Evidence of meeting #36 for Status of Women 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.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Robin Jackson Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women
It's Ms. Jackson first.
9:55 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women
Thank you very much.
The Canadian Federation of University Women is a non-partisan, voluntary, self-funded organization of close to 10,000 members--women university graduates, students, and associate members in 113 clubs across Canada--that works to improve the status of women and human rights, education, social justice, and peace.
CFUW holds special consultative status with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and belongs to the education sector of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. CFUW is the largest of the 67 affiliates of the International Federation of University Women.
CFUW calls on committee members to support the reinstatement of the mandatory long-form census. The mandatory long-form census is a critical tool to monitor the status of women and to formulate policy to advance women's equality. CFUW calls for the inclusion of census questions on unpaid work. CFUW members are aware that the mandatory long-form census is a critical tool for governments, agencies, and civil society to monitor and understand what is happening in Canadian society.
The gendered impacts are especially important to emphasize. All of the markers of how women are faring will be less reliable and impossible to track and measure from previous years if the mandatory long-form census is cancelled. The lack of reliable information will severely reduce the amount of effective research and gender analysis. Both are crucial in order to address gender inequality.
CFUW is concerned that we will lose a tool to measure and track women's equality. Statistics have told us the story of women's inequality in Canada. We know what gains have been made and where there is still much work to be done. For example, using information from Statistics Canada, we know that twice as many women as men become victims of spousal violence, or 61% for females compared to 32% for males. The same analysis found that almost four times as many women as men were killed by a current or former spouse.
We know that 81% of single-parent households are headed by a woman. Of these households, the poverty rate for single mothers under 65 is 42.4%, compared to 19.3% of single fathers in the same group. We know that a lot has been done to reduce the poverty of seniors in general, but that poverty for single senior women is persistent, and these women are twice as likely as are senior men to be impoverished.
Because of reliable and accurate statistics, we know that poverty in Canada is gendered. Of the nearly four million people in Canada who live below the low-income cut-off after tax, 54% are women.
Using this information, women's organizations such as CFUW and others monitor and report on how women are doing and put forward policy solutions to the problems we find. This data is also used to measure the efficacy of initiatives and programs to combat poverty, barriers to full participation in the workplace, and violence, and to determine how they can be improved. It is obvious from the preceding statistics that women are more likely than are men to experience violence and poverty, and it is imperative that we know by how much and know which segments of society and which regions are affected.
Once this data is no longer of the same quality and can no longer be compared to data for previous years, data critical to addressing gender inequality will be lost.
Using the parliamentary testimony of former chief statisticians of Statistics Canada, Dr. Munir Sheikh and Dr. Ivan Fellegi, and briefs from the Statistical Society of Canada and the National Statistics Council, we have concluded that the changes will undoubtedly affect both the quality of data collected and the ability to compare data from one year to the next due to the inherent bias of voluntary participation.
In his July 27, 2010, testimony to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Dr. Fellegi alerted the committee that “they”--that is, the census after the change from mandatory to voluntary participation--“really become unusable for purposes of making comparisons in terms of what has happened since the last census”.
In this meeting, Dr. Fellegi and Dr. Sheikh also discussed how the existing voluntary surveys would be less reliable because they would not be able to test them against the census data.
CFUW cannot support the cancellation of the mandatory long form, as it makes census data unusable. Comparisons from year to year are the cornerstone of monitoring and working for progress of women's equality.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Samantha Spady Advocacy and Communications Coordinator, Canadian Federation of University Women
Thank you.
CFUW believes unpaid work must be quantified and valued. CFUW has supported measures to quantify the value of unpaid work to the economy and to take account of this contribution to economic productivity in policy decisions.
However, the removal of question 33 in the 2006 census, which is about unpaid work, is a step backwards. Using census data, it has been calculated that women do two-thirds of unpaid work, accounting for around 30% to 45% of Canada's gross domestic product. This contribution is significant, and with unpaid work including care work involving children and elders, this is an important figure to monitor.
Given the aging population and no current commitments for increased numbers of child care spaces, women will continue to take on the majority of care work in this country. Elder care in particular has been shown to have negative effects on the financial health of women and also on the mental and physical health of women. Without information on this issue, we will not be able to understand the effects and consequences of unpaid work on women.
The removal of the question on unpaid work creates a barrier to the ability to monitor and to value the contribution of unpaid voluntary and care work. CFUW proposes that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommend the reinstatement of the mandatory long-form census and the inclusion of the question on unpaid work for the 2011 census.
These changes, if not reversed, will have a detrimental effect on the capacity of governments at all levels and of civil society to respond to and track changes to women's lives as they relate to policy decisions. As a result of these changes, we will no longer be able to compare census data to past years' results, making comparison and tracking of both progress and regression futile.
To improve the information available on time use, CFUW recommends that the following be included in the 2011 census: questions on unpaid work; questions on care of the disabled; and the expansion of the numbers on elder care that can be reported in census questions. To respond and adapt to the changes in demographics and women's lives, we must have the information to do so. If we cannot trust or compare this information, working towards women's equality will be a difficult pursuit.
As an equality-seeking organization, CFUW encourages the government to reverse this decision, on the basis that the impacts on gender are too great to ignore. As inequality persists, we must continue to have information to understand how to overcome it. Without the statistics that tell the story, we will have nothing except unreported and unaddressed inequality.
Thank you.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Now we're going to move to the question and answer component. This is a seven-minute round. Those seven minutes include questions and answers. I think we're only going to be able to have one round in this group, because we do have some private members' business to do here.
I'll start with Ms. Neville for the Liberals.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to try to share my time with my colleague.
I have a number of questions, but I want to thank all of you for being here today.
Mr. Fellegi, I know that in your role as chief statistician you were instrumental in promoting in the statistics the agenda of women's unpaid work, gender equality, and violence against women, and we all thank you for those efforts.
I have two questions. We heard from Statistics Canada at the end of their presentation just before this. I think I have the quote correct. They say they will not get the same data but will meet the usability requirements. I would welcome your comment on that, which is of considerable concern.
My other questions are to all three groups. The consultation guide, as I understand it, did not mention unpaid work in any way. On the unpaid work, as I understand it, the issue came not from public consultations but largely from private consultations that were held. I'm curious to know whether women's groups got any notice from Statistics Canada, in any way, on the issue of unpaid work and the fact that the removal of question 33 was under consideration, because it seems that it was not part of the overall consultation process. I'll open that up to you.
Dr. Fellegi.
10:10 a.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Thank you, and thank you for your compliments.
I do indeed have two daughters and three granddaughters, and I'm well-motivated.
10:10 a.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
The question about usability.... As I mentioned in my opening comments, Statistics Canada said--and I absolutely implicitly trust them--that it will meet many user needs. There's no question about that. The trouble is we won't know which ones and to what extent, because bias is unknowable. They accept in some special circumstances.... Well, there is some independent data against which I won't verify, but that's rarely the case.
So that's the fundamental problem and that's what really causes my concern.
As much as it affects data on the status of anything, whatever it is--we mean aboriginals, immigrants, youth, the construction industry, whatever--it affects infinitely more changes. Because there is a new method proposed to be introduced in 2011, which is a voluntary survey with about half the expected response rate of the compulsory one, we will have even relatively minor biases hide the estimated changes. So the estimated changes of whatever--whether it's status of women, or aboriginals, or immigrants, or youth, whatever--will be really doubtful.
My last point is again--I made it in my opening comment--that doubt is pernicious, because it will shift the debate from the underlying issues to whether the data can be trusted for this purpose. That's what I'm really concerned about. The next five years will be spent debating the data as opposed to the underlying issues they are supposed to reveal.
10:10 a.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I cannot answer your second question because I really wasn't involved in the discussions leading up to the decision by this government to include or not include some questions.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Federation of University Women
I've been on the job for four months, but I just consulted with Sam, and it appears we don't think we were consulted on this matter.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Perhaps we could go to Ms. Simson now. Ms. Simson, you have three minutes only.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for appearing here today.
My question is for Dr. Fellegi. Because of your history with Statistics Canada.... When we signed on to this to include unpaid work, question 33, in 1995, it was included in the census in 1996. According to the notes we got, the decision was a cabinet decision that essentially overruled Statistics Canada's advice on this matter.
Do you have any knowledge of why Statistics Canada was maybe advising not to include that question in the first place?
10:10 a.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I really don't have any more detailed recollection that occurred. I'm not dodging the question. I really don't dodge questions. I just simply don't remember what was recommended and what was actually the decision.
I know what the decision of the government was, but I don't remember what was recommended and why. So I'm afraid I really cannot answer. I didn't expect this question and I wasn't prepared for it. I apologize.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
No, I apologize. I didn't get a chance to ask the last witnesses this particular question.
We heard from previous witnesses today that the GSS has questions or themes relating to time use surveys on five-year cycles. I made the point that time use isn't the same as unpaid work, as far as I'm concerned, because you can use time walking.
The general social survey will reach 25,000 people, as opposed to the mandatory long-form census, which was 2.9 million Canadians. How badly is that going to skew all the numbers as we go forward, in your opinion?
10:15 a.m.
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Well, let me just go back. I can comment about the GSS, because actually I was the father of it. I initiated it when I became chief statistician because I found that generally our social statistics were woefully underdeveloped, and in a way the general social survey was really a poor person's answer to the paucity of social information generally. Instead of devoting the survey to any single topic--whether it's education, or family, or health, or immigration, or whatever social issue--we decided to try to include a rotating program. Once every five years we would come back to the same topics.
That was the first decision: to try to spread it as widely as possible.
Second, we could afford only a relatively small sample size. We were hoping that the interest generated by the GSS data would result in more sponsors coming forward, putting their money on the table, and saying, “We want this information; can you do A, B, and C?” To some extent that worked, but not nearly sufficiently.
The GSS was really as much a teaser as it was an attempt to answer every question. At the same time, it has answered a lot of questions, and it has resulted in extremely interesting and useful analysis, but a survey is typically an inter-censual indicator; most of the time the census provides the detailed picture once every five years. They are complementary in their roles, and that complementary aspect works very well between the GSS and the long form.