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.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Order. I don't think I've disallowed a rhetorical question before.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
In fairness, I'm asking a question in reference to a statement she made in her opening statement.
The long-form census I have here looks to me to be close to 20 pages and has at least 40 questions. The census that she says was a long form in 1966 is two pages long.
5 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps we could have that document tabled so that all members could have it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
The member is in agreement, so Mr. Lake will table that document.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the censuses in 1971 and 1966 were both public documents, but we would have no problem tabling a copy of them.
The 1966 long-form census that we have here is two pages long. The back page--just for clarification, the second page--is for names five through ten, so it would only apply to families who had more than four members. It's a letter-size sheet. In 1996, if you have a family of four, you can fill out the entire census on the front page—what you referred to as the long-form census.
I would say that there was a substantial difference between the long-form census in 1971 and what Ms. Bennett referred to as the long-form census that only existed prior to 1966.
In terms of your bill, I want to ask questions--
5 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
My understanding is that the short-form was also.... There were two questionnaires. There was the short form that was sent to two-thirds of the households of Canada. In that one, there were questions based on the population and nine questions on their housing situation.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
It was 1971.
The long-form census was distributed to all of the population and had the same questions, plus 30 questions through the socio-economic situation and other questions.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It's pretty clear that it's a substantially longer document than the 1966 document. I can table them for the committee to look at.
I notice that in the second clause of your bill you say:
(5) In this section, the term “long-form census questionnaire” refers to a census questionnaire that conforms substantially, in length and substantive scope, to the long-form census used to take the census in 1971...
Why did you choose 1971 and not the more recent long-form census of 2006, for example?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
We could have done that. It was the first time there were two different forms, so it meant that it was up to the statisticians to decide what should be in the short form, in which they get 100% surveyed, and then what can be in the shorter form. The questions in the longer form, rather, as Mr. Fellegi quite clearly pointed out, are questions for which that sample size is accurate, whereas on the short form there are things you really need to survey 100%, because it's a head count. There's statistical evidence that a smaller survey of that long form, mandatory, can give you the information you need.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Madam Bennett.
Monsieur Bouchard, vous disposez de sept minutes.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Fellegi.
You are the former chief statistician of Canada. Had you still held that position in June 2010, when the minister decided to change the next census, would you have resigned?
5 p.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Well, I would have certainly advised the minister strongly against it, and depending on what happened.... I mean, it's a speculative question. I prefer not to answer it, but at the time this happened, in the media I did say I would have resigned.
5 p.m.
Chair, National Statistics Council
It is not a position I have ever been in, and it would be pure speculation for me to respond.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Fellegi, I believe you know Mr. Sheikh, the chief statistician who resigned in June 2010. From what I heard and read about you, I believe you know him very well. If, instead of presenting him with the decision he had made, the minister had presented him with Bill C-568, do you believe Mr. Sheikh would have resigned?
5:05 p.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I can't speak for Mr. Sheikh. I know him, but it would be unfair for me to be his spokesperson. I have answered every question very frankly in my own name, but I really don't want to answer on his behalf. It would be unfair of me.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
March 8th, 2011 / 5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
You mentioned the impact of the data on municipalities and the loss of benchmarks, and you added that it would be impossible to go back and hold a census such as the one of 2006. However, some of you, or perhaps all of you, have said that if Bill C-568 is passed, it will be possible to recover some components and not to have the complete loss of benchmarks that we can expect with the new process.
If Bill C-568 is passed, there might still be delays but what would that entail? If it was passed quickly, would it still be impossible to readjust the 2011 census? Of course, there would probably be some financial losses or additional cost but could it be done?
5:05 p.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I think at this point it's Mr. Smith who should answer, but I believe it would be close to impossible to have a short-term impact on this census, on 2011, in the time that's available.
5:05 p.m.
Chief Statistician, Statistics Canada
As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution Act and the Statistics Act require that a census be held in 2011. It has to be done. It cannot be postponed to 2012. Of course, if that were possible, everything would be possible, but such is not the case. The census absolutely has to be held in 2011. With the time remaining, it is now impossible for us to change directions. Even if we were to hold it later and to spend lots of money, it would still not be possible to change the census plan and the national household survey. Postponing the census and reintegrating it in the national household survey to make it compulsory would not be realistically possible in the time remaining. This is what we estimate, my team and I. It would really be impossible to do so in the time remaining, and to do what we are required to do under the Act.