Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

What do you think about the census, with the jail times and the fines? How do you feel about that?

We're going to talk about the special groups that Mr. McCallum was talking about, in his riding, the 40% who are Chinese. How do you think the 40% of the population who are Chinese feel about that aspect of the census?

[Joseph Lam]

We know why we come to Canada, because we have all kinds of freedom, such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But it seems to be that they take away your freedom if you have to answer questions that you don't want to fill in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lam and Mr. Van Kesteren.

I want to thank all our witnesses for appearing and for their testimony.

The meeting is suspended until 11:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome.

As we resume today's meeting, we have in front of us the following witnesses as individuals: Mr. Veall, who is a professor in the department of economics at McMaster University;

Mr. Beaud, who is the dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at the University of Québec in Montréal;

and Mr. Rutherford, who is a broadcaster.

As well, we have Mr. Oh, from the Chinese Business Association.

We also have Mr. Bélisle, from the Federation of University Professors of Quebec.

We have Mr. Murdoch from the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg; and via video conference, Madame Vonn from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Each of the witnesses will be given five minutes for opening remarks, beginning with Professor Veall.

[Dr. Michael R. Veall, Professor, Department of Economics, McMaster University, As an Individual]

Thank you for this opportunity.

On July 6, on behalf of the executive of the Canadian Economics Association, I wrote a letter to Minister Clement asking for consultation on the census change and offering to do anything we could to assist. The letter makes the argument that the voluntary approach risks serious non-response bias and concludes that if there is inadequate time for such consultation, our view is that the risk of losing the embedded value in the census is too great and that the change should be delayed.

The elimination of jail time and fine reduction was also suggested, as was running mandatory and voluntary surveys in parallel so that a subsequent decision regarding voluntary surveys could be based on evidence.

The letter was respectful of the intrusiveness issue, and I would like to add that, as a person, I am also respectful of that issue. The problem is entirely the risk to the quality of data.

I would like to make one final remark, based on previous testimony to the committee, of July 27, when Mr. Bricker, a pollster, gave you the number that a likely response rate was 80%, based on his polling.

I'd like to point out that this number is probably biased high, because of course, it is the response to a voluntary poll, and people who aren't interested in responding to polls are likely just not to respond. So there's a problem with that number.

There have been test censuses run. The only published number that I'm aware of is for the 2008 test census, which had a response rate of 46%. Test censuses are done on a voluntary basis. I view that number as almost surely too low.

The point is that it's very hard to know exactly what the response rate is going to be, and I think you should know that in your deliberations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Veall.

Mr. Beaud, you have the floor.

[Jean-Pierre Beaud, Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, University of Québec in Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share some of my comments on the proposal to abolish the long-form questionnaire.

My name is Jean-Pierre Beaud. I am a political science professor, the dean of a faculty of political science and law and a researcher in an interuniversity research centre on science and technology. I will discuss the long-form census questionnaire based on my expertise not only in political science, but also in methodology, history and statistical sociology.

The first point is more specifically related to the analyses I have conducted as a political scientist. My colleague talked briefly about this issue earlier, but every citizen, even in Canada, must at least accept a few small constraints that enable us, as we say in political science, to live together. We pay our taxes, and if we fail to do so, we are penalized. We show our passport when entering the country. We provide proof of identification in order to access certain areas, such as Parliament. We answer questions that are sometimes very indiscreet in order to be able to perform certain occupations or, as in the case of Quebec, to rent an apartment. We must answer census questions once every five years. Once every 25 years on average, or at most two or three times in our lifetime, we will answer the long-form questionnaire. That's very little to ask, especially since the information we provide remains confidential and is basically aggregated with other information. When it comes to confidentiality, statistics bureaus, in Canada and abroad, have developed very elaborate protection mechanisms. They view confidentiality as a major issue, one which I believe they have resolved in a satisfactory manner.

The second point, which I will not discuss at length, touches on a common criticism from advocates for abolishing the mandatory long-form census. They claim that since Canadians are forced to answer questions even when they do not necessarily have a clear answer, some of them might say just about anything. In such cases, the reliability of the data would be compromised, and a volunteer sample would provide more accurate information about the phenomena being gauged. As a political scientist and a methodologist, I believe that this is a serious issue. When measuring a phenomenon, a statistics bureau cannot just take into consideration firm, unambiguous answers, such as “Yes, I often have difficulty hearing.” What is more, it must not base its analyses only on answers of people who respond because they have an interest in doing so. This is usually the case with questionnaires in volunteer samples.

I will not discuss well-known analyses, such as the results of the Kinsey Report in the United States, a volunteer survey, which, in my opinion and that of many others, projected a false reality of how Americans behave sexually. A statistics bureau must also collect and analyze answers that are less firm, more ambiguous, such as “Should I answer this question sometimes or often?” The reality of a phenomenon is made up of all those elements, and that is what a statistical system must measure.

My third point is based on methodology. Abolishing the mandatory long-form census would create a major problem because it would replace a sound or almost sound methodology—there are always issues, of course—involving a random sample where answering is mandatory, with a much less sound methodology, one involving a voluntary sample. The latter sampling strategy is often considered as the worst one possible. It is used for lack of a better option, especially in medical surveys, and it is riddled with serious problems.

The other major issue, which has already been mentioned, is the facts that abolishing the long-form questionnaire would break the historical chain of data. Longitudinal studies conducted by statistics bureaus and research teams require consistent methodology: the same question, the same method of collection. However—and the paradox is a well known one—at some point, it will be necessary to change the questions, because they are no longer relevant, or the possible answers. Societal structure can change enough to warrant a break in the chain, but in such cases, scientific considerations should take precedence. Outside of those periods, as rarely as possible for researchers and political decision makers, consistency in the data collection process should be required.

The last point I wanted to raise is about the reputation of our statistical agency. I travel abroad very often. My work enables me to compare various bureaus and systems of statistics. I can tell you that the best calling card when I am travelling abroad consists in saying that I am from Canada.

Generally speaking, people have nothing but praise for Statistics Canada procedures. During an interview, the person appointed chief statistician of the Spanish statistics bureau called Ivan P. Fellegi a genius. That might have been an exaggeration, but it is nevertheless indicative of the kind of reputation our organization has built over the decades.

Having studied the facts, I know that that reputation is mainly owing to elaborate survey technologies and methodology. First and foremost, Statistics Canada is recognized for its methodology. I fear that if Statistics Canada had to collect very important data using highly criticized technology, it would not only make it impossible to conduct numerous longitudinal studies and would weaken the political decision-making process, but it would also—and this would have serious implications in the long term—jeopardize one of our prestigious institutions in Statistics Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Beaud.

Mr. Rutherford, do you wish to make an opening statement?

[Dave Rutherford, As an Individual]

Yes. Thank you.

For those of you who don't know, my name is Dave Rutherford. I do a talk show in Alberta. I'm a radio talk-show host in Edmonton and Calgary. I'm a private contractor, through my own company, Rutherford Media Inc., and I contract my show back to the radio stations that carry it.

Not for brevity of time but just to open the conversation, I don't know why I'm here. I think my opening statement could be answering questions about why I'm here: I don't why I'm here.

I have strident opinions about the long-form census and the process and I express them every day on my radio program. I've interviewed most of you in the room.

That's an opinion, and I think I'm allowed to express my opinion in Canada. So to go back to my original point, I don't know why I'm here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.

I can answer your question. I as chair called you to appear, based on requests from members of this committee. I base my request for witnesses on what opposition and government members ask of the chair. All the witnesses present today are here because government and opposition members requested that certain people appear. That's why you're here.

[Dave Rutherford]

Let me just put on the record, then, that I'm very pleased that the members of this committee recognize my talk-show work in Alberta. I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rutherford.

Mr. Oh.

[Victor Oh, Honorary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association, Confederation of Greater Toronto Chinese Business Association]

Thank you very much for having me here today to explain my point of view.

Many countries in the world have taken on the mandatory census. I strongly believe our government has replaced the mandatory census with the voluntary national survey because we do not believe it is appropriate to compel Canadians to divulge extensive private and personal information. I do not believe Canadians should be forced under the threat of fines, jail, or both, to divulge the answers to certain intimate questions. I'm from Singapore, and jail is a no-no over there.

Furthermore, I have confidence that a sufficient number of civic-minded Canadians will complete and return the national household survey to provide equally valid and valuable information to the data collected under the threat of penalty. I believe a voluntary census, with 30% more forms sent out, will give more accuracy on information coming back.

The approach to this issue is about finding a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the private rights of Canadians. I recognize that the information gathered from the long-form census is valuable. However, I believe a balance must be drawn between the government collecting data under the threat of fines, jail, or both.

For the last four years I've seen a lot of new immigration settlements being set up across the GTA and Canada. So it shows that, from time to time, government has paid attention to how many immigrants are coming into the country, what they need and where they need help, and I think that is critical. I've been in Canada for 30 years, and this is the first time I've seen so many settlements opening up, over the last four years.

In conclusion, as an entrepreneur, I feel strongly about efficient use of taxpayers' money and about excessive intervention by government in the everyday life of people. Based on my network and discussions, I think many Chinese are not aware of the value of a census and that even completing the form, be it mandatory or optional, the information might not be accurate.

I have attended dozens and dozens of events with ministers and MPs from all parties, including accompanying Prime Minister Harper to China, and I see that despite its hard work the government's message does not always register 100% with the Chinese. Language and cultural differences are key issues.

In conclusion also, my association, I and my supporters, would like to offer help to the federal government and act as a bridge to the Chinese Canadian community, including information sessions and advertising in the ethnic media, so that they can better understand the importance of census ideas.

In terms of the United Way of Peel Region, just recently, they think the census of 2006 is already outdated. There is a new census conducted by the United Way of Peel Region, called the “community mapping process”, which shows that the Peel region has 52% or more new immigrants. So you can see that our situation in terms of mapping is very important.

With today's technology, different companies and different organizations are doing a lot of different surveys on their own. That is a very important thing to show that we have a good census here in Canada but our information may not be up to date.

A lot of companies in the private sector are doing their own censuses, and I believe those censuses can be shared by everybody.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Oh.

Monsieur Bélisle.

[Denis Bélisle, Vice-President, Federation of University Professors of Quebec]

Thank you. My name is Denis Bélisle. I am a professor at the Département des lettres et communications of the University of Sherbrooke, but I am appearing before you as vice-president of the Federation of University Professors of Quebec. I would like to thank the committee for inviting the federation to today's meeting.

As the voice of over 5,000 university professors and researchers, the Federation of University Professors of Quebec believes that the radical and unjustified changes made to the Canadian census strategy this summer are unfortunate and untimely. We disagree with the new proposed format. We ask that the long-form questionnaire remain in use for the 2011 census and that the government make it clear to Canadians that responding to the questions has positive implications.

In a society like ours, privacy protection is a fundamental value. Transparency ensures that there is a trust relationship between the government and the public. Concerns about governance processes are at the heart of debates shaping our social fabric. Fairness, tolerance and social justice can only be defended on the basis of a clear vision. That is basically an accurate snapshot of what is, in fact, Canada. We think that to abolish the five-year census, which is the only procedure that allows Canadians to truly get to know themselves, would be irresponsible.

For Quebec, just from an academic standpoint, it would be extremely unfortunate if over 75 university research projects, some funded by the federal government, were jeopardized. As a result of the damage done to these initiatives and to all the entities that use the census or the data stemming from it, the overall snapshot would be blurred. Without clear, reliable data, decision makers could cause irreparable damage by holding on for too long to ideas that are no longer valid.

What is more, since the information retained can be manipulated, it would be upsetting if the Government of Canada took a back seat to those with the technical and financial means of acquiring relevant data, of processing and analyzing it as it best suits them, and then of trading their results and allowing the highest bidders to plan their operations with more chances of success. A government should never allow for another entity to be better informed about its own population, and a population should never agree that data about itself and which it has paid for not be generally accessible.

The last census in 2006 was the culmination of a decades-long process. It was conducted by skilled professionals who enjoy a reputation that extends beyond our borders. Contrary to popular belief, a census is not merely a questionnaire. It is a complex process in which each component is potentially weak. Sample planning, the drafting of questions, collection methods, data entry, file cleaning and data processing are only the most obvious steps. Errors can be introduced at each one of these steps, and we rely on Statistics Canada, an agency with recognized credibility, competence and unquestioned impartiality to ensure that errors do not occur. Canadians continue to have faith in Statistics Canada, even more so following the resignation of former chief statistician Munir Sheikh.

Therefore, we at the Federation of University Professors of Quebec believe that the census must, of course, be politically approved. However, the actual control over the entire census operation, over all the details, including and especially the questionnaire, should unconditionally be handed back to Statistics Canada, so that those who have been responsible for it can continue their work without any interference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci.

Mr. Murdoch.

[Ken Murdoch, Coordinator, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

First, let me explain that I am associated with the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg in relation to the coordination of Winnipeg member organizations in a national community social data strategy. This is a consortium currently of some 16 municipalities and municipal-level organizations, sponsored by the Canadian Council on Social Development.

The major purpose of this consortium is to purchase census data at sub-regions within municipalities, regions such as neighbourhoods, planning districts, or other small-area geographies.

The basis of my comments to you today is to bring to your attention how the availability of the rich data of the census at the local neighbourhood level allows citizens to identify themselves in a large city area across economic, multicultural, housing, and other demographic characteristics so that they can join with levels of government and funding bodies to address needs in their communities.

In Winnipeg, this consortium of local organizations was formed to obtain census data for Winnipeg's 232 neighbourhood characterization areas since the 1986 census year. One of the partners in this consortium has been the City of Winnipeg, which in turn has made much of this data freely available for those 232 neighbourhood areas through its website.

For the 2001 census purchase, this local consortium of community and government organizations fundraised a total of $124,000 to purchase StatsCan data for those local geographies and the related socio-economic characteristics of the long form. For the 2006 census purchase, Winnipeg joined the national consortium in the purchase from StatsCan of what probably was the third-largest purchase of custom-level census data in Canada.

I might remind the committee that, if we were in the United States, this level of geographical data would probably be more readily available to citizens and their organizations, and at no cost.

I'll give you some community illustrations of the use of census data over the years.

As example one, a francophone community interested in exploring the child poverty issue within their constituency in Winnipeg discovered that, in addition to a child poverty presence, they also had a significant seniors poverty issue that nobody had recognized to that date. Their organizations are currently pursuing this matter with governments and funders.

Example two is of an inner-city Anglican church that wanted to address a housing concern within its neighbourhood through an innovative renovation of its premises to incorporate rental housing—that is, 22 units of both subsidized rent as well as market rental units—and space for a continuing small congregation. Census data helped outline the need in the surrounding neighbourhoods, including the need for new low-cost rental premises for local residents living in dilapidated housing. I am pleased to announce that this initiative is about to get off the ground.

As example three, north-end community housing initiatives across several neighbourhood areas over the past decade were able to use consecutive census data for their neighbourhoods to indicate to the community and to governments that resources directed at new and major renovation housing programs had had a recognizable impact. It has encouraged governments to continue their participation in these initiatives.

As example four, the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have worked with community groups in prioritizing health, educational, and other needs and illustrating their distribution through each of the neighbourhood areas of Winnipeg. Such data would not have been available unless the long-form census information had been purchased and made available by these consortium members.

Example five, the city and community groups use neighbourhood-level census data to review and determine community centre closures and new construction. The data provides a basis for a more rational and evidence-based discussion on the part of communities and politicians when it comes time for city hall decisions.

Example six, there has been a significant influx of aboriginal, mainly youth, citizens into Winnipeg over the past years. The use of neighbourhood-level census data over a period of time has allowed the aboriginal population, including the Métis as identified in the long form, and funders such as governments, the United Way, and the Winnipeg Foundation to target resources for this phenomenon where it is needed. Other significant players have been the city and the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, to work at the street level on issues faced.

These kinds of stories could be duplicated in other communities across Canada.

These few illustrations are meant to convey to the committee the importance that census data—both the long-form, coupled with short-form, data—has had in the Winnipeg setting. To have this level of information available on a routine cycle has meant that communities, governments, private funders, businesses, and others have been able to identify and address issues important to citizens over periods of time, as well as measure progress on a number of fronts.

I will leave it to others to identify to you that the move from a census to a survey for a population characteristic found only in the traditional long form will now mean a break not only in the continuity, but also in the authenticity of data that has been available to Winnipeg citizenry over the years. Citizens of Winnipeg have participated in filling in the census forms over the years with the expectation that they will receive back that information in ways pertinent to their own and community interests. Please do not take that away from them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Murdoch.

The last opening statement goes to Madame Vonn, who is appearing in front of us via video conference.

Go ahead, Madame Vonn.

[Micheal Vonn, Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]

Good morning.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is the oldest and most active civil liberties association in Canada, and privacy is a core element of our mandate. The association has received very few privacy complaints about the long-form census, and the small number of complaints we have received have been, in the main, focused on the involvement of Lockheed Martin and the implications of the U.S.A. Patriot Act rather than the nature of the census itself.

As a civil liberties organization, we are obviously concerned about the severity of the penalties that can be brought against citizens who do not fill out the census, and we might question the policy justification for some of the more unusual questions that have been included in the past. But while it goes without saying that the association welcomes a strong stance on citizens' privacy from the federal government, the focus on the census is concerning.

Firstly, the census is not even on the list of the serious and urgent privacy issues in Canada today. That list includes, for example, the federal government's Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC; the Canadian no-fly list; airline passenger data sent to foreign governments; airport body scanners; lawful access expansion of police surveillance of telecommunications; and centralized electronic health records.

Not only is the census an extremely unlikely starting place for defending citizens' privacy rights, what is likely to replace a mandatory census—that is, a voluntary survey supplemented with recourse to data mining public and private sector databases—is a genuine privacy disaster for citizens' privacy rights.

Although the association is not aware of a concrete proposal to replace the mandatory census, two themes consistently emerge in the discussion: the first, the voluntary survey, which has been alluded to; and the second component, which has received less attention, which I would like to draw your focus to, the taking advantage of so-called “administrative data” and other data sources that already exist.

The current census does have a clear privacy advantage in being completely transparent about what data is collected, whereas data mining and data systems integration happen without citizens having any idea about what personal data is being disclosed. It is effectively invisible.

The federal government has an expressly stated goal of integrating data systems. The push to interoperability within government data systems and between data systems of, in fact, different governments is relentless. Data systems interoperability is said to create efficiencies, be convenient, and benefit research, but of course, it also creates data linkages that facilitate the compilation of de facto citizen dossiers, which we suggest is a privacy Chernobyl in the making.

The growth of the database nation presents a grave danger to democracy. Proponents of government-by-database will say that citizens are in favour of the convenience of governments just extracting their data without all the mess and fuss of actually consulting them, but history suggests that this opinion is wrong.

In the late 1990s, then federal Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips devoted two years to an investigation of Human Resources Development Canada's longitudinal labour force file, which was a collection of personal data on virtually everyone in the country, comprehensive enough to constitute a de facto dossier. It drew data from across programs, including income tax, child tax benefits, immigration and visitor files, national training programs, employment insurance administration, the social insurance master files, etc. This early venture in joined-up government was condemned by the Privacy Commissioner, but more importantly for our discussion today, it was condemned by the citizens of Canada. The outpouring of public anger about the longitudinal labour force file compelled HRDC to dismantle the program.

The position of the federal government and most provincial governments is to actively promote database linkages for, in the current buzz phrase, “horizontal government”. This is a direct attack on citizens' privacy. Citizens' privacy relies on there being discreet silos of information that limit the use and access of personal data.

Commissioner Phillips' 2000 report explicitly stated that comprehensive information-gathering is appropriate for Statistics Canada, and not appropriate for government generally. The report said, Only Statistics Canada gathers comprehensive information about individuals but does so only for statistical purposes, not to make decisions about them. And Statistics Canada’s data are stringently protected; abusers can be fined or jailed.

In conclusion, simply put, if there is a need to collect comprehensive information about citizens—and our association does not take a position on this matter generally beyond saying that the justification must be compelling and the security and privacy protections of the highest standard—it is infinitely more protective of citizens' rights to have that information collected and in the custody of Statistics Canada, where the data collection is transparent and historically well protected, than to rely on mining data indirectly and invisibly. There is a critical loss of accountability when our data trails supplant us in our interactions with government.

Privacy is an inherently comparative analysis. We need to know what benefits we receive in exchange for diminished privacy and whether there are less privacy-intrusive alternatives to achieving the same goals.

Therefore, in our submission, it is not possible to assess the proposal to eliminate the mandatory long-form census without understanding the ramifications of what is being proposed in the alternative. We believe the likely alternative presents a much more dangerous situation for citizens' privacy than is currently the case with the long-form census, and we urge the government to present its alternative proposal in detail in order that a fair assessment can be made regarding the census and the privacy rights of Canadians.

Those are our submissions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We will have about an hour and a half of questions and comments from members of this committee, beginning with Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here today.

I would like to build a little bit on Mr. Murdoch's testimony, because I think it's very important to have concrete, real-life examples of why this issue matters and why it is not just some arcane academic question. I think Mr. Murdoch was very helpful in terms of examples involving child and senior poverty, as well as housing, health, and aboriginal issues in Winnipeg.

I'd like to give a couple of other examples and then ask some of the witnesses, particularly perhaps the professors, if they have other examples of why this is important in practical terms for real people.

My first example is a friend of mine named John Richards, a professor at Simon Fraser University, who has been doing research on aboriginal education issues for five years. He tells me he couldn't do anything without the census. He wouldn't even know how many aboriginal people there were, let alone the situation on health and education. So that's one example, and given that aboriginal people are among the most disadvantaged Canadians, I think policy on that issue is important.

As a second example, my riding of Markham is hugely multicultural—about 40% Chinese; 15% to 20% south Asian—with many, many new Canadians who, if only because of language issues, are less likely than others to fill out a voluntary census. So I think that's important too, because practical issues such as language training and other kinds of welcoming services for new Canadians are important, and without the census we won't have the information that is required.

So those are two examples to add to Mr. Murdoch's five or six, and I wonder if perhaps Professor Veall or some of our other witnesses would have other concrete examples to put on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Mr. Murdoch, we'll begin with you.

[Ken Murdoch]

I appreciate your comments, because that was the purpose of me coming here, to indicate that the census is being used by citizens because they gave the information and they wanted it back to use for their purposes. I think those are the kinds of community things that we don't necessarily hear from the intelligentsia, even though I might want to engage them in discussion on the values of the census versus a voluntary survey. I tend to agree that the census will give us much deeper and better information.

I will let my confrères talk about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bélisle.

[Denis Bélisle]

As to the Canadian census, I believe the main issue is that it is the only time or one of the few occasions when the disclosure process is actually mandatory. That is why the Canadian census data form the basis for many other surveys, including stratified sampling. The validity of a large number of other questionnaires, surveys and other research is based on the perceived quality of the Canadian census. This quality relies on the following two characteristics: it is comprehensive and mandatory. If we take away one of these two elements, we will face a representation problem and nothing will compensate for it. If we reduce its methodological qualities to the point of keeping only a few questions, it will be nothing more, for all practical purposes, than a count, which will not allow for the gathering of information that can support major research projects and government policies that may have positive effects.

There is a reason why big companies are conducting in-house censuses. If you do not have information about the goal or the organization you want to reach, you cannot reach it effectively. As I said in my presentation, in Canada, the mandatory five-year census is our only means of establishing a strong basis that allows us to find out who Canadians are.