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--