INDY Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order, pursuant to order of reference of the House dated March 1, 1999, main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, Industry, votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120.

I'm very pleased to welcome today Dr. Ivan Fellegi, the chief statistician of Canada, from Statistics Canada. Perhaps before you begin your opening statement you can just introduce your colleagues who are with you.

Mr. Ivan P. Fellegi (Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada): With me is Stewart Wells, assistant chief statistician in charge of economic accounts and analytical studies; Bruce Petrie, in charge of social labour and institutional statistics; and Ray Ryan, who is in charge of all assistant chief statisticians of business and statistics.

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to appear before you again today and to answer your questions. Statistics Canada is engaged in a serious response to the needs expressed by our clients, and in the coming year will be in a period of major stretch. It is not too much to say that over the coming two to three years it will dramatically improve its economic and social statistics program.

I feel confident that Statistics Canada will be able to face the challenges presented by these two transformations. I'm pleased to provide you today with an overview on how we are dealing with the implementation of these transformations.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to speak about our economic statistics program and the major changes proposed for this program. First, on the economic statistics side, the harmonization of sales taxes between the federal government and the three Atlantic Provinces necessitated the conceptual redevelopment of our economic statistics program, with the objective of enabling it to serve as an information base used to divide $2.5 billion in annual revenues.

In fact, given the structure of the GST, the division of the revenue cannot be restricted to the three participating provinces and the federal government; though the redesigned system has to be robust enough to service the database for the division of a conceptual HST which encompasses all regular type of provinces.

This four-year program involves annual expenditures by Statistics Canada of over $40 million, and should result in a well- specified output. This output, in the final analysis, is an annual set of provincial and territorial input-output tables, and provincial and territorial economic accounts—together with a system of feeder surveys capable of supporting them.

• 1535

While the quality is not—and cannot be—pre-specified, it has to withstand the vigorous provincial probing that the amount of money at stake will undoubtedly engender. This cannot be achieved by simply doing more surveys, with bigger sample sizes and with a corresponding increase in reporting burden. It requires a conceptual and operational refurbishing of the entire economic statistics program of the bureau.

The successful implementation of this program will be an exceptional achievement: most countries do not publish annual input-output tables even at the national level, let alone for each one of 12—now to be 13—sub-national areas. The United States, for example, publishes a single national input-output table every five years.

When successfully implemented, this very large and complex project will result not only in the data needed for dividing up GST revenues, but will also provide much improved economic statistics: substantially more integrated information (particularly in terms of financial and production data) new high-priority information previously available only occasionally (e.g. on interprovincial trade, on the production and distribution of commodities, on household expenditures) and considerably more detailed as well as more reliable information by both province and economic sector.

The last two years involved conceptual design and pilot surveys. In 1999-2000, the new data approach will be implemented on a large scale. Detailed benchmark commitments—together with applicable key dates—exist, are shared with federal and provincial finance officials, and are part of our transparent approach to the implementation of this undertaking.

[English]

On the social statistics program, we are committed to implementing two major sets of new initiatives. First, in response to policy issues identified by federal departments, the primary focus of Statistics Canada over the next year will be to consolidate and develop, in conjunction with other departments, a survey research program in order to meet some vital information needs identified by key clients.

Specifically, we agreed to implement a program consisting of more than a dozen major and innovative programs. Collectively, they are designed to provide a new understanding of a range of issues, notably the impact of business practices on employee outcomes; the evolution and causes of electronic connectedness and citizen participation in the use of communication technologies; the evolution of labour compensation; the impact of science and technology on economic growth and society; connections between economic growth and environmental sustainability; horizontal impacts of the natural resource sector; crime and victimization; the changing impact on Canada of immigration; the characteristics of immigrants who successfully integrate in the Canadian economy; factors affecting the successful integration of post-secondary graduates into the labour market; factors affecting seniors' quality of life and independence; and financial security—assets and debts—of Canadians, including who are and who are not accumulating private pensions.

Secondly, in concert with Health Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, we identified the highest priority needs for improvements in health information and put forward specific proposals to address them. The last budget allocated $95 million over the next three years to implement these proposals, some $40 million of which over three years is for work to be undertaken by Statistics Canada.

• 1540

The overall objectives are to provide information to Canadians about the performance of our health system and to provide comprehensive information to governments that is necessary to steer the system.

Specifically, we will develop person-oriented data by combining information based on provincial medicare records, surveys and vital statistics registries. This should lead to a much better understanding of the relationships among medical conditions, treatments, socio-economic factors and health outcomes.

We will launch a new large-scale survey designed to provide, at the level of sub-provincial health regions, information on the health of the population and all the factors that determine health status; and expand the range of information maintaining our Canadian Cancer Register, in order to permit better analyses of survival rates and the efficacy of various treatments.

As in the case of the implementation of data systems to improve our economic statistics, there is a transparent process that has identified critical planning and implementation dates and is monitored and guided by federal-provincial bodies. This will be particularly challenging, given the need to handle what amounts to a very large workload increase, as we prepare for and conduct the 2001 census, and very likely two substantial post-censal surveys—one on aboriginal people and one on disability.

In my prepared statement I also said a few words about our readiness for the 2000 issue, since I know you have special interest in that. In summary, in order to save time, I'll just skip over that. I think it's fair to say we are confident that we will be able to operate without interruption.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Fellegi.

Now I will begin with Mr. Strahl for questions.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you.

Thank you for appearing before the committee. I have a couple of questions for you.

I would like to just express my compassion for you because you happen to be appearing before the committee the same day you're in the newspaper, being slammed by the privacy commissioner for the survey you're undertaking, which he feels may well be an unwarranted breach of people's privacy. How do you respond to that? He says he wouldn't personally participate in this kind of survey and thinks it's too intrusive and far-reaching. I know lots of citizens feel that way, but what do you do when the privacy commissioner brings that kind of charge?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: First of all, I issued a press release in which I responded to his concerns. He raised several concerns. I think what was most probably personally galling for him was that we erroneously included, in the material we distributed to our interviewers in Alberta, reference to having consulted federal and provincial privacy commissioners about the survey.

It's true we have consulted the federal privacy commissioner and the B.C. privacy commissioner. The material at the local level was just taken from British Columbia and used in Alberta, without modifying that particular wording. I apologized to him; he was not consulted.

There was no need to consult him, although it would have been wise to do so. Certainly that's our practice. I've met several times personally on other issues with the privacy commissioners, and I think their function is very important.

On the survey itself, on his substantive comments, I disagree. There is nothing included in the survey that is not absolutely essential for us to get a picture, 15 years after the previous such survey, of Canadians' financial situation. In the meantime, we had two major recessions. We had a very slow-growing personal income situation. There are indications in our national accounts data that personal saving rates are at a historically low level. We know the aggregate picture, but we don't know how this situation is affecting different kinds of households and what is the financial security of different kinds of households.

• 1545

Unfortunately, to get that kind of information one needs to go into a great deal of detail. I really genuinely regret it. It is one of our most burdensome surveys. That's why we don't do it often. The last time we did it was 15 years or so ago.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a follow-up question to that.

As you know, when the census is taken, Canadians must participate, and some people feel they shouldn't have to, that it should be an optional thing. But they must complete the census and take part in that. But for other surveys Statistics Canada might participate in, of course it's not compulsory.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: This survey is voluntary.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. When you approach people, do you ensure that they understand that difference? How is it made explicit to them that they need not participate in this if they feel compromised in any way or uncomfortable? I think a lot of people just feel, Statistics Canada came knocking and I had to do it. I didn't have an option. Because of the census, it gives them that feeling. How are they notified to ensure that they know they don't have to?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: That happens in two ways. First of all, we sent a little brochure to every household that was selected for the sample. In that brochure there is a very explicit statement about the survey being voluntary and that we are seeking their voluntary participation. It's quite explicit in that brochure. Second, in the training material we are providing to our interviewing staff, they are told that in response to a question about having to respond, they must honestly disclose the fact that this is a voluntary survey.

Having said that, it is very important that people respond, and we are working very hard to convince people that they should participate, because if we don't have a good response to the survey and, in particular, certain categories of people don't respond, then the data are biased and are really not usable. So we try to convince people—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Spoken like a good statistician.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: I hope that I am.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you.

Dr. Fellegi, perhaps I'm missing something on this issue of the harmonized sales tax and why you need to do a $40 million study. I had assumed that if businesses were collecting the sales tax, it would all be registered at the source, and then those receipts would be sent somewhere. Are you telling us that we're going to use a statistical base to decide how the revenues from the sales tax are shared and that's the only way?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Absolutely. That's not my decision, of course. This was a decision of the finance officials from the participating provinces.

It's not the amount to be collected that is the issue. It's the amount of the share for the federal government and those provinces that are participating in the harmonized sales tax program. That cannot be determined from the information that is routinely collected in the course of administering the tax.

That is because there is a chain event. At each point an intermediate producer is paying sales tax on what he or she purchases from other producers. But at the same time, when he collects the GST or the harmonized sales tax, as the case may be, from his customers and pays it to the federal government, he gets reimbursed for the harmonized sales tax component he paid on his inputs. A manufacturer in Nova Scotia may be purchasing from a manufacturer in Ontario some of the material he or she will use in producing something that is sold to a customer in British Columbia. There's a tremendous amount of churning of this information. In order to sort it out, the amount of detailed information every business would have to maintain would be absolutely staggering.

• 1550

Mr. Ian Murray: Can I assume you'd revisit this every few years, or would you feel you had the programs developed to do this right the first time?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: We were not asked, of course, about how the revenue should be divided. We were asked whether or not we could provide certain kinds of information that in the judgment of the finance officials would enable them to divide up the revenues, and this is what we agreed to do.

Mr. Ian Murray: I have another question, which has to do with privacy. When you were talking about the work for Health Canada, you mentioned that you're going to develop person-oriented databases by combining information based on provincial medical care records, surveys, and vital statistics registries. Are you talking about actually going into individual patients' medical records to do this? If so, how do you access that information?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Those are at the moment the plans. On that, there was a very detailed discussion. That's one of the instances, as I mentioned to Mr. Strahl, where I personally interact very actively with the privacy commissioners.

There is, unfortunately, very real tension between society's need to know certain things and an individual's right to privacy, and how that tension is resolved around different issues depends on how important is society's need to know and how beneficial it is for citizens that certain information be researched.

In this particular instance, it is the general feeling of all health professionals that our collective understanding of health issues is abysmally low. I don't mean the pure medical aspects of it, because we don't have much contribution to make there, but the determinants of health and disease. That includes determining the factors that lead to certain health outcomes and the effectiveness of certain health interventions. It's not the immediate effectiveness—that is, if you have a coronary bypass, by the time you are released from hospital it's well known that you were all right or you weren't all right—but what happens two weeks later and how effective that intervention was, which is quite intrusive, compared with less intrusive potential forms of intervention. There is no knowledge of that anywhere.

Mr. Ian Murray: I just want to understand if Statistics Canada personnel will actually have access to individuals' medical records.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: For particular research purposes that are identified by an ethics panel that will be set up for the purpose. We will not routinely collect information. And of course it's all coming from provincial records, so there is a transparent process among provincial administrators, privacy commissioners, and Statistics Canada. Of course anything that comes to Statistics Canada is subject to the confidentiality concerns of Statistics Canada, which means nothing goes out in an identifiable form except in a research mode.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, go ahead please.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Fellegi.

The 2001 census is approaching, and this raises a very important issue, namely, whether you will again ask Question 17 on the 1991 census concerning ethnic origin. People were asked the ethnic or cultural origin of their ancestors. Such a question would enable us, over 10 years, to compile a series of statistics on the development of groups of origin, and to measure assimilation and to continue to interpret history.

I am asking you the question because you, yourself, admitted that the noun “Canadian”, which does not represent an ethnic origin, made a scientific use of the answer to this question in 1996 impossible.

• 1555

Although you are very aware of it, I will remind you that the 2.6 million Quebeckers who answered “Canadian” may well have wished to point out that their origins go back to the French colonials, who from the outset, clearly showed a spirit of independence with respect to France, like the Americans in 1776, and they called themselves Canadians, not French, as early as the XVIIth century.

However, in the West, following a campaign by the group Call Me Canadian, other people who were surveyed answered “Canadian” no doubt designating another origin or intention. Answers obtained starting in 1991 are not usable.

Are you going to get back to a scientific question so that we can continue to follow historical development?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: First of all, I would like to tell you that we do not yet know what questions will be used in the 2001 census, because we are at the research stage and active consultations are still continuing.

Secondly, there has never been consistency from one census to another. Perhaps I should not say “never”, because this term may be too strong, but the interpretation of ethnic origin is very vague, since our ethnic origin corresponds to what we believe it is at any given time. We would be unable to give people a definition at the time that they answer the question. We know very well that during the Second World War, the Germans suddenly disappeared from Canada, because nobody wanted to identify their ethnic origin as German. Other events have also created discontinuity. If we were to examine the chronological development of any ethnic group already identified, we would find that there is no consistency from one census to another.

Thirdly, as you know full well, one of Statistics Canada's ultimate objective is to preserve its non-political character. Believe me, madam, I put my job on the line.

An hon. member: We always have reliable statistics.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That remains to be seen.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: I put my job on the line. Here and in the media, including in the newspapers, it is not negotiable. We all know that this question of ethnic origin is emotionally charged for many people. This is why we have adopted a policy of identifying examples that allow us to gather objective data. Therefore we look at the frequency with which people have answered that they belong to a given ethnic group in the previous census. This is the rule that we have adopted in order to avoid even the most fleeting impression of a political intervention.

In the 1991 census, one million persons stated that they were of Canadian ethnic origin. In view of the policy that we had adopted, we considered it essential to continue to respect our practice. This is our practice, not something that was imposed upon us. Because of the position that was established in the 1991 census, we have added “Canadian” to the ethnic origin question, but the first response remained “French”, the second “English” and the third “German”, since these were the most frequently stated ethnic origins in the previous census.

• 1600

The fifth choice was “Canadian” because it was the fifth most frequent answer in the previous census. This is why we put “Canadian” as a possible answer, and there is no reason why we would not do this in the next survey.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: If there had been a campaign to encourage people to answer “Martian” to this question, would your policy have led you to "Martian" as a possible ethnic origin?

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It's very important. I want to say....

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Coderre has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: First, there is no doubt about Statistics Canada's integrity, and even less concerning the Chief Statistician's. Secondly, it is unacceptable that “Canadian” be seriously compared to “Martian”. If my colleague wants to play that game, let her do it somewhere else.

[English]

The Chair: That's a point of debate.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Madam Chair, you know that I respect our witness. Therefore I will take the example of a campaign that would encourage people to answer “Quebecker”. Would that make “Quebecker” an ethnic origin? In my opinion, “Quebecker” is no more an ethnic origin than “Canadian”, and I am not the only person who is saying this. If it were only me, I would ask myself many questions. Many researchers and all of those who, for political reasons or cultural affinity, are following the development of assimilation maintain that the word “Canadian” has created rupture and it is no longer possible to make comparisons with the 1991 census. I think that this is very serious.

You have said, and I quote you—

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, you said you were going to ask one question. You asked the question and Dr. Fellegi answered, and now you want to go on. I'm sorry, I have to move on.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Should I answer the question?

The Chair: Yes, please answer the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: If “Quebecker” were among the 10 most frequently given answers, our results would show this. In our detailed analysis, we already recognize “Quebecker” as an ethnic origin since this answer reflects the information that the public has given us. We do not hide the information that we have been given. “Quebecker” is already a part of our results of the 1996 census.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Madame Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Fellegi. I will continue by trying to pursue this question. When we ask people their ethnic origin, I fully understand that they may answer either “Quebecker” or “Canadian”.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that “Black” was one of the categories on the 1991 census, although, to my knowledge, this is not an ethnic origin. Can you tell me why?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: This is an entirely different case. We thought that this was the only way to get data on the groups targeted by the Employment Equity Act. The 1991 census had no other question that could allow us to do this. This is the basis that we used, along with some questions that enabled us to obtain secondary information, in order to make a reasonable estimate. This was a requirement of the Employment Equity Act.

• 1605

In the 1996 census, after many tests, we determined that it was possible to ask a direct question with respect to visible minorities and the disabled. We can henceforth gather this information in a different way. That is why the answer “Black” was not on the 1996 census.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I participated in carrying out the study Demographic Profiles of the Black communities in Canada. This study was precisely based on the 1991 census and was conducted by Professor Jim Torczyner of McGill University. It showed that the Canadian population of Black origin was almost twice the size shown by the official 1991 census date.

This is probably explained by the fact that many people from the Caribbean did not define themselves as Black, but either as natives of Barbados, Guadeloupe or Haiti. There are also people of Haitian origin who were born in France and therefore indicate their ethnic origin as French in the census. When people born in Haiti answered the secondary questions on language spoken by saying that they spoke Creole, there was a 99.9% probability that they were Haitians of African origin. Your data did not include these people, whereas the study did. We estimated that there were 541,000 Canadians of Black origin, whereas the 1991 census stated that there were only 225,000. This is an enormous gap that may have a major impact on government policies and service delivery.

I would ask you to take the MCHRAT study into account. You could review the methodology used by Jim Torczyner and see if you could use it to revise the 1996 data.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: I would be pleased to have a look at this study. On the other hand, as I have just mentioned, in the 1996 census, we asked a direct question that was not based on ethnic origin. In the 1991 census, we based our results only on the question of Black ethnic origin. If someone stated that they were a native of a country where the inhabitants are in the majority Black, or if they had immigrated from such a country, we took this into account. The calculation was not simplistic.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I understand very well, but the example that I gave you is that of a person of Haitian origin born in France, who answered that she was of French ethnic origin. Your calculations did not take this person into account. We could also take the example of someone of Brazilian origin. When you look at a person, you can identify whether they are of Black or African origin. Your 1991 census did not necessarily make this distinction.

• 1610

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: That is why we modified our questions in 1996 and asked them more directly.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Perfect.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Mr. Jones, please.

Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Yes, thank you very much.

I'm curious, why do we need the publication of the input-output tables on a yearly basis, and even at the sub-level of the thirteen regions, when the U.S. publishes it only every five years?

Mr. Stewart Wells (Assistant Chief Statistician, National Accounts and Analytical Studies, Statistics Canada): My name is Stewart Wells.

We used to do them. At the national level, we've done them every year since 1961. Unlike the U.S., we use them in the statistical agency to benchmark estimates for most of our economic data at that level. And we feel we do a better job than countries that don't have that ability. I think that's generally conceded. So I don't know how to answer that question other than that we get better data because of it, and it's considered fairly cheap at the price.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: But the regional data are needed because of the need to have a statistical way of tracing the various commodity flows that are involved in the chain that I mentioned a minute ago—the production chain that goes on between provinces. There's no other way, apparently.... I'm no expert on how to divide up the revenue from the harmonized sales tax, but we were told that's the only way an agreement could be reached between federal and provincial officials on an acceptable formula for dividing that revenue.

Mr. Stewart Wells: Again, it's going to raise the level of the quality of the data.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Yes. The input-output tables in themselves serve two purposes. I mentioned the name, and I knew even as I said it in my opening statement that this is a very obscure term and it doesn't really mean very much to most people.

Input-output tables basically serve two purposes. One purpose, which my colleague mentioned, is to provide a substantial amount of detail on the basis of which one can anchor the estimates of the national accounts, providing data on the gross domestic product, the production of Canadians in total, and their standard of living indirectly. That's one purpose.

The other purpose is for when any department or any entrepreneur wants to make studies on what the impact would be of a certain amount of expenditure on certain kinds of goods on other industries that are not necessarily producing the goods because of this indirect effect. The only way of unravelling the final impact of a certain expenditure, let's say in road building, in what the impact of road building would be on a whole range of industries that directly or indirectly supply them, is through the input-output tables.

So they serve those two very basic purposes. One is to improve our estimates of gross domestic product, balance of payments, and the full range of information that comes out of national accounts. The other is to play scenarios by people who are in business and want to assess the impact of certain kinds of expenditures.

Mr. Stewart Wells: Could I extend that a bit in terms of the HST as well? When they were looking at how to divide up the HST collected amongst the federal government and the various participating provinces, as Ivan mentioned there was initially an exploration of doing it by this detailed tracking of businesses, which was readily seen to be impossible. At that point, the provincial governments said, all right, it has to be done using the economic accounts, but we want the quality of those raised. After further discussion it was agreed that the only way to do that was to produce annual input-output tables at the provincial level. That's why they're being done every year at that level.

Mr. Jim Jones: Thank you.

The recent Auditor General's report highlighted some concerns with the quality of Statistics Canada's research methods. We have also seen the industry minister rely on one set of figures to cite Canada's weak productivity, only to have the finance minister call into question these figures. How can Canadians become better educated about the problem with productivity when our two top cabinet ministers contradict themselves on Stats Canada's figures?

• 1615

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Well, I clearly.... We're not going to the political side of that question for a double reason. As a public servant, one is not supposed to. And as the chief statistician, one is absolutely not supposed to. So I won't touch that, if you don't mind. But I will answer the part of the question about the Auditor General.

The Auditor General said that Statistics Canada has an international reputation second to none for independence, innovation, and quality. There was nothing in the Auditor General's report that cast any doubt on the quality of the data. On the contrary, he praised it.

What he did raise concerns about, and I mostly agree with those concerns, is that we don't disclose sufficient information about the quality of our data—which is very difficult to do, but we could certainly do better—and that we are not consistent about what we disclose on the quality of our information. But again that's very difficult, because quality is very multi-dimensional. It's not a single kind of measure, as in polls, 19 out of 20—that's the easy part. Quality has a lot of dimensions. For example, how a question is asked influences the answers.

Nevertheless, I certainly agree we could do better on disclosing how good it is or what limitations there are. But the Auditor General did not raise a shadow of a doubt about the quality of our statistics, and I hope Canadians will take that lesson from it. He would agree with me on that, because he told me personally, in addition to the report.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thank you.

Dr. Fellegi, you were just talking about what public servants are not supposed to do. I'm still troubled by this question of access to medical records, but perhaps I'm missing something. It appears to me that a group of public servants, federal and provincial, sat down or talked to each other and came to the consensus that it was in the public interest that they have access to these records, and therefore they shall have access to them. Can you tell me if there's some statutory authority that allows this to happen?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Well, first of all, it wasn't just a bunch of public servants. There was a blue-ribbon committee established by the Minister of Health to advise him on what information is needed by health authorities, very broadly interpreted—not just federal, and certainly not just provincial—in order to better manage collectively our health system and the health of Canadians.

Mr. Ian Murray: I'm sorry to interrupt; I'm just trying to get at who gives permission for these records to be accessed. Unless I'm mistaken, my understanding is that some individuals will have access to some other individuals' personal medical records. It may be true that—

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: But that's already the case. The provincial governments have the health records of everybody in their provinces, because that's a condition of paying medicare bills. So it's not a question of whether or not that exists; it does. The question is, how is it used to improve the health system? The point is there is a great deal of potential improvement in how that information is used to improve not just the health system, but the health of Canadians. That information now exists. It's in provincial administrators' hands.

Mr. Ian Murray: So anytime the Minister of Health, say in Ontario, or the federal Minister of Health decided he wanted to have a look at medical records for almost any reason, that would be allowed.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Not for just any reason. As far as Statistics Canada is concerned, the reason has to be statistical. We won't get involved in any work that doesn't have not only a statistical objective, but a fundamentally important objective that would warrant the implied intrusion. That's very explicit in our policies, and we have a series of review processes to make sure that balance is struck. I'm personally—I don't have to be, but it happens that I am—enormously committed to privacy, and if I weren't a public servant, I would be a privacy advocate.

Mr. Ian Murray: Thanks.

• 1620

I was looking at your very ambitious work plan on social statistics. There are about a dozen major studies. Are those to be accomplished within any certain timeframe? To do that in a year would seem almost impossible.

I have one other question. Will those be produced by Statistics Canada or the departments that have asked for them?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: They would be produced by Statistics Canada, because they want valid information and they really do trust us. It's not only that they want valid information, but they want information that would be accepted by others as being valid, so that it would become a basis for public policy discussion, a broad range in public policy discussion where the emphasis could be on the policies, with the data being a kind of given and generally accepted because it comes from us.

By the way, that's the primary purpose of Statistics Canada, that the argument shouldn't be about the data but about what they mean and what we should do as a result or as a consequence.

But the quick answer to your question is no. That's phased in over a period of three years.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Fellegi, I'm sorry I missed your presentation.

I wonder if we could speak for a moment on productivity issues. There has been a lot in the press recently about productivity and how one defines it. I wonder if you could describe the ways in which Statistics Canada tracks productivity, how you define it, and what trends you see in your work.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: First of all, there are economists who define it; we don't. There is a professional, widely accepted set of definitions, because people use two kinds of productivity. The simplest kind of productivity is what's known as labour productivity. That's the amount of goods and services produced by the country, divided by the number of hours it took to produce them. So in an hour of labour, what's the value of goods and services produced? That's labour productivity. That's relatively simple and relatively easy to track.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Is that total factor productivity as well?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Total factor productivity is a lot more complex. There is a formula, which I won't even try to describe to you—professionals agree that it's the right formula—that basically tries to factor out the other inputs that affect productivity, particularly capital, because the more capital is invested, clearly the more productive labour can be. Unless you take the capital into account, you don't get a full picture. But for different purposes, one or the other can be used.

As it happens, there has been a lot made about the distinction between the labour productivity and the multifactor productivity. They track very closely. They're not the same level, because clearly by the time you take off capital, what's left is a smaller level of multifactor productivity than against just labour productivity, which includes capital also. So the level is different, but they track pretty parallel over time. So there's really not much difference, if you want to analyse. Is it improving? How fast is it improving? You can look at the simple one or you can look at the complex one, and you don't come to vastly different conclusions. So that's the first point.

The second point is how well are we doing? In every industrialized country, Canada included, since the mid-1970s there has been a slowdown in the rate of increase of productivity. It's still increasing, but there is a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in productivity. That's tracked. We have been tracking it for a long time, ever since that time in the mid-1970s, roughly, and it's still the case.

What happened and what created a great deal of attention is that the OECD publishes productivity numbers, and they were showing for roughly the last seven-year period negative productivity growth for Canada, which means a decline. We came out relatively recently with some estimates that show not a decline but an increase—not a very strong one, but an increase for that period.

As it happens—and this is not recognized widely by the media, unfortunately—the OECD has two sets of numbers from two different parts of the OECD, the one I believe and the one I don't believe. The one I believe is very close to ours. The one I don't believe is going to be revised, and it's going to be a heck of a lot closer to ours and will show positive growth as well.

Basically, I would say to disregard that OECD number. It really isn't valid, because the other OECD number shows exactly what we have shown.

• 1625

The Chair: Thank you.

Committee members, we have a dilemma facing us. I have several people who still want to ask questions, and we're supposed to have another witness at 4.30 p.m. I could continue with questions, if that's what everyone wishes to do. I have Mr. Bellemare, Madame Jennings, and Mr. Jones, and I don't know about Madame Lalonde or Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I was just going to tell a joke to finish off, but I don't want to interrupt.

The Chair: Okay.

A voice: Well, keep it.

A voice: I'd like to hear it.

The Chair: Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones: I've had many Canadians write me about using the 1911 census data, which is currently prohibited due to the Privacy Act. I recently received correspondence from Minister Manley stating that StatsCan will conduct a renewal of this statutory requirement. Would you please comment on this? When can we expect the renewal to be concluded?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: First, let me give you and give the others who may not follow it the background and then comment on where we are. I know it's very brief, but unfortunately it's a complex issue, like most of the questions, but that's why they are put.

All the censuses prior to 1911 were taken under administrative decrees that had no legally valid confidentiality promises attached to them. The 1911 census and all censuses following that were taken under a legally valid guarantee of confidentiality without time limitation. So we have a legal opinion from the Department of Justice that says it's not possible to make it available for people to do their genealogical research. I really regret it, but that is a legal opinion. I have to abide by the law.

Mr. Manley and others have asked us to develop some options, and we have done that. The options—just the logical ones—are, in effect, first, the status quo; second, retroactively amend the legislation and say that whatever was promised to Canadians will not be honoured or will be altered or changed—I don't mean to devalue them, but in effect retroactively amend what was promised; and third, a prospective amendment that says from the 2001 census on, future censuses will not have that clause but will have a time limit on that clause of confidentiality.

Those are the three logical options, and they are with Mr. Manley.

Mr. Jim Jones: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): I would like to return to the issue of ethnicity. Today, in 1999, I have discovered a new definition, namely the Fellegi definition. The Oxford, Larousse and Robert definitions no longer apply, neither do those of French Canadian, American or English Canadian dictionaries. The Fellegi definition has surpassed them, and I think this is very disturbing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when the Americans conducted their survey, I believe that they told the public that they were not allowed to write “American”. They had to use the dictionary definition. The surveys are carried out for researchers, for marketing, for education and for the provinces to help in delivering social programs, and for many other reasons.

I have a great deal of respect for the word “Canadian”. I am a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, and I recall that my grandparents said they were Canadians. My grandmother was a Canadian; in reality, she wanted to say that she was a French Canadian. However, all of a sudden, everybody started calling themselves “Canadian” and therefore we started to call ourselves “French Canadians”. We never wanted to become assimilated. But now, you are sort of assimilating us.

• 1630

If my neighbour of Oriental ethnic origin, a new Canadian whom I like very much, and who is a fine person, answers “Canadian”, and I also answer “Canadian”, in 50 years, people will not know what difference there was between us, unless they had photographs of us and could perhaps guess the difference.

If researchers were to rely only on your terminology, there would be confusion. Am I a French Canadian or not?

The Chair: Doctor Fellegi.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Mr. Bellemare, I will give you four brief points in my answer. My niece has a mother of Hungarian origin and a father of mixed German and Russian origin. What is her ethnic origin? She is still my niece. This is a very concrete example. Ethnic origin is very ambiguous.

I would not advise anyone to conduct any sophisticated or major studies on assimilation or anything else on the basis of ethnic origin. This is why, about 20 years ago, we included three other questions on language. By using the language most often spoken at home and the language spoken at birth we can examine the rate of assimilation in a generation; this is time-limited.

For ethnic origin, we don't know what answer we will get from respondents because very many people are of diverse origins, and this is very difficult to interpret.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Would it not be more useful....

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: If I may, I'd like to answer your questions. That was my first point.

Secondly, there is no such thing as the “Fellegi Definition” and I really object to such a term, because it's a definition determined by the Canadians who gave a very specific answer to a question which, in 1991, did not include the word “Canadian”. On the contrary, in 1991, the introduction to this question said, more or less, the following: we know that a great many people consider themselves to be Canadians, but we would be interested in knowing your ethnic origin. Despite this, over one million people answered “Canadian”. They consider themselves to be of Canadian ethnic origin. These million people were the ones who defined their ethnic origin in this way, not Mr. Fellegi.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But this does not allow you to infer that it's an ethnic origin.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Excuse me?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: For example, if one million people replied, as a joke, that they were descendants of Mickey Mouse, would the Mickey Mouse ethnic group suddenly exist?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: No. As someone said, I don't consider myself Canadian like Mickey Mouse.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, we've already had similar questioning earlier, and Dr. Fellegi has already answered it. You've had your five minutes, so I'm going to go on to Madame Jennings.

Last question, Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. I'd like to make a brief comment for Mr. Bellemare. I'm a Black Canadian with multiple ethnic origins: a Black American father whose ancestors were African slaves, a French-Canadian mother descended from....

[English]

The Chair: Order, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: My question, Mr. Fellegi, refers back to page 6. In the next-to-last paragraph, you say:

[English]

“launch a new large-scale survey designed to provide, at the level of sub-provincial health regions, information on the health of the population and on the factors which determine health status”.

[Translation]

Recent studies conducted in the United States show that a person's race and sex may have a very marked and very direct impact on the quality of medical treatment received. One of these studies focusses on heart diseases and we know that Black Americans, and especially women, have a high incidence of heart disease. It was concluded that, if you are a Black woman, you should be wary of the quality of medical treatment offered to you by physicians.

• 1635

I wonder whether these American studies made you think. When you collect data, when you conduct surveys, will this issue also be examined? Will you gather data on race or ethnic origins, for example? Such data could be useful for a person who decided to conduct a study on whether or not the fact that one is a Black woman of a certain age can have a negative impact on the quality of medical treatment received at a hospital or in a physician's office.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Thank you. That's a very good point and we should certainly look at this carefully.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I'm going to remind members that we have another witness. This meeting is supposed to be finished at 5.30 p.m.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, please.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Fellegi, on page 3 of your brief, you announced that you are going to redesign a database for the division of a conceptual HST which encompasses all provinces. Were you ordered to do this, or was it divine inspiration?

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: No, we were definitely not ordered to do this. As I said earlier, and I will gladly repeat it, as the Chief Statistician, I do not tolerate the use of statistics for political purposes. So that was not the case.

[English]

I'll switch to English, because....

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, yes.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: In order to trace—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You speak French very well.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: ... the manufacturing chain, this level of detail was needed for each province. I should point out that this survey is being carried out with considerable support from the province of Quebec, because it will produce much more detailed data that Quebec would like to have, even though it does not participate in the division of...

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It collects both.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: It wants this data for its economic policies, not for the HST and GST.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd like to ask many more questions, but I'll stop there. I'm waiting for Mr. Strahl's joke.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame Lalonde.

I want to thank Dr. Fellegi for being with us. I also want to let you know that your colleague who was here earlier today talked about productivity. John Baldwin agreed with you on the OECD comment. So for members who weren't here this morning, that't consistent, and it's nice to see some consistency. We appreciate this discussion and we appreciate your taking the time to meet with us again.

Mr. Ivan Fellegi: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Fellegi.

We're now going to exchange witnesses and I'm going to ask that Mr. Howard Wilson, the ethics counsellor, join us at the table. There are a number of documents to be handed out, so we'll suspend for about 60 seconds, not much longer, please.

• 1639

• 1642

The Chair: I'm going to call the meeting back to order. If everyone could please take their seats that would be great.

I'm going to remind members that there were two motions placed before the committee at different times. One was ruled out of order. The motion that brings Mr. Wilson here today reads: “That Mr. Howard Wilson, ethics counsellor, be summoned before the industry committee to explain his mandate and responsibilities in the expenditure of his office, as listed under Industry Canada.” I want to remind members of the wording of that motion.

And now I'm very pleased to welcome Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order, Madam Chair, to get clarification for my own beneifit.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Today in question period the Prime Minister stood in his place and said if you want to ask any questions of Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, anything to do with questions about ethics, then go ahead and fire away.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, I'm well aware of what took place in question period. I wanted to remind members what the motion was before this committee.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

The Chair: He has an opening statement. I'm going to ask Mr. Wilson to make his opening statement, but I'm reminding members why he's here today. It was to discuss estimates.

Mr. Wilson, please.

Mr. Howard Wilson (Ethics Counsellor, Industry Canada): Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I very much welcome this opportunity to discuss the responsibilities of my office and to take questions from the committee on our activities.

In June 1994 the Prime Minister of Canada created the position of ethics counsellor and appointed me, a career public servant, to that job. Some existing functions related to conflict of interest and lobbyist registration were incorporated into a more visible office, with wider responsibilities.

The Office of the Ethics Counsellor is responsible for the administration of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders, the Lobbyists Registration Act, and the lobbyists' code of conduct.

First, with respect to the conflict of interest code, the most recent version was tabled in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister, also in 1994. Its provisions apply to members of the cabinet, parliamentary secretaries, members of ministers' political staff, and essentially all full-time Governor-in-Council appointees—in other words, the senior members of the executive branch of government. This involves approximately 1,200 persons, with another 1,900 part-time appointees subject to the principles of the code. It does not, as members here know, apply to other members of the House of Commons or of the Senate.

• 1645

[Translation]

The Code begins with a set of broad principles from which a limited number of rules have been derived. These principles for example state that public office holders must uphold the highest ethical standards, that the performance of their official duties and the arrangements for their private affairs must bear the closest public scrutiny, “an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law”. A further principle requires that they arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts from arising. But if they do arise, they must be resolved in favour of the public interest.

The rules that follow require a comprehensive confidential disclosure of all assets, liabilities and outside activities. The Code sets out what assets can continue to be managed by the individual, which need to be declared and those which must be divested. There are as well limitations on outside activities, rules on gifts and provisions covering post-employment. In essence, we are attempting to prevent or to avoid, in advance, the possibility of conflicts arising.

In the world of ethics, both in the public and private sectors, there have been two basic models. One is integrity-based, the other compliance-based. An integrity-based system, such as our Code, does not attempt to regulate every conceivable situation, but, by setting out a broad set of principles, provides a framework to guide decision-makers. A compliance-based system puts the emphasis on rules and, in my judgement, does not inspire public confidence.

[English]

The Lobbyists' Registration Act, in force since 1989 but substantially strengthened in 1995, requires that all lobbyists register their activities. The act provides for three types of lobbyists: consultant lobbyists who work for payment from third parties to carry out lobbying activities on their clients' behalf; corporate lobbyists who are employees of corporations where a significant part of their duties is to lobby on behalf of their employer; and organizational lobbyists such as associations. As of the end of March of this year there were 618 registered consultant lobbyists, 352 corporate lobbyists, and 362 registrations for non-profit organizations and interest groups.

Lobbyists are required to provide information on their clients, and details on the subject matter of their lobbying activity including the names of the departments and other governmental organizations involved. I should note here that the LRA requires that there be a parliamentary review of its provisions beginning in January 2000.

One of the most important developments has been our ability to use the Internet to ensure transparency. Our website address is in my circulated comments.

On conflict of interest, the site contains the basic documents as well as the public registry. This is most importantly the case for the lobbyists' registry. This constitutes a vast improvement over the past when anyone who was interested in lobbying activities either had to personally visit our premises, or ask that the material be faxed. Now the registry can be accessed across the country quickly and cheaply. We continue to work on improving our website by providing details on provincial practices and those of other countries. I, for example, am working with my provincial counterparts to use our site as a point of access for details on their activities. Some of these offices are quite small and do not have as yet the capacity to develop their own sites. A further development, which will take place shortly, is to have a direct link to a file on our lobbyists' site that will give information on all new registrations and terminations within the past 30 days. This will make it much easier for members of the public to find out what's going on.

• 1650

Lastly, Madam Chair, my overall budget allotment for the 1999-2000 fiscal year is $1.7 million, of which $1.6 million is for salary and approximately $100,000 for O and M. The ethics counsellor personnel utilization for the same period will be a total of 23 FTEs, 23 humans.

I'm delighted to be here, as I said at the beginning, and am quite prepared to take any questions on our operations, including questions that members may have on such things as secret guidelines, or my reporting relationship, as an example. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

I'm now going to turn to questions. Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Wilson, thank you for coming. You got a big pump today in question period. The Prime Minister was sure to let everybody know you were going to be here, and maybe that's why the gallery is all gathered behind you. Anyway, I'm glad you're here, and thank you for coming.

My first question does have to do with reporting. When a question comes in, or a question is raised about the Prime Minister's situation, or any situation involving the Prime Minister, do you deal with that yourself personally, or do you give it to one of the 23 humans you mentioned in your report?

Mr. Howard Wilson: You mean a question comes in from the press, or the public generally? That would depend. I think most frequently, if it's a question from the press, I would deal with that. But we frequently receive calls to ask what are the provisions that do apply, what is the situation with respect to say the Prime Minister, or to other members?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

With respect to what you mentioned in your initial presentation to do with your website, and so on, if you have a question, as I do and many people do, for example, on the brouhaha that has been in the House of Commons, and it deals with things like did Mr. Chrétien really ever sell those shares in the golf course, or did he sell an option to buy the shares, which is quite a difference, if I went to the website, can I get that information? Do I see a copy of the bill of sale, or have you ever seen a copy of the bill of sale, or is it...? We're getting conflicting stories. How do we know which is true?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Indeed, yes, if you went to the public registry, there would be the public documents. In Mr. Chrétien's case, that would be his declarations on a range of matters.

On the question of the golf course, my first dealing with the press was when they posed questions to my office regarding whether or not the golf course had been sold, and there was some confusion on that point. I circulated publicly, back in January, a fact sheet on the situation as it stood. Just to go over it quickly, the Prime Minister had sold his interest in this golf course on November 1, 1993. You asked if I'd seen the agreement. Yes, I have seen the agreement.

There were press reports that someone was claiming it was an option. I can tell you that it was a sale free and clear of his interest in that golf course. There was a sum of money that had been denominated and there was a repayment schedule.

Now, what happened was that took place on November 1, 1993, so it was not part of the arrangements the Prime Minister had to make when he was coming into compliance with the conflict of interest code. But some time later, I recall—I think it was in January of 1996—he and I spoke, because he at that moment simply wasn't being paid, and he wanted to know what his options were. I've gone into that in some detail with the press and with others who have wanted to make inquiries about that.

I consider it to be quite an important part of the job to in fact try to deal with these kinds of questions in as open a way as possible. I mean, there are privacy matters. There is personal information that must remain private. But on a question like this, where these issues are being raised, I have tried to indicate where the situation is.

• 1655

As of this moment, just to finalize on the question of the sale, he still has not been paid. He does not have the shares. I have been saying for some time that the sale seems to be imminent. This is certainly one of the longest, drawn-out negotiations, but it's in the hands of his lawyer. She does keep me informed. I believe all the substantive issues have been resolved and it's a matter of time.

When that occurs, though, we will be making a public declaration, which will be on the website, finalizing this matter.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Apparently there are business arrangements between the hotel and the golf course involving cross-promotion. In other words, you scratch my back, it benefits me...like, your hotel is filled, my golf course does better, and so on.

After 1996 Mr. Chrétien told you there was a problem with the payment and he knew the shares were coming back to him. Did you give him advice as to whether or not government grants to either the hotel or the golf course would be inappropriate after that moment? It seems to me that once he knew he had a business interest in that golf course once again.... Because of the business arrangements between the golf course and the hotel, obviously arm's-length between either the hotel or the golf course.... When it comes to government grants, arm's length isn't good enough, because suddenly Mr. Chrétien has a business interest in that combination.

Did you give him advice as to whether he should steer clear or make sure his office steered clear of any involvement with government grants or any government assistance to either of those business entities?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me answer that, sir, by saying that it's my view that Mr. Chrétien does not have an interest in this matter. He sold his interest. He sold it. According to his lawyer, this is an unsecured sale. In other words, the only way he's going to be able to recover payment is either to take the individual in question to court or, as is now happening, try to organize a way by which the payment will be made.

The structure, as it now stands, would have the current owner of the shares selling those to other people, so that the shares at this moment will not likely come back into Mr. Chrétien's hands. But in my view this was a done deal, it was over, and there were no connections, no financial connections regarding the Prime Minister and either the auberge or the golf course.

I might point out, Madam Chair, that Mr. Nystrom did write to me on this point, and earlier this afternoon I sent him a response. I have made copies of my response available to the clerk, and we'd be happy to have those circulated. I won't bore you with the length of it, but I have attempted to answer Mr. Nystrom's concerns.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do we have copies of that?

The Chair: The clerk is going to distribute them.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for coming here today.

In your presentation you say the Lobbyists Registration Act requires a parliamentary review beginning in January 2000. I'm wondering if you could describe to this committee any issues or any changes you would see from your vantage point, or have you heard from other stakeholders, other users of the system, any changes that you would envisage would be useful to incorporate into those changes when it comes up in January 2000?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Well, the act requires that there be that review by Parliament. I believe Mr. Manley, as the minister responsible, will want to convey his views to the committee at the beginning of that process, and we'll be talking to a number of people. People have been using our website and coming back.

I think, though.... My sense right now is that the system is working quite well. That's not to say it can't be improved, but I get comments from the press and I get comments from opposition parties to the effect that it's easy to use. Certainly the detail bears no resemblance to what was in the act prior to 1995. It does give in timely fashion information about who is doing what to whom in this town. I'm sure the minister will have a number of very concrete suggestions to make at the time that either this committee or other committees launch into that next year.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Have you heard, Mr. Wilson, from the point of view of the lobbyists themselves, whether they are happy? Are they satisfied with the way it's working as well, or do they have any changes they would like to see? Have you heard from any of them?

• 1700

Mr. Howard Wilson: I expect that over the course of the coming months I will be getting views from them, because they will have in mind that it will be taken up in the year 2000. They will want to make sure the minister knows what their views are.

There are a couple of issues. I think the consultant lobbyists do in fact put in their filings very promptly.

I find that from my perspective enforcement is not much of an issue. The reason I believe that is because the moment somebody is hired to go and lobby, if they are not registered, then all of their competitors and a bunch of people in this town are going to know that. Because it's so easily accessible, there tends to be, in my judgment, a lot of attention paid to registration, which is done electronically, so it's quite easy in any event.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Wilson, could you describe your reporting line? Is it a sort of hierarchical reporting line, and if so, to whom?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Before the meeting Madam Lalonde asked me why the industry committee is looking at my budget. I said that this was an accident of history. What happened was that in the 1970s the government of the day decided they wanted to have somebody dealing with conflict of interest, but they didn't want it to be too prominent. They thought there was going to be a registry. There was a minister who was also the Registrar General, so they created the position of assistant deputy registrar general and put the office into that department, which at the time was Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I'm from the foreign service, and I was between assignments in 1993 just before the convention that chose Kim Campbell as leader of the Conservative Party. I had been asked by the PCO to take on this position for a year. At the time I didn't know what it did. But Kim Campbell, you may recall, merged several departments after she became Prime Minister. Consumer and Corporate Affairs disappeared. It was all merged into Industry, and that's where I ended up.

From my point of view, a very practical point of view, it's kind of helpful, because it's a big department with a large budget, and it can provide the kind of support I need. For example, it would have been impossible to try to develop my website from my little office. You have a base there, and it's quite helpful.

My reporting relationship with regard to the Lobbyists Registration Act is to Mr. Manley as minister responsible for that act. For the conflict of interest code, my reporting relationship is to the Prime Minister. So it's a little different, but I don't think it creates problems.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, please.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Is your position a political position? You are not a member of the public service?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, I am. I'm a public servant. That has not changed. By the end of this month I will have been a public servant for 35 years. I'm still a public servant, Madam,

[Translation]

a career public servant.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But what's special about you as a public servant is that you take your orders from the Prime Minister alone, if I understand correctly, with regard to possible conflicts of interest on the part of Ministers.

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, I wouldn't describe it that way. I think of it as receiving directives. In fact, if we talk about my reporting relationship, then we'll talk about the responsibility of the Prime Minister for the conduct of his government and his choice that on this matter he wanted somebody to do this for him, and that was the essence of the position. It was very important, I think, that it be a public servant who does this, because I'm expected to be the person who tries to say why we've done this and why I made this kind of recommendation.

• 1705

So the responsibility he has given me for the code is that I and my colleagues administer the code and indicate to ministers what they must do if they are to be in compliance with the code, and I have the full support of the Prime Minister for that.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But you spoke of two lines of authority. We're here to adopt the Estimates and, frankly, I have a question to ask you. We see your position under the heading of operating expenses, and that poses no problem, under number 5, where we see grants and contributions, and under numbers 10 and 15, where we see payments under subsections 14(1) and 14(2). What part do you play regarding grants and contributions?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: If I understand correctly, Madam Chair, I'm here because my budget in its totality comes under the Department of Industry.

The Chair: Just to clarify for everyone, the votes that have been mentioned—as for all of the votes we've been looking at over the past few days and that we're going to vote on at the end—fall under the Department of Industry, but they're not specific to his role. I apologize if there's confusion as to what's on the agenda.

Mr. Howard Wilson: But in my view at least, or in my expectation, it does provide you with an opportunity to pose questions to me about what I do.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: What do you do to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct? I have read your good intentions, but with regard to compliance with the Lobbyist's Code of Conduct, for example, what do you do in addition to being on the Web?

[English]

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think the code stacks up well when I look at the practices in other jurisdictions, whether that be provincial or international.

First of all, it's not a piece of legislation. I think that's important, because what we do is we attempt to deal with a set of principles that says that you have to arrange your private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. In other words, for those in public life it's a very high standard, which I think the Canadian public has every right to expect.

Also, the code very specifically tries to prevent real, potential, or apparent conflicts from arising. In one province they do attempt to deal with apparent conflicts. That's in British Columbia. But in the rest of the country they don't attempt to deal with it. It's a real conflict. Yet in my view the appearance of a conflict is a political reality, and if you can't in fact have a system that tries to deal with this, then it may well not serve its purpose of trying to maintain public confidence in the integrity of our political institutions.

What the code does is set out a set of principles. These are very broad, but as I mentioned in my text, we don't try to regulate every possible situation. First of all, we have a confidential disclosure of all the assets. It's quite intrusive, but it is protected by the Privacy Act. Then the code says with regard to assets, what kinds of assets can a minister in fact manage himself or herself? We have a category of assets called exempt assets. That would include your house and your bank accounts, and it goes up to and includes open-ended mutual funds. It's a declaration. But then they can manage those, the view being that there is no possibility of a conflict arising.

The second category is declarable assets, and here we say that there has to be a public declaration. But again, there is not a real risk of a conflict. At the federal level this would include rental property, for example. It would include farms. It would include private businesses that do not have dealings with the Government of Canada of any significance. A Mac's Milk franchise might be an example. Here the office holder has to make a public declaration that they have that interest and then they can continue to deal with it.

• 1710

The third category, and this is the most important one, is called controlled assets. It covers shares on the stock exchange and it covers interests in private companies that have dealings with the Government of Canada. Here the code says they must be divested. Obviously arm's-length sale is an appropriate means of divestment. But the other possibility is if we are talking about shares traded on the bourse, we would permit the establishment of a blind trust managed at arm's length.

We have standard documents that we use. We have to approve the trustee. The individual can get information monthly as to the value of their trust, but they do not know the composition. I think it has stood the test of time well, but it can only be used for shares that are publicly traded. As your broker handles these things, you will lose sight of where you are.

The third category is a blind management agreement. This is where the person has a large interest in a private company doing business with the Government of Canada. We can take the management out of their hands, but they know where their interests lie and therefore there have to be declarations. There has to be some statement. We have a number of examples of these, probably the most prominent one of which is before the Minister of Finance.

The point is that our office tries to provide advice in advance so as to avoid the inevitable problems that will crop up. So it's precautionary. It requires a lot of advice—90% of what I do is providing advice. So that's what I do.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Lalonde.

I'm going to remind committee members that we're trying to stay to five-minute timeframes, and it's going a little bit over. We're running out of time and we still have votes on the estimates before we leave.

Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Wilson, I'd like to know exactly what kind of authority you have. If a complaint is filed that there's been some violation, for instance, of the Lobbyists Registration Act or the conflict of interest code, what authority do you actually have? What power do you have? Do you have powers of search and seizure, for instance?

[Translation]

The Chair: Is everything all right?

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Would you like me to repeat?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Speak louder, Ms. Jennings.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I was asking Mr. Wilson what actual powers, as the ethics counsellor, he has in the administration, for instance, of the Lobbyists Registration Act or the conflict of interest code. I gave as an example search and seizure warrants, warrants to be able to compel an individual to come and make a statement before you. Do you have that kind of authority?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There are three different kinds of authorities, if you will. The one with the greatest degree of conventional power flows from the lobbyists code of conduct. The Lobbyists Registration Act required that I develop the code, and then it gives me all the powers of a superior court. If I have a reasonable belief, as a result of a complaint, that a lobbyist has not acted in conformity with the rules of the code, then there must be an investigation and there must be a report to Parliament. That's within the Lobbyists Registration Act.

If information is brought to our attention that somebody has filed as a lobbyist incorrectly, or has not filed, there are legal provisions for the judicial officials within the act. That's a judicial process.

• 1715

The conflict of interest code is issued under the authority of the Prime Minister and is a condition of employment, so I actually have not yet had that experience. When people do raise questions with me, I prefer to say we will look into it and we will confirm what the situation is. But if I were to come to a view that somebody was not in conformity, my responsibility, as I understand it, would be to report that to the Prime Minister.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: In other words, if there's an allegation or a complaint about an alleged violation of the conflict of interest code, you would rely on the goodwill of the individual whose conduct is the object of the allegation or the complaint.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I can tell you, frankly, if an allegation is made, I have never received any difficulty whatsoever from an office holder in providing me with all the information I need to assure myself that the allegation has no basis.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I understand that. However, in the hypothetical case where you did not receive that cooperation, what authority would you have to compel that individual to disclose the document, or the names, or whatever?

The reason I'm asking is because the conflict of interest code is very important. I think there's a real recognition of that, and I'm trying to understand what your real authority is.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I always have difficulty trying to deal with hypotheticals, especially ones I have not encountered in the five years I've now been in this job. I have not encountered those kinds of difficulties. But do remember that the majority of the people who are covered here are either appointed by Governor in Council at pleasure or are members.

I would conclude by saying that if it were determined that somebody was not in conformity and they refused to come into conformity, there would be a satisfactory resolution of that matter. Of that I have no doubt.

The Chair: You may ask one last question, Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The problem, Mr. Wilson, is if you do not have the authority to compel, you may not be able to determine whether or not that individual is in conformity. Is that true?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, through the fact of the disclosures, the annual reviews, we feel quite comfortable, and I think those people with whom we work understand that if they are not in conformity, they are creating a very dangerous situation for themselves. This is a code that is designed to avoid those kinds of problems, so you tend to get a great deal of cooperation. This is not commanded; it is in fact extended. I think most people do tend to see the value of that. If push comes to shove, though.... I did give you a comment on that.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Wilson.

A couple of hours ago I got a four-page letter from you, after I sent you a letter on March 19 asking you to investigate the possibility of a conflict of interest with Mr. Chrétien, a problem with one of his staff in terms of grants going to Mr. Duhaime, who bought a hotel that was in part owned by Mr. Chrétien, and it also made reference to the golf course, questions that Chuck Strahl was asking earlier.

You're saying in your letter to me here that there's not a conflict of interest because Mr. Duhaime does not owe Mr. Chrétien any money and therefore there is no continuing financial link between Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Chrétien. I wonder if you can give us a little bit more proof of that. A golf course—this is a complicated issue—is another issue, once again, and there's cross-promotion between the golf course and the hotel. They promote each other's activities. So if the hotel does well, the golf course hopefully will do better, and vice versa: if the golf course does well, then the hotel would do well.

Mr. Chrétien sold his shares back in 1993. Mr. Prince is now saying that he doesn't own the shares any more, that he's sent them back. Can you give us more details about the status of those shares, who owns them and where they are? Can you make any of that information public to the committee?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I did attempt to do a bit of that in answering Mr. Strahl. I think the situation is that in November 1993 the sale was made. The company that owned the golf course had also managed the auberge.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: At Grand-Mère.

• 1720

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes, and they sold their interest in that to Mr. Duhaime. That took place in April 1993. The vast majority of the moneys that have been agreed to for the sale of the furniture, equipment, and goodwill—my understanding is that the hotel, at that moment, was actually owned by another company—was paid at the time of closure in April, and the remaining amount of money, according to Mr. Chrétien's lawyer, was paid by the summer of 1993. So that was that.

Mr. Chrétien continued to have his interest in the golf course, however. But he then decided that he wanted to dispose of this, which took place on November 1, 1993. I've said here that I have seen that agreement. It is unambiguous in language; it's fairly simple. There is no basis for anybody trying to, I can assure you, say that there was an option aspect to it. As to why somebody might want to say that, I can only say it would be speculation on my part. It was a sale, and it was an unsecured sale, which means it wasn't a simple matter of saying just give me my shares back.

The course the Prime Minister did take was to have negotiations. They are very well advanced, I understand. They have been very well advanced for some time. I keep saying that my understanding is that there will be an imminent closure to this.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: So who actually owns the shares right now? Mr. Prince says he doesn't own the shares.

Mr. Howard Wilson: They are with Mr. Prince.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Prince is saying he doesn't own the shares. Do you have any documentation that can prove to us that he does own the shares?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Let me do the reverse. I know the Prime Minister doesn't have the shares. I know the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which, from my point of view, is the only important issue.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: But the Prime Minister has not been paid for those shares.

Mr. Howard Wilson: He's not been paid.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: So the Prime Minister's still expecting money from those shares.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I would imagine if he—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: And it seems to me if they're going to find a buyer for those shares the property has to be worth something so somebody will buy the shares. You're not going to buy the shares of the golf course if the golf course is not worth very much money. Therefore, it would seem to me that if the hotel is expanded and made into a better business, through cross-promotion the golf course would in turn do better if the hotel does better. Is that logical? Because there's a cross-promotion agreement between the two, and the Prime Minister has not yet been paid for the shares.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, the only issue here today is the shares.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm asking about the shares. I want to know if the Prime Minister has not been paid for the shares.

Mr. Howard Wilson: He's not been paid, but he does not have the shares. It was an unsecured loan. He had two choices, his lawyer tells me. One was to take this matter to court, which he did not choose. The other was to try to arrange for a sale. I understand that this will happen. I'm sure it will happen. But most importantly, Mr. Nystrom, there will be a public declaration on that matter.

The Chair: Your last question, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Would you agree that the shares might be more valuable because the hotel now is more valuable than it was before, in part because almost $1 million worth of federal money went into the renovation and expansion of the hotel?

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, you're speculating.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm asking whether or not he might agree—

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, it doesn't go to the business, and we're talking about someone else's ownership of another asset. We're not going to allow that questioning. We were very specific about that earlier. Mr. Wilson has answered your question about the shares. Do you have another question?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, I do have one more question for Mr. Wilson.

You report to the Prime Minister when it comes to a conflict of interest and to Mr. Manley when it comes to the question of lobbying. There are many other public institutions, like the Chief Electoral Officer and Auditor General, that report to Parliament rather than the Prime Minister. Do you feel at all compromised that you have to report to the Prime Minister, especially when you're investigating whether or not the Prime Minister is in a conflict of interest? Is there not the possibility of stacking one conflict of interest upon another conflict of interest? Do you feel compromised because of who you have to report to, when you're indeed investigating the very gentleman you have to report to?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Thank you for the question. I was worrying that—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: These are very important public policy issues.

Mr. Howard Wilson: And I want to answer. First of all, there is a document I have prepared. It's a short note on the reporting relationship of the ethics counsellor. Copies are with the clerk and can be circulated here. I'm not going to read it, but I'm going to talk a bit to it. Let me—

Mr. Jim Jones: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Jones, what's your point of order?

Mr. Jim Jones: My point of order is why do we have to ask the question before he hands out the document? I don't understand that.

Mr. Howard Wilson: I understood this is what I was supposed to do.

The Chair: Mr. Jones, there's been a question asked. Mr. Wilson came prepared with an answer. It will be distributed.

Mr. Wilson.

• 1725

Mr. Howard Wilson: This question has been central ever since my appointment, and it's why do I not report to Parliament—why do I report to the Prime Minister? My claim is that there are two reasons. The first and most important reason I think is constitutional convention, that in Westminster democracies it's the prime minister who is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of his government and the performance of his ministers.

I think the second reason is that I see a contrast between my job and that of the Auditor General. My view is that the Auditor General has a very clear and traditional function: he assures that in fact the expenditures were legal and effective. And yet I deal with a lot of grey-area measures, matters that go beyond the legal, that involve the appearance of conflict. And it makes it very difficult to work within a statute when you're dealing with issues about which it says that you have to obey a standard that goes beyond the law and where we're going to deal with appearance.

What is appearance? A code offers a great deal of flexibility in that respect. The point my paper does make, though, is that I think that our practice is on more secure constitutional ground than having me report to Parliament. I think it very important that the Prime Minister's accountability under our political system, under our constitutional system, be preserved. He's the one who must stand accountable for the performance of his government. The fact that he has asked me to assist him in this area I think has worked, but we have some other examples.

Another example is the system that takes place in Quebec. They have the National Assembly Act, which establishes the position of a jurisconsult, who gives advice to members but not to members of the cabinet. They operate according to directives that several premiers of Quebec have put down. This is the case in Australia. There is a disclosure system for all members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, but Prime Minister Howard has an additional set of rules that apply to ministers. And in the U.K. you may remember the Nolan committee. This was set up under Lord Nolan, who had been asked by Major to look into the question that a number of MPs were being paid to pose questions in the House of Commons and a number of MPs were paid lobbyists. So this committee was set up in 1994.

I had discussions at the time with Lord Nolan. He made a recommendation that said that there should be a parliamentary commissioner, and that in fact took place. But the guide to the rules in the British House of Commons says that ministers of the crown who are members of the House of Commons are subject to the rules of registration, declaration, and advocacy in the same way as all other members. In addition, ministers are subject to the further guidelines and requirements laid down by successive prime ministers in order to ensure that no conflict arises nor appears to arise between their private interests and their public duties. These requirements are not enforced by the House of Commons, so are beyond the scope of this guide.

I can tell you that Lord Nolan was very concerned to try to preserve that question of the accountability of the prime minister, and I think the Westminster system we have preserves that. To have an independent counsellor would I think not work well with our system. There will be disagreements, but I think that when we can take our precedent from the mother of all parliaments then we are on stronger constitutional grounds than by appointing somebody such as myself to Parliament. That's our position. I happen to think that it is fundamental that this accountability to the Prime Minister not be fettered.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nystrom.

Lastly, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones: Thank you very much.

If you were to identify an ethical breach by the Prime Minister, to whom would you report this?

Mr. Howard Wilson: This is a very hypothetical question, Mr. Jones. Let me tell you in a practical sense how this has worked. I have been asked to say here you have a disclosure—what have I to do in this circumstance. And I have offered that view. I have said this is what you have to do if you're going to be in conformity. I have not had any difficulties with that.

The counselling role and the fact that we try to do things in advance means that if there's any question that comes up on a minister's office or the minister, the Prime Minister will discuss this with me in advance. I've had a great number of discussions with the Prime Minister regarding these kinds of matters before an action is taken. That was the whole idea of this thing, to try to deal with it in advance.

• 1730

Mr. Jim Jones: My question was about the Prime Minister, not his cabinet. Who would ensure that the Prime Minister complies with the code of conflict of interest?

Mr. Howard Wilson: I'm here to say that the Prime Minister is in total conformity with his obligations under his code.

Mr. Jim Jones: But who is there to ensure that he complies with it? Only he himself?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, he's asked me to do that.

Mr. Jim Jones: Okay.

Is it commonplace for public officials, cabinet ministers, and parliamentary secretaries to call you when their supposedly blind trusts run into trouble?

Mr. Howard Wilson: There was a very bizarre situation in Alberta where they allowed blind trusts but weren't permitting the person to know the value of the trust. There were a couple of tragic cases, apparently.

What we do is we say here's the trust, but you can get information on the value of the trust. And explicitly there is in that trust agreement the ability of you, as a public office holder, to come to my office and say “I want to change my trustee because this person is underperforming in the market, and this is not what I want”.

My view on the question of trust is that you come into public life and we say to you that because you are in this job you cannot trade in the stock market. Yet it may be in your financial interest to deal on the market. So we've created an instrument that allows you to at least participate if that's in your financial interest, in your view, in the market. And if you've made a bad choice of trustee, we'll allow you to go and improve upon that. All you have to do is call my office.

Mr. Jim Jones: When the Prime Minister's deal to sell his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course encountered major difficulties in 1996, he is reported to have called you personally. Is this true? And if so, should—

The Chair: That question was already asked and answered.

Mr. Jim Jones: No, he hasn't been asked it.

An hon. member: I didn't ask that.

The Chair: It was explained when Mr. Strahl asked the question. Is anybody listening?

Mr. Howard Wilson: No, there's an important point here, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay, sure.

Mr. Jim Jones: Is it true? And if so, shouldn't the call have come from the Prime Minister's blind trust trustee, Debbie Weinstein, instead?

Mr. Howard Wilson: This has been a point of confusion, and I tried to clarify that in my fact sheet last January. The Prime Minister does have some blind trusts that are managed by Weinstein and another person who deal with shares. The golf course, however, is what I described as a declarable asset. In other words, the office holder can in fact deal with it. He'd sold it. So what are his options? First of all, it was not in any kind of an arrangement. This thing had been sold and he was waiting for some money. My view, however, was that if he wanted to take it back, there was nothing in the code that would prevent him from doing that. That's not his choice. But there would be nothing in the code preventing him. There would have to be a public declaration. So it was entirely proper for him to give me a call and ask what he could do.

Mr. Jim Jones: With respect to the Prime Minister's blind trusts, is it correct that you trusted the word of the Prime Minister and Ms. Weinstein without any collaborating evidence, such as the purchase agreement between the Prime Minister's holding company, 161343 Canada Inc., and Jonas Prince?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Remember that at the time when the Prime Minister was coming into compliance with the conflict of interest code the sale had already been made. So there was no reason for me to start to deal with something that was no longer around.

In January 1996, when he said he was not being paid, we discussed the options. I did talk to his lawyer. His lawyer described the document to me. I had no reason at that moment to take a look at it. When there were these questions about is it an option or is it not, then I said I'd like to at least see it, and I saw it. It's only when it became a point of apparent confusion that I asked to see it. But at the beginning there was no reason, of course.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones: Would it violate the code of conflict of interest to have a trustee appear before this committee to answer questions about his or her management of a blind trust?

• 1735

Mr. Howard Wilson: I think that would create an enormous problem for the trustee. There is in Weinstein's case, of course, a client-solicitor privilege. I feel it is my responsibility to try to answer these kinds of questions, either in this kind of forum, when the press calls me, or so on. But it is very difficult.

A trustee actually is obligated by that agreement to not reveal any of that stuff, so I don't know how they can provide information to this committee without violating the very integrity of the trust itself.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jim Jones: Point of order. I'd just like to ask if Mr. Wilson has tabled all the documents he has brought here for this meeting.

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.

Mr. Wilson, since no one asked and the motion was about your mandate and responsibilities in the expenditure of your office, do you have enough resources to do your job?

Mr. Howard Wilson: Yes. I'm small beer when it comes to the resources of Industry Canada, so they've provided me with good computer systems, which are all Y2K compliant. The net access is really good, so they're not starving me.

The Chair: Mr. Wilson, we want to thank you very much for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate your presentation, your documentation, and your answering of questions.

We now have votes to deal with, committee members. I need someone to move number 9.

Mr. Ian Murray: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Murray moves that the main estimates under Industry, votes 1, 5, L10, L15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, as in front of you.... Do I need to continue?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: I now call votes 1 to 120 inclusive.

INDUSTRY

Industry Department

Vote 1—Operating expenditures ...... $428,903,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions ...... $424,247,000

Vote L10—Payments pursuant to subsection 14(2) of the Department of Industry Act ...... $300,000

Vote L15—Loans pursuant to paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Department of Industry Act ...... $500,000

Industry Department

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Vote 20—Operating expenditures ...... $44,303,000

Vote 25—Grants and contributions ...... $223,435,000

Industry Department

Canadian space Agency

Vote 30—Operating expenditures ...... $63,686,000

Vote 35—Capital expenditures ...... $216,854,000

Vote 40—Grants and contributions ...... $18,886,000

Industry Department

Competition Tribunal

Vote 45—Program expenditures ...... $1,152,000

Industry Department

Copyright Board

Vote 50—Program expenditures ...... $745,000

Industry Department

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Vote 55—Operating expenditures ...... $27,893,000

Vote 60—Grants and contributions ...... $190,291,000

Industry Department

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

Vote 65—Payments to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation ...... $10,536,000

Industry Department

National Research Council of Canada

Vote 70—Operating expenditures ...... $238,861,000

Vote 75—Capital expenditures ...... $34,816,000

Vote 80—Grants and contributions ...... $152,566,000

Industry Department

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Vote 85—Operating expenditures ...... $18,228,000

Vote 90—Grants ...... $484,780,000

Industry Department

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Vote 95—Operating expenditures ...... $7,765,000

Vote 100—Grants ...... $97,956,000

Industry Department

Standards Council of Canada

Vote 105—Payments to the Standards Council of Canada ...... $5,283,000

Industry Department

Statistics Canada

Vote 110—Program expenditures ...... $258,533,000

Industry Department

Western Economic Diversification

Vote 115—Operating expenditures ...... $31,824,000

Vote 120—Grants and contributions ...... $138,452,000

(Votes 1 to 120 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Murray, will you move number 10?

Mr. Ian Murray: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Murray moves number 10, that the chair be instructed to report to the House of Commons the main estimates as on the paper in front on you.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I thank everyone. The meeting is now adjourned.