Human Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So it should be mandatory, but there should be no sanctions, no measures brought against a person.

From my point of view, it is no longer mandatory in that sense. I think voluntary with enforcement or encouragement to do civic duty and so on, as Rob made the point, is more the way to go.

If you're saying you don't think that's the way to go, I don't know how it becomes mandatory then. You would in effect probably be agreeing with me, when I say encourage civic duty and so on.

[Monica Cullum]

I would say we believe it should be mandatory, but I don't think it's for us to decide how that is enforced. I think it is a political issue.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

With due respect, if you don't have some enforcement measure, as in fines or whatever, then it's no longer mandatory.

[Monica Cullum]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

You don't want fines, penalties, or whatever, so--

[Monica Cullum]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting it should be mandatory and it's for the government to decide how that is enforced.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

But I'm asking, are you suggesting penalties and fines? Are you suggesting penalties and fines for a young single mom?

[Monica Cullum]

I guess to me that's a facetious remark.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

It's a contradiction in terms, actually, to say you want it to be mandatory but there should be no penalties. That doesn't square; it's not logical.

[Monica Cullum]

I don't think that is a contradiction.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

It clearly is, but I'll leave that to the public to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott.

We'll go to Madam Beaudin, please.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Chair.

Thank you and welcome.

The main issue is not whether anyone not answering the questionnaire should be fined, but what the impact will be of not having the data needed to have a clear picture of our society. Let us not forget that we have just tabled a report on poverty after a three-year study for which we needed data over many years.

Further to what you said earlier, Mr. Rainer, I believe that the simulation done by Statistics Canada is very significant. You said that, had we changed the questionnaire in 2006, we would not have today the same image of our society. My question is how long will this go on in the future if we do not have the right data and an accurate portrayal of Canada.

The government often uses simple questions such as: How many bedrooms do you have? How much time does a single mother with three children spend in public transit to go to work? I believe such questions are essential for our community organizations and to get accurate data.

For example, knowing that a mother has to get up at 6 AM, that she has three children but only two bedrooms, that she comes back home at 7 PM, and that she must travel an hour and a half in the morning to go to work and another hour and a half in the evening to go back home, seems to me to be very relevant in order to plan the policies or initiatives that would make her life a bit easier.

Do you believe that this kind of information, that may seem to be quite simple for most people--and that is why the government makes regular use of such data--is important for your organizations? How long will we be faced with the impact of not having an accurate image of our population?

[Rob Rainer]

I do think they're very important questions. I think every question on both the short-form census and the long-form census can be objectively assessed for the value the data will bring to society. It should go through that scrutiny. If a question doesn't meet the test of value, then it shouldn't be included. The fact that these questions can be revised, altered, dropped, and that new questions can be added...all that process has already been in place.

To further respond to Mr. Vellacott on the subject of fines, I agree that's not really where the focus should be. This was not an issue for as long as Canada has been doing the census. It was not an issue until it was made an issue.

There's been a very good record of participation and confidence in the data that's resulted from those who have participated in a mandatory framework, with apparently zero levying of any penalties at all.

If Canadians understand the context in which the questions are being asked and how it can relate to their lives, I think the participation rate will be very strong, even with the prospect of a penalty hanging over their heads. It doesn't seem to me, based on the participation we're getting, that this is what's driving people. I think most people are replying out of a sense of duty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rainer.

Mr. Watson, go ahead for three minutes, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing.

The central issue at stake here, of course, is Statistics Canada's collecting of information through mandatory or voluntary questions. I shouldn't say mandatory or voluntary; they do both, right? So the question here is essentially which questions should be mandatory and which should be voluntary. I see some heads nodding “yes”.

Witnesses, you all understand that essentially the only change the government has made is to move some questions from being mandatory to being voluntary. Is that correct? We understand that's the change this government has made here?

Mr. Rainer, do you want to comment?

[Rob Rainer]

But the long-form census results in the bulk of data being collected. So if all of those questions are moved to a voluntary basis, you're essentially putting at risk the credibility or the reliability of data for the bulk of the information--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You're arguing about the outcome. I'm establishing here what the actual change has been. The change has been to move questions from being mandatory to being voluntary.

And essentially what I'm hearing from the evidence today is that you object to the government's decision to move certain questions from mandatory to voluntary. Is that correct? Is that what I'm understanding?

[Rob Rainer]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You've raised the issue of accuracy. Canadians give up a lot of information voluntarily. Anybody who does a political poll, market research, or product testing knows they give up a lot of valuable information, some of it very personal in nature.

Take political polls. I worked in market research for a long time, actually. A sample of 2,000 Canadians giving voluntary data is accurate to within about a percentage and a half, 19 times out of 20. Is that good accuracy?

[Rob Rainer]

Yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Voluntary information does yield accurate information, right? It can. Okay. So it's about sampling if you want accuracy, even on voluntary questions. Would you agree with that statement?

[Rob Rainer]

As I said in my opening remarks, I am not a statistical expert. I'm not the person to ask that question to. I am relying on the expertise of those who have already spoken on this issue, including the chief statistician, who resigned over this issue precisely because of this tension--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. You're raising the opinions of others. Then you don't have an opinion on whether voluntary information can be achieved accurately. Okay.

On the question of mandatory versus voluntary, Mr. Rainer, since you've been answering some questions, can you tell me if this is a voluntary or a mandatory question: what are the total regular monthly mortgage or loan payments for your dwelling? Is that mandatory or voluntary?

[Rob Rainer]

I'm not going to answer that question in the way you would like me to, only because I think that's a question that needs to be posed to the committee or whoever it is that screens this and in a proper setting to evaluate--