Industry Committee on April 11th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

We will be able to get through four more questions.

Mr. Longfield, for seven minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Well, this is a bonus round that I wasn't expecting. Thank you for that.

We're covering a lot of ground, and so I'm trying to look for what we haven't covered. I'm looking at Mr. Schreyer regarding the benefits of aligning Canadian practices with international ones. I had started to address this in my previous questions regarding the timing of our doing this, and whether other countries are also going through reviews. Are we aligning ourselves properly with that?

[Paul Schreyer]

Following the passage of the OECD recommendation on good statistical practice, we have put in place review processes in all of the OECD countries. This is on the way as we speak. It will be finished by the end of next year.

Canada has not been reviewed yet, because it makes sense to wait on what is happening with legislation before we look into this. All of the OECD countries are reviewed against their compliance with the council's recommendation. This is something that will then be discussed by our committee on statistics, which is composed of members of all the OECD countries.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In terms of our timing then, how critical is it for us to get this legislation passed, let's say, this year? Would we be able to still fit the review processes that are going on internationally? Do we need to have this legislation done by June, or would we be able to do it by the fall?

[Paul Schreyer]

If the legislation is complete by the end of 2017, that would certainly be sufficient for us to review it, because we only have to report back to the OECD council by the end of 2018, and so we could time things appropriately.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It sounds as though this is very appropriate timing then.

[Paul Schreyer]

Absolutely.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Terrific.

In terms of the separation of...we've had some conflicting statements in the last three meetings around Shared Services and its independence.

This is maybe for Ms. Eichler.

The chief statistician and former statisticians all said that they're the ones who provide the methodology. They control their own destiny in terms of what is done with the census or the statistical reports that are requested.

From your testimony I was getting a sense that Statistics Canada in your opinion didn't have that type of independence or control over what they're asking of Shared Services. My picture was that Shared Services is a repository. It's the database. It's the infrastructure. But it's not the people who manage the census itself, so the control of information is really from Statistics Canada to them as a data processor.

[Dr. Margrit Eichler]

As we understand the process, this is only partially true, because as the former chief statistician said, there is a veto power on the part of Shared Services by failing to act quickly, for instance. He cited examples of when they had to pay for a service twice, which is a problem because you take money away from where it should go. It was part of the money that was sent over to Shared Services Canada. They had to pay for it again, and then it moved at glacial speed—those were his terms.

That also means that certain things simply weren't done. One example is that the website was not ready for releasing the type of census data that they wanted.

I would like to come back, if I may, to an earlier question you asked with respect to outsourcing. Having had a few minutes to reflect on it, I think it would not be correct to apply that term to Shared Services Canada. Statistics Canada—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It's all part of the same thing.

[Dr. Margrit Eichler]

—may, and has in the past, and I'm sure will in the future, delegate certain tasks to people that they hire, but if they hire them, then these people have to swear the oath and it's outsourced by Statistics Canada, whereas Shared Services Canada is imposed on them. So to call that outsourcing is, I think, a misunderstanding of the current relationship.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I appreciate your comments on that.

Mr. Allen, in terms of the interaction between departments and where Statistics Canada supports the work of other departments and agencies under the Government of Canada, could you comment on how that relationship is in terms of your take on things or where it has been and where it's heading?

[Dr. Brian Allen]

Probably not with any degree of insight. I've never been employed by the government and certainly not Stats Canada. I've been an academic at the University of Guelph for many years.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Great. It's a good school.

[Dr. Brian Allen]

It's a good school. Yes, it is.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's great.

[Dr. Brian Allen]

I'm sorry, but I just don't have any insight on that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

We're going towards database decision-making, and I'm thinking that this is going to be a very strong tool for us once we get this legislation in place.

I didn't know that you had the Guelph connection. Thanks for mentioning that. The University of Guelph is near and dear to my heart.

Mr. Prévost, from your perspective, where could this help or assist in government operations?

[Jean-Guy Prévost]

In fact, Statistics Canada has been assisting government for a number of years. The data it produces goes into the policy process, so it's very closely connected. That's where part of the problem comes. It needs to be very close to government, but it also needs to be somewhat protected from more overtly political intervention.

I would say that the role of data in drafting policy is becoming and will become more and more important.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Right. I think we've hit on exactly why we're doing all of this work. We don't want political interference, but we do need the support and data to make the right policy decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for great, thoughtful answers.

[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. I think I'll do a little bit of cleanup.

There were a number of different items that I wanted to speak of.

As always, there is the story of the mandatory long-form census, which comes back to the 60,000 people who were part of the Jedi religion when one of the censuses took place.

The suggestion that you're always going to get good data is not necessarily reflective of the way it is. You must have statisticians who are able to look at it and do certain tests on any information that comes in. I recognize that as a significant part of the science of statistics.

What I would like to do is put on record some of the suggestions that have come forth on potential amendments to section 4. This came from Professor Paul Thomas. We had a brief that he sent in, but I'm not sure whether he had a chance to put this on the record. I wanted to go through some of them. He proposed the following:

Section 4.1(1) should be amended to require that before a directive respecting an operational/technical matter comes into force it must be tabled in Parliament and be subject to a 60 day notice and comment period.

That's one of the suggestions he made. The second pertains to that same proposed subsection:

Section 4.1(1) should be amended to clarify that the Chief Statistician has the authority to disagree publicly should the cabinet modify the scope and content of the Census of Population in a manner that contradicts the advice of SC.

The third is on proposed subsection 4.2(1).

Section 4.2 (1) should be amended to require that any policy directive issued by the minister be placed on the cabinet agenda for potential discussion. No policy directive should amount to an indirect amendment of the Statistics Act.

Those are three amendments that have been presented. I simply wanted to put them on the record. I wonder if there are any other thoughts of amendments that one could consider as far as section 4 is concerned.

Does anyone have any comment on any those I have presented?

I realize it is difficult when it is done verbally, but are Are there any specific things that you think we could look at on section 4?

Mr. Prévost.

[Jean-Guy Prévost]

I've read Dr. Thomas' brief. I would say his proposed amendments go in the direction of making public the changes. I think that's the general direction we should go.

If the government, the minister, or the Governor in Council, considers that there should be an intervention in the programs or even regarding some aspect of the methods, this should be made public before the decision is final, so that there could be some public discussion about it. I think his proposals go in that direction.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Allen, do you have any comments?

[Dr. Brian Allen]

I have no additional suggestions of amendments.