Canada, be it ever so short, has to swear an oath of confidentiality; it even applies to casual employees. Under Shared Services Canada, other people are handling information and making decisions, and there is no oath that requires them to have this type of confidentiality. I would suggest there's an increased danger rather than anything else.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Schreyer, taking a look at some of the issues that you mentioned—proposed section 4.1 with the chief statistician and Governor in Council being able to make the types of decisions that you say are at variance with some of the OECD practices, and again as you've mentioned, that are even more onerous than in other Westminster Parliaments. I'm wondering if you could pinpoint where you think the concern is, and then I have a few other questions for you as well.

[Paul Schreyer]

I think our concern only comes in when there is some language that points to the potential interference of the executive in statistical methods.

How data is compiled, how and when it is released, and what methods are being used are quite different in my view from the basic question about what sort of information is needed. That is a very legitimate thing to express on behalf of the executive branch.

That sort of language, as far as I've seen at least, is what you'd find, say, in the Australian laws of statistics. There's some explicit indication that the minister can ask for certain statistical products to be developed, but there is nothing that says that he or she will tell the chief statistician how to come about producing that information. I think that's the crucial point.

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

As for the advisory council and its size—bringing it down to 10—we have six time zones in Canada and 13 different jurisdictions, and there are so many different types of information that need to be reflected in those who are going to make decisions. I've written down that in Ireland there are eight members, and, I think, in Switzerland there are 11, all the way up to Germany with 50 plus, and France with 40 plus.

When we look at that—and I think it is said arbitrarily that 10 is a good number—yes, there are other people who are associated with it, and other groups that are associated with it, but I think that's one of the concerns that we have. I say that for comment, because I'm wary of the time that I have.

You also mentioned the 92 years and that only the U.S. has a general disclosure by default. These are some of the questions we have. I don't know how long ago that was set up, but 92 years at that particular point in time might have meant they were going to be past a lifetime, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be that way in the future.

I'm just curious as to why you think that would be necessary. I know we've talked to folks who say, “Well, for our historians and for genealogical methods it would be nice if we had it”, but does that not fly in the face of the protection of privacy of data providers? If an option were supplied for them to say, “Yes, we don't care after 92 years, or once we hit 100, we won't even know what's happening”, if that's the situation, can you give us a little bit of input on that, please?

[Paul Schreyer]

Yes, but first I would quickly specify that I didn't say that it was only the U.S. I said that among the laws that we quickly screened, this is all I found for the U.S.

You do have, indeed, a whole variety of set-ups. For example—again, to cite Westminster legislation—in Australia you actually have an opt-in system. The default is that the information is destroyed or is kept confidential and the respondent has to explicitly agree that his or her information would be released after 99 years, I think. Before that, until 2001, the information was completely discarded, actually, after the census in Australia.

But you have other countries in which this is handled differently.

I think in the end it is clear that this is a sort of political decision, an arbitrage, that you as lawmakers will have to make. My understanding is that it does not impinge very much on the functioning of the census itself. I only heard about the experience in Statistics Canada itself when the rules were changed. It didn't seem to have a major impact.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Mr. Masse.

You have seven minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

There are things I'd like to continue and have addressed by all around the table.

The security and the provision of the data are obviously very important for those who are actually going to complete and fill out the survey. If you feel your privacy is being undermined, you will not fill out your data properly or you may not even participate, or you may give different results. That's something StatsCan has struggled with during this process of having two chief statisticians resign, which is unheard of.

I can be corrected, but I don't recall any other country facing this type of situation.

One thing that has arisen through this has to do with confidence in the data and, obviously, in Shared Services Canada.

I'll go around for everybody here to answer.

Mr. Prévost, to take this from another vantage point, what advantage is there for Stats Canada to give up ownership of its data and to give up its control of the distribution and the prioritization of that data to a third party? The argument is that it should do so.

The option we do have, though, is for the maintenance of an independent system. In fact, I fought for that independent system when we were outsourcing that information to Lockheed Martin. I felt the investment we would be making in terms of the data and all the money to accumulate it and quantify it, and the value of its use was so important that it should be a sanctuary unto itself and not be exposed unnecessarily to unmitigated risk.

What would be the advantage of outsourcing Stats Canada's collection and distribution of data to a third party such as Shared Services? Do you have any insight? Maybe you don't have any, but I would like to hear from our experts here as to the benefits of outsourcing to a third party for that element.

[Jean-Guy Prévost]

In the case of Shared Services, according to the former chief statistician, there was a loss of control over decisions that could be made in regard to the data. The argument has been made that there's more cybersecurity or protection with Shared Services, but I would say that if you have a unique system, it will be more vulnerable. If there's a problem, the problem will extend everywhere, maybe even from a security viewpoint. Keeping control over the data for an institution such as Statistics Canada, which manages a huge set of data, I think is highly preferable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You can think of no real advantage, then?

[Jean-Guy Prévost]

We've had all the problems with Shared Services that made the data unavailable during certain periods of time very recently.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's what I'm trying to come up with: what's the advantage of doing this? I can think of lots of disadvantages of doing this. Even just moving information is a risk.

Also, Ms. Eichler, with regard to employees swearing an oath of confidentiality, I'd like to hear more about the code of ethics at Stats Canada versus that of maybe a third party, which could potentially outsource more of that information, more of those jobs, and wouldn't even notify Stats Canada they were doing so, under the provisions of the agreements of operation.

What's the difference between the obligations of staff at Stats Canada obligation versus those of maybe Service Canada? Can you highlight that a little bit more?

[Dr. Margrit Eichler]

As I said, anybody who is employed at Statistics Canada, even on a casual basis, has to swear an oath of confidentiality. There is no such requirement for the people who work for Shared Services Canada. To me, that is a serious problem.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Allen, do you have any comments?

[Dr. Brian Allen]

On your previous question as to who should manage the data, Shared Services Canada or Stats Canada, I tend to agree with you. It's difficult to see advantages from Shared Services Canada managing the data. The two issues that keep coming up are confidentiality and cybersecurity.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Schreyer, how valuable an asset to a country is the accumulation and use of data? I think one of the things that's perhaps underplayed is the accumulation of data for economic decisions, whether it be for social planning or economic development, and so forth. What's the advantage of a country investing in and maintaining a secure, properly managed, and updated data system for its population's use of services and social planning?

[Paul Schreyer]

I think it's hard to underestimate the importance of a sound information system, not only for the executive but also for society at large. That, I think, is a given for any evidence-based policy-making.

The other question, of course, is how do you put that in place? I don't have any particular insights on the specific question of Shared Services Canada, but, of course, if you look at various countries, you do have cases where certain IT services are outsourced, for example, for efficiency reasons because some services can be provided more efficiently that way. But there are major legal barriers in the sense that, for example, under the European Union legislation, the data is not allowed to be stored outside the country. It is not possible to store data in the cloud, for example, because in doing so one cannot guarantee that the data is on national territory, which limits, of course, cloud storage, for example.

The other general tendency that I see is that whenever there is outsourcing in one way or the other, there may not be a transfer of responsibility or liability of the operations by the statistic office. The statistic office has to remain in charge of the management functions in its responsibility for the data. This is not something that one sees outsourced. But, again, I have not investigated this at great length; I'm just giving you my ad hoc opinion on this.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Longfield, you have seven minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for coming forward. You're bringing a really diverse set of opinions for us to consider.

Looking at the Governor in Council selection process, which the Prime Minister has introduced to try to ensure independence and openness for all Canadians, could you maybe describe from your view where we sit with the Governor in Council selection process?

Maybe we could start with you, Mr. Prévost.