Examination of Witness (Questions 97-99)
DR IVAN
FELLEGI
7 JUNE 2006
Q97 Chairman: Good morning, Canada.
Dr Fellegi: (via video link) Good
morning.
Q98 Chairman: Welcome to our Sub-Committee.
Thank you very much for offering to give evidence today.
Dr Fellegi: It is a pleasure to
be invited.
Q99 Chairman: Could you outline for
us, as you see it, the key differences between the Canadian system
and the UK system and what you feel the advantages are in your
system.
Dr Fellegi: I should start by
saying that I am certainly not recommending the Canadian statistical
system to the United Kingdom. Statistical systems are basically
natural outgrowths of history. Canada has a history of having
a highly centralised statistical system, where practically all
statistical data collection and a good deal of analysis, and of
course dissemination, emanates from the central statistical agency,
ie Statistics Canada. What I do recommend, however, is the arm's
length relationship that we have to the Government. While we report
to Parliament through a minister, there is a long tradition of
our ministers getting mandate letters from the Prime Minister
when they are appointed. By the way, we do not have a separate
minister; we have a minister who has a major portfolio other than
statistics and for whom Statistics Canada is essentially a reporting
arrangement to Parliament. In the mandate letter the Prime Minister
expresses his or her desire that the traditional arm's length
relationship will be respected, and it certainly has been throughout
our history. The British system, if I understand it correctly—and
I think I do understand it—is starting from a very different
history.
Much of what is in the White Paper I agree with,
but there are three major areas where I think significant changes
would be advisable, based on my very long experience in official
statistics.
| 
