Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 32 - Evidence - November 29, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 29, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act, met this day at 4:18 p.m. to study the bill.
[Translation]
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I am Art Eggleton, a senator from Toronto, and I chair the committee. I would ask the rest of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec, deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Hello, minister.
Senator Dean: Senator Tony Dean from Ontario.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum, Ontario.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec, deputy chair.
The Chair: Today we are having our first meeting on Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act. We are pleased to welcome the Honourable Navdeep Bains, who is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and responsible for Bill C-36. John Knubley is also here, Deputy Minister of that department. Minister, the floor is yours.
Hon. Navdeep Bains, P.C., M.P., Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development: Thank you very much, senator. I do want to say it’s great to be here with my Deputy John Knubley who is the subject matter expert on this particular bill. If you have any particular questions on the technical aspects, he would be glad to answer those. I will also be followed up by the Chief Statistician, who will be speaking to the committee as well. You’re in capable hands.
Before delivering my opening remarks, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on becoming the chair of this committee, as well as to congratulate Senators Petitclerc and Seidman for being elected deputy chairs.
I have had the pleasure of appearing before this committee in the past, and I look forward to working with all honourable senators on important issues of the day. In particular, I would like to thank your colleague Senator Cordy, who has been the Senate sponsor for this very important bill.
Finally, I would like to thank Senators Frum, Gagné and Griffin for their thoughtful comments during second-reading debate, comments I followed closely.
Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, I am pleased today to address this committee regarding Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Statistics Act.
[Translation]
We all agree on the importance and value of impartial and high- quality statistical information that responds to stakeholder needs.
[English]
Statistics are a public good. They serve businesses, non-profit organizations, individuals and all levels of government by providing information in support of evidence-based decisions.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that statistical information is of the highest quality, and one important criterion for high quality is impartiality. The quality of statistical information is maximized when decisions on statistical matters and operations are not subject to day-to-day control by the government. That’s why I’m focusing on formal independence today in my remarks.
By convention, Statistics Canada has been treated as an arm’s length agency, with little direct involvement by the minister overseeing it. However, the agency’s independence is not formally legislated. The decision to replace, for example, the 2011 mandatory long-form census with a voluntary survey exposed a vulnerability in the Statistics Act; it allowed the government of the day to make a decision on a statistical matter, with little openness and transparency.
Our government quickly reinstated the mandatory long-form census to counter this. In fact, it was one of my very first acts as minister responsible for Innovation, Science and Economic Development. What was really important to note was the response of Canadians. It was absolutely outstanding how engaged they were on the issue and how quickly they responded to this being reinstated.
[Translation]
But more action is needed to ensure decisions on statistical matters are made independently and based on professional considerations.
[English]
Proposed amendments in this bill enshrine into law the long-standing convention of the independence of Statistics Canada. Let me outline these amendments and provide more detail on certain aspects of the questions that were raised during the second reading debate that took place. Again, I welcome additional questions after my remarks.
The first is around directive powers and accountabilities. Under the act, the minister responsible for Statistics Canada has overarching authority for decisions about the agency’s operations and its methods for gathering, compiling, producing and disseminating statistical information. In practice, this authority is delegated to the Chief Statistician.
The bill will amend the act to formally make the Chief Statistician responsible for all decisions related to operations and statistical matters. This is a key element that will strengthen Statistics Canada’s independence and align our legislation here in Canada with the United Nations’ principles and the OECD’s recommended practices.
[Translation]
Amendments ensure clarity around the responsibilities of the minister and the Chief Statistician and include requirements for transparency and accountability to Canadians.
[English]
For instance, the bill clearly assigns to the Chief Statistician authority over decisions relating to operations and statistical matters. However, given that statistics are a public good, the bill also ensures that the minister remains accountable to Parliament for the agency as well.
It also clarifies that the minister will retain authority to issue directives on statistical programs because this is really important information and data needs are constantly evolving in step with societal and economic changes. While Statistics Canada has an extensive consultative process and numerous consultative bodies they use to identify priority data needs, experience tells us there is an essential role for the government to play.
However, the bill empowers the Chief Statistician to request written and public direction before acting on government or ministerial directives. The bill also clearly assigns to the Chief Statistician the responsibility for deciding what methods to use to collect data, including whether or not the survey will be mandatory or voluntary.
Mandatory surveys can be intrusive on respondents and are tied to penalties. However, the bill requires that decisions to make a survey mandatory be published for transparency purposes. It also requires that the minister be advised of such decisions before they take effect.
Should the minister deem it necessary to make a decision that directly affects statistical matters, the bill requires that such decisions be authorized by Governor-in-Council and tabled in both houses of Parliament.
[Translation]
As you can see, this bill ensures that independence does not come at the expense of relevance, and of transparency and the capacity to hold the government to account for decisions that impact Canadians.
[English]
The other point I want to talk about is the new advisory council. The bill proposes to create a new statistics advisory council, which would replace the existing National Statistics Council of Canada. The new council will provide advice on the overall quality of the national statistical system to help ensure Canada’s statistical system continues to meet the needs of Canadians.
During second reading debate on this bill, we heard questions about the council’s purpose. We also heard concerns about the council’s representativeness and the potential for partisan appointments.
The rationale for why we are creating a new council is simple: transparency and strategic focus.
[Translation]
Entrenching the new council in legislation increases transparency around the work it does and the advice it provides. I am told that it is difficult to find out who the current members of the National Statistics Council are.
[English]
It is really difficult to find out what issues the council has considered or what advice is given to the Chief Statistician. This will not be the case with the new council. The members of the new council will be asked to provide advice on specific issues related to the overall quality of Canada’s statistics system and to prepare an annual report on the state of the system, so there is that level of accountability and transparency.
Having 10 members will enable the new council to provide depth and strategic focus to the advice it will be asked to provide.
The new council is meant to be highly strategic in its objectives, and I fully expect it to formulate its advice based on a variety of sources, including the Chief Statistician and Statistics Canada’s extensive advisory structure. I will talk about that advisory structure momentarily.
The new council will complement the comprehensive advisory committee structure already in place at Statistics Canada, and this includes seven provincial-territorial committees, including the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultative Council on Statistical Policy that ensures that all provinces and territories have an effective voice on statistical matters.
There are also 13 advisory committees in various subject matter areas, which include nearly 200 members from every province and territory, and that represents a really diverse aspect of Canadian society.
Council members will be appointed by the Governor-in-Council in an open and transparent manner based on merit. This process will limit the potential for partisan appointments.
Now I want to talk briefly about the appointment of the Chief Statistician.
[Translation]
The bill will also change how the Chief Statistician is appointed; the position will be a renewable term of no more than five years.
[English]
The appointment will be made through an open, transparent, merit-based selection, as I mentioned, in accordance with the government’s new approach to Governor-in-Council appointments. The Chief Statistician will serve during good behaviour, meaning he or she may be only removed for cause by the Governor-in-Council — no longer at the pleasure of the minister but based on performance and behaviour. This will strengthen the independence of the Chief Statistician in his or her decision-making.
As for the suggestion that this appointment be approved by both houses — because I know this came up during the debate as well — the proposed amendments under Bill C-36 are in line with appointments for organizations of the executive branch of government. This is also in line with international practices in jurisdictions including New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, just to name a few, where appointments are also made by the executive without parliamentary approval. It would be uncommon to apply the same appointment provisions applied to agents of Parliament who serve important oversight functions and report directly to Parliament and a deputy head of an executive-level organization.
I will very quickly highlight a few more amendments, such as the removal of jail time. As you can imagine, this garnered a lot of attention when the debate took place between a voluntary and mandatory long-form census. This bill removed from the act the penalty of imprisonment for those who do not comply with mandatory requests for information. Canadians who do not comply will continue to face the possibility of fines of up to $500.
The second area I want to discuss is another issue that came up during the debate, and that is the bill will also allow the transfer of census records after 92 years to Library and Archives Canada for all censuses of population conducted from 2021 onwards. This is consistent with our commitment to open and accessible data. The 92-year delay provides the right balance between the need for information and the protection of Canadians’ personal information.
[Translation]
Finally, the bill updates some of the language in the act to reflect technological advances in data-gathering methods. That includes the use of electronic rather than paper questionnaires.
[English]
The amendments in Bill C-36 will ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on the integrity and accuracy of the data produced by Statistics Canada.
In conclusion, chair, we trust that the amendments contained in Bill C-36 will enhance and protect the independence of Statistics Canada, increase transparency and support evidence-based decision-making.
I would like to thank all the individuals and representatives who will take the time to appear before this committee to offer advice and input to the important work you have undertaken in the review of Bill C-36.
Finally, I would like to thank you, honourable senators, for your thoughtful considerations, and I look forward to receiving your feedback on this very important legislation. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Thoughtful considerations and feedback we will give you, but let’s start with questions. We’ll start as we normally do on a bill with the sponsor and the critic, and then the two deputy chairs.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, minister, for being here on the Senate side to talk about your bill. It’s great to have you here. I want to say that it has been a pleasure working with your staff and your department’s staff. They have been very helpful in answering all of the questions that I’ve asked them. I’m not an expert in this field so I asked a lot of questions that they had probably never had to answer before.
It’s great to see that the Chief Statistician is now a five-year appointment and is not at pleasure, which means they can disagree with the minister and not be fired for that. It’s also great to have the removal of jail time because that was certainly something that came up for discussion many times in our Senate Chamber before this bill came before us.
One of the questions that was asked of me when I spoke at second reading was with regard to the composition of the new advisory council, which I think is a great idea. I like the idea that it’s a public council and that they have to present an annual report because, before this time, you didn’t know how many times they were meeting or what they talked about, and I think the annual report shines a light on some of those things. They say that public information is the greatest disinfectant, so this will be helpful.
The question I was asked when I spoke at second reading was related to this council: Why do we have just 10 members? We have 10 provinces and three territories, and the previous council was up to 40 members. Why did you make that decision to keep this council to a smaller number? The question was asked because they were concerned about representation from across the country.
Mr. Bains: Thank you for that question. I tried to address it in my opening remarks and I will highlight some of those points. First, thank you again for your leadership on this bill and for your work in the Senate.
With respect to very important issue of representation, we want to ensure we have genuine representation in this process. I mentioned that right now we have federal-provincial consultative council on statistical policy, so we already have a mechanism in place to engage the different provinces and territories. There are 13 advisory committees that consist of 200 members that represent all the regions of Canada, so there is ample opportunity for individuals from different regional aspects to be represented in the process.
The reason we focused on 10 as opposed to 40 was to be more focused and strategic. As you know, in a room with 40 people trying to give advice, make decisions and have quorum, it’s a different composition versus 10. We came to that number on a more functional basis and, again, to be more focused and have the annual report be more strategic.
When it comes to regional representation, we believe that the other committees that are in place will be able to deal with those issues, but I think, fundamentally, it was too many people and not enough people showing up. Now we have a more streamlined process with more focus and clear accountability.
Senator Cordy: In your speech, you touched on suggestions we’ve heard in second reading speeches that the appointment of the Chief Statistician should require the approval of both houses of Parliament. We are going to have a hearing in the Senate before Christmas with, I believe, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Auditor General and the Lobbying Commissioner, so why not the Chief Statistician? Has this ever been done before? I believe you mentioned in your opening remarks that it’s not done in other countries. That was also an issue that came up at second reading. Could you expand on that?
Mr. Bains: You are right that we did look at the UN guiding principles around the issue of the independence of Statistics Canada, and we looked at other jurisdictions like Australia, New Zealand and the U.K., but from our point of view, this particular position is not an officer of Parliament, such as the Official Languages Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner. We felt that this is not a position that’s going to oversee Parliament or report to Parliament directly; it’s reporting to a minister, and I explained why. I could briefly speak later on to the “what” in terms of ministerial accountability and the “how” in terms of the operational matter.
That’s the rationale. As I said in my remarks, we feel that this is not someone who is similar to an officer of Parliament and therefore should not be subject to that same process.
Senator Frum: I’d like to pick up from there because it was my second reading speech that made the suggestion. I understand the distinction you are making between a Chief Statistician and an officer of Parliament, and, as you will know from my speech, I do support the measures you are taking to make this position, in your words, more independent, more transparent and more impartial.
One of the measures you are taking is that, once appointed, the Chief Statistician, on good behaviour, cannot be removed and serves for five years unless something terrible happens. Because this position is now empowered more than ever before — and I think that’s a good thing and is part of the independence — in my opinion, there does need to be some balance.
That’s why I’m surprised you’re not supportive of what I think is a reasonable expectation on the part of parliamentarians that there should be parliamentary approval and consultation with all leaders of the major political parties to ensure that this individual truly is impartial. I will quickly cite the recent example we’ve seen. An officer of Parliament, who was intended to be extremely impartial, did have an extremely partisan background and, in fact, ended up withdrawing her nomination because it was shown that she was not a perfectly non-partisan candidate.
What protections are there, now that you’ve enhanced the power of this position and the permanency of the position? What safeguards do we have against non-partisanship if not approval by Parliament?
Mr. Bains: Obviously, any type of position like this will still have scrutiny of both houses and political scrutiny. I don’t think that debate will not take place. If there is a Chief Statistician that is deemed to be too partisan or not impartial, I have a feeling that opposition parties will not be reluctant to weigh in to the debate.
From our point of view, we looked at international practices. We looked at other jurisdictions. I’m still the minister responsible and accountable in the House, so I would have to defend this position if it’s not impartial, if it’s not deemed to be non-partisan, so there’s that level of accountability as well.
As you’ve mentioned, it is based on good behaviour as well. Not only does a person have to be impartial, non-partisan, but there has to be a merit-based process. That’s why it’s going to follow the Governor-in-Council process as well. It’s a five-year term that gets renewed once. Again, it’s no longer at the pleasure of the minister. As you rightfully highlighted, that does strengthen their ability to be independent, but that political scrutiny and checks and balances will still exist.
Senator Frum: But on the reluctance to allow what I think is a reasonable process of parliamentary approval, I understand you’re saying there’s no international precedent for it, but what other reasons do you have to not support it?
Mr. Bains: They’re not an officer of Parliament. The Ethics Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor General report to Parliament. This particular position actually reports to the minister. There’s not that same line of reporting and accountability, and that’s where the disconnect exists.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much, minister, for your statement and your comments.
We have all talked about transparency, independence and accountability. My question is about the ministerial discretion this bill provides. Do you not think that this bill should specify the circumstances wherein that ministerial discretion will be applicable? In what circumstances would something become so important that it becomes relevant for the minister in question to use his discretion? Would it not be important — perhaps not exclusively — that the circumstances be included in the bill?
Mr. Bains: Thank you for your question. I hope that next time I will be able to explain my positions in French. The topic is technical for me, and so I will express myself in English.
[English]
We did enshrine in this very clearly two provisions. The minister is responsible for the “what.” That basically means that we direct the policy. What are the questions we want addressed? If it’s housing most recently or if it has to do with tourism, we determine that in terms of the areas we want to focus on. It is Statistics Canada, but we also have that ability. The Chief Statistician, and Statistics Canada, determines the “how.” They have that provision.
Like we saw in 2011, if there is a disagreement between the minister and the Chief Statistician, what we had in the past was that the government tried to impose its views and say, “This is kind of what we received in advice from the Chief Statistician.” It’s not that the Chief Statistician is unwilling to support the government’s position, but, in the past, the issue was that he was misrepresented, hence the controversy. Clearly, here, if there is a disagreement, the minister has to then put in writing that the Chief Statistician said, “Look, there’s a disagreement.” The onus is now on government to put, in both houses, the new directive or policy that they want on the “what.” If there’s disagreement even on operational matters, they have to put that in writing and table it in both houses.
I think that clearly addresses the concern that you’ve raised, which is that, if there are specific examples where there’s a disagreement between the government of the day or the minister and the Chief Statistician, that is dealt with in an open and transparent way. That’s what we’re trying to avoid.
I still think, as a minister and as a government, that we’re responsible, and we should be. For example, if we needed data on housing because we’re trying to deal with a housing crisis or a housing situation or mortgage challenges or any of those issues in the housing market, we have that ability to ask that question. If there’s some disagreement with the Chief Statistician, for example, as I mentioned in the past, around making something mandatory and voluntary, then we have to table that in both houses and have a Governor-in-Council process as well in cabinet. I think that brings a lot of transparency and accountability into the process and deals with the potential issues you’ve raised.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister, for being with us today.
You said when you presented to us that we all agree on the importance and value of impartial and high-quality statistical information that responds to stakeholder needs, and I must say I can’t agree with you more. Wholeheartedly, I do agree that that is so important.
I think that quality data with regard to Canadians’ health is probably something that’s pretty important to us all, so I would like to ask you about an announcement that Statistics Canada made last week that it would start tracking data on how marijuana is grown, sold and consumed through a cannabis economic account. The cannabis economic account framework says clearly: “The legalization of cannabis should eliminate . . . the illegal cannabis market . . .” But we know that’s not the case because the assistant commissioner of the RCMP recently told the House of Commons Health Committee that it would be naive to think that marijuana legalization will shut down the black market for the drug, and other jurisdictions, other countries, who have legalized marijuana continue to see the presence of an illegal market. Even the Prime Minister walked this claim back earlier this week, saying that legalizing marijuana will mean only less money for organized crime.
Do you really still believe, as the framework that StatsCan put out last week suggests, that legalizing marijuana will eliminate the black market entirely?
Mr. Bains: This is really at the core of what was a point of pride for reintroducing the mandatory long-form census, that we have good-quality data and that we make evidence-based decisions. We look at the data, as you said. Clearly, in the area of health, this is a concern that we all share, particularly with marijuana. I have two young girls — one is ten and one is seven — and I see the world through their eyes. That’s why I’m very supportive of our government’s approach when it comes to Bill C-45, which is being debated right now, as you know. The objective of that bill is very clear. We want to protect our young people, and, at the same time, we want the profits out of the hands of criminals and gangs. That’s the objective. Any data that’s being collected will help to address those core issues, and that’s the focus of our government. I think good-quality data is important for that debate.
Senator Seidman: The framework that Statistics Canada put out said that there will be a continuing need for estimates of illegal cannabis output and consumption for the next couple of years or so. We know from expert testimony and the experience of other jurisdictions that illegal cannabis can’t be eliminated, so why stop measuring it? If the government is interested in evidence-based assessment of its policy going forward, why would they only measure illegal cannabis output and consumption for the next couple of years?
Mr. Bains: As I mentioned with regard to our position on marijuana, we’re guided by the two principles of protecting young people and taking the profits away from the gangs and criminals. The objective behind this data is to collect information that is relevant for that debate. I’d be more than glad to share this information with my colleagues, the Ministers of Health and Justice, and determine if we are collecting the right data. If we can improve the process, we would do so.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Pardon my naivety, but I see that the prison sentence for people who refuse to provide information has been eliminated. I felt that under the circumstances, these people were breaking the law. However, there are people who provide false information. How can we know that someone provided false information? What criteria are used to identify the information about which people are most likely to lie?
If people are asked whether they smoke marijuana, for instance, they may answer no, but when it becomes legal, they will be able to answer yes. Do you see what I mean? How do you determine that they provided false information, and what type of information are people most likely to lie about?
Mr. Bains: That is a good question.
[English]
In my opinion, the question represents an operational subject matter expertise. I’m glad the Chief Statistician will be speaking after me. He can specifically speak to how they are able to detect, as you rightfully mentioned, accurate and reliable data versus fraudulent data and determine (a), how that is detected and (b), what’s done to correct the record. Unfortunately, on an operational matter, I’m not up to speed on exactly how that is done, but I’m hoping the Chief Statistician can address that.
Senator Griffin: Thank you for being here. There is a clause in the 2005 act that amended the Statistics Act, and that is clause 2.1. It requires a review of the informed consent question no later than two years before the taking of the third census of the population, which would be in 2016, by any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons or both houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose. Then clause 2.2 requires that there be a report on the matter.
We can find no evidence of such an undertaking or such a report. I don’t sense any malice in this omission, but I do have some questions related to it. Why was this mandated review never undertaken? Did this impact the validity of the 2016 census? Was that compromised because of the failure to undertake the mandated review? Finally, when will the mandated review of the opt-in question take place?
Mr. Bains: I’m doing my best to follow, senator. I just want clarification. Are you referring to the 92-year provision?
Senator Griffin: No. That’s another issue.
Mr. Bains: My apologies. I was trying to follow and I was asking my deputy; I apologize.
Senator Griffin: I want to come to that one next, but right now I want to deal with the fact that in the 2005 Statistics Act, or the amendment, there was a requirement that by any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons or both houses, there be a review undertaken of the informed consent question no later than two years before the taking of the third census.
Mr. Bains: Correct.
Senator Griffin: I can break down the parts of the question. I’m wondering why the review didn’t occur. That’s my first question.
Mr. Bains: This happened under the previous government, so I’m not sure as to what the rationale was in terms of why they did not proceed in 2006 and 2011.
Senator Griffin: Do you think that may have impacted the validity of the 2016 census? Was it compromised because there wasn’t a review regarding the informed consent provision?
Mr. Bains: In terms of the quality of the data and the impact it would have, I would defer to the Chief Statistician in terms of the impact of the data and the quality of the data. To my understanding, he can speak to that in a more informed matter. My understanding is no.
Senator Griffin: Would there be a mandated review now that you’re aware it hasn’t happened? Will the mandated review occur of the opt-in question?
Mr. Bains: Yes. As part of our ongoing process as we prepare for the next census, this will be discussed and it will be part of the consultative process.
Senator Griffin: Great to hear that.
Going back to the 92-year provision. I think there will be a huge data gap. I used to be on a municipal council, and we relied heavily on information from Statistics Canada. I see a huge data gap facing people as a result of three censuses not having had this information. Ticking the box is okay, but the fact that they didn’t tick the box, you’re interpreting that as being a “no.” That’s the problem.
Mr. Bains: That was the issue, yes. You’re right, but we can’t go back. You’re absolutely right. Going forward, the information is really designed for our society. We were talking about health care before as well. We need open data and big data. That’s why we want to release this information, not only in terms of quality data and the mega-data that exists but also for historians. That’s why we have the 92 year provision. We can’t retroactively go back because we have to honour the commitment that was made in that process. I know you have a personal history when it comes to understanding Statistics Canada and the process. I think there’s a family connection. But you’re absolutely right. This will have an impact going forward. We’re mindful of that, but we retroactively cannot go and undo the commitment we made with our fellow citizens.
Senator Omidvar: My question is for either the minister or the deputy minister. I’d like to probe your perceptions or the reality today about the relationship between Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada. As you well know, Wayne Smith, the previous Stats Canada Chief Statistician, resigned because — he stated this in the House of Commons committee as well — the relationship was intrusive, inefficient and risk prone. This was from the Chief Statistician. Can you describe to us what has changed or improved in the relationship? If not, should this issue be addressed in the legislation?
Mr. Bains: Again, this is an operational matter. This is as to how does the Chief Statistician and Statistics Canada maintain its data in a good, secure manner. I defer to them in terms of the operational expertise. They have a very clear mandate to do so. We’ve been clear as a government that having secure data is absolutely essential. Protecting the privacy of the information for our fellow citizens is absolutely essential.
In terms of the operational status, I believe Anil can speak to that and update you on what has taken place, what measures have been put in place, what issues were raised by the previous Chief Statistician and how those issues were dealt with. You’re absolutely right. We share those concerns as well. We want to make sure that not only do we collect data, but that data is kept in a secure manner and that it protects people’s privacy. That’s the direction I have given in the conversation I’ve had with the Chief Statistician when he came on board. I think he can speak to some of the progress on that more specifically.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, but it seems to me that you are confident at this point that the data is secure.
Mr. Bains: Yes, I am, absolutely, because I have not heard or seen of any issues that have been brought to my attention to state otherwise.
Senator Omidvar: But things have changed since Mr. Smith’s statement. Maybe I can ask the Chief Statistician exactly how things have changed.
Mr. Bains: You got it. That’s exactly it. In terms of the operational — and maybe, deputy, you want to speak to that — I’ve received no concerns around compromise to data vis-à-vis the new Chief Statistician.
John Knubley, Deputy Minister, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada: As a department, we’ve worked closely with the Chief Statistician and with Shared Services Canada on a number of issues to ensure the security of the relationship between Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada. We’ve taken a number of steps to improve the coordination and put in place a memorandum of understanding between the two organizations. I think the Chief Statistician will speak to the various dimensions of that. However, I can say that we’ve done a lot of work around this to make the relationship strong and effective.
Senator Dean: Thanks for being here. It’s a privilege to chat with you. Congratulations on this initiative with some important governance changes and efforts to make the organization more independent and transparent.
This is a question about stakeholder reactions and public reactions. This isn’t necessarily a friendly question; it’s an important question. What have you heard in the policy development process, as these new approaches have been developed, from the public and key Statistics Canada stakeholders? It’s great to hear about the one or two things that are positive and rosy, but are there things on the other side of the fence where people are saying perhaps you’ve overstepped a bit too far or there is an area here where you have not gone far enough and we think you should go further? What has the reaction been? Is the porridge just right? Are there stakeholders and people who think you might have overstepped or understepped?
Mr. Bains: I have a bit of a bias. I think the porridge is just right. Full disclosure, I don’t want to beat around the bush on that. Maybe my deputy can speak otherwise. That will be a great conversation.
From our point of view, what we did immediately was reintroduced the mandatory long-form census. That was essential. We needed to make sure we had good quality data. We are strengthening and reinforcing the independence of Statistics Canada, which we are discussing today. The third dimension, which is not in this bill but is discussed, is around big data, open data and modernization. That is a dimension not necessarily addressed here that we have heard from others, which we will be coming forth with as well. We have kind of broken up the three stages to be able to execute my mandate commitments. The first was to reinstate the mandatory long-form census. The second was to reinforce the independence. The third is around data modernization. That dimension was missing. That’s some of the feedback we received, and that will be coming forward in a separate initiative very soon.
Senator Dean: I want to ask John whether the porridge is really just right or maybe there was something that was identified as an issue and has been addressed in the course of those consultations.
Mr. Knubley: There are two things. First, this issue of creating a strategic statistical advisory council is certainly one I have heard from stakeholders on as a Deputy Minister of Innovation. I think the feeling was that the existing National Statistics Council was playing a very important role in terms of looking at interests of data users, particularly in the academic community. However, what was missing in that work was the strategic support and advice to the Chief Statistician, if you like. I heard this in fact from some of the members of the actual National Statistics Council.
The second area I’d raise is related to this modernization of data and the new information world that we’re in. I think there is a whole conversation amongst stakeholders about what is the role of big data, what is the role of Statistics Canada, and supporting the use of big data and the proliferation of big data. That’s an emerging area of work we need to do and really look beyond the changes that are here.
Senator Raine: This is a very interesting topic. When you are deciding on what data to collect, how does that work? When you talk about independence — we always think about independence from political involvement — what rationale is there for data collection from the data users outside government? Are they pressuring us to do work that they might normally do themselves? Is the data that’s available in Statistics Canada used by outside users, industry or academics, or do they go do their own as well? Is it trusted? What is the quality?
Mr. Bains: Since we reintroduced the mandatory long-form census, there is a more confidence in the quality and the reliability of the data. That’s why overwhelmingly industry, municipalities and academics were very positive about this. It was an overwhelmingly positive response.
There is no doubt that administrative and other pools of data do help reinforce better decisions and quality of information. That is a technique deployed quite a bit by academics and others. They take this data and also do additional complimentary work to further granular work based on any particular subject they are exploring.
There is enormous confidence in the quality of the data we have. It is used by industry, academics and municipalities for planning purposes across the country. That is one of the by-products of the mandatory long-form census. A good sample and high-response rate allows us to be confident with the data we have. There is other administrative data by our users that is used to complement Statistics Canada.
Senator Raine: Is that data shared back and forth, then? They are using data collected by Statistics Canada. Do they then input to Statistics Canada the data they get, or is it sort of a one-way street?
Mr. Bains: It is more of a one-way street where Statistics Canada provides that information to them and they take that information, use it and do additional work on it. They may share their findings with Statistics Canada and follow up, but I think Statistics Canada has its own methodology and processes in place. They are very confident about the data they have.
Senator Raine: I’m concerned as an observer that we now have tools like computers and IT systems that allow us to collect data more efficiently, and yet our costs for Statistics Canada continue to escalate. I don’t know why that’s happening, but I suspect we are doing work for other people and they are not paying for it.
Mr. Bains: That is a great point you raise in terms of how data is collected using other sources of data. I talked about administrative data. That’s part of the data modernization. Are we asking questions in the right way? Is there consistency in the data we receive? What other data sets exist out there that can complement the data we are collecting to get better outcomes? This is part of data modernization. We have to rethink. With the Internet of Things, with the connectivity data becoming more and more digital, the amount of data that’s available has really transformed the role of Statistics Canada in many ways. That’s part of the data modernization initiative that we will be bringing forward. That’s something that the Chief Statistician can also speak to at length. You are right that we have to collect more reliable data and use other sources in a cost-effective way.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your presentation. I want to go back to a point that has been raised previously with the removal of the penalty of imprisonment. That’s a good thing that we’ve done that.
In terms of strategies that have been put in place, has there been work and analysis done of the multiple barriers to compliance and how we might address those? I’m thinking about things like literacy, poverty, homelessness, age, disability, race, all of those things that might lead to disengagement and people not being able to complete the census. Tied to that is the proposed change here that electronic rather than paper questionnaires would be used. Has that sort of lens been used to look at these proposed changes?
Mr. Bains: The short answer is yes. In order for Statistics Canada to have good quality data and reliable data, they use every method they can deploy, from digital platforms to physically going and working with individuals and taking them through the process, understanding the challenges economically, socially or otherwise they may encounter.
There is a lot of physical human resources and other techniques deployed to ensure that all the segments of society that you highlighted, which may not necessarily very easily participate in the process, can do so. That’s important, because again, it speaks to the sample of the size of data we want to collect and the quality of data. A lot of money and effort and energy is deployed in order to address those issues.
Senator Manning: Thank you for your appearance here this evening. I want to touch base on the advisory council. It’s not more than 10 members appointed. My understanding is that the Chief Statistician will be an ex officio. I’m wondering about the process for that and what criteria you will be looking at. Does geography play a part in that? Gender balance? We will not have enough there to have every province and every territory represented, so I wonder about the process that will happen to ensure we have input from each part of our country.
Mr. Bains: As I mentioned, there is already a Federal-Provincial-Territorial Consultative Council on Statistical Policy. There are 13 advisory committees that have 200 members across the country. This is a Governor-in-Council process. They will receive per diems to cover their costs associated with their efforts. It will be an open process. We’re going to put out the criteria for this committee and what the mandate is in an open manner and have people apply.
You’re absolutely right that this government has been clear about geography, diversity and different points of view being represented. I’m confident, based on the mandate that we put out, that there are incredible people across the country who will have a fair chance to participate, from different backgrounds, with different expertise, to really provide more focus and more strategic oversight to Statistics Canada and the annual report, which I think is really important for transparency.
Senator Manning: But the final decision for membership will rest with cabinet?
Mr. Bains: Correct.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, minister, for being here. I want to follow up on a couple of questions that were already asked, and it has to do with the membership again. I understand it’s for transparency reasons, and I think everybody sees that and it is good. But from my understanding, the new council will be compensated. I’m just wondering why you did not just change the mandate of the current council and maintain the regional representation, which would have saved taxpayers’ money.
Mr. Bains: First of all, if you look at the costs associated with this, it is a very modest per diem that will be deployed to these 10 individuals. They won’t be receiving a salary. There won’t be an annual amount they get. It’s a per diem they will receive. I just want to highlight that. You are absolutely right, and we are mindful of the impact to taxpayers.
Second, the idea is, with a new council with a new strategic focus, it’s designed to set a new direction in terms of the advice they give and break away from the previous council and the structure. We wanted to make sure that was clearly understood in this process.
To your point, this will not have an inordinate impact on taxpayers. These people are subject matter experts. They will provide good advice and receive a modest per diem to do so.
Senator Poirier: I think there is also a concern with — a couple of colleagues have already brought this up — the number of 10, which definitely means that all provinces will not be represented on the council. I think there are concerns out there. Atlantic Canada consists of smaller provinces, and I think the concern is does that mean we’re looking at one representative for all of Atlantic Canada? What impact will that have?
Mr. Bains: I don’t know. There could be four people from P.E.I. That’s the beauty of this process. Geography is not the only lens, with all due respect. It is really based on people with certain technical expertise, background, knowledge and merit. I’m confident we have incredible candidates in Atlantic Canada and across the country who will participate in this open, transparent process.
I know the deputy wants to say a few words as well. Did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Knubley: Just as a few points of clarification, in terms of the existing National Statistics Council, there is actually one province and two territories that are not members of the National Statistics Council. Currently, it actually does not have full representation from all provinces and territories.
The other thing I’d point out is in terms of male-female and gender balance, there are 27 males and 7 females. Again, in terms of starting from that point, I don’t think that’s a good starting point.
The Chair: If I can clarify with you, I thought I read somewhere that you also have a federal-provincial-territorial advisory council, so you do have all of the provinces involved.
Mr. Bains: Oh, absolutely. I’ve highlighted that.
The Chair: They would feed into this new organization. Is that how it would go?
Mr. Bains: Absolutely, as well as the 13 advisory committees. You are absolutely right. There is a structure with the federal government, the provinces and the territories with this consultative council on statistical policy to ensure we have the specific regional lens to the policy-making process. There are 13 advisory committees as well that have members from across the country.
Mr. Knubley: There are six other federal-provincial-territorial committees, including agriculture statistics, census and population, demography, economics statistics, labour statistics and social statistics. So there are seven federal-provincial-territorial committees.
The Chair: We have run out of time. I’m sorry we didn’t get a chance to go to a second round. Thank you, minister and deputy minister.
We are now on to panel two. I am pleased to welcome the Chief Statistician of Canada, Anil Arora; and Andrée Desaulniers, Senior Analyst, Information Management Division. Chief Statistician, the floor is yours.
Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada: Thank you to the committee for inviting me to appear.
[Translation]
Today, I am joined by Andrée Desaulniers, Senior Analyst at Statistics Canada. Ms. Desaulniers is a specialist on the more technical areas of the bill.
[English]
As you know, statistics and the integrity of the national statistical system play an essential role in democratic societies. This is truer than ever in an era of alternative facts and with the rise of data and big data from a multitude of sources, not all of which are credible.
[Translation]
Statistics Canada produces information that allows Canadians to better understand our country, its population, resources, economy, society and culture. Statistics are the basis for the enlightened decisions you, our representatives, make, as well as the decisions made by businesses, unions, non-profit organizations, and Canadians in general.
[English]
The high-quality results from the 2016 census and this morning’s last major release from the 2016 census are indicative of the level of importance and relevance good data play in our economy and society.
Our data informs Canadians and plays a vital role in evidence-based decision-making by our elected officials, businesses, NGOs and by all levels of the public service. Our data are also leveraged by the social and business sectors to drive innovation and to create high-paying jobs.
We at Statistics Canada take our role very seriously. This is no small task as, in addition to conducting a census every five years, we have about 350 active surveys on virtually every aspect of Canadian life.
In order for our results to be credible, statistical agencies must operate with a high level of independence. Currently, the Statistics Act does not have specific provisions establishing the independence of Statistics Canada. The amendments proposed in Bill C-36 are designed to strengthen the agency’s independence to ensure the ongoing impartiality and objectivity of the national statistical system. The proposed changes align Canada’s legislation with international standards promoted by the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic Co-oporation and Development.
We must be accountable for the decisions we make and the actions we take. The minister will retain authority to provide direction on material changes to the scope of the statistical program; however, the Chief Statistician will be able to request, if warranted, public written direction before acting on ministerial directions relating to the statistical program.
Mr. Chair, being more independent does not mean working in isolation. Statistics Canada has never worked in isolation. For example, we work in partnership with Canada Post for the delivery of census questionnaires and with Shared Services Canada for ensuring we have robust IT infrastructure. We don’t develop our own word processing systems or databases, but we do control and oversee data seriously. We have made substantial progress on our IT infrastructure challenges and I would be more than happy to provide additional information on that front.
Specifically, the proposed bill directly assigns authorities for decisions on methods and operations to the Chief Statistician, including for the collection, compilation, analysis, abstraction and publication of statistical information. Should the minister, however, deem it to be in the national interest to make a decision that directly involves methodological or operational matters, that decision will now be authorized by the Governor-in-Council and tabled in Parliament.
Bill C-36 also proposes to create a new Canadian statistics advisory council. The existing National Statistics Council has been an important contributor to the work of Statistics Canada for more than 30 years. In that time, the overall governance system around us has matured considerably and there are now, as was said earlier, multiple sources of advice for Statistics Canada. These sources of advice include FPT fora, groups on statistical methodology and in various economic and social fields. Taken together, our advisory system currently totals more than 200 experts on a range of statistical matters from every region and every sector of our country and society.
The new Canadian statistics advisory council will therefore have a particular focus on the overall quality of the national statistical system, including the relevance, accuracy, accessibility and timeliness of the statistical information that we produce. This same advisory committee will play an advisory role to the minister and the Chief Statistician and will publish an annual report on the state of the national statistical system.
I, for one, will welcome the increased transparency the new approach will bring and the perspectives and advice the council will offer. If there are things we can do better, I want to hear about it and we certainly want others to hear about it as well.
Under the amended act, the Chief Statistician will be appointed to a renewable term of no more than five years. The Chief Statistician, who will be selected via an open and transparent process, will serve during good behaviour and may only be removed by the Governor-in-Council for cause.
The bill also removes the requirement for consent to transfer census records to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census. This change responds to the need of historians and genealogists who require this important data for research purposes but balances it against the privacy wishes of Canadians.
I understand some members may have concerns with this aspect of the bill. Statistics Canada understands that this does represent some loss of data for future researchers and genealogists; however, having asked Canadians for their consent in the 2006, 2011 and 2016 censuses and in the 2011 National Household Survey, it is important that their wishes be respected in order to retain their trust and ensure their continued collaboration moving forward. Again, I will be happy to provide any additional information that I can.
The bill will remove from the act provisions related to the imprisonment of people who refuse to provide information related to the mandatory surveys or who impede access to such information. I think there is general consensus among Canadians that imprisonment for such behaviour is no longer appropriate and is, in fact, disproportionate to the offence. The provisions related to fines for the same offence will remain.
Finally, the amended act offers a small technical fix to modernize some of the language that does not align with current operational practices, often due to technological changes such as the introduction of online rather than paper questionnaires.
In closing, let me assure members that I and the employees of Statistics Canada remain dedicated to our work. We continuously look for innovative approaches to protecting the confidentiality of all information entrusted to us and to ensuring that the information we deliver is timely and relevant to Canadians. We continue to ask where our data and analysis offer the greatest value to all Canadians.
My colleague Ms. Desaulniers and I will be happy to address any questions or concerns you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, I think the same pace we had the last time might work again. I’ll start with Senator Cordy as the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Cordy: I thank you and your colleagues at Statistics Canada for the work you do. I think Canadians trust the information that comes from Statistics Canada and that’s because of the good people that we have working there.
The minister told us that this bill will make the Chief Statistician more independent. The appointment is on good behaviour for five years with the possibility of another reappointment rather than at pleasure of the government, and it clearly lays out the roles and responsibilities for the ministry and for the Chief Statistician. Are you comfortable that the bill provides a strengthening of the independence of the Chief Statistician and the office of the Chief Statistician?
Mr. Arora: First, I think you’ve probably read, as the bill has made its way to you, the opinions of numerous folks, and I think overwhelmingly the consensus is that this moves the yardsticks considerably. I think even the largest critics and former Chief Statisticians have said that this is a good move in the right direction.
Second, when you look at international standards, when you look at the United Nations as well as the OECD and what they prescribe in terms of what a good legislative framework should look like for a statistical agency, we meet that test. I think the act you have in front of you addresses essentially all, either explicitly or in spirit. Again, it’s a major step forward.
Third, as you’ve seen, there are going to be areas of disagreement or different opinions from time to time over the life of this proposed bill. I think the elements in this bill provide transparency and accountability where it should lie.
For all those reasons, I think we’ve moved the yardsticks considerably in terms of where things are as best we know them internationally and where it is that Statistics Canada places itself in this legislation going forward.
Senator Cordy: This bill, to me, more clearly says what the minister is responsible for and what your department, Statistics Canada, is responsible for. I’m just wondering. I’ve simplified it a little bit. The government, when I read the bill, can say to you, “We want data collected on labour force market; we want information collected on women entrepreneurs in Canada; we want statistics on the number of births and deaths in the country.” You, on the other hand, or your department, are responsible for the methodology or how you go about collecting the information that the government is requesting. Is that a fair defining of the roles?
Mr. Arora: Perhaps I could answer that or I could react to that in the following way. In convention, Statistics Canada has operated that way. It is absolutely rare that a minister would personally intervene and say, “I’d like you to collect data on X, Y or Z.” In fact, the very reason why we are relevant for the policy needs of the country is because the Chief Statistician sits at the policy tables. The Chief Statistician and the employees of Statistics Canada remain in touch with every organization that you can pretty well think of to try to ensure that what we’re doing is relevant to the needs of the country and that it continues to be relevant and that we use the best statistical methods, the best techniques and the most efficient ways in order to fulfill those needs.
In fact, in Canada, we are really fortunate that we have a national statistical system. In many countries, the statistical system is very fragmented. You have the Department of Transport, for example, collecting their own, and you have the Department of Labour collecting their own. We are truly fortunate. In Canada, we have a national statistical system where all those are integrated and we can actually make use of the integrated nature of the data to understand really what are very important and interrelated issues on the social, economic and even on the environmental fronts. As I said, in convention and in practice, we remain connected with the needs of every level of government, with businesses, with NGOs, with the private sector and so on to make sure we continue to remain responsive to their needs.
What the bill does is essentially codifies, saying that the methodology or the science of statistics, in a sense, should be left to the experts at Statistics Canada. Yes, in a circumstance where there is a real gap, the government should have — and I mean the broadest sense of government — a say in shifts, if you like, if there are gaps.
The bill also now provides a second mechanism in the form of a Canadian Statistics Advisory Council that will actually say where we are in terms of the quality of the information, in terms of the breadth, the depth and coverage of it and actually compare that to where things are internationally.
I think the bill actually tries to codify now what essentially is there in practice.
Senator Frum: Thank you very much for being here. I want to ask you about a specific failure of methodology that took place in the 2016 census. My question is about what would be done to rectify this failure and in what way Bill C-36 impacts the ability to rectify it.
I’m referring to the statistics that were collected around the size of the Jewish population in Canada. As you know, the question was asked on the census for people to list their culture or ethnicity, and as a result, the Jewish population in Canada appeared to fall by 56 per cent between 2011 and 2016, which, of course, is not accurate. The population that was once listed as approximately 370,000 people is now listed as 147,000 people because of a change of methodology.
My question to you is: Given this bill, how will that be remedied? Because it’s not accurate. That strikes me as an example where a political intervention would currently fix that. An intervention by an interested parliamentarian such as myself might come to you and talk to you, but now with this increasing independence and autonomy around methodology, perhaps that won’t be possible anymore. I’m just wondering if you could address that issue.
Mr. Arora: Just as a little bit of background, ethnicity, obviously, is an ever-changing concept. I was born in India, so I would define myself as somebody of East Indian origin. If you ask my 15-year-old what he thought was his ethnicity, he would have a very different answer than I would, and we’re talking just one generation. So first of all, things on this front change on an ongoing basis.
The question that you’re referring to in the census itself did not change at all, nor did any of the methodology per se — and I’ll clarify in just one second what did change. I will be clear on what did change.
So over time, because you have this changing nature of how people define themselves, we have had in the census a convention which says whatever the most prominent responses were in the previous census, they get listed in the examples, if you like, alongside the question.
In this case, what happened was that that number, or that identity, was not amongst the most prominent and therefore something else replaced it.
Senator Frum: It wasn’t listed at all, actually.
Mr. Arora: It was replaced. The point being that that methodology hasn’t changed, of changing the examples based on the prominence, if you like, of the responses in the previous census.
Now, we know that the number of people who identified themselves as Jewish didn’t disappear. We know that they identified themselves differently this time. In fact, we reached out as soon as some of the media results came out. We reached out to the organizations and in fact they’ve agreed to work with us to actually understand what is actually happening there so that we can get a better sense of how that identity and people’s relationship with that identity is changing.
Ultimately, it is a self-identification. We know that when you have an example, that in this case it obviously has had some impact. We want to understand that better so we can actually move forward and make sense of it.
We put a lot of emphasis on the census and it’s an amazing instrument. It’s the envy, if you look at statistics the world over, but it can’t answer all the questions. In some cases, it requires a deeper study, so from time to time we do in fact undertake additional studies. There are many other areas. For example, how do our indigenous populations identify themselves and how that mobility, if you like, in identity is changing in a dramatic way in our country as well. We need to understand that.
Senator Frum: In the context of Bill C-36, again, prior to this bill, one can imagine the community organizations — in this case, the Jewish organizations — would go to the minister and present the problem that you have this unique situation with the Jewish population where it’s an ethnicity but also a religion. The question was confusing to this community in particular. I’m talking technical now. Before Bill C-36, you would go to the minister. Now it would be inappropriate to go to the minister with these new rules. So what is the appeals process now?
Mr. Arora: If I may, just as a point of clarification, on the census, both the previous act and this act actually remain consistent, which is Statistics Canada goes out and consults. In fact, we’re consulting as we speak on the next census, on the 2021 census and the content needs of the country. Based on what Canadians tell us, then we undertake a series of cognitive, qualitative and quantitative tests. At the end of that period, we actually take the results of those consultations and we propose, in a sense, to cabinet what the questions should be for the next census. In fact, it’s cabinet that makes the ultimate decision on what the final content of the next census questionnaire will look like. On the census, it is the responsibility of cabinet. The questions that are finalized are, in fact, prescribed and gazetted so that then they are made public. That was the process that took place.
Senator Frum: So we might be overstating the independence that is created by this bill if cabinet is still deciding the questions.
Mr. Arora: Again, if we want to come back to the simplistic, the “what” and the “how,” the “what” is still the purview of the government per se. Because the census impacts every single household in the country and it is a mandatory requirement, it is still the decision of the government as to what constitutes the census.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for being with us today. I’d like to come back to the advisory council. We’ve had a lot of questions about it and tried to understand its composition. It’s clearly an important council. As the minister said, it will provide advice on specific issues related to the overall quality of Canada’s statistics system, and it prepares an annual report on the state of the system. I’d like to ask you about the composition and the mechanism for appointments, if I might.
I have a chart in front of me that provides a comparison of similar committees in other countries: Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom. I look at the number of members as a comparison and ask your opinion about this. In Australia, there are 11 to 23 members; New Zealand, 20; the United States, there is no fixed membership; and the U.K., there are 12. I would like to get some opinion from you about this composition with 10 members on the council and if you think that is going to offer us adequate representation.
Mr. Arora: I think the minister also touched on this topic in response to previous questions. First and foremost, in terms of internationally, as you’ve pointed out, every country has a slightly different advisory system, if you like, or a system of advisory committees. In some cases they don’t have the same jurisdictional issues and jurisdictions, in a sense, that we do. In some cases, as I said, it’s a fragmented statistical system, so it really depends on who you ask, if it’s the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labour Statistics or the Bureau of Economic Analysis, et cetera. All that is to say there is really no model to say this is what we need to follow.
You come back to first principles, which is: What do we need as a statistical system? We want to make sure that we get good representative advice and that we in fact have committees with expertise that you need. Whether we’re talking about a system of macroeconomic accounts or if we’re talking about ensuring that we have small business covered, you want to make sure they’re represented and they have a voice in that governance system or advisory system.
I think what’s happened over time in Canada is that the overall advisory system has matured and evolved. Today, as opposed to when the current structure was established, we have seven committees on a range of topics where every single province and territory is represented and very active. They care deeply about their individual areas, their issues and what’s happening. We, of course, have established that and made sure that we have a national statistical system that’s well coordinated and that meets the needs so that they can actually compare statistics from what’s happening in one jurisdiction as opposed to another. It is the same thing on 13 other committees that provide us very deep and technical advice on many areas.
What we’re talking about here in this new way of moving forward is the emphasis is on transparency. It’s about the checks and balances and accountability. I think what we need now is not another super-committee, if you like, with more representation, but there’s a gap, I would say, in the advisory system right now when you look at all the elements that are presented in this bill, and that is an advisory committee that is actually open and transparent to Canadians, is actually asked to comment publicly on advice that they give and is asked to actually comment on the national statistical system and its quality.
Senator Seidman: Just to respond to the point you’re making about transparency and openness, I’d like to ask you about the mechanism for appointing these members to the advisory committee. It’s my understanding that in the past, it was the Chief Statistician who previously recommended people to serve on the council. These appointments will be in the hands of the government, made through a Governor-in-Council process. We heard it’s based on merit, but my question is: Given the importance of this advisory council, does the mechanism, the way of appointing these people, actually weaken the authority of the Chief Statistician? Are these people’s appointments based on expertise? Are they specialists? I don’t understand what it means when it says it’s based on merit and it’s more open and transparent. There’s something very specific required of these members of this council. Do they have some kind of expertise?
Mr. Arora: I think the minister has mentioned the act goes a certain way. It goes to a certain extent, if you like, in terms of saying the size and structure and the broad mandate of the committee, and the process by which members will be appointed to this committee. That’s as far as the bill goes. It’s the process that will determine what the qualifications are and, from there, there will be an open, merit-based and transparent process to ensure that they get the best individuals and that we have the representativeness, if you like, of this council that serves the needs of all Canadians. That’s the first point.
The second point is there’s a check and balance. We’ve talked about the check and balance a number of times in the context of this bill. The statistics advisory council provides a check and balance to both the minister but also to the Chief Statistician. I think what we want is a system that gives, if you like, a second sober second thought at times to make sure that the right things are in fact being done.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for your comments. I will start with one specific example. You did mention the importance of data collecting and how it’s used. At the end of it, we want it to be used by Canadians, NGOs and public services.
I was made aware a week ago that when it comes to statistics, there is no way to find statistics on persons with disabilities under 15. You can get a lot of statistics on persons with disabilities or on youth, but you can’t have that. To me, it is an example of gaps or people who may be forgotten, with impacts when it comes to services, programming or even funding.
My question is: Does this bill somehow address that? I could not find it, but maybe I missed it. I’m especially concerned because you say the “what” is the government and the “how” is statisticians, but then governments change, so groups that maybe they feel are a priority will change. I’m trying to understand the process in terms of who gets data, who doesn’t and why.
[Translation]
Mr. Arora: Thank you for your question. Indeed, the difference between the “how” and the “what” is one model to illustrate what is included in the bill.
[English]
But the model is really a bit more complicated than that. As the Chief Statistician, I don’t separate myself from the “what.” In fact, I care deeply about the what. In fact, as was mentioned before, I’m not an agent of Parliament that’s an oversight body, but I’m very much part of the deputy minister community and in tune with the policy needs, where those gaps are and how best to actually fill those gaps. I would take the “what” and the “how” as an illustrative point, but I wouldn’t go too far in that.
To your specific point about gaps, we know there are some significant gaps. We know, for example, that there are gaps on a whole range of issues when it pertains to children, including disabilities, health, mental health and so many other aspects of this. I can assure you that we are working with colleagues across the government, and even in provinces and territories, to see what the best way is to actually fill some of those gaps. For example, we have the Canadian Community Health Survey that we do on a regular basis where there are modules of data. There is active discussion in terms of how we actually fill some of those gaps as they pertain to children. Yes, it is a very topical issue.
Having said that there are gaps, they take resources and there are priorities we have to assign. I can only do so much. In some sense, I have to actually turn to my colleague deputies and say, “You have to make tough choices about where the data are more needed and where perhaps they’re not.” In fact, we at Statistics Canada do on an annual basis some $130 million worth of internal cost recovery business, where other departments actually come and say, “These are our needs,” and they pay for those gaps to be filled.
So you’re absolutely right.
Clause 22 of the bill says, “Here are all the areas on which Statistics Canada can and should be playing on,” but it doesn’t say, “You must do the following kinds of things,” because that’s the subject of a more active conversation with the deputy community.
Senator Petitclerc: Ministerial discretion goes on national interest. Would you think the Chief Statistician and the team would prefer that “national interest” be more precisely defined, or is everybody satisfied with just “national interest”?
Mr. Arora: The bill lays it out. It says it’s in exceptional circumstances that there would be that kind of intervention.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I have a question on the relationship between Shared Services Canada and Statistics Canada. One of Mr. Smith’s concerns when he resigned was that he felt that Shared Services Canada was encroaching significantly and unacceptably on Statistics Canada’s independence.
Is it because the regulations on the roles of Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada are not clear, which could perhaps create the impression that one is encroaching upon the other? This could impact the confidentiality and security of data, as these are two bodies that share information. Are there clear rules covering both of these bodies?
Mr. Arora: Thank you very much for your question. First of all, Mr. Smith will be with you tomorrow, and you can put questions to him concerning the situations he faced. However, I can speak about our experience over the past 15 months.
[English]
The issue is around Shared Services Canada and the services that were and are provided from them. I know that was a question that was posed earlier as well, so I’ll try to address where the situation is today.
First of all, let me reassure you and all Canadians that Statistics Canada is exclusively responsible for the confidentiality and the privacy of the information we collect, house and ultimately whatever it is that we disseminate. The Statistics Act is very clear about that responsibility. Anybody who comes into contact with that confidential information, under the current provision, is sworn in under the act and is also subject to all the fines and penalties should they ever violate any of those provisions.
By its very nature, the relationship between Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada is one where they provide the service. It’s like me buying software — WordPerfect, say — but I control the document in it, and that is not what is up for sharing, if you like, with Shared Services Canada. The content is not for them to share. In fact, we have a series of checks and balances in place, including monitoring and so on, to ensure ourselves that it is the service — it is the hardware, the software and the support if something goes wrong — that’s the extent, if you like, of their involvement.
Over the course of the last 15 months or so, we have made significant improvements in our infrastructure deficit. Yes, there was an infrastructure deficit in terms of what we wanted to achieve and whether we had the technical resources in order to achieve what we wanted to. I can tell you that in the last year, roughly, we have increased the amount of space by 150 per cent, we have increased our processing capacity by some fourfold, we are moving forward with modernizing our workplace and our workforce, and all of that is based on infrastructure. We are absolutely connected with even some of the more innovative practices in the IT solutions that are coming to bear, such as cloud computing and so on.
Having said that, I can assure you that nothing we do trumps security, confidentiality and privacy protection. I know Ron Parker is going to be in front of you as well, and you would be good to pose some of those questions of him.
The Chair: We will have to shorten the questions and answers a bit to get through in time.
Senator Raine: It’s fascinating to hear from you. My question is really about the evolution of language around both identity and gender. How will you fix that in terms of the forms, and will you be able to use what I call “drilling down” even on the short forms? Because if you say gender, for example, “M,” tick the boxes — male, female, other — if you tick “other,” you should have another screen that opens up that gives you further opportunity. That should be somehow described so that “other” means “other choice.”
There are quite a few things. Identity, for instance, is so important in indigenous communities, where they want to identify, but they’re not really identified by their Indian Act registration. They don’t have a status card, but they identify personally. That kind of information will be very valuable going forward, especially in a country like Canada, which is so inclusive. Will you be able to do that? If we’re using computers, can we do that — drill down on each of those kinds of questions?
Mr. Arora: Senator, thank you for that question. It is part of us; it’s part of being Canadian.
Statistics Canada, I would say, is a world leader when it comes to doing the kind of work you’re talking about. We have run tests where we have looked at various ways of asking questions so that people can self-identify in the way that they see themselves, as you said, whether we’re talking about gender and sex, whether it’s write-in responses or picking from a list. We’ve done surveys that have shown us that the number of choices that people self-identify with is in the hundreds, in some cases. Sometimes a drop-down list may not necessarily be the most efficient way to do that, because people tend to pick the first selection that’s given, or they get tired after a while. We are working very closely with all of the communities, including the indigenous ones, to find better ways so that we can actually reflect that information in the data that we have.
In fact, I can assure you we are making progress. If you look at the indigenous population and its growth, you know that it’s more than just growth from fertility. You are seeing a lot more people identify themselves, and at the moment it’s a self-identification, so it’s their choice and not pigeonholing people, if you like, into boxes that we think are right. We are asking people to do that. We are doing testing leading up to the 2021 census. This is a major area of research and we are working with many colleagues around town, in other provinces and even internationally to see how we can tackle these challenges.
Senator Raine: In the colonization process, when indigenous people were put on reserves and it was decided by the government of the day that this is where you belong and that’s who you are, there are historical nations that got broken up and sort of disintegrated in that process. The information that could come from a census, especially a special census of indigenous people, would be super important to them.
Mr. Arora: We do a post-censal survey called the Survey of Aboriginal Peoples in which we go much deeper on some of these questions, so it goes beyond the census, as you said.
Senator Griffin: You are probably aware of publications by Dr. Bill Waiser. He is an academic concerned about the data gap impacts that will occur as a result of the opting-out clause or the tick box to opt out. What do you personally see as the impact of the data gap caused by the ability to release census data details after 92 years?
Mr. Arora: It is obviously an important issue as we see a greater emphasis on genealogy, research and wanting to understand ourselves more and more. That landscape continues to change, and I have no idea how it will evolve in the future, but I can certainly see the journey of where we have come from.
There has been vigorous debate on both sides of that coin. There is a desire to make information available only when somebody consents, and you have the opposite, which is that it should be made available by default. I can tell you there are many countries that are still in the same boat.
For us, going forward, what is proposed in the bill is that from 2021, the default should be that the information will be made available to Library and Archives Canada for public consumption 92 years later. The question in front of us is really about what is to be done specifically for the censuses where that consent was sought, specifically 2006, 2011 and 2016 and the 2011 National Household Survey as well.
There I would like to underline the point that we were clear that the quid pro quo was that unless it was a very clear, “Yes, I would like my information made public 92 years hence,” that we would not. That is a trust that was established with Canadians for those censuses, and I think it’s important for us to consider the trust that they gave to Statistics Canada on the census in decisions that pertain going backwards. Going forwards, what you have is really making the information public by default.
Senator Griffin: Can I come back to my question? By not having that piece of data available in 92 years time, what impact is there? In other words, what good would Statistics Canada have been able to do for us had we not been provided with that information in 92 years time?
Mr. Arora: For those censuses, there was a provision for people to change their minds. They can go back and, where they left a blank, substitute that with a yes or no, or change a no to a yes. There are avenues going forward for that to occur. If there is a real desire on the part of Canadians to make their information available publicly, they still have that option.
The Chair: People watching this might wonder where this 92 years figure came from. Would you like to give us a very brief rationale?
Mr. Arora: It’s for a technical reason that relates to when the Privacy Act was renewed and the census was in limbo. The time difference between when the new Privacy Act brought in the provision to make census records available and the census records that were still in limbo was 92 years. That’s where the 92 year figure comes from.
Senator Omidvar: I’m going to stick with Shared Services, Mr. Arora. Your two predecessors famously resigned in a very public way. Mr. Smith has been quoted as saying he was dissatisfied with the relationship with Shared Services.
I will ask a question more around Statistics Canada being a stakeholder at Shared Services. In a report that came out in April, Statistics Canada stated that some mission-critical information required by the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance would be delayed because of IT issues at Shared Services. Have these been sorted out? Do you think it is time for us to look at the Shared Services Canada Act to see whether that is working well? Would you like to see improvements?
I realize I’m taking you away from the subject matter and on to another piece of legislation, but I need to understand if things have really improved and whether these improvements belong in another institution, which would be Shared Services Canada.
Mr. Arora: Sorry to be somewhat repetitive, but I believe in working in collaboration as long as our interests are met. Our interests are to ensure that we have the infrastructure that we need to do what we do best and that there is no risk to the confidentiality and privacy of our information.
I can tell you that, in the last 15 months, we have worked hard and strengthened the governance structure with Shared Services Canada. We’re being a better and more-informed client ourselves in terms of our needs, and I think we’ve strengthened our relationship with Shared Services Canada so that we are not just a client of theirs but, in fact, I would argue, a strategic partner with them going forward.
I see the relationship as a really constructive one, and at this stage we are not impeded in terms of what we need to do to get on with our mandate. In fact, I see some real advantages when I look at cybersecurity and the Government of Canada’s expertise in monitoring threats, being able to alert us and then be proactive in countering and mitigating those threats. For us to rebuild that kind of capacity on our own and for me to get the expertise to do something would be prohibitively costly when there is a specialized centre that provides that service for us.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: This has been really fascinating, so I thank you for the presentation and the discussion. I realize that we are very close to the end of time, but I want to pick up on a couple of threads that some of my colleagues have raised around issues of accuracy and data gaps around disabilities and identity.
I’m thinking about people who are multiracial, how we capture information and whether the changes help us in that way. One of my colleagues talked about indigenous populations; I was thinking in particular about African-Canadians. Although you mentioned self-identification, that’s a community that has been struggling with other identifications since the 1700s, and we’re still struggling with it. Also, you have the multi-racial aspect. There isn’t a space to really deal with that.
Just this week, I had a conversation at a workshop in Halifax challenging the 2016 data on African people in Nova Scotia, noticing the significant decline in the numbers and believing that that has more to do with the counting, the accuracy of the census taking, as opposed to the reality. This is very similar to the points Senator Frum was making around the Jewish population and Senator Greene Raine raising around the indigenous population and all the complexities. Are there changes in the act that will help us to really address those complexities in a way that’s very meaningful?
Mr. Arora: Well, I think the act essentially says that getting at the true sense is what statistics try to do, to get at the true measure, with a high degree of accuracy, as to what the reality is or what the facts are. Frankly, I think the bill says that how to get at that should be really in the purview of Statistics Canada and the experts at Statistics Canada who eat, sleep and breathe how it is that we go about getting at the true phenomena and what is actually happening. I think the bill does that. I think it says that the government ought not interfere, in a sense, in those kinds of methods, whether it’s voluntary or mandatory or whether you do a big sample or a small sample and how you even go about communicating or contextualizing the information you put out. If you like, the science of statistics is something that should be left to the experts that do this day in and day out.
When you talk about getting at phenomena, whether it’s how you measure a rapidly evolving people and their relationship to their identity and how that changes from generation to generation over time or whatever it is, I think that’s what I’m talking about. Those phenomena don’t stay static, and, therefore, the tools and the mechanisms by which we measure them should not stay static as well.
To your specific point, I would be more than happy to work with the folks that you said had some issues, just like we are on the other issue. I would be more than happy to work with them to try to look at how that response and people’s own identity has changed over time and how we can do better. That’s what we do. We work in partnership. We work with stakeholders, and we want to understand their needs. We want to then make sure that we have an instrument that actually reflects their changing needs as well.
Senator Bernard: You are saying you would be more than happy to work with communities, for example, in this particular instance, but I put on my other hat as a retired academic. I know that, for the last 30 years, many Black academics across the country have been trying to intervene and to get better data, but they haven’t had a voice, so how does this act help people like that to get a voice in terms of the processes you are talking about?
Mr. Arora: The first thing, as I said, is the consultations that are going on now for the census. But, as said earlier, the census is not the be all and the end all. There are other programs, surveys and mechanisms by which we collect information. I would encourage people to get involved and get us the comments. There is an online portal. We’re out there. We have regional offices. They can contact me directly if they want to talk about some of the issues they have. That’s what we do. We have great relationships with stakeholders across the country for the very reason that they see us as an independent and credible authoritative source on statistics. That’s the relationship we want to maintain and nurture and build. We want to be open, and I think, for the most part, we are.
We want to understand what the specific needs are. Together, I think we can see the dynamic nature of how things are changing and how people themselves identify themselves. That has changed tremendously. As you know, the number one response we get to ethnic diversity is “Canadian.” Some people say that is a good thing, and others say that is a loss of a lot of data. The questionnaire provides as many responses as you want. There are ways in which we can present information that is more responsive, but, at the same time, I think it has to be factual and representative because, obviously, I think we need to be careful that we’re not playing into other agendas as well. I think that’s where the science of statistics, and the objectivity by which we measure across the board on a consistent basis, is really important.
Senator Omidvar: It’s a fascinating discussion. I want to talk about evolving language with evolving identity, because terminology changes as well. I will tell you from the community I work with that we resent the term “visible minority.” It doesn’t fit anymore because, in many jurisdictions, we are not the minority. What’s the process you use? Maybe, if there is no time, you can send it to us. I’m curious about the process you use to change terminology.
Mr. Arora: In that case, it actually starts with the Employment Equity Act where a lot of those terms are defined. On the one hand, we have a responsibility to give information that shows how that act and all of the programs and initiatives that are taken show progress over time. We are always faced with this conundrum of how the terminology has evolved over time. On the one end of the spectrum, there is a need to not muck around with the consistency of a definition because you break the series and then don’t know where things are. Yet, on the other hand, you want to actually change with the evolving nature. Languages and ethnicity, some of those are actually entrenched in that very debate.
The Chair: Just before I bang the gavel, I just want to clarify a couple of answers you gave earlier. This bill allows for mandatory or voluntary in terms of the request for information to be provided by the Chief Statistician, but we always refer to the long-form census as being mandatory. So I take it it is mandatory, then, or is that at your discretion?
Mr. Arora: A census by its very nature, in the Statistics Act, is mandatory. The question is: What constitutes a census? As I said, it is a government decision that decides what constitutes a census. What this act does now is that it says that if the Chief Statistician feels that the data needs that are presented can only be collected through a mandatory instrument, then the Chief Statistician has that right to be able to say that. If there is a disagreement between the Chief Statistician and the government, the Chief Statistician can ask the minister, in a sense, to put it in writing. As the minister has outlined, there is now a process.
Senator Cordy: Is that why it was called a household survey?
Mr. Arora: Yes.
The Chair: That’s good to clarify.
You say that the “how” is determined by you, but the census document, you say, is determined by cabinet. So aren’t they, in effect, determining the “how?” Is it just on the census document and nothing else that you do?
Mr. Arora: The census is unique for the reasons that I explained earlier, and it is a decision that the government makes. However, it still does not preclude the Chief Statistician from saying that this information can only be collected, to the quality that is required, on a mandatory basis. Does the government have to take that advice? No, it doesn’t, but now there is a process for where the accountability lands for that particular decision.
The Chair: Mr. Arora and your colleague, thank you very much for being here. Thanks very much for the answers to our questions. You’ve been most helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)