Human Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'm not asking who decides the question--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Watson, I'm sorry, but actually your time is up, so just let Mr. Rainer finish.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

My only point, Madam Chair, is that the question was about whether it's mandatory or voluntary. It wasn't a question of who decides whether it's mandatory or voluntary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Right. I just wanted to let you know your time has expired.

Did you want to comment, Mr. Rainer?

[Rob Rainer]

Again, I think there has been a process in place. It seems to have been working. For some reason the government made the decision that it's not working and has made, unfortunately, an issue when there wasn't an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here. It was very informative. Thank you so much. We tried to squeeze a lot into a short amount of time. Thank you again for being here.

We will suspend for one minute and bring in the new group of witnesses and question them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Please come to order. We need to begin.

We're very happy to have representatives right now from the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Wellesley Institute, and the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain.

Welcome here. We have a seven-minute presentation from each group. I would ask you, when you give your presentation, to please introduce yourself. Also, if you keep an eye on me, I'll let you know when you're getting close to your seven minutes, because we really are tight on time. There will be many questions, so I would ask that you try to keep to the seven minutes.

We'll begin. Would you introduce the group you're from and introduce yourself, please? Thank you.

[Peggy Taillon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Depending on which side of the issue you are, you're either lucky or unlucky, because I have laryngitis today.

I am Peggy Taillon. I am the head of the Canadian Council on Social Development. I'm here with my colleague, Katherine Scott, who is our vice-president of research. She is also the vice-president of research for the Vanier Institute of the Family.

Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, and fellow participants. I am happy to be here today to talk about this very important issue.

As you all likely know, CCSD is Canada's longest-established social policy organization, founded in 1920 by Charlotte Whitton. We have a long history of working collaboratively with successive Canadian governments. CCSD developed the concept of some of our most fundamental social programs in Canada, including EI, disability, and old age pension at a time when Canadians needed it most.

One of CCSD's flagship programs today is called the community social data strategy. This information allows communities to focus on their efforts at the neighbourhood level, making better use of our tax dollars and targeting services that respond to those most in need. This is a pan-Canadian partnership in which members collectively purchase approximately $900,000 worth of census and other StatsCan data at a discounted rate. The consortium members include police services, municipalities, United Ways, provincial government departments, and front-line service agencies.

As CCSD has said many times since the decision was taken, losing the long-form census is equal to the government turning off Canada's navigation system. Those in government who support this decision must consider the impact very carefully.

Over the past five months, Canadians certainly have, and their response has been unequivocal. More than 370 organizations, representing every aspect of Canadian life, have voiced their opposition to this challenge. Hundreds more have quietly expressed their alarm but fear that if they speak out too vocally there could be repercussions to their organizations. More than 17,000 Canadians are petitioning for a reversal of this decision. More than 11,000 have joined the long-form census Facebook page.

As we all know, Canada's chief statistician resigned in protest. Opposition parties have private members' bills and have been unanimous and vocal in their condemnation of this decision. Challenges, as you know, have been launched in the Federal Court. And tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians have written, called, or visited their MPs to voice their concerns.

Polling on this decision shows that 60% of Canadians want this decision reversed. For so many Canadians it is inconceivable that our government would choose to navigate the country's current and future direction without the most comprehensive source of information, which is universally relied on as a tool to respond to the needs and priorities of every Canadian, and doing so against the advice of experts across the country and abroad.

Despite the government's contention that it is too late to reverse the decision, we know it is not. A simple cover letter from the chief statistician, our Prime Minister, placed on the national household survey could make this tool mandatory. Until the surveys reach our mailboxes, there is an opportunity to restore the long form.

If the logistics of implementing a reversal require time, there is no magic in a spring census. As Ivan Fellegi has said, we could easily move the census into the fall. The important thing here is to get it right. Why pay more and get less?

Experts across the country and abroad have been clear. A voluntary survey will underrepresent significant communities, such as aboriginal Canadians, Canadians living with disabilities, and visible minorities. A voluntary survey will underrepresent the numbers and skew the needs of very marginalized communities in this country.

The under-counting will be more evident at the local neighbourhood level, rendering this data virtually unusable for local service planning, depriving our under-counted of the services to which they are entitled as Canadians. In essence, we'll look whiter, more middle-class, and in need of less government support.

In responding to this overwhelming and real concern, the Canadian Council on Social Development, along with 12 other organizations across the country, has launched a challenge in the Federal Court defending Canadians' equal right to be counted. Partners in this challenge include the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the National Aboriginal Housing Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, and many others.

The moral, legal, and economic aspects of this decision just don't add up. We're selling our children's future, weakening the evidence that will direct where and how our tax dollars will be spent, and further weakening our social infrastructure at a time when our country needs it the most, while doing it by discriminating against some of Canada's most vulnerable groups.

We don't need to look far to see where this data is used. Each and every one of us in this room uses and benefits from this information each and every day.

One of the things this decision exemplifies is that when our public institutions demonstrate excellence, we need to respect them and allow them to fulfill their mandate independently and respect the expertise that they bring to the table.

Now I'm going to turn it over to Katherine Scott to provide a briefing on some of the areas in which CCSD uses the long form, just to demonstrate how fundamental it is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

You have less than one minute to do that, please. Thank you.

[Katherine Scott, Vice-President, Research, Canadian Council on Social Development]

Did you say less than one minute? Certainly. I'll cut to the chase, then, and go to my conclusion. I hopefully will bring up some of the research that CCSD has used extensively, relying on the information generated by the census, in our social research and economic work over the years.

I would like to conclude and leave with you the thought that CCSD strongly recommends the committee use its powers to ensure that the mandatory long-form census is included in the 2011 census. We certainly would like to add our support as well for the recommendations proposed by the National Statistics Council that were generated this past summer, as well as for current efforts under way to establish and maintain the autonomy of Statistics Canada and its chief statistician to pursue, with all due science and professionalism, the quality work that they have done.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the census is the foundation of our data collection systems in Canada. The decision to abandon the long-form census will critically undermine the integrity of the census and certainly will have far-reaching consequences into the future. It will compromise the ability of governments, certainly federally but at all levels in Canada, to pursue evidence-based decision-making and inform policy program choices, especially at the community level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Canadian Public Health Association.

[Dr. Cordell Neudorf, Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Public Health Association]

Good morning.

My name is Dr. Cordell Neudorf. I'm the current chair of the Canadian Public Health Association and a local medical health officer in Saskatoon. I'm here with our CEO, Debra Lynkowski.

CPHA represents the interests of public health professionals across the country, many of whom work at the local level in the 115 public health departments in Canada.

In addition to our presentation today, we've submitted a brief to the committee on the impact of cancelling the long-form census on health equities and public health.

The primary factors that shape the health of Canadians are not just medical treatments or lifestyle choices. About 80% of what determines our health are things like the socio-economic, physical, and political environments in which we live, work, and play. Research has also found that the quality of these health-shaping environments and conditions is very strongly determined by decisions governments take on a range of different public policy domains.

The information that's been gathered and made available through the long-form census has been essential to understanding the health of our communities and to designing and targeting programs and policies to improve the health and well-being of Canadians at that small-area level, particularly for those most vulnerable and most at risk.

The shift to a voluntary survey like the NHS is of particular concern to the public health community in Canada for a lot of reasons, but primarily it's because the long-form census is really the only reliable, valid, and historical source of this foundational demographic data, down to areas as small as sub-neighbourhoods for specific cities, or for provinces. Alternate local data sources just don't have that historical aspect and the sample size to get down to that level. They don't have the same kinds of response rates as the census has provided.

There's broad agreement amongst statisticians and social scientists that the voluntary survey won't provide data of the same quality and reliability compared to data that was gathered through the mandatory form over the past years.

A voluntary survey basically means that some people answer and others do not, and more people do not answer when it's voluntary. Those people tend to be poor and from marginalized and immigrant communities because of barriers such as language, literacy, disability, and, quite frankly, just the complexity of their lives. First nations, Métis, and Inuit are already underrepresented in current data, and a voluntary move would exacerbate this problem.

The scale and location of the non-response biases can't be completely assessed ahead of time. The estimates from other attempts to generate data in this way have found that in order to maintain statistically accurate analysis, data would have to be generated at a higher geographic level than the former census model. Basically that means it becomes unusable at the neighbourhood level because we can't drill down to that level with confidence and make the kinds of decisions we want to on targeting programs and policies to sub-populations.

We use this data at a local level in public health to generate things like our annual health status report, which drills down, using census data as a model, on subgroups that have certain demographic profiles to see what kinds of differential health outcomes and health disparities are being seen at that sub-neighbourhood level.

Accurate comparisons to past data are essential to measure whether changes we've made to certain health or social policies are having the intended effect of improving the conditions in which Canadians live and work.

The conventional census model provided a critical foundation for the generation of data from other surveys as well. It's basically used to establish sample frames and ensure accurate representativeness of the population. I would compare it to...the existing high-quality data is building your foundation for other surveys on solid bedrock, compared to voluntary surveys that you are now using as a benchmark; it becomes a less stable foundation, basically, on which to design other surveys.

I have a few examples of how we're using this at a local level.

Ongoing research and monitoring is done in a lot of cities to track the depth and breadth of health disparities between areas in the city with higher levels of deprivation compared to those with lower levels. We use an index to do this, which is comprised of data from the long-form census: income, education, employment, and various social factors. Many years have been spent in trying to set up this index in a way that's valid and reliable across the country.

We can then generate aggregate, small-area-level data that we can put our health data on to track how the differential health outcomes play out at a far less intrusive level than if we drilled down to an individual level.

In using this type of study we found health disparities. For example, infant mortality rates in low-income areas of the city were 448% higher than in high-income areas. We're instituting programs to try to intervene at this level. But if we institute major program or policy changes and don't have an ongoing reliable set of data that's collected in the same way, it will be hard to measure the impact of these programs and services. There tends to be a fairly small impact over the short term.

Our recommendations include three options to maintain the continuity of decades worth of accurate and reliable data.

One is to make the NHS survey mandatory through a legislative mechanism like a private member's bill. Two is to postpone the census for a year to allow time to examine and resolve the issues pertaining to the mandatory long-form census. Three is to reinstate the former census model for the 2016 census, with public consultation about mechanisms to maximize compliance.

A portion of the funds allocated should be used to encourage Canadians to respond to this survey to increase awareness about how the data is used and the measures in place to protect personal information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much, Mr. Neudorf.

Mr. Shapcott, you have a seven-minute presentation, please.

[Michael Shapcott, Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute]

Thank you very much. My name is Michael Shapcott. I'm director of affordable housing and social innovation at the Wellesley Institute. We're an independent research and policy institute dedicated to advancing urban health.

We understand that good evidence is fundamental for good policy and good governance. Good evidence is required, first of all, to understand the scale, scope, and complexity of the critical challenges facing Canadians. Good evidence is necessary to set realistic targets and timelines, and to set effective policy solutions. And of course, good evidence is important to measure accountability in government initiatives.

The Wellesley Institute is here today in support of the mandatory long-form census. We understand it as being an important tool in our national statistical system to provide accurate data at the national level and for small-area needs. These data are collected at a reasonable cost to government and are available at a reasonable price to a variety of users. The privacy of Canadians is fully protected, and that privacy has never been breached.

We therefore urge this committee to use its powers to ensure that the mandatory long-form census is included as part of the 2011 census of Canada. We support the statement of the government-appointed National Statistics Council of August 12, 2010, which sets out a series of proposals regarding the mandatory long-form census. We also support the proposal to amend Canada's Statistics Act set out in a letter of September 9, 2010, to Prime Minister Harper from Ivan Fellegi, the Chief Statistician of Canada, emeritus.

Members of the committee, it's not too late for the Government of Canada to ensure that the long-form census remains a vital part of Canada's national census. The proposal to replace it with a voluntary survey is bad science. It will undermine public confidence in our national statistical system and in government policy-making; it won't yield accurate results, especially for small-area needs; and the sharpest impact of the proposal will be felt at the local level and among groups that are already vulnerable—recent immigrants, low-income people, aboriginal people, diverse racial and cultural groups, people facing physical and mental health challenges, and others facing equity challenges.

I want to mention to you that over the last decade we've published hundreds of internal and commissioned research reports that range from the “Street Health Report”, which is a comprehensive review of the health status of people without housing, to “Cashing In”, which is community-based research on payday lending. Much of our research relies on the long-form census and other statistical materials.

I will give you some examples.

First, we have a report called “Poverty is making us sick”. This is a comprehensive and current national review of the complex links between poverty and poor health, which we released in December 2008. There were many striking findings in that report, but let me mention just a couple. The poorest one-fifth of Canadians, when compared with the richest 20%, have more than double the rate of diabetes, as well as a staggering 358% higher rate of disability. Our researchers used sophisticated multi-variant analysis and demonstrated that every $1,000 increase in income leads to substantial increases in health and nearly 10,000 fewer chronic conditions. So the data from the long-form census and other sources provide critical evidence of the staggering burden of inequality facing Canadians, while pointing to the policy solutions. This evidence is all underpinned by reliable data from the long-form census.

Second, “Precarious Housing in Canada (2010)” is a report dear to my heart. Unfortunately, it is available only in English, so I can't formally file it with the committee. This is the most comprehensive and current national review of housing and homelessness. We relied on the long-form census to find, for instance, that 705,165 households in Canada are overcrowded; 1.3 million households are in substandard housing; three million households are paying 30% or more of their income on housing. This information is derived from asking people about their bathrooms and bedrooms. This is how we get this practical and important information. We use these data not simply to describe the problem, but also to set out practical solutions.

Third, I want to mention that we're using long-form census data to develop the Wellesley urban health model. This model is an exciting new initiative that allows community leaders and policy-makers to move beyond single-issue analysis and understand the interconnectedness of policy issues and policy options. It employs a systems-dynamic model that maps and mathematically sets out the complex interactions between a number of key social and economic variables.

I should also say that the Wellesley Institute is part of the nationwide community social research and data consortium you've already heard about.

I just want to end, though, by congratulating the committee on the report, which I eagerly downloaded yesterday. I have to admit I haven't read the entire document, but it's a good report. When I get these kinds of reports, I tend to read from the back to the front, so I started by reading the comments of the various parties in the report, and I was especially struck by some comments from the Conservative side, which broadly accepted the intent of the report but raised some issues and concerns. For one thing, they said, there wasn't proper credit given to government initiatives towards poverty reduction, such as the $2.1 billion in the 2009 budget for affordable housing, and one of the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, this probably should at least come close to dealing with the subject matter under review, which isn't the poverty report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay, sorry. Thank you. I'm sure the witness wants to talk about the long-form census, so I think we'll all try to stay on that. That's the topic we're studying.

[Michael Shapcott]

It is, and the point I was trying to make was that one of the issues raised was how we measure the effectiveness of government programs, including the $2.1 billion the government committed for affordable housing in the 2009 budget. We're equally interested in measuring the results of that, and one of the ways we do that is through the long-form census, so in fact the long-form census allows us to do that. It also allows us to cost out a number of these kinds of measures because it gives us the scale of the problem.

So for us, the long-form census is a vital tool to address many of the concerns that in fact are raised in this report.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madam Ferreira, please.

[Melisa Ferreira, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain]

Thank you, Mrs. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

I am here to speak on behalf of FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a Quebec City organization, as well as the Regroupement des OSBL d'habitation et d'hébergement avec support communautaire de l'Outaouais.

Our main concern relates to the impact that the withdrawal of the mandatory questionnaire will have on our knowledge of housing issues--our colleague just referred to that--and especially on our ability to raise those issues with government.

The data collected through the long-form questionnaire is absolutely essential for us. I refer here to the rates of ownership, the quality of our housing stock, the rent paid by households, the number of renters having to pay too much of their income for rent, and the issue of overcrowding.

After each census, our organization issues a Black Book on housing in which we take stock of the housing situation, especially in Quebec, and compare it to the previous census. For example, we found that, year after year, people spend an always increasing share of their income for housing, up to 30% to 50%, and even 80% in some cases.

Our concern is that, with the new questionnaire, we will not be able to put as much pressure on government and that the data collected will not give us an accurate portrayal of our population and families. If we do not get accurate data, we fear that we will not be able to make good representations to government. FRAPRU as well as our collective and the 130 members it represents have been using this type of data for 20 years.

On the basis of the census data, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is able to target the dire housing needs--that is to say the percentage of their income that families pay for rent--and then to allocate funds between the provinces. In other words, the direst the housing need, the more money the province gets for housing.

So, we are concerned and we ask your committee to use its powers to ensure that the long-form questionnaire is included in the next census.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I think we have just enough time for one seven-minute round of questions. I would just suggest that if the parties would like to share their time, this would be the best opportunity to do that, and we'll begin with the Liberals and Mr. Savage for seven minutes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you. I'm going to split my time with Ken Dryden, so please give me some notice. We're going to move fairly quickly.

I want to thank you all for coming, those of you who have given witness today. Those of you who are new did fabulously. Those of you who are veterans also did very well.

This decision on the census stunned Canadians. I suspect it stunned even some of my Conservative colleagues on this committee who found themselves defending an indefensible position when this came out. But you know, this has brought together business and labour, health and education. It has brought together politicians of all stripes, premiers, and many others. It has brought together the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. It brought everybody together, unfortunately, in opposition to this decision. It would be nice if Canadians could come together in that way on other issues.

But here is my question to you. It doesn't seem that this was an accident. Initially it seemed like just a poor decision, but it seems it was made deliberately. It's always tricky to ask witnesses to assume the motives of a government, but I want to ask anybody, perhaps starting with CCSD, if they could give us any reason why the government would want to make this decision.

[Peggy Taillon]

Since June 26 there's been a lot of talk and a lot of debate about where, why, and what's at heart. One of the things that seems to be happening in the broader context is that there almost seems to be, if you're paranoid or a big thinker, perhaps, a bit of a war on information in this country. In the most fundamental sources of information--centres of excellence, research grants--and in the purveyors of information--NGOs, etc.--there have been lots of cuts in areas where information is being brought out to the public.

I perhaps think that we need to look at the fact that this may be connected to that. It's a very troubling trend for Canada to know less about our social condition than we do about pop culture. As I've said before, I think Lady Gaga is fascinating, but I'd much rather understand the real issues that happen on the ground with respect to the needs of the most vulnerable Canadians in the country.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you.

Anybody else? Mr. Shapcott or Dr. Neudorf?

[Michael Shapcott]

Can I just say very quickly that I of course cannot see into the hearts of others and assess that. I will say that this goes in the face of what's happening internationally, if you look, for instance, at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which Canada is a member--the richest 33 countries in the world. They've had a major initiative for years to push for more data, to get better evidence, to define better the problems, but also to ensure that the government initiatives are actually meeting those problems, that we have good governance.

The entire world is moving in the direction of more evidence-based policy-making. Canada seems to be moving in the other direction. It's a mystery to us why.