Evidence of meeting #61 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.
I will turn this over to Dr. Bennett.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you.
As you know, hundreds of groups who use the data have demonstrated their concern about this, and we think this bill is a first step in trying to get back on track and also make sure that once embedded in this Statistics Act, no other government could go about this without bringing it to the House of Commons. We take this pretty seriously, and we also take pretty seriously that this decision was made as a purely political one, not based on science.
There are bodies to advise governments on science that can give good advice, such as the National Statistics Council of Canada. The way the whole system is set up, the committee looking at endangered species tells the environment minister what's endangered or not, and then the minister gets to decide that he can't list this potato beetle because it would destroy the economy of P.E.I., but it's quite clear it's a political-economic decision and isn't pretending to be a science decision.
I believe in enshrining this in the Statistics Act as something that has tremendous support and evidence supporting how this is better data, without bias, that can be linked to previous data points. I would very much like to hear what the National Statistics Council feels about that. While you're at it, if you wouldn't mind, ask them what they think of Mr. Masse's bill as well, in that I think we do want advice on how we could go forward.
That being said, should this bill pass? Including Mr. Smith, what could we do to make this 2011 experience not as much of a dog's breakfast as it is right now? If this came into law, is there a way of following up with the people who didn't fill out the form? Somehow it's not only me at my dining room table deciding whether I want to fill it out or not; it's also the reminders and the coaxing that is the obligation of a government when it is mandatory.
I would like to know how you think we could go forward, and is there something between now and 2016 that could be done to repair the damage? As well, if this bill should become law, how would that improve the situation?
4:55 p.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I would say the most important thing at this point is for everybody to be supportive of the national household survey. The census is compulsory. The short version that we have will proceed. I am certainly ready to do whatever I can; if members of Parliament can do whatever they can to encourage their electors to fill out the national household survey, Statistics Canada will do--
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
But is it not true that increasing the sample size cannot fix bias?
4:55 p.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
No.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That's the end of that five minutes.
We'll go to Mr. Lake for five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
My question is for Ms. Bennett, as the mover of the bill. My round of questioning will focus on asking her a few questions and taking a look at the bill.
First, I'm going to go back to your opening statement. You referred to the long-form census in 1971. You said that only the long-form census existed prior to 1971. Can you tell me the difference between the 1966 long-form census and the 1971 long-form census?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
No, you've misunderstood. After 1971 was the first time there was a short-form census.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Yes, so can you tell me the difference between the long-form census that only existed in 1966 and the long-form census as it existed in 1971?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
The long-form census was long, and the short-form census was short.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
No. That's not what I'm asking. You said that only the long-form census existed prior to 1971. Am incorrect that you said that?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Perfect. Thank you.
There was a census in 1966 that you say was a long-form census, and then there was a long-form and a short-form census in 1971.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
What I'm asking is this: what was the difference between the census you say was a long form in 1966, and the long-form census in 1971?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
No. It's your bill. I'm asking you. I'm curious if you can tell me what the difference is.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
The bill doesn't address that, Mike, and I think that if you really want to know that information, Mr. Fellegi's right here.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have it right here too. I can answer the question, because I have a--
4:55 p.m.
A voice
I don't think a rhetorical question--
4:55 p.m.
Conservative