Evidence of meeting #25 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)) Conservative Candice Bergen
Good morning, everyone. I would like to call to order meeting number 25 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
It's very good to see all of you here and to reconvene for this session.
I'd like to begin by welcoming and thanking our clerk and our analyst for being here. We have a new analyst with us, Sandra Gruescu.
Chantal is still with us via conference call, so she's listening right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Bonjour, Chantal.
If we have questions, we are fortunate we still have Chantal with us to help us through some of the processes.
We are going to begin our meeting today with committee business and motions that we have before us. Following that, because we do have a government bill to look at, we invited the officials to come to answer questions. Once we decide how we're proceeding and what we'll be going forward with, we'll know what our future meetings will look like.
We will begin this morning with two motions that have been given, and I will ask Mr. Savage if he wants to move the first motion he has brought forward.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Chair.
We're going to have a discussion in a bit about the order of the rest of the committee business, but I guess we'll do this first.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I thought we should probably deal with the motions first because of the context of committee business.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. The first one is dated September 21.
Shall I read the motion, Chair?
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
In light of the Conservative government's decision to cancel the mandatory long-form census, a decision opposed by hundreds of organizations, including anti-poverty advocates and disability groups, organizations that value and respect quality data and evidence, I move that the HUMA committee study the impact of cancelling the long-form census, particularly as it relates to planning and tracking of vital social trends related to economic security, labour markets, and social program development for those Canadians living in and on the cusp of living in poverty, and that this committee report back to the House its conclusions and findings.
Chair, this is somewhat self-evident. When it was announced that the long-form census was going to be changed and would no longer be a mandatory census, among the groups that were most concerned—frightened, really—are those who deal with people who need help the most, who rely on this kind of information to provide data so that social trends can be determined so that we, as parliamentarians, can then propose solutions to help them.
Disability groups are very concerned about this. This follows on the heels of cancelling the PAL survey, the participation active living survey, and the Canadian Council on Learning no longer being funded, which did a lot of work to ensure there were studies on how low-income Canadians, including people with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians, would be affected by not having access to post-secondary education.
This is a very important issue for the disability community and for social advocacy groups. I think it would probably be as relevant for this committee as any committee—more so than just about every other committee—to have a look at the impact of this decision on the people we're here to represent.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Madam Chair, as you know, we have a number of studies before this committee that are fairly significant, and one that we haven't yet finished. There are at least three or more other studies in the queue, including some government bills and other private members' bills. This is adding to it.
This issue originates from industry; it has been looked at in that committee. They are seized of it. They have called witnesses on it. That's the minister who is in charge. They are just as able to study that issue as we are here. They've already embarked upon that.
We're interjecting ourselves into that issue. It seems to me that this motion would be better stayed pending resolving a number of other matters before this committee, and that we leave it to the industry committee to deal with in the course of time as they see fit.
I know this has perhaps been more of a political issue than not, and it's maybe an opportunity for some members to make some political hay out of it, but there is already a committee that has looked at this issue, and it will continue to look at it.
Obviously we will be opposing this motion because I think it's somewhat opportunistic. Given everything else we have before this committee, it can be dealt with better elsewhere, particularly when it's already been started.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I'll just comment for the record so we know the context. We obviously have Bill C-31, which is a government bill that we need to look at. There is also Bill C-343, a private member's bill. I believe our deadline for when that has to be reported back to the House is November 5, so just keep that in mind, in context.
Mr. Savage, before we go to the other comments, were you thinking you wanted to look at this once all the other things were finished? What was your timeline?
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
There is a timeline, because if the decision on the long-form census is going to be reversed it has to be done fairly quickly.
There's no reason why this can't be dealt with at this committee. The industry committee could look at the aspects of the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census in the ways that affect them. Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney has indicated great concerns.
I am specifically interested in how this hurts low-income Canadians. That is the mandate, the responsibility, and the obligation of this committee, and that is why we should have a look at it.
I don't have a timeline. I'm open to discussion by the committee, but if we could schedule a couple of meetings before the end of November, I'd be satisfied with that.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to say a couple of things. I understand Mr. Komarnicki's sensitivity to this, but the reality is it is not a political issue--not for me anyway. I've been in the field of social policy for 35 to 40 years, Mr. Komarnicki, and this is not a political issue. This is very much a personal and sociological issue.
We have the report on poverty, which I think we need to finish before Christmas. I'm prepared to work overtime if we have to. Yes, we have other things, but with all due respect, even the study on disability relies on stable, reliable information from Statistics Canada. Without reliable information we can't even do our studies, so all of the work that HRDC does and we are charged to deal with is affected by not having adequate data and appropriate information if we lose the long-form census.
At the same time that the long-form census was dropped, the department also dropped the study on post-secondary education that they were doing on a regular basis. I forget the correct name of it. An actual study and evaluation survey used to be done to see where post-secondary education was, which kids got in, income situations, what universities were offering, and all kinds of things. All of that has been dropped as well.
So as a department we're losing the ability to do any of our work because we have no data. All of the witnesses who come before us would have access to no data either. We're blindfolding ourselves.
For all of those reasons, this is urgent, and I really believe we need to do it.
Thank you.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, I feel that this motion is one of the most relevant to our work in a number of years, particularly in relation to poverty. The arguments raised by our colleague Mr. Komarnicki greatly surprise me because this is anything but a political matter for us. It is fundamentally to do with a basic level of knowledge that we must have about Canadian reality, Quebec reality in our case, and that guides us in the studies that we do.
Mr. Komarnicki says that we have some studies underway. That is true, but, for a good number of them, we have been guided by statistics that are available to us because of past long-form censuses. In addition to which, the decision to abolish the long-form census has been based up to now on arguments that seem to me to be frivolous at best.
According to the Conservatives' first argument, one that we have heard over and over again for weeks, if not months, we have no need to know how many bedrooms a property has. That is a misunderstanding of the way in which the scientists and all the others who work with the responses use them.
For example, if people declare that they are in a family of eight and that their dwelling has two bedrooms, we can see that they are not adequately housed. So data can be cross-referenced, and so on. I will limit myself to that example, since it is a fairly striking one; we do not ask for this information out of curiosity.
When they saw that they were not getting anywhere with the first argument, they came up with a second one, claiming that they were receiving 1,000 complaints per day from people who were upset at the questionnaires. The truth, as CBC found through access to information, was that there were about 30 complaints in three years. You can see that the real reason why they want to abolish the long-form census has no basis in reality.
Now, are there any basic reasons that we may see as justified? We have to look into that, and, up to now, parliamentarians have not been allowed to do so. Madam Chair, the only way to do it is through Mr. Savage's motion.
It is also inappropriate to suggest that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology can deal with it. That committee does not make the same use of the information as we do, as Mr. Savage says, because of the very nature of our committee.
That is why we are going to support this motion, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
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.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In listening to Mr. Lessard, I think he was more interested in a study examining the government's decision with respect to the long-form census. As I read the motion, it's on the impact of the government's decision.
Having said that, if we're looking at the impact, or if there's a desire to look at the impact, and Mr. Savage thinks two meetings will do it, I'm not sure why that can't be caught up in Mr. Tony Martin's study on disability, which is already part of the committee's business. It would be an impetus, of course, for the committee to get on with some of the important work that is there. I suggest that might be a good fit for bringing that in as one aspect of a disability study.
Those are some studies we'd like to get on to, I think, as a committee. So that's just my suggestion.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This may have come up earlier--I know it has within the chamber over there a bit as well--but to suggest that because we don't have the mandatory long-form census we're not going to get information required for tracking some of these things, such as economic security, labour markets, and social program development for Canadians living on the cusp of poverty.... In fact, some of the Scandinavian countries for close to a decade have not had a census, because they're able to collate, correlate, and bring together material from the computer age we live in. The members opposite as well as on this side of the table obviously should be aware of this.
It almost seems like a bit of a time warp here. I would suggest and it would seem to me that the modern countries--democracies, if you will--have moved beyond taking a census in the old traditional way, because they have ways of linking or bringing together all the information that is required. But as well, as my colleague says, the long-form census will still be done, just not with the force of the law and the strictures that presently exist.
People should do a little bit of personal reading on this. The industry committee, which has looked at it, would be pretty adequate. If more personal reading needs to be done on it, people could get a pretty good understanding of how Sweden and Norway and some of these other countries--left-leaning countries that have every bit as much, and some would suggest even more, interest in those issues as our country has.... And they get all that information.
There are ways to work with the provinces, I would think, Madam Chair, in terms of correlating information and getting agreements so that we could get all this very adequate information. In fact, it might be a superior method. Somehow we seem to be in a little bit of a time warp and a little bit out of date almost, it occurs to me. I suggest modestly that other advanced countries with modern computer technology and so on use other methods to get the very same information and can bring those to bear in terms of all these areas that Mr. Savage is concerned about--labour market, social program development, economic security, and so on--and they don't lack any of it, as Mr. Lessard seems to imply.
I think that would be good reading for all of us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Unless there's actually anything new that anybody would like to add to this discussion, we have talked about the motion and we could probably vote on it right now.
