Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Cardin, Mr. Lake would like to raise a point of order.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I don't know if it was an issue with translation or if he actually said this, but what I got was that he is curious to know if people would fill out the short form because it's voluntary. That certainly hasn't anything to do with what we changed. It's probably translation that caused that miscommunication.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I have been listening to the translation, and the translators are translating accurately and professionally. I think it is done in an accurate manner. If there is a problem with translation, we'll stop the committee proceedings and address it, but there is none at this time.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It was just to be clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Cardin, you have the floor.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

My time will be cut short, so I would rather have Mr. Bélisle tell us about positive reinforcement.

[Denis Bélisle]

For that to become mandatory, there are two options, one of which is a big stick approach with fines. Penalties should probably remain in place. Yet, there is also positive reinforcement. In my opinion, the whole census issue should be presented as a patriotic gesture, a kind of duty. We should feel compelled to help paint the picture of the Canadian population as a whole. The investment required to accomplish this task is not huge. To complete the form in question, it takes about two hours. Two hours in five years, that's two minutes per month. We are talking about an investment of two minutes per month from people who are asked to contribute to the creation of this important database generated by the Canadian census. I think we could show positive reinforcement in promoting this idea, arguing that it is a patriotic duty.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

Is there enough time for Ms. Vonn to make a comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It looks like we've lost the video link. It may take some time to get that back up.

In the meantime, Monsieur Cardin, we'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren, and we'll come back to you once the video link has been restored.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you, witnesses, for appearing before us.

I want to emphasize again—and we all know this, but it just bears repeating—the long form is not being eliminated. It's becoming voluntary.

There's something that is of interest here, and I said this in the last session too. I have, I think, a very average riding. We have urban, rural, professionals, farmers, all different types of Canadians there. I have to tell you, when I poll my riding, this is not heavy on their radar. This is not a big issue. In academia it is, and I recognize that. I also recognize that you would probably be much more involved in that, so that's the interest. But the average guy on the street really doesn't get this. When I talk to people about it, they're somewhat puzzled.

The argument I make is that we need to engage people. I think, should we make this voluntary, the result is going to be that my constituents will come to me and say, “Dave, why am I asked this question?” It gives me an opportunity to go to the government and ask why we are asking this question. If there's a good answer, I can go back and give the answer. So we have that opportunity.

I don't think we give people enough credit. Along those lines, I'm curious, and I really want to bring this back to my constituents because it involves them. These are the people it affects. These are the people who have to fill this thing out. These are the people who, as they fill it out, are going to be affected, either adversely or in a positive manner. There will be some cause and effect.

Mr. Rutherford, what are you hearing on the airwaves? Am I wrong? Is this a big issue out west? What are normal Canadians, not those gathering information, not those who use the information, saying about this long form?

[Dave Rutherford]

It's not on the front page of people's lives—let's put it that way. It just is not. It's not a priority. There are many other things important in people's lives, variously, at various times of the year.

But you're absolutely right. Among the people who participate in my program—and I'm sure there are those who like what they hear on the radio and they share ideas back and forth—but among those people, it is not a big issue. There are many other things in an agricultural environment that are much more important right now. There are many other things in economic life that are much more important now, such as getting a job, keeping a job, making sure our governments don't have deficits that are too big, paying taxes as we all do, without having to pretend it's going to be a voluntary form. We all want to pay our taxes, to a certain point.

It is not a big issue in people's lives. It's not a burning issue. When I bring it up specifically, that's the response I get. If it's an open discussion, that is not the issue that comes up first.

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

The video link is back up. Great.

Madame Vonn, have you read the mandatory long form? I assume you have, but if that's the case, do you think the Privacy Commissioner is right to suggest that there are minimal privacy concerns with regard to some of those questions?

[Micheal Vonn]

Yes. What we are here to really sound out is the sense that although in fact the long form includes personal data, as many things do, that does not in itself constitute a privacy violation.

Our point here is that privacy is an inherently comparative analysis. If you are looking for a privacy-annihilating experience, apply for disability through the Canada Pension Plan. The question is not do we ask very sensitive questions; the question is, are they needed? Is it proportionate? Is that information abused in any way? So the comparative analysis is required for privacy assessment.

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

Have you read the form?

[Micheal Vonn]

No, I haven't read the entire form, but we've had various points brought out about which questions are considered the most controversial. We suggest that if there are controversial questions that don't actually have a benefit that is proportionate, they be extracted. But that doesn't constitute an assessment of the privacy profile of the entire program. That's my point.

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

Thank you.

I just want to make one clarification, that major corporations make billion-dollar decisions—and this relates to Mr. Murdoch's point that there would not be enough information gathered—on a few thousand people polled. So I recognize that sometimes the numbers might not be as great, although we'll find out. I just don't think that's a valid argument. It's just disappointing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Cardin, you can ask Ms. Vonn a question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Good afternoon, Ms. Vonn.

In your presentation, you mentioned one thing that left me somewhat confused. You have slightly touched on it in answering the question of the Conservative MP. You talked about comprehensive data for statistical purposes rather than for—and you did not agree on this—policy development purposes.

In our case, it goes without saying that a census with questions that are slightly more precise can be used for government policy development. You seemed to be saying that the use of these data for policy development purposes ran somewhat counter to privacy protection principles. Have I understood correctly? If so, could you tell us a little more about the consequences?

[Micheal Vonn]

I hope I'm grasping the heart of the question there. We are concerned that one of the alternatives will be to rely increasingly on data integration from different programs to, essentially, profile citizens through databases rather than asking them directly. That has significant privacy implications that we are desperately concerned about. We know it has been a push of both the federal government and various provincial governments to make sure that data integration, that interoperability, is possible.

So we feel that in the comparative analysis, which is inherently the privacy analysis, asking Canadians directly may be ultimately less privacy-invasive than data-mining all the information about us in government databases in discreet silos that can be linked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Madame Vonn, for that clarification.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hoback asked some interesting questions of Mr. Henderson, a farmer, about the census and how much time it takes him, and he indicated that it took up to three days. The interesting thing, though, is that the agricultural census is actually not going to be changed. It will remain there and he'll continue to have to fill that out.

So I guess the question would be, is the agricultural census valuable to maintain?

The minister disagrees. He actually said that it “will help farmers”, and he added,The argument obviously to farming associations and to farmers is, “You fill out the form; it'll help the government help you in your farming activities.”

So how could the minister be right about the agricultural census that requires three days for Mr. Henderson to fill out, but then wrong about the general census?

[Dave Rutherford]

Mr. Masse, why don't you look at the question the other way? How can the minister be wrong about the agriculture sector when he's right about the mandatory census? Maybe the agriculture census should be voluntary as well.

I'm just saying, you can look at it the other way.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's it, though, Mr. Rutherford. So is the government wrong to keep the agricultural census?

[Dave Rutherford]

If there is going to be a consistency of policy, you would think yes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What about the others?