Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

But in essence, the estimates are through the rear-view mirror, if you like, because you're always dealing with data from the past. There is no consultation in the estimates about projecting future growth.

The reason I am asking is because obviously the Fair Representation Act governs us for the next 10 years. We don't adjust annually. We can't adjust for the midway point massive migrations to one region of the country or another.

Can you envision ways whereby the estimates could actually be more prospective? I know there is no certainty. I don't know where you would find that statistical halfway point, but are there mechanisms you would like to suggest we look at so that the 10-year period actually doesn't end up with the huge discrepancies that we now so often find ourselves with?

[Wayne Smith]

Statistics Canada does publish projections of Canada's population at the Canada and provincial levels, but we make a distinction between projections and forecasts. A forecast might be what you believe is going to happen. A projection is simply saying if this happens or that happens, this is what results.

The problem is we don't know what's going to happen, particularly at the level of the provinces and territories where internal migration can have a huge impact on populations. The simple, natural, increase in immigration would yield one set of projections, but more important, what we couldn't ever anticipate would be the economic factor. So I really don't think I could responsibly produce a set of numbers that I would say you could be reasonably confident would hold true for the next 10 years. I simply don't think that's possible, not by Statistics Canada. Braver people might be willing to do that, but we wouldn't have the confidence to produce that kind of number.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

As part of the reasons for undercoverage, you talked about immigration, linguistic skills, and some of those things being a part of underreporting, perhaps. I know you also work closely with the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It's not clear to me exactly what services you provide to the commission, but let me ask it in this way. If we know that most of the settlement areas for newcomers are in large urban centres, such as Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, and Hamilton, for example, does your work with the Electoral Boundaries Commission include setting boundaries differently around urban centres, or is your undercoverage only reflected in the provincial gross numbers?

[Wayne Smith]

The adjustment to undercoverage can only be made at the provincial and territorial level. We provide all and any support that is requested from us by the commission, but normally that is the detailed census counts of very small geographic areas, including down to the block level, in order for them to delimit the electoral boundaries.

I could be corrected by either one of my colleagues, perhaps, but we don't suggest adjustment in any way from the actual counts. We simply give the counts and the commissions apply them. We wouldn't, for example, counsel the commission that we are possibly underestimating in the downtown core. That kind of advice wouldn't be normal, either in what they ask from us or in what we provide to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Williamson.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

Actually, I want to continue this line, in part to follow up on some of the questions Mr. Dion had.

You're sampling at a national level, and as we read, whenever we take a sample and we start cutting it down, it becomes less and less representative. So in fact it's not unusual for us to use two methods.

The national sample that you're taking just wouldn't work within my province of New Brunswick. It begins to look less certain, and hence we turn to the actual census numbers when we're dividing up boundaries. Is that right?

[Wayne Smith]

I think the reason we use the census numbers is simply that we need to be able to go down to very small levels of geography. That's the primary driver, or has been historically, for using census numbers. Because we count everybody, in principle--that's the objective--we can say that down one side of one street in downtown Halifax, this is what the population count was there.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

On the adjustments you make on a province-by-province basis or on a national basis, could you do that on a local level, a riding-by-riding level? Or is it impossible?

[Wayne Smith]

It's impossible because in fact it would be another census, to be able to go to that level of detail.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That's what I thought. So we either have to accept what we have now, which is to take the best number nationally, which is the adjusted number for underrepresentation, and then break the seats out along at least the 10 provinces, and then switch gears and use census data when we're looking at the ridings.... The other alternative would be just to use unadjusted census data, but that actually would give us a less accurate number nationally, if you want to be consistent with your data. That seemed to be Mr. Dion's concern, that we were shifting gears.

[Wayne Smith]

Provincially, you would be using something, in our view, that would be less than the most accurate representation of the population of the provinces and territories, if you were to use the unadjusted counts.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Okay. That's what I thought.

I have no further questions. I'm done, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right. Great.

I'm going to entertain a couple of one-offs. I see a couple of hands. But let's keep these to about 30 seconds to ask and 30 seconds to answer.

Monsieur Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I just want to say to my ministerial colleagues, especially Mr. Reid, that there is no obligation, no constitutional obligation, to compute as if the territorial seats did not exist when we change it, and I suggest that we recommend it to the government.

My question is very simple. Can we have an electronic copy of it?

[Wayne Smith]

Absolutely. We'll make sure this goes up on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Mr. Christopherson, a quick 30-second ask and answer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I suspect that I'm asking the same question Mr. Williamson did, but I'm going to ask it anyway to make it clear for me.

On the numbers that are coming out on February 8, 2012, are those the unadjusted census...? And was your answer to Mr. Williamson that this would still be less accurate, in your opinion, than the projected provincial projections or estimates? I know that makes a difference.

[Wayne Smith]

Yes, the numbers that are coming out on February 8 are the unadjusted population counts, and yes, we consider that they would be less accurate than the estimates that are currently available.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So the bottom line is that you think the most--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Now, now, you said one.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Ms. Charlton, help your colleague.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. I just have a really quick question as well.

Do you expect that the difference in magnitude between the estimate and the actual census population counts is going to increase now that we've moved to a voluntary census from a mandatory census?

[Wayne Smith]

First, I will just clarify one thing. The census remains mandatory. There were 10 questions that people were required by law...and it's those questions that are used to establish the population. So the census itself was mandatory.

The 2011 census, based on information that we have up to now, is looking very good. The response rate to the census was actually higher than in the 2006 census. We had an extraordinary level of cooperation actually from the population. We spent relatively little effort, relative to previous censuses, chasing non-respondents on the census side. So there is a lot of evaluation that still has to happen, including the coverage studies that we've been discussing, before we can form a definitive view. But based on what we know now, things are looking very positive for the 2011 census population.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, I gave everybody else one, so I'll give you one too. Go ahead.