Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Hamel and Mr. Corbeil.
As you know, gentlemen, when we parliamentarians are required to make decisions, we rely on what are called facts, factual elements. The data we are given enable us to make decisions for Canadians. Consequently, Statistics Canada stakes its credibility on all the data it provides to parliamentarians, institutions, companies, and its entire clientele in the broadest sense.
What happened in August undermined Statistics Canada's credibility to a certain degree, and it was important for us to meet with you today to take stock of the situation. You are here today to defend your institution's credibility, and I am pleased that media people are here too so they can report the matter to Canadians. We will probably be doing the same in an upcoming report.
I do not think we have any grounds to doubt Statistic Canada's credibility. What is certain is that Statistics Canada has been around for quite a long time, and decisions that Canadian parliamentarians from all parties have previously made have been based on facts, information, and data that you have provided. It is fundamentally important and even essential that the information we receive and on which we rely in making decisions be absolutely perfect, and that is particularly true with regard to official languages.
How can this kind of error occur given the number of employees you have, the credibility you enjoy, and the history of your institution? How can this kind of error still occur in 2017? That is the main question in my mind. Furthermore, I would like to know whether this has happened before. Whatever the case may be, do you think that this error, which occurred in 2017, was human or technological in origin? Can the two be separated?