House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was regard.

Topics

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here all day listening to different members present their views on this piece of legislation.

I want to bring it back to the National Statistics Council that is basically being replaced, essentially dismissed. This is what I heard from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development this morning. On this council, however, we had provosts of universities, senior professors with decades of experience in statistics, economics, and social affairs. We also had journalists on this council. This may not be the case going forward, because it is being restricted down to 10 members. I have never heard a complaint about this particular council from any constituent, ever. In fact, it was very difficult to find out who the members of the council were.

Moving toward a GIC model might serve the government well in this one particular area, but restricting it down to 10 members might actually limit the amount of expertise the chief statistician will have available.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts on restricting the membership to 10 and appointments by GIC. Will it truly be open and transparent? Can the chief statistician have the requisite amount of human capital, human knowledge for all these individuals from different parts of the country?

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Certainly, if we go from having representation from all the provinces and territories down to 10, we are not going to be able to have that geographic representation.

The point is well made that nobody has heard anything bad about those who are on the existing council. We have enough problems to fix in government where there really is something wrong that we do not need to throw things out that do not have anything wrong with them.

There is a balance of expertise on the committee. In addition to the amount of time spent, some of the people are academics who actually have an appreciation of statistics. This could be the one time in the House of Commons that I say something nice about journalists, but the fact is they would bring that transparency, because if something were awry, we can be assured they would bring it to the attention of Canadians.

I like the balance we have with the existing committee. I do not see anything wrong with it. Therefore, I really do not understand why the government is changing it, and I worry.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoyed my colleague's speech. It is really refreshing to hear her belief in statistics and of course her mastery and background involved in that.

As I have pointed out before, the previous chief statistician, Wayne Smith, resigned because of what he thought was unnecessary interference by Shared Services Canada. He felt that having to meet its expectations compromised the integrity of the agency he was trying to head. He really tried to fight for the complete independence of the agency to make sure that it really was doing its job.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I know the bill does not specifically address that, but it is important in this debate that we address not only the legislation before us but the context and environment in which it is being formulated. I would love to hear her thoughts on the former chief statistician's resignation and what she thinks the government should be doing to make sure that does not happen in the future.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the concerns Wayne Smith had with Shared Services had to do with the data storage component, which I think has been addressed by what the bill says in terms of giving the chief statistician the autonomy to determine how that should be done and the criteria for that.

Also, he was not happy about the interference he perceived from folks who knew less about the subject than he did. With the chief statistician being in charge of the methodology and what data would be collected and being in charge of the operation of the department, that really gives the right amount of direction for him.

Does it solve all of the problems that he brought up? No, there are probably other issues that are not addressed, but in the main, it moves in the direction of good, so that is fine.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize because I missed a portion of our hon. colleague's speech. I apologize now if she addressed this, but over the course of the questions and in the debate, I was confused by some of the answers. She is a good colleague of mine. I have a lot of respect for her.

I have concern, and I think Canadians should have concern, when we have a single source in control of all of our data and private information. Canadians' information should be kept private. That being said, a single source should not have the ability to farm out the storage of our data to a third party. In some of the comments we heard, there is a concern that this could be done. In an earlier answer, my hon. colleague mentioned China as another source. We hear day in and day out about cyber threats and attacks and the stealing of personal data. I would like our hon. colleague to clarify her point that she is absolutely against a third party storing Canadians' data and that indeed going to a single source, or a single group, or chief statistician with all-encompassing power, we could see this, and it could spell doom for a lot of what we collect.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I forgive my colleague for missing my riveting speech. Definitely, he did get the main point, though. I am very concerned about Canadians' private information. There are a lot of people in the world with ill intent, who would love to have Canadians' private information. The government has a responsibility to protect that information. In the past we have seen hacking into the Canada Revenue Agency. There have been other rumours of Chinese hacking. We have to make sure that the data storage is secure. In my experience, that means not to give it to a third party.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House late in the day, after hearing so many contributions to the debate.

I will say that, unlike the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I am not happy to be back. I would much rather spend more time with my family, probably like some members here. I like them all, but not enough to lose that time with my family.

Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, is an interesting subject to bring up on a Monday.

As I always do, I have a Yiddish proverb today. It is more of a saying. If one has two bundles, a bundle of books and a pouch of gold, and one drops both of them, the saying is that first one would pick up the bundle of books. The knowledge it represents is far more valuable than the gold one would lose in a pouch of gold. I think that saying speaks to how much we as a society, as communities, working together, value knowledge first and foremost.

We pay for knowledge. Very often companies or individuals pay large sums of money to obtain information they consider of value to them, either for market purposes, if they are expanding a company, or for personal genealogical reasons. Perhaps they are interested in their family's past. We have large companies that profit from this sharing of information. They produce information for people who want or need it for purposes of their own design.

I think this Yiddish saying speaks to the worth of knowledge and the value we place on it. In Canada, we place so much value on it that we have an entire agency of government devoted to the collection of information and the dissemination of information across society to community organizations, businesses, and government officials so we can make better decisions on behalf of Canadians.

The bill purports to modernize Statistics Canada. There are certain sections of the legislation I want to go through to lay out what I think are opportunities lost. I have some questions on some sections and how they work with others. I have not yet taken a positive or negative stance on the bill. Mostly I want to go through the legislation with members of the House and mention some concerns I have and things I would like to know about.

Under duties for the chief statistician, there are three or four points laid out on what he or she must do to fulfill the requirements or obligations under the legislation. In the bill, under proposed paragraph 4(5)(b), we have:

advise on matters pertaining to statistical programs of the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, and confer with those departments and agencies to that end;

I wonder if this will be made public. The government has made a big deal of being open and transparent. I am wondering if in the future, the government will be making that type of information, those discussions between departments and the chief statistician, public. Will they share with Canadians the conversations departments are having on how they are using, sharing, distributing, and disseminating the private information of Canadians that they have collated?

In this day and age, that is a concern many Canadians have, and businesses as well. How is this information they are providing the government being protected, and how is it being used? I think it would be great if they perhaps clarified for us in the House, either the minister or the parliamentary secretary, whether they intend to share this information with the public.

Proposed subsection 4.1(1) reads:

Directives on any methods, procedures and operations may only be issued to the Chief Statistician by the Governor in Council, by order, on the recommendation of the Minister.

There are a bunch of commas in there that make it really unclear what the purpose is. It is actually quite broad. It is not quite clear whether the chief statistician will be told what to do in certain circumstances, under the operation of a particular survey program, or whether it will, in fact, be the minister, upon a recommendation, who will be passing ideas that the chief statistician believes to be right.

Having worked before with statistical data for a professional association in Alberta, I had a chief executive officer and a board of directors I was responsible to. Like any CEO or head of an agency, a person does do not want to be micromanaged by a board of directors. One would want to be given a broad mandate that would be in the contract signed, in this case with the government, and one could then go forth and fulfill the mandate. The last thing one wants to have is, by directives, being told to do something a certain way.

In proposed subsection 4.1(1), exactly how would that be applied, and is this the clarity level the government wishes to have?

Another proposed subsection I am interested in is 4.2(1). If independence is to be assured, why would this particular clause exist? It says:

The Minister may issue directives to the Chief 5 Statistician on the statistical programs that aim to collect, compile, analyse, abstract and publish statistics on all or any of the matters referred to in section 22.

Again, more information being made available would help us understand exactly how this section is going to be applied to the chief statistician. It is not a value judgment, good or bad; it is more information about how exactly it is going to work in the day-to-day life of the chief statistician.

The points I am going to be touching on are mostly about the replacement of the existing National Statistics Council with a new council, the technological issues that happen in the news and are covered by national media that talk about the delay in the release of economic reports that depend on the collection by Statistics Canada, as well as some of the IT problems that the previous chief statistician at Statistics Canada kind of laid out for us and potential delays that may happen if information is shared or not shared in a timely manner.

As well, I want to touch upon the influence Shared Services Canada can have and the substantial control it may be able to exercise on Statistics Canada's work, whether good or bad. In my previous professional life, I worked for a professional association that was going through a major software upgrade. There are always issues with it. There is always a question about where our data is actually being stored, who has control of the data, how we can change it or not change it. A lot of those questions can be resolved pretty quickly just with more information. It is not a value judgment. It is just that more information would be of interest to us. Can the minister still issue directives to the chief statistician on statistical programs? I mentioned those two sections. It is not quite clear how those would work.

We know that Statistics Canada will be made to use Shared Services. There was a recent report entitled, “Heightened Program risks at Statistics Canada”, which enumerated the challenges in terms of reliability, timeliness, effectiveness, and affordability that are being experienced, according to the director general of the Statistics Canada informatics branch. The report went through some of the issues it could see potentially happening down the road.

According to a CBC article in July 2016, Statistics Canada put $38 million toward Shared Services Canada “with the promise to upgrade IT infrastructure”. It was told that Statistics Canada would then have to cover the cost of migrating all information to new data centres. In general, my thought on this is to move forward carefully with an agency such as Statistics Canada. Again, with experience in my past life at a chamber of commerce and with a professional association, it should be careful about how data is being transferred to different places.

The last thing it wants to do is to go from an older system to a new system and realize it has lost 20% of the data that it used to have for historical purposes. It would always want to keep it. A lot of that historical data is very good for graphing trends. Trends are the most important thing that businesses are interested in. One data point does not tell the whole story; a trend tells the story. It is how businesses sell products and convince people to take policy decision A versus policy decision B. The historical data is needed to make the case to individuals in business, charities, and whatever type of environment one is in.

Another thing I want to mention is the recurring theme that surfaced in the report that Shared Services Canada had, that it cannot or will not meet Statistics Canada's IT requirements, because it refuses to upgrade computer infrastructure. It goes back to the point that we do not want to be losing data potentially or constricting the type of data that can be collected because of moving from one type of software to another.

I again want to quote from an analysis of the report, which states:

Having to delay their release would be unprecedented and will impact the ability of key users (e.g. Bank of Canada, Department of Finance, commercial banks, etc.) of making timely decisions, translating into considerable embarrassment to the government of Canada.

Of course, we want to avoid situations where a Department of Finance document cannot be released because there are missing valuable Statistics Canada tables that we may want to use for a release.

I want to mention a Reuters article with the headline, “Canada to make statistics agency independent amid data concerns”. It says, “The agency was criticized earlier this year for technological issues that delayed the release of some economic reports on its website”. Again, going back to my time working for the Alberta government, when it was upgrading the licensing system at the time, Telus was responsible for an analog system when moving it online. With large IT infrastructure projects like this, the historical data is very valuable for organizations. Retention, production, and transferring of the data are all important, especially when it is a government agency like this one, where the Government of Canada has collected large volumes of very personal information. It should make sure the businesses and individuals affected do not somehow have that data compromised during the transition between different systems.

In another Canadian press article, this time in December 2016, with the headline “Liberals Move To End Political Interference At Statistics Canada”, the background says that ministers:

...would retain the right to decide on the “scope of the statistical program,” or what information Statistics Canada collects.

The government would also be able to make changes to “methodological or operational matters” — which includes how data are collected — through a cabinet order should the government “deem it to be in the national interest.”

Again, I would like to know how the government will be defining that national interest. I could not find it in the legislation. I am just curious to know how that will be defined and what will be the conditions under which cabinet will be able to order Statistics Canada to produce or not produce certain data on a certain form, and what those national interest grounds would be. Again, it is not in the legislation. I am interested to know how that will work, whether that will perhaps be published online somewhere or if the government intends to bring another piece of legislation on it. It is an open question. We do not really know.

We know that we had a resignation. One of the chief statisticians of Canada, Wayne Smith, resigned. At the time he mentioned, “It is my view that the Shared Services Canada model does not respect the provisions of the Statistics Act which does not permit that such information be in the hands of anyone who is not meaningfully an employee of Statistics Canada...”.

Again, I wonder how the amendments to the act would address the concerns that Wayne Smith expressed at committee, and whether this would fully addresses his concerns. I have not heard from him in particular, so again I do not know whether it fully addresses all our concerns. However, some of the sections I mentioned earlier, like section 4 and subsection 4.1, kind of indicate that perhaps there will not be that independence.

I also want to take a moment to highlight a section I do like. Section 31 would remove the jail time for non-completion of the censuses or the survey work that Statistics Canada would produce. We know that in 2011, Statistics Canada received 13 million completed census forms, a 98% response rate, not necessarily completion rate. As well, the 2016 survey had 98% and 14 million households completed the national census, 96% for the long form. It had 330 refusals back in 2011, and overall Statistics Canada referred 54 people at the time for prosecution for failing to complete the mandatory census form. We have known this. People could face a fine of $500 at the time, or three months in jail.

There are three people I want to highlight who actually went to court on this.

Janet Churnin, 79, who refused to fill out the mandatory census, was handed a conditional discharge, which means she will have no permanent criminal record after she completes her sentence of 50 hours of community service within a year.

Audrey Tobias, 89, was a peace activist who refused to fill out the census because of its link to a U.S. military contractor, whose name has been mentioned before in debate. She was found not guilty of violating the Statistics Canada Act. That was the decision of a Toronto judge at the time.

Sandra Finley, 61, was found not guilty of not filling out her long-form census in 2006. Again, she appealed her census case in which she received an absolute discharge. After losing an appeal of her conviction for not filling out the federal form in 2006, again she received a conditional discharge.

Now I see the government has moved away from this jail time hanging over people, kind of like the dagger of Damocles over them. I do want to ask questions, though, on why the Liberals have kept $500 and $1,000 penalties. We note here that they are kept in section 32, that by summary conviction people could face being liable for a fine of up to $1,000. The government has also kept a $500 fine. For refusal to grant access to records, it is $1,000.

I want to compare it to some other fines people may face from different provincial and municipal governments. If I am caught speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit set by the Alberta government, I could face a $253 to $474 fine from the peace officer. That is by summary conviction. Speeding 30 kilometres an hour over the limit is far more dangerous than my not filling out a census or a survey from the government, just in comparison. Say I run a red light. A red light violation carries a fine of $287 in Alberta, and speed-on-green infractions are on a sliding scale. Again, it is $287 if I run a red light with the camera present taking a picture of my licence plate and a potential $500 fine if I do not fill out a survey because I may have lost it, I may have moved, I may have gone on vacation, or I may have shredded it for whatever reason. How much are we fining people, and why are we fining them?

Say I run a red light and I am actually stopped by a peace officer. That carries a $488 fine back in my home of Alberta. Failing to stop at a signal or a crosswalk, or advancing into an intersection controlled by a flashing red light in an unsafe manner is $233. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a survey or not being willing to release information in the case of a business or I could be fined a $1,000.

In 2015 by comparison, a man was fined $1,400 for selling fur animals without a licence in Alberta. Off-leashing a dog in a provincial park in Alberta can set an individual back $1,000 by court order. Building and cleaning an illegal bike path in a provincial park, Bow Valley, which does happen, is a $400 fine, plus penalties assigned to the individual by the court.

As a father of three kids, all of whom use car seats, I know this one very well. I double-check my car seats, because if I am stopped by a police officer, it is $155 fine. I think that is a far more egregious violation of the law as there are danger and safety concerns for small kids. That is far more dangerous than not filling out a census form and being fined $500, or a business not willing to release proprietary information and being fined $1,000.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the former MP for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Joe Preston, who tabled private member's C-625, the removal of imprisonment in relation to mandatory surveys, which received unanimous support and moved on to committee.

This is just a concern of mine. I have open questions for the government to consider. Do the fines outlined in the legislation fit with other similar federal legislation? Was there an assessment done on whether these fines would pay for the administration and collection of the fine? Did the government undertake any work on how many fines it expects to hand out? If the fine levied is actually higher than the cost to government of collecting, then why are we doing this? Again, maybe more tongue in cheek, do the Liberals expect these fines to fill the government coffers to pay for perhaps some of the $30 billion deficit they have managed to run up in the past year, because with the 40 million Canadian households, I think we ought to stop taking the census for several years in order to pay off the deficit.

These are open questions wondering what the government is doing. This is not the first time I have asked. I actually tabled an Order Paper question, Question No. 255, way back last year and did not receive an answer regarding exactly who is being referred for prosecution by Statistics Canada.

We heard earlier today from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development who said that the National Statistics Council would be replaced by the Canadian statistic advisory council under proposed section 8.1. Again, what will happen to the previous members? The understanding I had from his speech in the House was that they would all be dismissed. They would all be removed from the council. I just wonder, why are we reducing it? Why are we reducing it to 10 members from 13 members, which is my understanding of how many members there were before, and what did these particular individuals do that was so egregious that they should be removed? I have heard no complaints in my constituency office on the work they were doing. Judging from the members who served there in 2010, they were university provosts, professors, very senior members of the academic community, as well as journalists. I just think it is perhaps arbitrary to move in this direction, but perhaps there is a great reason for it. I just did not hear it from the minister on exactly why we are moving in this direction.

On the Statistics Canada website, the mandate was to advise the chief statistician on the full range of Statistics Canada's activities, particularly on overall program priorities. We know from the proposed legislation that they are moving to a smaller group of people. Perhaps this is the right way to go, but they have not really explained the rationale for it and why they have changed it. Perhaps they will be keeping some members of the previous group as they go forward. Again, there is no rationale. I am just asking an open question.

We know that Statistics Canada also uses professional advisory committees in major subject areas. It has bilateral relationships with federal departments. It has federal-provincial-territorial consultative councils on statistical policy with a focus on health, education, and justice.

Statistics Canada already broadly collaborates with civic society, with organizations like the Canada West Foundation, universities and others. I am just wondering how that knowledge would be used, how it would be disseminated, and how these relationships would be leveraged. I do not see that really in the legislation.

I will mention one last thing, because I am running out of time. How does proposed section 8.1(1)(b) fit with section 6? In one section it talks about being forced to table an annual report with the annual report of the minister, and then in section 6 it talks about tabling a different report on statistical policy in Canada, one for the council, one for the chief statistician. The two do not really match, because one would be tabled here in Parliament with the minister's tabling of his annual report, and another one would be perhaps tabled publicly. It is not very clear whether the council has to table with Parliament, table with the chief statistician or whether it tables with the minister's report.

Those are the open questions I have. The tabling of new reports is nice, but I just want to know in exactly which direction they are going.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on that point. It is encouraging. The member appears to be supporting the legislation to possibly allow it to go to committee stage. At least, that is what I decipher from his comments. One of the reasons it appears they are supporting it is that we would be taking away the imprisonment element, which is a good thing. I think the consensus would be to do just that.

I do not know if I agree with the member's assessment with regard to comparing traffic tickets, or red light tickets, or camera flash tickets to the census. I do not know if that is a fair analysis. However, I am curious. To what degree does the member across the way believe there needs to be some sort of incentive for people who might not necessarily be inclined to fill out the form, recognizing how important it is that we do get these forms returned? That is what enables us to make good sound policy decisions, as the national government, or other levels of government, or as I said earlier, private sector and non-profit groups. We need to get people filling in these forms. It is in the collective best interests to get them in.

What would he suggest those fines be?

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, obviously, over the winter break his deciphering has gotten a little worse. By no means have I indicated whether I am going to vote for or against the government. I am asking open questions. Once I have the answers, I will be able to make a decision.

However, on fines, I do not think it is right to levy a punitive fine on a family where perhaps both breadwinners are out of work. I think it is actually punitive to levy a fine on a family where everybody is unemployed and they are looking for work and being told they must fill out the census or be levied a $500 fine. I think it is a fair comparison across governments, because these are Canadians paying the fines, to ask, comparatively speaking, what the public policy goal is of levying this fine. Is it to compel a person to provide information, or is it to compel someone to drive more responsibly to avoid hurting someone else? I think those are perfectly reasonable questions to ask, with the purpose behind levying a fine being the goal at the end of the day. Again, we should be prioritizing the safety of Canadians over, perhaps, raising revenues through a punitive fine.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's speech, I looked up clause 31 of the bill, which is the specific section of the bill that deals with the fines. It should be important for every member of this House to note that, if people are found guilty of an offence, the fine shall be not more than $500—so that could be the maximum, but it could be anywhere from zero to $500 and is at the judge's discretion.

Furthermore, if people had a lawful excuse—if they were moving and did not get their mail—of course, there would be leniency applied.

Therefore, we should not be too worried about the draconian measures in the bill, because I think there are enough escape clauses.

That being said—and I realize that he is going to withhold his judgment on this particular bill—I want to follow up on the question of the member for Winnipeg North about what incentives we put forward to Canadians to make sure we are getting the data. It has been shown that when voluntary surveys are put forward, the information that comes back leaves huge information gaps. Certain sectors of society are more likely to fill out the data, so some parts of Canada may not get any responses. Therefore, we are going to have local city councils and provincial governments acting with a complete information vacuum. I would like to know the member's thoughts on, specifically, a long-form census being mandatory. Does he believe it should be mandatory? Surely he has given some thought to that and he can inform this House of his personal views on that specific question.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an interesting question.

In my previous life, I was a registrar in the human resources profession, where I dealt with large volumes of personal information. As the registrar, I was also responsible for making sure our 6,000 members in the province of Alberta were doing their due diligence when dealing with their employees' private information. I would ask what types of incentives were wanted. When I was there, we started an Alberta human resources trends survey all across the province with 6,000 of our members. We did not need punitive fines. We actually offered incentives. We would say that if all 6,000 members filled out a survey, we would have better data, so there was some self-interest at play for people to fill it out correctly. We also put their names in a random lottery draw, and that was our way of enticing people to fill out the survey.

I am not saying Statistics Canada should go this route, but in a not-for-profit private sector that is what we did. Our response rate was nearly 20%, which is well above what most people expect to get in a public information survey or a public policy poll. We were getting steady 20% responses over the lifetime of the survey.

That survey has now expanded to all western Canadian provinces. It is called the western HR trends survey, and every single professional association from British Columbia to Manitoba is now participating in it. Well over 10,000 members are filling out a survey without any type of fine being levied. There is some self-interest in knowing more about their particular field. The same applies for all Canadians. Canadians are interested in knowing about Canadian society, and businesses are the same way. With that valuable information, I do not believe necessarily that a fine needs to be levied. In some cases it might have to be levied, but not all the time.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is such a curious experience to hear the Conservative Party debating Bill C-36, the restoration of data and evidence and the restoration of the long-form mandatory census. We are in another universe now.

I was elected to local government at the time that the mandatory long-form census was removed by the federal government. I was part of the movement of elected people who were deeply alarmed at the lack of data, the brokenness of our access to data, whatever it was we were measuring, whether it was measuring success, whether it was environmental protection, or whether it was service delivery. Then the alarm went through every local government convention around how we were going to know that we had the data that was going to point to where our federal and provincial dollars should go to support the social safety net. It was very alarming. We are glad to see this moved back.

I am curious as to whether the member wants to update the House on whether he shares the former views of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who said the value of the data is not worth the intrusion of privacy rights, and that is why the Harper Conservative government removed the mandatory long-form census.

I would love to hear the member say that he now recognizes the importance of data for service delivery and the strengthening of our social safety net.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the long-form census was made voluntary. It did not just vanish.

Speaking as a member who used to be in the private sector, I will say that my board of directors saw it as an opportunity. We created labour market information with our members. We started an entirely new product and service line because we saw a gap that we could fill privately and then sell to other organizations with the permission of our members. It was information that was much more malleable and flexible and responded to our members' needs. Not all information coming from the government is either necessary or has value to everybody who is using it. I will put an asterisk to that.

When I worked for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, I used Statistics Canada data on a daily basis when we wrote reports, either aboriginal business connection series or Métis labour reports. While I value what Statistics Canada produced in terms of information, it is not the only source of available information. There are private sources, not-for-profits and charities that produce valuable, high-quality information that we should all be using.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a few items for my colleague, which I could just ask him, but I would like his comments on the record.

First of all, I am hoping Edmonton City Council is not watching CPAC right now, because I would hate it to get the idea that there is upward movement available on traffic fines.

When Wayne Smith, the former head of Stats Canada, quit he made it very clear that it was an independence issue. It is a bit ironic that we are hearing that this is all about independence for Stats Can when the past head gave up a 35-year career and walked away from it over a disagreement with the government about Shared Services. He said specifically that the relationship with Shared Services is inconsistent with internationally recognized principles of independence of national statistics offices, something that the government endorsed but walked away from. We have asked repeatedly today if the government would stick with Shared Services or if it would go to a private server. We have not had an answer, although it does appear it will stay with Shared Services.

I am curious if my associate shares my same concerns that the government is not looking into the issue with Shared Services fully.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to put this on the record. I share his concern.

I am interested to know how the information that Statistics Canada will hold within its agency will be transferred, whether to Shared Services or others, or whether there will be a private server. This is something I get emails on in my constituency. I get phone calls on this, too. There is a lot of concern out there about how private information is used by government. There are other members in this House who have mentioned this. We do hear about cases, with our government and governments in the United States and our allies in Europe, where they have problems retaining and protecting the private information of citizens.

The previous chief statistician of Statistics Canada had a very valid point when he raised the fact that there may be some independence issues that arise. Perhaps the government has resolved all of these issues or has a method to do it but has not tabled it before the House. Without it, we are unable to know whether it has resolved all the issues within government or whether Wayne Smith does have a point.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we go to resuming debate with the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I will let him know that there are only about three minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. We will get started just the same, and he will have the rest of his time, of course, when the House next resumes debate on the question.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be splitting my time.

Before I start speaking about Bill C-36, on this day I feel it is very important to add my voice to those of all the hon. members who have spoken before me, to express my condolences to the families and friends of those victims in Quebec City, and to say that I stand here in support of my Muslim brothers and sisters against racism, xenophobia, fear, and intolerance, and that everyone in this House stands with them today and later tonight at the vigil.

Today, we have been debating Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act. From the preamble of the bill, we know that this bill's aim is to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada. It would assign to the chief statistician powers related to the methods, procedures, and operations of Statistics Canada. It would repeal imprisonment as a penalty for any offence committed by a respondent. It would also modernize the language of the act to better reflect the current methods of collecting statistical information.

These are all changes that New Democrats agree with. We, of course, will be supporting this bill at second reading because we believe it deserves to go to committee so that we can call witnesses to give the expert testimony and feedback, to see if there are ways that we can make this bill an even better one.

We have long stood for the transparency and independence of data from Statistics Canada, because we know how important that data is to public policy and to all of the various levels of government and civil society that depend on it.

I would like to give a shout-out to the hard-working men and women who work at Statistics Canada, because I do not think we, as elected representatives, often give acknowledgement to those hard-working men and women and the data that they supply us. It is their data that allows us to make the policy decisions that best reflect the needs of Canadians.

I want to extend personal thanks to all of those hard-working members of Statistics Canada. They provide statistics that help Canadians better understand their country, whether it is the population, resources, economy, society, or culture, just to name a few. In addition to the census that is held every five years, there are an additional 350 active surveys on all aspects of Canadian life.

In their words, “Objective statistical information is vital to an open and democratic society”.

I would love to carry on with this point at a later date. I see my time is up. I appreciate the opportunity to open my remarks on this bill.

Statistics ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Rest assured, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford will indeed have another seven and a half minutes for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on the question.

It being 5:55 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.)