Evidence of meeting #29 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
First of all, essential data would be lost that is used to plan and deliver public health programs and health services in every region in Canada. My colleagues and I both feel it would have a very real and direct impact.
Second of all, it would have a negative impact on research investment in Canada, on innovation and all health services related research. It is especially significant in Quebec. Quebec's health insurance system....
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
2:15 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
Researchers at the Université de Montréal and McGill University use RAMQ data to establish links with census data for planning in terms of populations. So it is very important. The impact is very real. And I find it very troubling that the real impact of cancelling the census has not been evaluated.
The costs would be staggering. They include not just the $30 million for a larger census, but more importantly the effects on all government research and planning, which have not been evaluated.
If I were making the decision, if I were in your shoes, I would make sure to do the census this time around and to create committees to look into limiting the consequences for Canadians. No matter what, you have to have a government-mandated census, otherwise the impact and the costs would be staggering. If all of you, in your communities, tried to find this information, you would not be able to, and the costs to everyone and every organization concerned would be huge. In my view, we are not able to do that right now.
2:15 p.m.
Chair, Advisory Pannel on Labour Market Information, As an Individual
Can I just add something to that?
2:15 p.m.
Chair, Advisory Pannel on Labour Market Information, As an Individual
I think one of the principal concerns is the loss of continuity.
2:15 p.m.
A voice
Absolutely.
2:15 p.m.
Chair, Advisory Pannel on Labour Market Information, As an Individual
Take as an example the study predicting diabetes. Nobody does a study that just looks at one particular census; you're always tracking the changes over five years. So you'd be looking at the determinants of health outcomes not just in 2006 but also in 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006, and looking at the changes in lifestyles and then predicting from that.
Even if the voluntary survey worked out fairly well, we'll never be able to establish a bridge from 2006 through 2011. As I said, in my view it will take three or four cycles of a voluntary survey before we're able to make use of it. So we're going to have this continuous, pretty solid data through 2006, and then I think we're going to have a fog for a number of periods.
It's kind of a shame for the people who did take the trouble to fill out surveys in 2001, 2006, and other years. We won't get the full benefit of theirs, because it's going to hit a dead end.
2:15 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
Mr. Drummond, that would presume that we eventually do know the weights and can figure it out, and it's unbiased in the long term, right?
So that would be the best-case scenario.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Hébert, you said it could mean a direct cost of $30 million. If I understand correctly, institutions seeking specific data would have to get to work. Is that what you mean? Are you saying it will cost $30 million to obtain the data that Statistics Canada will no longer have?
2:15 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
According to Statistics Canada, increasing the number of voluntary survey forms distributed will cost $30 million. So we are talking direct costs. The indirect costs are huge because Statistics Canada provides a service to all Canadians, a service used by partner agencies across the country.
2:15 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
Every Canadian contributes to it.
First of all, we give our information. And that information is confidential.
We have never violated privacy.
Because of that, there is a huge impact on all the other organizations, at every level.
The costs of replacing the survey are huge, even if it were possible over time. What is more, there would be a break in data continuity. It would no longer be possible to study long-term effects related to diabetes, for example.
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
So the institution would have to ensure that continuity.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I get started with the rest of my questions, can you point out which questions in the 2006 census asked about diabetes?
2:15 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
What they typically do is they link questions on income, education, sex—which are part of the short form, obviously—and the counts. So with anything that determines socio-economic status, they effectively link that to any other database.
So you don't ask about the actual condition. What you do is that you link it to another data set. That's all done privately, anonymously, within StatsCan—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
—and then you're able to actually determine trends over time.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that it's not a specific question about diabetes.
2:20 p.m.
Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Medical Association Journal
Absolutely; it's not a specific question within the study itself.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
My question, then, for Mr. Drummond will sound a little repetitive if you heard my questions for Mr. McLeish. I made the argument to Mr. McLeish that this is not a statistical question the government is trying to answer with the measures that we've taken. We're answering a fundamental question about democratic freedom in our society.
The primary question is should individuals be threatened with jail time and/or fines because they don't want to answer such questions as how many bedrooms are in your house, how much housework do you do, how much time do you spend with your kids, or those types of things? Some people, the opposition parties, say, yes, that's the way to go, and we say, no, we don't think that should happen.
I guess my question for you is do you think that Canadians, in order for us to achieve the mandatory part of the long form you're talking about, should be threatened with jail time and/or fines if they don't want to answer a question? I'll use the specific example of how much housework you do a week.
2:20 p.m.
Chair, Advisory Pannel on Labour Market Information, As an Individual
Actually, it's interesting that you paired the two, because I think you've picked out the two parts of the long form of the census that are not necessary.
I'll declare my bias; in 23 years as a finance official, my approach to any policy issue is exactly the same: what is the problem? If the problem is the threat of jail time, remove it. You don't need it. It's not used. If the problem—and this was the majority of complaints to the 2006 survey—is the survey of household activity, do you need that? In my view, you do not need that in the long form of the census. You should reserve the census questions to questions that are difficult to ask through other means. You can actually get at household activity through a much smaller survey.
So I would say that if those are the two concerns, you can take those and address both of them, and keep in place the rest.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
We'll deal with fines, then, specifically, as opposed to jail time.
In 2006, Statistics Canada asked how much a household spent annually on water. That's question H6(c). Does that sound as though it should be a mandatory question? Should someone be forced to pay a fine if they just don't want to answer that question for whatever reason? I don't know why they wouldn't, but let's say they have a reason not to answer.
