Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

And I think that's part of what has been an insincere debate about this. Nobody has been thrown in jail. Yes, there have been some fines. There have been a few complaints. There are issues, always, that have to do with it. But what I've learned is that people just need more assistance, and that seems to be the issue more than actually doing it. It's having somebody there to help you work through it, because whether it's voluntary or not, if you have English as a second language or you're still just learning English, it can be very frustrating, period, regardless of whether somebody is going to beat down your door and try to wrestle you to the ground and make you fill out your census form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse.

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Taillon, I certainly appreciated the way you, in your opening remarks, talked about the cost or the implications of going to a voluntary census. You talked about what would happen 10 years later when government—whether it's municipal, provincial, or federal—and community organizations no longer had the quality and accuracy of data they get through the mandatory long-form questionnaire. I think it's important to state it again: That is the only way to get that accurate information.

But I want to be constructive here. Mr. McFarlane said that, for him, his privacy was very important. My privacy is very important to me, as I'm sure it is to you as well. But I'm the science critic for my party, and I also recognize that, for good governance, I need to have the most accurate information on which to base good policy.

I also recognize another dimension, called “public good”. Public good is something that resonates with me, and I think, most Canadians, and for that, I'm willing to share a little bit of myself. First of all, I don't think I'm that important, but I'm willing to share a little bit of myself.

How do we get that concept across to Canadians? I think that's the nub of problem.

It's looked upon, as many witnesses have said this morning, as just a cost to the individual, as opposed to understanding the greater benefit to society. So how do we get that across?

[Peggy Taillon]

That's an absolutely great question and certainly, I think, at the heart of the matter for Canadians. Canadians need to understand what the census actually does, what it is.

Again I think, when it comes to the door, people think, “Oh, I'd better fill it out”, but understanding that it actually provides services that they use every day is really important. So I think we need to do a better communication and public education piece with Canadians.

I will tell you, though, that in one of my roles at the hospital I was chief privacy officer. We put a really rigorous privacy program in place to protect health information, which is, we all know, the most sensitive information about each of us. I do believe people are willing to share information with public organizations, absolutely with government, because they trust their government and they trust their government to have the right provisions and tools around to protect their privacy. They don't understand the specifics, but they do understand that in some way this is going to benefit them.

At the hospital, that's how we would communicate it with folks. We had a whole communication strategy out there about how their data is used, how it is stored, how we make sure that it's de-identified, and how it actually benefits them—because if it doesn't benefit them, why would we take that data and collect it?

So I think you're absolutely right. We do need to do a better job of communicating to Canadians.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Noreau, some people believe that census data are only used by university researchers, that the data really have nothing to do with ordinary citizens, that they are often offered free of charge to our university researchers or to other groups, and that this is its only purpose.

How can we explain to the public that it derives a benefit from use of the data? I think we have some work to do in that regard.

[Pierre Noreau]

It is a question of communicating with the public. I believe that this is a problem not only with the census but with a good number of issues involving relations between the state and its citizens. As members of a society we generally have obligations towards one another. I believe that the state has an obligation to maintain this connection and to make it transparent. In general, governments do not tend to show us what it means to be part of a society and what obligations we have toward one another. The census is just one aspect of this. I believe that not enough information is provided about the census and that this is far from being an exception.

When you pay taxes, you get something in return. We have to realize that when an ambulance comes for a neighbour who has suffered a heart attack, we cover the cost of the ambulance and, therefore, save the life of the neighbour. This information is not adequately publicized. It comes down to communicating with the public. It is the responsibility of the state to show the common thread that links people. It does not do enough information sharing. The census only highlights a more general problem of communication between the state and its citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

[Pierre Noreau]

That said, it is very easy to show. The truth is that the state probably uses the census data much more than researchers do. In fact, most public policy is based on census data.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Noreau.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to everyone for coming out this nice afternoon and sharing all your wisdom with us.

There is one thing, Chair, that I want to get straight on the record right at the start. Mr. Masse was questioning the witness about how many in his community were actually fined. I think that's a very unrealistic question to ask the witness, because there's no way he'd know that unless the privacy at Statistics Canada wasn't that good and he was actually given that information wrongly.

One thing that would happen—and that actually is a good example—is that someone could tell him. For instance, when he's having coffee with a neighbour, they might say they got that threatening phone call. I've had a few farmers tell me that they received a threatening phone call from Statistics Canada during the middle of the harvest, so they do it, but they don't like it.

That's about the only way the witness would know. So I don't think it's appropriate to use it for a question.

Mr. McFarlane, you have heard a lot of things. I know you're in Victoria and it must feel a little frustrating being on TV. You probably wish you were right here in the middle of the action.

Again, it comes back to balancing what you throw people in jail for and what you fine people for and information.

I'll add a dog in this case, Brian, because I know you want to add a dog into the single-mother example.

If you have a scenario where you have a single mother with three kids, who are on the poverty line, and a dog—because the NDP is concerned about the dogs—is it fair to ask how many bedrooms she has and allow her to not answer that, or fine her $500 or threaten her with jail?

Let's say the scenario is an 85-year-old senior who is hard of hearing. Is it fair to ask her that?

What are your opinions on that?

[Lawrie McFarlane]

I think the fundamental question here is how you keep a balance between the importance of information and the lengths to which you are prepared to go in order to get that information.

I am sorry that I'm not with you. I am not able to fly or I would be happy to be there. But certainly in this debate the sense I'm getting is that whenever that question is confronted head-on, we're seeing some skirting around it. I suspect that indicates there's a degree of whistling past the graveyard going on here as people try to get back to the issue of the importance of the data and are clearly uncomfortable talking about the degree of compulsion that's required to get it.

For example, Mr. Garneau said he wants the most accurate information possible when we're making decisions. The most accurate information available in the health care field, the gold standard, if you like, is personal health files: my health file, yours, and the next person's. Is the suggestion here, then, that because that information is indisputably valuable, that gives the state the authority to compel me to release it?

We don't do that in the health care field. We have something called “informed consent” where we do what I'm hearing talked about a lot today. We go to people and we give them the information about how important this is. Perhaps the physician sits this patient down and goes through all the different kinds of issues in the community that we've heard about: AIDS, SARS, or the difficulties that low-income groups have with health issues. By the end of that kind of discussion, very large numbers of people will give their data. That's the experience we have. But if you put a gun at their head and you say you're taking it whether they want you to or not, it's at that point that you create a difficulty, not only in the health field, but in my view, you create a moral dilemma.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Actually, Ms. Taillon, I flew in late last night too, so I understand being a little drowsy.

You used an example from the hospital that you worked in, where you went about educating clients—for lack of a better word—

[Peggy Taillon]

Patients.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

—on the importance of the data. You explained the process to them.

The data that you collected, though, wasn't forced data. It was voluntarily given to you. Correct?

[Peggy Taillon]

Yes, absolutely.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Was it accurate?

[Peggy Taillon]

It was accurate.

In some instances—for example, for mental health patients who are involuntarily admitted—health information would still be collected.

Ontario has gone a long way—and I can only speak from that example, because that's the legislation I was working under—to ensure that patients understand what hospitals and other health providers are doing with their information, that there is the potential in an academic setting for their health information to be used for research. There's an informed-consent process for that. But it was a very rigorous process to get that data.

People know that it's to their benefit, but not all patients want that level of information about them collected. So we would have to work very closely with them and put some provisions in place to satisfy them.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, you did a great job in educating the client—or in this situation, the patient—as to why it was important, and then they were voluntarily giving you the data, and as you said, not 100% of the time, but most of the time.

That's where I get really confused, because if it's mandatory, in order to make it mandatory there has to be punishment. So it's either fines, or jail, or something. There has to be a leverage or a stick to force that question to be answered. If it's voluntary, it's voluntary.

So then I look at the collection of data. If someone is holding a stick or a gun to my head, the quality of data that I would give them would be, “What can I do or say to get this done with as quickly as possible?” But if it's voluntarily given out, it's probably going to be more accurate in a lot of cases because there is no force.

There is nobody threatening me. I'm doing this as a Canadian, as a proud Canadian, and I understand the consequences of the data. I understand that it's going to impact the location of my hospital. It might impact where I have schools. It's going to impact where my parents go for their seniors' home. If I understand all that, I'll fill it out.

So I guess the question that comes before us is, do we have to use a stick to get this data? Some people say yes; some people say no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

Madame Taillon, would you answer briefly?

[Peggy Taillon]

We've looked at this issue from every angle, obviously because it's a fundamental issue. The mandatory nature of the census actually ensures that there's a budget attached, not to enforce but to promote compliance and inclusion. That budget actually helps people go out and do that community engagement and get people to comply and help them understand what it's being used for. If it's just a voluntary survey, you're not necessarily going to have that budget attached to it to do that work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Madame Taillon.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Conservative members have been talking non-stop since this morning about jail time and fines, but they have also been saying that the short-form census is still mandatory. So there are still fines, even though people will not go to jail. I think everyone agrees that the prison sentences should be dropped. It is as simple as that. Still, the Conservatives keep bringing up jail time and fines. But there will automatically be fines associated with the short form that everyone is going to have to fill out, because it is mandatory. They are not being straight with us. I am disappointed that, since this morning, we have repeatedly seen what I would call intellectual dishonesty.

A representative of the Chinese community was present at every stage of the day today. Clearly, not everyone wants a mandatory form, and they will never fill out the voluntary form anyway. Earlier, someone said that, when the answers in the questionnaire are voluntary, there is a break in the continuity of data. So the voluntary questionnaire is not reliable. Then you told us that the census data were used by researchers in a number of areas.

Now, I have a better understanding of the attitude of the government, the Conservative Party. You will recall that university research grants in the humanities and social sciences were slashed so that funding could be directed toward research and programs that generate revenue. I am sure you remember that. I believe that we are seeing the true nature of the Conservative government, which basically wants to abdicate its responsibility when it comes to the humanities, to social sciences and even to poverty. That is clear. With researchers such as yourselves conducting research based on unreliable data, the government will question the reliability of that research and will cut your research funding. I think that is now clear. Just watch: it could be expedient from the perspective of political ideology to use incomplete data to deny that poverty exists and thereby to justify their lack of action on the issue.

I do not know whether this is how you see things, but I really believe that something is not right. It is wrong to just say that people are put in jail. That is wrong. It has never happened. What is more, there is general agreement that those provisions should be eliminated from the act. But there are fines associated with the mandatory short-form questionnaire, and Mr. Lake never mentioned that.

[Pierre Noreau]

Perhaps I could say something. I am not here to put the government on trial. You have your own debates, and that is fine, but we are trying to see what can be done in a given society to gather accurate information about that society. I believe that there is some consensus around the table about the need to do that. The problem, as we well know, is that the response rate for a completely voluntary questionnaire would be roughly 30% or 35%, which means that the reliability of the questionnaire and the census would become extremely fragile. The less reliable the survey results are, the less people will want to take part.

In fact, from the moment a questionnaire is made voluntary, a process will start whereby people are going to be less and less willing to fill it out. Since the data will not be reliable, people are going to wonder why they should bother answering the questionnaire. This creates a feeling of alienation in the public. This is well known. It has been studied in Sweden and Great Britain, two countries that changed the rules in midstream. Today, it is very difficult to restore the credibility of the British and Swedish censuses because people are not interested in the census now. That is what we must avoid.

The question you asked earlier is very timely. Certainly, in a very small population, a personalized approach can be used to convince people to respond to a questionnaire or survey. If I understand correctly, that is what happened in your case, in the public health field. But in the case of a population as large as Canada's—and this would also apply to Quebec specifically—it would not be possible to take the same approach. It would not be possible to take an individual, positive approach and personally convince everyone to answer the questions. Another sort of system or framework is needed. That is how the mandatory system came about. The positive approach requires different methods. It should not be ruled out, though.

That said, I believe that, for vulnerable populations, seniors—the Chinese community was mentioned earlier—it would be a good idea to think about specific needs. We need to support these people so that they fill out the form. There have to be positive incentives, and there needs to be support for populations that we want to reach but that ordinarily have no incentive to respond to the questionnaire or do not feel obliged to do so. This would increase the quality of the measurement. It should not preclude having a general framework to ensure that the census data are clear and therefore making the questionnaire mandatory. One thing does not rule out the other.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Noreau.

Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair; and thank you all for coming today.

If some of us look a little weary, we all did some things similar to you and flew in either late or very early, and have been sitting here in the position that our brains may not be working quite as well as those of some others.

I'd certainly like to thank my colleagues for some of their good questions, because they're really kind of answering all of us.

As I said in a previous round, this is about whether this form should be voluntary or mandatory, because that's the only question there is. Mr. Masse keeps talking about how many people have gone to jail and how many people have been fined. Well, if nobody has gone to jail and nobody has been fined, then it is already voluntary, so thank you very much.

You mentioned in one of your comments that people are really willing to share information with their government. They trust their government maybe more so with it, so they are willing to do it. Monsieur Cardin and some of my other colleagues asked questions and pointed out that perhaps the deficiency is education—so the more we tell people that this is really important.

That's certainly something else that's being accomplished by this committee meeting and the open public discussion of it. I happen to agree that this is really quite under the radar back on the farm, as they might say, but at least it's out there, and that, to me, is a great assist to the side I'm going to take, that I think this can be a voluntary situation if we ask the right questions and really do help.

Mr. Masse said he was part of the total count and that it was really good, but when we got to certain cultural pieces—and I've been involved in some pieces like this before—we really had to do some explaining. We really had to do some education as to why this was important. When we did and gave a little bit of aid, it got done, and in spades, above and beyond what people would expect.

I think the other thing we can say during this process is that the interest groups—I hate using the term, but the groups that can be best benefited by great statistical information out there—know enough that it has to be collected. I have to tell you, I have a really good feeling that this piece of education has also been done and that if tomorrow three million voluntary census forms went out, there'd be a great deal of groups such as yours, and Mr. Zhong's group too, pushing their people and saying, “Did you get one? Make sure you get it filled out. If you need some help, I'll make sure you do it”.

Am I wrong? Is that not correct? Would that not happen?

Madame Taillon.