Human Resources Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[Anne Crassweller]

Would the government not be interested in finding solutions to encourage participants if they believe that the long-form census provided value for them?

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

The point I was trying to make is that if you make the fine very nominal, you're more likely to rely on people's civic duty to complete the form. It's not as if the questions would be taken out altogether, but they would just be made voluntary. I think the consensus is that we're getting very close to a voluntary census.

But I have one more question, and I would ask this of Ms. Davis as well—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, Mr. Komarnicki, but your time has expired, so you don't have time for one more question. But there'll be a second round, so you'll have time at that point.

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

Well, that's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes.

All right, so we will begin a second round. It will be a shorter round of three minutes each.

We will begin with Mr. Savage, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing from Toronto.

I would just remind everybody that nobody's ever been jailed for not filling out the long-form census, and I think we all agree that we shouldn't have jail time. That's just a bit of a diversion.

We called this couple of sessions on the census, and a lot of other committees--the industry committee and I believe the status of women committee--are looking at it today as well. We specifically wanted to look at the impact on the lowest-income Canadians, the most marginalized, because they are the ones who are going to be hurt by this. Last week this committee tabled a report on poverty, which I think is very good. It's similar to a report that was done by the Senate. The problem is that a lot of the recommendations in there and a lot of the work that's been done in that report can't be followed up on without tools like the long-form census. The old saying is “you can't manage what you can't measure”.

Mr. Wycks, first of all, thank you for your testimony. It was very helpful, because it does go to this issue of a mandatory versus a voluntary census. I think in your comments you indicated that only a mandatory survey can provide accurate data over time, and you specifically indicated that with regard to aboriginal Canadians, new Canadians, and lower-income Canadians there would be doubts about the data. Can you explain that a little bit more?

Then, perhaps, Councillor...if there's time.

[Anne Crassweller]

I think the issue, just to reiterate, is that it has been shown in research work around the world, across this country, and by very many statisticians that it is in fact the groups you have highlighted who will be less likely to participate in the voluntary surveys, and who therefore will be missed. That is not measurable, so it can fluctuate, and therefore comparisons over time will no longer be relevant. They're not accurate.

I think the statement that if you can't measure it you can't manage it is a very succinct way of summarizing the issue.

[Janet Davis]

I would just add that Statistics Canada itself has modelled the non-response bias that's likely to occur in three sample municipalities, one of them being Toronto. Very clearly, the modelling that Statistics Canada has done shows that there will be significant bias in particular populations. Low-income families will be under-represented significantly as a result of the non-response bias, as will construction versus public-sector administration jobs. Also, the cultural diversity of the city will not be measured accurately. There will be an over-representation of the Chinese population, and a significant under-representation of the black community and youth. So we know that the bias will be there, and the very populations we hope to serve will be under-represented as a result of the non-response bias.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Vellacott. Mr. Savage, you'll have a chance, I'm sure, with the next question.

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

I'll maybe address my question to Mr. Wycks right off the top, then.

Wayne Smith, the chief statistician at Statistics Canada, said, “The national household survey will produce usable and useful data that can meet the needs of many users.”

My question is to Mr. Wycks of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association. Can you explain why you as an organization, or you as an individual, feel you are in a better position to comment on the data than is the head statistician at Statistics Canada, who said it will produce usable and useful data?

[Brendan Wycks]

Yes, I'd be happy to.

Our organization is the single authoritative voice of the marketing survey and public opinion research industry in Canada, and we represent all of its sectors. Our members are research practitioners, experts in survey methodology.

There was a question earlier about Darrell Bricker from Ipsos Public Affairs. Darrell is a very prominent senior member of our industry, and is quite well respected, so what he has to say cannot be dismissed lightly. But I will say that his opinion is not shared by the vast majority of members of our association, and there is a strong consensus view among our members that the voluntary national household survey will not produce data with the same degree of rigour and reliability that the mandatory long-form census questionnaire produces.

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

Okay, I accept that. I need to get on with my questions here.

I appreciate the fact that you're acknowledging there's split opinion within your association, but I guess I'd go to this kind of a question then. You're well aware that it's up to the government. The cabinet actually--and whoever wants to can respond here--makes decisions in terms of what's mandatory and what's voluntary. Recently the government has declined certain questions. The Paul Martin government said certain questions were necessary. So it is currently the government or the cabinet.

Do you feel that a question such as what time people leave for work in the morning should be a mandatory question? How strongly do you feel that this should be a mandatory as opposed to a voluntary question? Do you feel so strongly about it that you believe people should be exposed to fines or imprisonment if they don't say when they leave for work in the morning?

[Janet Davis]

Let's put aside the fines and imprisonment, because I do think they are a red herring.

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

No, it's my time, ma'am. I'll finish up here.

Insofar as it's mandatory, it's required. If you're saying there are no fines and imprisonment, that's not mandatory any more--

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

Point of order, Chair.

Mr. Vellacott asked the question. He should allow time for a response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Savage. It's a very short time, and I'll allow Mr. Vellacott to use his time the way he would like to.

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

I have a very short time, so I would bluntly disagree with you when you say that can be dismissed because it's no longer mandatory if there are no longer imprisonments or fines. You can't cut it otherwise.

[Janet Davis]

Let me answer the question.

Is it important to know when people go to work? Absolutely. We need to understand what the demands are on our transportation capacity, both roads and public transit, and we need to know where people are going and what time of the day they're going. How else can we understand what the needs are for our transit systems?

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

Okay, so I've got your answer then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm sorry, that's your time. Thank you.

We'll now go to Madame Beaudin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us today.

May I point out that the only reason given by the government was imprisonment provision. The members on this side of the table are all in favour of doing away with the imprisonment provision. So then, this argument does not hold water. I'm not sure if you agree with me, but I think this is a case of creating a problem where one did not exist before. I am even more convinced of that on hearing your testimony this morning.

As my colleague said earlier, we conducted a study on poverty which we tabled last week. We often asked ourselves how best to gauge poverty. I would imagine that this would involve drawing comparisons every year between Canada and other countries and correlating data on the individuals targeted in our study.

More specifically with respect to this study, I want to know if will be possible to implement the proposed measures to deal with poverty if we do not have all of the data needed to evaluate our target population groups.

[Brendan Wycks]

I'd like to make the first attempt at answering that question. And in doing so, I'd like to refer the committee to a very helpful article or paper that was recently published in a prominent journal called Canadian Public Policy. It's volume 36, number 32010, I believe, and it was published in September of this year. The article is entitled “The Importance of the Long Form Census to Canada”written by David A. Green and Kevin Milligan, from the department of economics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. To quote a short excerpt from that, it says that

All voluntary Statistics Canada surveys come with a set of weights of this type that researchers need to use to obtain accurate statistics. But constructing those weights requires having a “true” population benchmark, and the census is that benchmark. Thus, without the census, both the stratification and weighting stages of all other surveys would be affected. For the LFS this would mean inferior statistics on unemployment and employment. Beyond the set of surveys collected by Statistics Canada, privately collected (e.g., by polling firms) surveys

--the members of our association--

must also be compared to some standard to ensure they are providing unbiased statistics. Comparing them to some other voluntary survey (such as the NHS) which has its own, unknown, response biases is obviously of limited usefulness. Thus, to ensure the quality of these surveys, the mandatory census short and long forms are important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, that's all the time for that question.

Mr. Watson, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing and for your testimony today.

Ms. Davis, I'd like to start with you, if I could.

Thinking through the logic of your testimony today, if there's no penalty and enforcement, then how is something mandatory? How will people not treat it as if it's voluntary?

[Janet Davis]

It's a civic duty, just like voting and other contributions we make as a society.

But I did just want to add, if I might, a previous--