Human Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Good morning. It's good to be chatting with you about this very important subject here today.

We're still at the table, on this side anyway, trying to figure out why it is that the government wants to do this. We've heard and seen in the documentation that we have over 350 groups across Canada saying this is the wrong way to go, this is not the right thing to do. We have maybe at most a dozen that have given the government their approval or support, some of it conditionally. We're trying to get a handle on why it is that we would do this. We certainly heard this morning on the impact to both of your groups.

At a previous meeting, and apparently at the committee on status of women, what we were finding is that not only is the government not going to do the mandatory long form, but they are no longer going to measure the contribution that women who are not paid for their work make to the overall benefit of society and the way we measure development and growth.

I'm not sure what that is saying about where they want to go with this. It certainly is disturbing, and I would guess working out of Family Service Toronto that would be something that would concern Ms. Rothman.

We also heard a little bit about, from the previous discussion we had, this maybe being just a clearing of the deck, so that private for-profit gatherers of information can move in, begin to collect this data, and then sell it. I can only imagine the impact that would have on organizations like Campaign 2000 and perhaps some of the smaller groups in the Chinese community trying to service their population.

Maybe you could comment on both of those topics for us here this morning.

[Victor Wong]

Thanks, Mr. Martin.

It's important to have a complete census and one where the data is reliable, because we need a national portrait. The data would act as a benchmark, so we can also make use of all of the other administrative data tools. When you start to drop things, if you drop collection of information on unpaid work, that removes a part of that national portrait, which is the contribution of all members of our society.

In terms of the costs, I believe this move to the national household survey will cost more. The government is spending more, it is increasing the response burden, and it's getting less reliable data.

I made the point about business. For newcomers, sometimes one of their options is to start up their own small business. Small business is one of the largest job creators in the country. If we don't have data to back them up, they may make the wrong decision and this will lead to lower tax revenues. So there is an impact for the entire country. We're trying to deal with the deficit right now, so we need to make sure that businesses have every opportunity to flourish.

I would urge the committee members here to support our recommendation. Our recommendation is to look at the compromise proposal by the National Statistics Council. I think they put forward a very good case for the retention of the long form in the 2011 census.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I find it interesting that when we've had witnesses here we get into what types of questions should be on the form, and which of those questions should be mandatory. It's a bit confusing. I'm sure people don't mean to be misleading. We all have different types of questions we think would be valuable.

That's not the nature of the discussion here today. I have a lot of sympathy for calculating and getting a handle on unpaid work. In our household, my wife gives me part of the cheque. She does a deposit, and I end up getting a bit at the end of the day. But that's fair. She takes care of all the other good things in the running of our household.

As for the questions people would like to see on the census survey, there are various suggestions from various groups. Certainly there are forums for that to percolate and work its way up. You folks here as witnesses, and others we've had, are aware of that. Some may not be. But there's a process for it. If you were to include all of those questions, with no end to the questions, it could become a long, long, long-form census. We could add to it no end.

I do want to say, though, that I'm a little confused. It has often come up that there are certain more vulnerable groups—low-income groups, groups living in poverty—that typically don't fill in the census. I don't understand the logic of threatening these people, who are the most vulnerable in society. We threaten them with a jail term, which they say doesn't take place. But we punish them with big fines. What's the logic behind that?

You don't need to respond now.

The fact that these groups—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry to interrupt you.

I will remind everyone around the table that when you have the floor, that's your chance to speak. And when you don't have the floor, I ask that you not speak out of turn. I just want to remind everyone around the table of that basic principle.

Thank you.

Continue.

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

Anyhow, what is the logic behind threatening vulnerable people, who are already paranoid about filling out the survey? Threatening them with punitive action doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

But I think there are some lessons to be learned. I appreciated the comment about the outreach program; I think something needs to be done there. Mr. Wong, I appreciate your comment along those lines.

It has been remarked that in the Chinese community there's a greater response rate. In the black community there's a lower rate. Can you tell me why this might be? I think we understand the self-interest thing, whether people see a benefit in doing something or whether they see an intrusion and possible threat.

Could you give me some inkling of why the Chinese community seems to be responding in greater numbers, while the black community, for example, seems to be rather under-represented? Maybe there are some lessons to learn; maybe we need an outreach program. Maybe pitching it to people in terms of basic civic duties would give us a good result with a voluntary long-form survey. Why do the Chinese people respond in greater numbers and the black community in lesser numbers?

Do you understand my question, Mr. Wong?

[Victor Wong]

Yes, but I prefer not to compare two groups.

Actually, an overestimate is just as bad as an underestimate. As a result of the data that comes out, you end up rejigging a whole bunch of social programs, and you may inefficiently allocate funds to one community and under-allocate to another community.

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

I understand that.

[Victor Wong]

When you step back from it and look at the data from a dispassionate perspective, it's poor planning.

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

Maybe I'll frame the question in a different way in order to get some value for us on this back-and-forth.

In the Chinese community, does the leadership emphasize and quietly relate to others that there's a benefit to this, and that they don't need to be paranoid? Is there any of that leadership and influencing that happens? Why does the Chinese community respond in greater numbers? Is it because you, as leaders, are telling them it's a good thing to do, that it gives us a better understanding of things, so that we can provide the services? Is that what is quietly being done?

[Victor Wong]

Statistics Canada does do some outreach, and they've done that on all of their major surveys, including the census in the past. We've also helped out with this in promoting participation in past census initiatives.

We're saying you need to have more, because when you look at the 2006 results there is still an under-count, in our view, of the Chinese community. You asked why you see an increased participation in the Chinese community. But I just quoted Toronto. If you look in the study for Bathurst, it's a smaller community of Chinese and it's under-counted by 75%. So the point we're trying to get at is it's a distinction between having a voluntary survey and a mandatory survey. We will be injecting this non-response bias throughout the whole system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, that's all the time. Sorry, Mr. Vellacott.

We're just about out of time. I would probably allow for one very quick two-minute question. There wouldn't be time for discussion, but just a very short question and answer.

Mr. Savage.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Canadians who would be watching this would still be amazed that we even have to have this discussion about a census that has worked for many years, that people haven't complained about. I've been a member of Parliament for six and a half years, and nobody has ever complained to me about having to fill out the long-form census. Statistics Canada has helped other countries—including, I believe, China—implement censuses, and those countries look at this and say that it's an unbelievable situation. They don't understand this.

The government keeps coming back to the issue of jail time. Well, here's an idea. Let's have a unanimous recommendation from this committee that all those Canadians languishing in jail right now for not filling out the long-form census should go free. We could have it done by noon. It would be simple and easy, because no one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census. It's absolutely bizarre. Yet the government says it's intrusive and people don't want to do it. It's quite frustrating.

I'd like to ask Ms. Rothman, if I could, because she was part of the poverty study that this committee did. Very briefly, could you tell us in what ways the cancellation of making the long-form census mandatory is going to hurt the ability of any recommendations that might be implemented from the poverty report we've had—which I'm sure you've seen—from being followed, tracked, and perhaps providing improvements to Canadians?

[Laurel Rothman]

It will make it quite difficult. I know there was some interest—I think it was in the Conservative supplementary report—to look at the costs of the recommendations, which is of course an important thing to do. And if you're going to do that, you need to look at the “current” and the “future over time”. For that, you need some of the things from the long-form census as well as other data. So I think it will have a big impact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you so much.

Is there a very quick two-minute question from the government side, Mr. Komarnicki?

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

Thank you.

Ms. Rothman, can you give us the results of your annual report card on child and family poverty?

I'm kidding. You can relax. I understand that's coming tomorrow.

[Laurel Rothman]

Yes.

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

Lawrie McFarlane, the former Deputy Minister of Health in British Columbia, put the long-form census this way. He said if there is a right to privacy, the census long form abrogates that right. Would you agree that by making it mandatory, punishable by a fine or threat of jail, it abrogates a right to privacy? Yes or no, in your opinion.

[Laurel Rothman]

I would say no, but I also want to go on record that we're supportive of the recommendation to take off the threat of jail terms.

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

Or fines.

One of the witnesses I think went almost as far as to say that we should make it mandatory from the perspective of civic duty, but without the threat of fine or jail. Would you agree with that proposition?

[Laurel Rothman]

Yes, definitely.

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

If we were to make it mandatory without the threat of fine or jail, we would certainly develop a good relationship with those filling out the form. Would you agree?

[Laurel Rothman]

Probably.

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

So if we're going to make it mandatory, without the threat of fine or penalty, but from a point of civic duty, why don't we make it voluntary with the request that it be completed from a point of civic duty?

[Laurel Rothman]

Because I think you probably implement things differently, quite frankly. I think in either case—