Debates of Jan. 30th, 2017

Statistics Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague underline his concerns about the use and misuse of data. With the last voluntary survey that was done, it was noted that some jurisdictions in Canada had a low response rate in their survey, and that certain groups within Canada tend to respond to voluntary surveys better than others. Therefore, we get a real hodgepodge of data that comes in, and in some places in Canada it leads to an absolute black hole. Some communities reported that there were problems with their data. They did not know where their citizens worked, what their education levels were, what their marriage status was or their immigration status, or what the poverty levels were. Therefore, there were no socio-economic statistics that could help these local communities make policies to help their citizens.

I know that my colleague is withholding judgment on this particular bill, but I would like to know his thoughts on the long-form census. Does he personally believe that a mandatory long-form census should be instituted? Is this something the committee should be studying and implementing to make sure that the data across Canada is used appropriately to help Canadian citizens where they need it?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the question, and I thank him for the information he has shared and the point he has raised.

My response may be somewhat technical, but it is important to clarify. The short form census continued to be mandatory. The long form census, for a time under the previous government, was not mandatory. However, when we have a short form census that everyone is still filling out, we still have the opportunity to benchmark or weight the data we are collecting from a long form survey based on the data we are collecting from the short form. In other words, we can make up for the possibility of under-representation of certain groups in a response sample by weighting, given that we still have the data from the short form.

He might have a point about a data black hole if the short form census were no longer mandatory. That was certainly never undertaken and, as far as I know, never contemplated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to one of the responses the member gave. He was talking about an important aspect of the legislation, which ultimately says that if someone refuses to complete a census form they would no longer be going to jail. People have not really been going to jail, even though the legislation allowed for it.

The member is trying to give the impression that the Conservatives support that aspect and it is good to see that our government is bringing it in. The Conservative government at the time was very anxious to make the long-form census forms non-mandatory, yet it seemed rather odd that they never got rid of what it is we are getting rid of, the jail time penalty. Perhaps the member could explain why the Conservatives did not deal with that particular issue when they had the opportunity.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The law allowed someone to be sentenced to jail for not filling out the long-form census at the time when it was previously mandatory. It is a problem that it says that in the law. Do I know offhand the number of people who were sentenced recently under that provision? No, I do not. However, it is not a matter of small consequence that it is still, at the present time, the law. Of course, at the time the government made the decision to have the long-form census not be mandatory that particular provision was not relevant because it was not mandatory. Under a framework where it was not mandatory, there was not a need to repeal the provision.

However, the government has made the decision to make it mandatory. It has taken quite a while to get around to repealing the provision, but at least it recognized the fact that people should not be incarcerated for not filling out the long-form census. That, at least, is progress.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have been very reliant on outside expertise to bring some fresh perspective to things and make sure that programs being presented and executed are still grounded in the real world. Back in about 1985, the Mulroney government established the current National Statistics Council. It had representation from all 13 provinces and territories. People have served well. I have not heard any complaints about it, ever.

I was wondering if the member could comment on why there would be a need for a new council and any concerns he might have about losing institutional memory of the members who have sat on that council for quite some time, replacing them with people who would be brand new out of the chute.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the critic for her question and also for her great work in this area.

This is a great point. The government has a part of the bill that really is not explained at all in terms of the rationale. It removes people who have experience, who have been working in this area and have the intimate knowledge. It creates an opportunity for the government to appoint a whole new slate of people. When the government appoints an entire slate of people all at once, that has the potential to really compromise independence, because the same government is appointing all of those people right out of the gate. There is a loss of institutional memory and experience.

Sometimes, what we see from the government is change for change's sake. There are benefits to change if there are benefits of change in a particular case, but we should not just be changing things for the sake of changing them. In the absence of some kind of rationale around this, that is kind of what it looks like.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I should note that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Brampton North.

It is an honour to take part in this debate after two illustrious members of the House from both sides. While I will not claim that my word count is anywhere near either one of theirs, I think I am not too shabby myself.

I rise to speak about Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. The government is committed to evidence-based decision-making. This bill supports the production and distribution of statistical information that is reliable and impartial.

Bill C-36 ensures that Canadians can have full confidence in their national statistical agency and the quality of the information it produces. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that decisions made about data collection, analysis, and dissemination rest with the experts in the field of statistics, not the politicians.

Statistics play an essential role in modern democratic societies. They are critical to good government and evidence-based decision-making. They inform the decisions made by businesses, non-profit organizations, governments, and the public. Public confidence in the quality of official statistics is critical, as is the public trust in the institution that produces official statistics.

For those reasons, Canada's statistical agency is a world-leading organization and must have a high level of independence. In fact, the agency must be able to operate at a healthy distance from day-to-day political direction and oversight. Statistics Canada must be guided exclusively by professional considerations on decisions relating to its operations and data-gathering methods. Any perception of interference inevitably leads to a loss of public trust.

The decision by the previous government to turn the 2011 mandatory long-form census into a voluntary survey highlighted a vulnerability in Canada's statistical legislation. It raised public concerns about Statistics Canada's independence, and it compromised the quality and detail of the census data. This unilateral decision prompted a swift reaction from Canadians who objected to this change.

Historically, Statistics Canada has been treated at arm’s length by convention rather than by legislation. Because this practice was not enshrined in the Statistics Act, it left the agency and the chief statistician of Canada vulnerable to political interference in statistical matters.

This bill strengthens Statistics Canada’s professional independence by enshrining it in law. The bill accomplishes this goal in a number of ways. First, it protects the independence and integrity of the chief statistician. Under the current Statistics Act, the Governor in Council appoints the chief statistician of Canada to be the deputy of the minister. The chief statistician also holds office during pleasure of the government.

The act sets no specific terms or conditions about the employment of the chief statistician. In effect, the chief statistician can be removed arbitrarily from office at the government’s discretion with or without cause. This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician’s ability to make decisions based on professional statistical and ethical principles. Furthermore, the chief statistician could effectively be dismissed at any time without public justification.

This legislative gap potentially leaves the chief statistician vulnerable to political pressure. It also risks undermining the chief statistician's ability to make decisions based on professional, statistical, and ethical principles.

Bill C-36 would address these legislative gaps. It proposes to appoint the chief statistician, on good behaviour, for a five-year renewable term. It would protect the chief statistician from being dismissed for arbitrary reasons. It would provide greater clarity on the chief statistician's terms and conditions of employment. As well, it would place a greater onus on the government to explain a decision to remove the chief statistician.

Taken together, the proposed changes contained in Bill C-36 will protect the integrity of Statistics Canada. They will strengthen public confidence in the agency’s ability to protect the confidentiality of their information. They will also enable Statistics Canada to continue to produce high-quality statistical information that all Canadians can rely on. A fundamental role of government is to safeguard the integrity and quality of the statistical data that is produced on behalf of all Canadians. Bill C-36 allows this government to fulfill that responsibility.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his new role and for his first speech in the role.

One of the things that is important is this. With the chief statistician taking over the responsibility for choosing methodology and choosing data and all that kind of thing, it is very important that the chief statistician have some credentials or some understanding of statistics. I wonder if the member could tell me what the current chief statistician's credentials are.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the chief statistician's CV in front of me.

What we hope to do in this legislation is improve the quality of the chief statistician. How? It would be by subjecting the appointment of the chief statistician to our Governor in Council appointment process, which we have revised to make into a process of the highest quality and the highest transparency to get the single most qualified person in the job.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate my colleague on his insightful speech. This is obviously a subject he is very interested in. It is a first and I congratulate him. However, given that we are focusing on the chief statistician, let us talk about the former chief statistician. As we all know, he quit because he knew that the former government's vision for Statistics Canada was problematic. Will he appear before the committee so that we can hear what changes he would make?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We are indeed talking about two chief statisticians, not just one, because there are two who resigned. The first, Munir Sheikh, was consulted throughout the process. We took his recommendations into consideration. That does not mean that we accepted all of them, but we consulted him.

The second chief statistician, Wayne Smith, was also part of the reform initiated by our government. He therefore played a role in the process. Once again, I am not going to say that he completely agrees with the recommendations contained in the bill, but some aspects of it reflect his views.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, another thing that my constituents often mention about the census is access to a paper copy. In the past, there were people available to help those who are somewhat less educated or who have trouble reading or understanding the questionnaire.

Is it not important to ensure that this service continues to be available to people who need it? Paper copies of the census must be made available, and people who want a paper copy should not have to wait on the phone for an hour and a half to get one. It is also important that those who call are able to speak to someone in the official language of their choice, and staff must be available to help people who, for whatever reason, need assistance filling out the form.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

My colleague is talking about the methodology used for any survey. We will give the chief statistician and his advisors, as well as his department, the authority to take such practical matters into consideration. Such things should not be up to the government because they have to do with methodology. We will delegate decisions about methodology to the department under the leadership of the chief statistician, and we will count on the expertise there. Practical matters that should be delegated will be, and that process will be transparent.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a moment to express my grief for the victims and family members of the terrorist attack in Quebec against our Muslim brothers and sisters. I know that all of my colleagues stand with me in solidarity with them at this terrible moment.

I am pleased to speak about one important particular amendment to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, which relates to the release of census records 92 years after any given census. Consistent with this government's commitment to open and accessible data, Bill C-36 proposes to remove the requirement to request consent before transferring census records to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census of population.

Researchers, historians, and genealogists require this information to conduct research to help us better understand our past and to build our future. There has been little opposition to the release of these records and as many other countries have come to understand, preserving information about our past is of great value.

The U.S., New Zealand, the U.K., and Australia are among many countries that preserve census records for release. In the U.S., the time lapse is 72 years. In New Zealand and the U.K., it is 100 years. In Australia, it is 99 years. Until recently, Australia's and New Zealand's census records were actually destroyed. Then they passed laws, in 2000 and 2005 respectively, to allow such records to be released. They recognized the value of these records. They did this after campaigns by networks of family historians, genealogists, and interested citizens.

In Canada, we are fortunate that there has never been a policy to destroy census records. The notion that such records provide valuable historical information has always been upheld in our country, Until 1993, census records were routinely released after various lengths of time, ranging from 70 years to 98 years, with no restrictions. In fact, it was not until requests for the release of the 1901 census records that an impasse over access arose.

It was noted that legislation at the time did not allow for the release of individual records from censuses after 1901 because of confidentiality provisions. On the other hand, the National Archives, heritage and genealogical groups, and others argued that census records constituted a national historic treasure that should be preserved. They argued they should be made available after a sufficient number of years for privacy concerns to no longer exist or hold sway. They believed 92 years to be in accordance with existing regulations in the Privacy Act.

Why 92 years? At the time that the Privacy Act was adopted in 1983, data from the 1891 census had yet to be released. To facilitate its release, the Privacy Act regulations included a provision for the release of census records after 92 years, the number of years between 1891 and 1983. That 92-year precedent was applied to the Statistics Act when a section about releasing census records was added as a result of the passage of Bill S-18 in 2005. The enactment required that Canadians consent to release their census records beginning with the 2006 census. It also provided for a parliamentary review of the administration of that requirement. The experience of the past three censuses indicate the support of Canadians for the release of census records after 92 years.

It is important to note here that in 1999, the hon. John Manley, the minister of industry, called for the creation of an expert panel on access to historical census records. That panel, which was chaired by a former Supreme Court justice, issued a report after an in-depth inquiry. It found no evidence that legislators in the early census days intended census records to perpetually be confidential. The panel recommended allowing public access after 92 years. The government at that time stated that this issue would be considered as part of the review of privacy legislation. In our view, the passage of Bill S-18 only partially resolved this issue.

Our government believes that census records constitute a national historic treasure and therefore should be preserved, and more importantly, should be released for research purposes after 92 years.

Census records are essential to understanding our society's past, present, and future, which cities like Brampton, the city I am from and represent, that have large immigrant populations, can definitely benefit from. There are so many Canadians who are desperate to find out more about their roots. That is why Bill C-36 proposes amendments to the Statistics Act to remove the requirement for consent for all census records, beginning in 2021.

As Canada becomes more diverse, cities like Brampton could use this historical data to see if policies made by previous governments reflected their populations. It would also help emerging cities compare their growth patterns to Brampton and better compare policies that did or did not work for their people.

Records for the 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses, for which consent was required, would be released only if consent was given.

Two key considerations in deciding to include this amendment in the bill related to privacy concerns and response rates. On the privacy front, as in other countries, the proposed amendments strike a balance between the right to access and the right to privacy. We believe that 92 years is a sufficient lapse in time.

The other issue relates to the potential, however remote, for response rates to fall if people think the data will eventually be released. We are talking about more than nine decades after a person has taken the census. Experience has shown that the automatic transfer of census records after a sufficiently long period of time does not adversely affect census participation. Response rates to a census have remained high over time, whether or not consent was sought before the release of census records.

In making this change, we are ensuring that researchers can eventually access what many consider a national historic treasure, a treasure that may help us understand both our own individual lineage and the evolving social fabric of our country.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on the council we would be getting rid of. The National Statistics Council would be changed to the Canadian statistics advisory council.

I have never heard a complaint about the good work the National Statistics Council has been doing. I have actually had a hard time finding out who the members serving on the council are. From what I gather, there are many senior journalists on it, who usually specialize in social and economic affairs. There are junior journalists. There are also members from the Statistical Society of Canada. When I did find the list, I noticed that there are provosts of universities and many professors on it.

The council is being reduced. It is not quite clear why the government is going in this direction. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I am interested to hear from the member why she thinks the government has chosen to do this.

We heard from the minister this morning. He did not indicate whether the previous council had done a bad job. In fact, he just said that it is moving on and the previous people will have their appointments rescinded.

Does the member know why the government is moving ahead with removing the previous council and creating this new one, even though there have been no complaints about the work of the previous group?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has said he has not heard whether there were complaints. I also am not sure and cannot validate whether there were or were not complaints.

I understand that the new Canadian statistics advisory council would be focused on presenting quality statistical data to Canadians, and that is something I believe all of us can be proud of and can benefit from in the future. Having accurate quality statistics is important for all of our cities in order to develop good policies.

It is hard for me to comment on something that is unknown to me or the member, but it is something we can inquire about. Whether that information is available, I do not know.

Quality is what we are concerned with, and we can trust that the new advisory council would make that its focus and its main mandate.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be looking forward to this bill going to committee so that we can give it the proper scrutiny it deserves. My question is sort of related to the bill, but is more on the government's policy. The previous chief statistician of Statistics Canada resigned from the agency, and his main reason for doing so was, he complained, that there was a lack of independence that the organization had; that it was sort of tied down to Shared Services Canada.

I wonder if the member can inform the House of what the government is going to do to inoculate Statistics Canada against any kind of interference from Shared Services Canada, and how it plans on making it a truly independent agency in which Canadians can have full trust.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, creating this council that will advise the chief statistician, with the combination of having open transparency and creating that distance between the minister and the advisory council that will then inform the chief statistician, is a great step to putting a distance between the two departments and making sure there is more independence going forward for the chief statistician working with the advisory panel alone. That, in itself, is a good measure to take.

I, too, look forward to this bill going to committee and the committee working on making sure that this bill has the proper amendments in place to make sure it serves Canadians as it should.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague another question, because the response given by her colleague a little earlier worried me somewhat.

When we were talking about the chief statistician, Mr. Smith, the parliamentary secretary said that although he did not always agree with everything, he was definitely consulted.

Can we at least expect Mr. Smith to appear before the committee, or did the Liberal government make an executive decision and simply decide that one consultation was enough?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I fully understood the question, but when it comes to the council or the parliamentary committee that this bill is going to go before, I believe it would be up to the parliamentary committee, of course, to decide on the experts it wishes to hear from. As we know, our committee consists of members from all parties, so I can only have faith that the committee will make good decisions when choosing the witnesses to come before it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments that were made earlier today about the tragic murders in Quebec. I did not think I would ever see the day when people would be murdered at worship in Canada. Our hearts go out to them. Our prayers are with them, certainly.

That said, I want to say how nice it is to be back in the House of Commons and to welcome all my colleagues back. What a delight it is to be discussing an issue that is near and dear to my heart; I may be one of the few, but I will try to keep this lively.

I am rising to speak on the subject of Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. First, I want to thank the minister for the work that he put into the bill and for recognizing the importance of meaningful, accurate statistics.

I do know a bit about the subject of statistics. As a chemical engineer, I did study statistics at Queen's University. Later in my career, I was fortunate to receive a degree in statistics from the University of Tennessee as part of Dow Chemicals' implementation of Deming's quality practices. I was then certified as a black belt and master black belt under GE's Six Sigma statistics program, and I served as a statistical specialist to a global business for several years. So I do know a little bit about the subject.

The bill aims to change the role of the chief statistician, making the position more independent, change how respondents' information is archived, and amend the penalties for offences committed by respondents. The bill also seeks to change the terminology used in the Statistics Act to modernize it, as well as ensure French-English concurrence. In addition, the bill would replace the National Statistics Council with a Canadian statistics advisory council.

First of all, I would like to outline some of the principles that I think should apply to this discussion. Canadians need to be able to trust the data that comes from Statistics Canada. The government needs to support the work that Statistics Canada does. The government needs to be accountable to Canadians to strike the right balance between protecting their privacy rights and collecting good quality data.

I am going to highlight some of the things I like about the bill and then I will highlight some of my concerns.

First of all, it has been very concerning to have had two chief statisticians quit their job over issues which I believe have now been addressed in the bill.

The first issue was the long-form census. I have been clear that I support a long-form census and that the only correct statistical method for a census is the mandatory one.

When I first took the role of science critic, I made my census position known in my party and in the House. I believe that Canadians, through one of the best participation rates in history, have also shown that they value the census and the statistics it collects. They know that many organizations use this information to make plans to improve our country. To be better able to provide for Canadians, we need to understand the Canadian makeup, including age, gender, region, and culture. From a wider scope, having data on economic, social, and regional variables in Canada is also invaluable for legislators as well as for our countless researchers.

However, I want to say that with the implementation of the long-form census, there were quite a number of problems which I did highlight for the minister as soon as they were brought to my attention. Many people were unable to log on. There was a huge overload on the system. Some people did not receive their log-in IDs properly. There were really long wait times on the line if people were phoning in to address a concern. Those are things we would want to see fixed going forward.

One of the questions I had personally was that I received a form at my apartment in Ottawa and the same one also at my home in Sarnia. I filled both of them out, but no one seemed able to answer whether that would result in doubt counting or not. That would be fundamentally important from a data integrity point of view.

When it comes to the responsibility of the chief statistician, I am happy to see that under the bill the responsibility to select statistical methods and the data to be collected is to be the responsibility of the chief statistician, as it should be. I believe the autonomy provided to this role under the bill would ensure good science aligned to world statistical language and good practices would result.

As chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I have seen countless witnesses, both inside and outside government departments and agencies, testify that there simply is not the data available to answer certain vital questions. More specifically, segregated data is lacking to continue much needed research in the fields of women in the Canadian economy or more broadly on the subject of violence against women.

For all of us who took gender-based analysis training, and I believe there were 1,000 parliamentarians and staff who did so, we will know from the training that segregated data is very important in making sure that we can see that all of the legislation we are putting forward is fair for all. Again, we need to have the correct data.

I look forward to having a chief statistician who, upon receiving the requests for data which are needed to address, based on good science, the difficult issues of our time, has the autonomy to act.

The term of office being five years with good behaviour seems reasonable, but there is no definition of what constitutes a cause for which the Governor in Council could remove him or her. I am assuming that it must be the standard government employee criteria; otherwise, it needs to be clarified in the bill.

I do not see where the qualifications required for a chief statistician are defined. I would expect as a minimum that someone serving in this capacity would have training in statistics, but I am not familiar with the credentials the current chief brings and the parliamentary secretary was unable to comment. I would like to see a minimum of university statistics training as a requirement. In order to apply methods, define data collection, and interpret the data, people actually need to know something about statistics or they could get into trouble. We have all heard the saying, lies, lies, and statistics.

One thing that was not clear in the bill was how the budget for Statistics Canada would be proposed and approved. One would expect that if the chief statistician has the ability to determine what data Statistics Canada would be collecting, and to have control of the operations, the hiring of temporary, contract, and full-time employees, he or she would be in the best position to propose a budget that the minister would submit for approval. What would happen if the finance minister decided not to adequately fund Statistics Canada? This would limit the ability of the chief statistician to really have autonomy over the department and what if he were fired for the cause of not achieving his goals because he was underfunded?

This bill also seeks to modernize the language of the Statistics Act to better reflect linguistic standards and current methods of collecting statistical information, and to make the English and French consistent. It is important to ensure that we are saying the same thing in both official languages. It has been known to happen that officials say one thing in English and quite another in French. We do not want that to happen at Statistics Canada.

Given the ongoing evolution of data collection and analysis in Canada, revised legislative language will enable statisticians to use the most effective and current technologies to better understand Canada's population, society, and economy.

I am also glad to see some ability for the chief statistician to ensure that data is kept secure and tamper free. This would address the concern of protecting the independence of Statistics Canada from decisions made by shared services that could be detrimental to the operation of Statistics Canada.

One concern I do have is that with this ability to choose data storage solutions that may not align to shared services, we must also add protections to ensure that our data is not stored with a third party that could lead to security concerns. We can imagine, for example, if the data was outsourced to a company with any linkages to terrorists or other organizations that would be interested in having the private information of Canadians, that would not be a good thing.

Having already had the Chinese hacking into our systems and with the government currently allowing the Chinese to buy an IT technology firm in Canada against the recommendation of CSIS, we certainly need to have Canadians interests top of mind. We can be aware that this IT technology firm that is being allowed to be purchased by the Chinese did research into anti-hacking with specific recommendations around the Canadian systems. Therefore, that is a real area of concern for me. We have seen in the past where the Canada Revenue Agency had leaks. Certainly protecting the data security, this is the private information of Canadians, is top of mind.

One of the other mandatory census items I wanted to discuss is that of the agriculture census. We heard something about it earlier from one of my colleagues. I strongly support the need for the census, but I will share with the House some concerns I have heard from farmers on this subject.

Many farmers have told me that they have received a call at the worst possible time, while they are in the fields, from Statistics Canada, not a form or an email survey. Several have been on their tractors when they get the call and are asked about specific facts and figures regarding their agricultural operations.

When they inform Statistics Canada that they would rather check their numbers and call back when they are in their office, they are told to just guess or estimate the numbers, and that they cannot do the call later when they are in the office.

This calls into question the integrity of the numbers, so I would definitely like to see an amendment to the method of collection for the agricultural census to be along the same lines as the long-form census, with a deadline to complete and hopefully at a different time than when they are in the field.

There is an opportunity to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of data collection. A large percentage of the population are computer savvy and are quite capable of completing information online, thus making it much less costly to collate the data. Wherever possible, we should move in that direction, since in very short order everyone will be computer literate. I know there have been improvements from the 2011 census, which 60% of people responded electronically to an even better time, but we need to continue to move in that direction.

The bill also proposes the creation of an advisory council.

The role of the Canadian Statistics Advisory Council would be to advise the minister and the chief statistician in a transparent manner on many different subjects, particularly the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of its data. The council would also make public an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.

Personally, I would be pleased to have an annual report on the state of Statistics Canada, because I see the real value in accurate and well analysed statistics. I believe that an annual report will show both the progress made every year by Statistics Canada and the areas where progress is still required. We cannot underestimate the importance of quality statistics and ensuring that our statisticians have the feedback and the support of the House and Canadians.

I do have a concern about this new council. The previous National Statistics Council had 13 members, one from each province, to ensure that geographic representation existed. The new council would have 10 members appointed by the Liberals. I worry that we would lose the geographic representation and that if the Liberals appoint their buddies to the council as plum appointments, there would be a partisan interference potential, which has no place in science and statistics.

I have also indicated that it is important for people in this kind of advisory role to have some background in statistics. I also do not see that requirement for any of the people on the council.

The terms of office specified for everyone, such as the chief statistician for five years with a chance for a second five, and others at five years and three years, are fine. However, if people are doing a great job, then why limit them? If we get people in these roles and they are experienced, it can be an efficiency and reduce the waste of turnover.

In addition, there is another aspect of this bill that might be controversial. Bill C-36 would make it so that Statistics Canada would no longer require the express consent of the respondent to transfer information to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years. Personally, I do not have an issue with that. Once my seven years of tax records that are required by the CRA are taken care of, it could archive any of my other information and it would not matter to me. However, there are Canadians who are more sensitive on the issues of privacy, so perhaps a checkbox on the information collected that grants permission to archive after 92 years would be a good amendment. I do realize, though, that even if we had filled out our first information at age 18, and it was archived 92 years later, we would be 110 years old. Therefore, I think it may not be such a huge concern.

This bill would eliminate the penalty of imprisonment for any offence committed by a respondent. We have heard today that everyone is happy to see that because it is ridiculous that one would go to jail for not filling out a form. The financial penalty that remains is an adequate control. If we look at history, there have been very few instances, in fact I could find none, where people were imprisoned for not filling out the census. There were several where it went to court but was not pursued. Therefore, the controls outlined for ensuring that information is forthcoming from corporations and other organizations is also adequate and appropriate.

In summary, I believe the bill addresses the need for more autonomy for the chief statistician. However, I would like to see additional protection for data storage that would recognizes potential security threats.

Mechanisms to allow ministerial intervention are adequate. Penalties for not providing data are appropriate. I would ask that the archiving of information without consent be revisited for those Canadians who may have a concern. While I support the mandatory census for agriculture, I would ask for enhancements to ensure the responses received reflect the best data integrity possible. I would also ask that the National Statistics Council be maintained, with its geographic representation of all provinces and territories, and with non-partisan appointments.

I would like to again thank the minister for his bill and to thank all the other members who took to time to speak to this matter this afternoon. As a statistician, engineer, and parliamentarian, I understand the real value to our country of accurate statistics that are properly collected.

At the end of the day, statistics reflect the Canadian population. The closer that reflection is to reality, the more closely the government can respond through well-informed and well-thought-out legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments in her concluding remarks with respect to how the statistics should reflect the population. Overall, Statistics Canada has done such an incredible job of ensuring that it is as aligned as possible, especially if we draw a comparison to how we are doing as a nation versus other organizations, as well as within Canada, where other groups attempt to get an understanding of the different demographics and the needs of the different communities. Therefore, I think all members of the House owe a great deal of gratitude to those public servants who have done such an incredible job at Statistics Canada.

My question to the member is specifically related to this. One general gist of the legislation is to move forward with a more independent Statistics Canada. In good part, that is done through the chief statistician. At the very least, would she acknowledge that it would be a positive thing for Statistics Canada to be a little more independent of government, allowing those who have the ability and knowledge to ensure that there is more discretion, and that they have the authority to do so, whether with respect to the types of questions or whatever else that would be? Would she see that as a good thing?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Statistics Canada for the work that it does. It is so important.

This bill moves us in the right direction in giving more independence to Statistics Canada. There is the right balance in the bill as the minister still has the ability to overrule. That provision still exists.

What we have here is the chief statistician determining the methods and what data is going to be collected. It is so important to have somebody who really understands the difference; otherwise a decision can be made which may be well meaning but may result in a problem where voluntary data, for example, is skewed in a way that is unknown, because it cannot be determined why people do not return the survey.

We are moving in the right direction with the right balance of independence of Statistics Canada and a bit of oversight from the minister, and a little bit of independence from having to go with whatever Shared Services is going to dictate, because let us keep in mind that this is very confidential information with different criteria. If we put some extra protection in there to make sure the data is secure and does not go to interests that might not be friendly to us, that would be a good thing.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We can once again see how generous and knowledgeable she is from her contribution to the parliamentary system. I thank her for that. I am learning a lot from her.

I think that everyone can agree that this bill is a step in the right direction but that it is incomplete. There are quite a few loose ends that need to be tied up.

Does the member have faith in the committee process? Does she believe that it will be fair and conducted in the best interests of Canadians?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I believe that although the government is well intentioned with respect to trying to address all of the things, the detail is important. If I look at the other things I have seen the government do, I think there is a high potential for getting the government's buddies involved and having a partisan influence in this system, especially with the statistics council that is being proposed.

I must say that gives me concern. Also, there is concern about the data storage being done by a third party, maybe a Chinese third party, because there seems to be a lot of goodwill to try to create business there. That could be a very dangerous thing from a security point of view.

I hope the committee will get the details, but my experience is that they will not get the details and that will fall through the cracks.