Human Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Monica Cullum]

We're not sure why it was made, because taking care of others is work, no matter how you look at it. If the questions weren't right, then they can be corrected. They can be expanded on; they can be nuanced in some way so that we get a different conclusion. But if you start with a false premise, you end up with a false conclusion. Removing the questions is really a false premise, from our point of view.

I'm not sure that answers your question, Mr. Martin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Sorry, that's all the time. Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Komarnicki for five minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that very much.

Certainly, there's been a lot of debate and discussion about whether questions should be mandatory or voluntary, and I can appreciate that. I know the general public has been concerned about the fact that what started out as a short questionnaire has turned into a fairly lengthy one with fairly intrusive questions. There's no doubt that there needs to be a balance with respect to the questions and every question should satisfy the need for data users, but only as weighed against the cost and intrusiveness of the question. I guess that's what has to be weighed.

I found it interesting that both Aden Murphy and Rob Rainer mentioned the following facts. Aden said there should be public consultation for the review of penalties, and Mr. Rainer indicated the threat of jail time should be removed and the size of the penalty reviewed.

I take it that the reasoning behind that is that some of the questions that are posed in the form are probably not the types of questions that should invoke a penalty like jail or even the $500. Take, for example, a single mother with three children, working one or two jobs, who is asked some questions like the time she leaves for work or what the daily commute time is. I know the previous census asked questions about that--and we've heard Mr. Lessard mention that--in addition to how many bedrooms and bathrooms there are in the house, and things like that.

Would you think that not answering a question--let's deal with the time they leave for work or the daily commute time--should be sanctioned by a prison sentence, Mr. Rainer or Mr. Murphy?

[Rob Rainer]

No. As I said, we don't support the threat of jail time for a census. It seems very much disproportionate to the weight of the so-called offence. But as I said, I think the notion of a citizen's obligation to support the data upon which a lot of decision-making rests, within the public and the private sphere, is totally reasonable. And it is totally reasonable to ask people to comply with that, with a reasonable penalty if they don't.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's fair. It's probably reasonable to ask them to complete the application, but would a $500 fine be disproportionate for a mother of three failing to answer a question relating to how long it takes her to commute to work or what time she leaves for work?

[Rob Rainer]

Well, you're giving some examples of types of questions where obviously there could be room for debate on whether or not we think those are suitable--

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The question is simple. Do you think a $500 fine is appropriate or disproportionate for that type of failure?

[Rob Rainer]

If that's the level of the fine, I think that is disproportionate.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

What do you think would be appropriate and proportionate?

[Rob Rainer]

I don't really want to hazard an opinion on that. I'd have to give that some more thought.

In Australia, I understand if you fail to vote, there's a fine of something like $20, which seems to be a little bit on the low side, but there's obviously a medium there that has to be derived in terms of an appropriate penalty.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Here's the point I'm making. Some people, because of privacy or other reasons, don't choose to answer a particular question, specifically if the question is somewhat intrusive, yet we expect them to answer. But if you're saying jail is not appropriate and a $500 fine is not appropriate, maybe a $20 fine is appropriate.

What they're looking at is bringing it almost to zero, and that's the point that we have made, that these questions can be answered when we ask people to do so, based simply on their civic duty, their obligation, and their desire to want to complete the form.

My question to you is, why should we fine anyone anything if they feel the question is intrusive? And if $20 is appropriate, it might as well be zero, wouldn't you agree with me?

[Rob Rainer]

No, I don't agree with you. It seems, from what the experts were saying, that the mandatory nature of the census is what drives higher rates of compliance and better confidence in the resulting data. If you go with a voluntary basis, and I think the internal StatsCan survey bears this out, you're going to see less participation from some groups who are most vulnerable in our society, and that's a great concern.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In July, during one of the hearings, Don Drummond, whom you'd be familiar with, said he was unable to identify which single question in the long-form census warranted a $500 fine or jail.

Again, it's the concern of coercing people or, if you will, threatening them to complete something by way of imposing a penalty. That's the central point behind that, isn't it?

[Rob Rainer]

The same logic must also apply to the short-form census.

If a private citizen or a private interest comes to my door and asks if I'm married and how many people live in the house, that is none of their business. But if the federal government comes to my door and asks that question, I understand there's an obligation and I can understand the context.

I think the challenge here is to reframe this issue to help Canadians understand the value that results from the data that's collected from a mandatory survey. That's the opportunity we have here, and I urge you to capture it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much. That's five minutes.

We do have a very short amount of time before we bring in our next group of witnesses. So I'd like us to try a three-minute round and see how far we get.

We'll begin with Madam Minna for three minutes.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Very quickly, then, I have two questions to start off with.

The segregated data is something that is needed. When I was on the Status of Women standing committee, we were doing studies on gender budgeting and all of that. One of the problems was making sure that we had properly segregated data. With this census, I need to know from Ms. Cullum or Ms. Bhat what that means now.

I have a very quick question for Mr. Rainer.

Can you tell me how many surveys, in addition to the long-form census, are you aware of that have been dropped?

Those are my two questions.

[Rashmi Bhat]

I would say that through a voluntary census, information gathered becomes unreliable and unusable for the very specific reasons that have been mentioned here already. Any other surveys on social services are also compromised without a reliable, comparative demographic scale to be used alongside.

To answer your question, I think it's the comparative demographic scale that would result from a long-form census that could then be applied to any other voluntary census. You do need a base that you can use that's reliable.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

So we can no longer do an analysis on women's issues, really.

[Rashmi Bhat]

It would be almost impossible to try to figure out how to compare that to the population. The unpaid worker will likely remain hidden and fail to be valued by public policy planners. To fill the information gap, all we could suppose is that a market approach will develop using mining data, through credit card usage and that sort of thing. Again, you would still fail to capture the unpaid worker.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Sorry, my time is tight, obviously.

[Spencer Keys]

With respect to surveys that affect our sector, there's the youth and transition survey, which was planned to be wrapped up and is not going to be renewed. There is also the national graduate survey, which currently has just one year of guaranteed funding right now and its status is questionable for the future. Those would be the two primary surveys that we use a lot.

[Rob Rainer]

The only specific example I can give you is that PALS survey that someone mentioned on disability. In fact, we're part of a research project led by university researchers who rely on the PALS survey for their information.

I know there have been other surveys that have been dropped.

I think this has been overshadowed or hasn't gotten as much attention as the census issue, but it seems that there's almost an effort to undermine the data and evidence base that we need for decision-making. That's very troubling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Vellacott for three minutes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I want to address, initially, my questions to Monica and to Rashmi in particular.

I do have some empathy, and I have felt for years, whether by census or otherwise, that the unpaid work and the invaluable contribution made by moms, mostly women, contribute in a great way to our society.

I'm a little confused insofar as your suggestion goes. We've had other suggestions from other groups as well. It seems more the issue of...and we get recommendations, I would expect, all the time from various groups as to what kinds of questions should be there.

What seems to be another issue is whether it should be mandatory or not and punishable by fines, jail terms, or whatever. I appreciate both your comments. I heard that you're strongly suggesting that.

The issue, more to the point, is whether it should be mandatory or not. I need to better understand what you mean in respect to that. For example, if a young mom, a caregiver--and it's unpaid work--is as busy as can be and maybe doesn't have a lot of time left over, do you really want her to be punished by a fine? She's a low-income mom as it is. Is that what I'm understanding you to say?

Maybe Rashmi could respond first.

[Monica Cullum]

In terms of fines and so on, we're not necessarily in favour of that kind of thing. I think it's a red herring that has been thrown into the mix. There's no evidence, from what I have read, that anyone has ever been fined.