Industry Committee on July 27th, 2010

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm kind of baffled by the line of questioning from Mr. Bernier.

This morning Mr. Anderson tried to make us believe that the questions that were asked were questions from Statistics Canada, when all along they're questions from the government, to whom the census belongs. It belongs to the government.

So Mr. Bernier is the owner of the 2006 census. If he feels that strongly about imprisonment, or threats of fines, or the questions that are asked, can you give me an opinion as to why he wouldn't have changed it when he was industry minister? He had every opportunity to change the census, because the Minister of Industry owns that census. The government owns it.

Why didn't he change it, or why didn't he start the process of making changes, if he feels that strongly about it? Or is this just an issue that popped up because this is the summer and they're just trying to get media, maybe? I'm baffled.

Can anybody answer that?

[Prof. David Tanny]

I can't answer for Mr. Bernier, but I can answer for myself. I didn't have the opportunity to send in a brief, but I do have a short statement to make, if you wouldn't mind.

The end of the compulsory long-form census in favour of the voluntary national home survey has resulted in some lively, engaging, and fruitful discussion. Statistics Canada believes that “one of the major challenges is to clearly demonstrate the importance of the Census to Canadians”. This comes from an article, “Testing for the 2011 Census of Canada”, page 3.

The media has certainly assisted us in that endeavour at no monetary cost to Statistics Canada. For this, all taxpayers should be grateful. However, the media has not helped to place the debate in its proper context. The government's ending of the compulsory long-form census is part of the debate concerning an individual's rights versus the state's rights in a free and democratic society. An individual's duty to the state and the state's duty to the individual form an important part of this never-ending debate.

The government has concluded, correctly I believe, that an individual has the right to choose whether or not to participate in what amounts to a survey, even though it is called a long-form census. The issue is not the economic or social usefulness of a survey. The issue is not how many people have complained. The issue is not good citizenry. The issue is not how privately the information will be held. The issue is to what extent the state has the right to compel the individual to provide information. The issue is about when an individual has the right, without any explanation, to just say no.

There was a time in Canada when the police could stop an individual and demand identification upon threat of arrest. This right, clearly, is beneficial to the state in performing the obligation of preventing crime and apprehending criminals. Yet despite the benefits and likely cost savings, Canadian society has freely and firmly chosen to limit this right of the police. The uproar about a temporary Ontario law restoring this power to the police in a limited public space, and only during the G-8 and G-20 sessions, is evidence that Canadians have not changed their minds about the need for this right of the individual.

Compelling an individual because society benefits is one of those oft-talked-about slippery slopes. For concreteness, I give two examples, neither of which I endorse.

Mandatory voting is the first one. Some countries, such as Australia, do have mandatory voting for their federal elections. Canada does not, notwithstanding that voter turnout rates have declined. A free society should benefit when its citizenry vote. Compelling completion of the long-form census is not far from compelling revelation of candidate preferences in a much more anonymous process.

The second example is requiring all children to attend public schools during the hours that public schools are in session. The argument is that the public schools would be strengthened, children from all backgrounds would mix, and better citizenry would result. Children would still be entitled to attend private schools at other times, and so are not deprived of their private education—or at least this is what the proponents might argue.

Besides, the gain to society outweighing the parents' rights is eerily similar to the argument being made for the long form—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Excuse me, Professor Tanny. I think Mr. Gravelle has an interjection to make.

[Prof. David Tanny]

Sure.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you for your statement there.

In your opinion, with regard to census collection, do you think it's a citizen's responsibility to gather...for the government to gather data? I mean, this is useful data that, as Mr. Simard said, is very useful in urban planning. So....

[Prof. David Tanny]

Well, I have an alternative, if that's what you're asking me. I believe if you look at the—

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

No, I'm asking you if you think it's wrong.

[Prof. David Tanny]

I'm not saying that it's not a citizen's duty. That's not the issue, though. The issue is whether there are other ways to do it that do not compel.

There are a number of things we could compel the citizen to do. We could compel the accused citizen, for example, to testify at a trial, to allow a judge to question him. That would also save time, save money, and make it easier for the prosecution. We don't do that in Canada.

Where is the dividing line? That's the issue.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have a question for Mr.—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Gravelle. And I think Mr. McLeish would also like to respond to you.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

Yes, I'd just like to say that the Statistics Act, of course, was passed and is under the control of the Government of Canada, and I see no problem with changing the penalties there for non-compliance. I think the phrase “under threat of imprisonment” is very misplaced in this discussion, since it's never occurred, but “under threat of fine” makes perfect sense.

I park in downtown Ottawa, downtown Toronto, and I also drive at speeds occasionally exceeding 100 kilometres an hour, also under threat of fine. I believe that the value to the Government of Canada, to the society, to the provinces, and to all of the interest groups that have spoken on this debate makes that small price, perhaps a $100 fine—which is in fact consistent with the practice in Australia and with the American community survey, which Professor Tanny brought up—a level that I don't think most Canadians or statisticians would have a problem with.

The word “mandatory” itself says to Canadians: we would like you to fill this out. If, on the other hand, you proceeded with the words “intrusive” and “voluntary”, you are saying to Canadians: don't bother filling this out, because it'll just disturb the rest of your day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McLeish.

Mr. Gravelle, do you have an additional question?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes.

Mr. McLeish, I'd like to know if you offered any advice to the minister on this decision he's taking.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

Well, on behalf of the Statistical Society of Canada we wrote first on July 9. We've written again, with the points that you have in front of you, and they include the reinstatement of the 2011 census. They do provide for, and I think they should provide for, a proper study of the impact of the voluntary survey.

However, there's one more issue at play here, and that is the reputation of Statistics Canada for independence. As many people have testified, Statistics Canada is a pre-eminent agency in the world. I believe it should be reaffirmed that they are able to provide data, both methodology and analysis, that is independent of the judgments of government and NGOs and other special interest groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, very briefly, Mr. Gravelle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Very briefly, then, did the minister respond?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

I haven't had a response from the minister, but I believe he's quite busy these days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gravelle.

Now we're going to go to Mr. McTeague.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I will ask this of all of you here. With regard to the integrity of the information that is before us, whether it is mandatory or not mandatory, it seems to me that if you want an outcome, say for instance on jury duty, or for instance if you want to ensure that...I don't know; I don't see the government making a request to remove the mandatory aspects of filing an income tax. There are certain public goods that tend to put that sort of utilitarian process of the good of the many coming before the interests of the individual.

If we're talking about mandatory from the perspective of fines and jail, that may be one thing, but without that potential for compliance, without the certainty of compliance, I'm wondering how can you then make an argument that a voluntary or less onerous penalty would have the same effect.

Mr. McLeish, could you expand on what you're trying to establish as a potential compromise?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

The compromise, in the next round, would effectively do both. In the United Kingdom, where they have an 11-year lead time before the cancellation of the 2021 census, there will be all sorts of interest groups and other considerations in providing data to them.

The compromise, I suggest, is to once again do the long form in its usual fashion--it's presumably prepared--and to simultaneously run a voluntary census with Statistics Canada and the National Statistics Council being responsible for providing a report indicating the degree of bias, where individuals or groups are undercounted, and how that bias is going to affect us in the future.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. McLeish, one of the greater comparisons suggested by my colleagues on the other side--a friend of mine called them the Vandals and Visigoths and Luddites on this issue, but I won't be that disparaging—was that the patterns established in the United States may be very similar to Canada. Given that the Americans have looked at a form of voluntary compliance and have walked away from that, what does that really say for us in terms of the next 10 years, as you are...through your proposal?

I mean, if the Americans have rejected this, if we have more onerous interventions from places like Sweden and Europe in general, to get away from this intrusiveness and this idea that seems to have been trotted out suddenly by our Conservative Party members, how do we...? Are we not using the best methodologies that are out there, the experience of other nations, to guide us into the determination that maybe it's best to leave well enough alone?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

Well, in answer to the question briefly, the U.S. did study this in 2003. They sent essentially the same questionnaire to people, with the covering message that it was, on the one hand, voluntary, and in the other case that it was mandatory. The difference in response rates was approximately 20%. In other words, the voluntary survey had about a 20% less response rate. As Statistics Canada does as well, of course they do repeated callbacks. If they wanted to have even vaguely comparable data quality, they needed so many callbacks that it was infinitely more expensive in this case, and so they abandoned it and returned to a mandatory American community survey.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

If by statistical or scientific analysis being done day in and day out--and we'll have a chance to speak to a pollster a little later on--a voluntary system, which seems to be the panacea offered by Conservatives who have suddenly discovered this is an issue...if 19% of Canadians aren't prepared to even fill that out, what does this say for the entire credibility and assumptions that we need? What does it say for our understanding of our country?

It seems to me that while we want to talk a great deal about knowing a bit about our country as it evolves, perhaps more rapidly than other nations, if you don't know where you're going, chances are, as Yogi Berra said, you're going to wind up somewhere else.

With 20% of people in Canada saying they're not going to comply if it's voluntary, how certain are you that it will be necessary even to have a Statistics Canada down the road?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

I can't really speak to that, but I do believe that 20% will very likely not respond. I believe the government's responsible for those 20% as well as the 80%, and the policy should be made for everyone.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

What if the damage is already done? If the government, in a sudden fit of enlightenment, decided to back off--I doubt it's going to do that, but if it did--do you believe there are organizations across this country that would take up this issue and say, “Damn it, we're not going to let this happen, we're not going to comply”, which would of course create the damage that is potential, either with the voluntary system or without?