When I hear words like we're going to abolish the long form or we won't have a long form that will have information, I mean, that's just simply not correct. It's not true. The long-form census will continue to exist. The difference is that it will be voluntary, as opposed to mandatory and compelling. I wonder how many members of Parliament had to fill them out themselves, under threat of being fined or having to go to jail, and that's in there.
It's not fair to say that it's being abolished; it's being done in a different way that balances the right. I'm quite surprised that there aren't any defenders of the private interest of personal information, of personal detail, as opposed to government intervention. There is a balance, and this is trying to strike a balance.
What's important is the industry committee is looking at not only the aspect that would relate to poverty or other areas of concern to us; it's looking at the big picture. That's where it should be looked at. It can deal with these issues you're talking about here. We don't need to duplicate that, unless we want to play some political mischief. To say that this isn't part of what's happening is simply not correct.
The fact of the matter is when people answer those questions under compulsion or threat of consequences, the answers aren't necessarily the same. Those who would wish to answer them can answer them. We haven't come so far in our society to have a multi-paged form that obligates people to complete it when they may choose not to.
At the same time, we are dealing with a poverty study that has significance. We're talking about embarking on a study that deals with persons with disabilities and how they may become more active in the labour market. We have things we can do that are constructive, that aren't dependent on whether the census is voluntary or mandatory. There are others who can deal with it.
To suggest somehow that we can't carry on our study because this one is so important and must be dealt with now is simply a bunch of nonsense.
There is a place for it to be studied. It has been studied. It can continue to be studied. We have priorities here that should be looked at. We should look at doing that.
Information that can be obtained from this form, because of the way it's going to be handled, will still be reliable. I know people can speak from their talking points, and many have, to try to make an issue of this. I would suggest this is not the proper place to deal with it. There is a place. It is being dealt with. That's where it should remain.