Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that very much.
Certainly, there's been a lot of debate and discussion about whether questions should be mandatory or voluntary, and I can appreciate that. I know the general public has been concerned about the fact that what started out as a short questionnaire has turned into a fairly lengthy one with fairly intrusive questions. There's no doubt that there needs to be a balance with respect to the questions and every question should satisfy the need for data users, but only as weighed against the cost and intrusiveness of the question. I guess that's what has to be weighed.
I found it interesting that both Aden Murphy and Rob Rainer mentioned the following facts. Aden said there should be public consultation for the review of penalties, and Mr. Rainer indicated the threat of jail time should be removed and the size of the penalty reviewed.
I take it that the reasoning behind that is that some of the questions that are posed in the form are probably not the types of questions that should invoke a penalty like jail or even the $500. Take, for example, a single mother with three children, working one or two jobs, who is asked some questions like the time she leaves for work or what the daily commute time is. I know the previous census asked questions about that--and we've heard Mr. Lessard mention that--in addition to how many bedrooms and bathrooms there are in the house, and things like that.
Would you think that not answering a question--let's deal with the time they leave for work or the daily commute time--should be sanctioned by a prison sentence, Mr. Rainer or Mr. Murphy?