Industry Committee on July 27th, 2010

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Recently, the Chair of the Official Languages Committee, Mr. Steven Blaney, gave an interview to a CBC journalist. The interview concerned the topic of today's debate. The journalist pointed out that community organizations—I am thinking here of Ms. Sheutiapik, Ms. Kenny and any community organization—should themselves pay to go and get the information that will be missing because these questions will become voluntary, given that this is their area of expertise. Otherwise, there will no longer be data continuity from one census to another. Mr. Blaney replied that indeed the main stakeholders concerned will have to do so, because they are in a position to do so.

Ms Kenny, would the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne be able to go and get the missing information? We understand the scientific aspect of things. Continuity will be broken from one census to another. Do you have the necessary means to go and get the missing information from one census to the other, to help the government to respect its own laws?

[Marie-France Kenny]

The government has obligations under the Official Languages Act. The community organizations are a tool, and they cooperate with the government in this regard.

As to our means, we are underfinanced. Currently, our employees are underpaid. And so it is out of the question that the communities take over a responsibility that belongs to the government. This obligation exists under the law. It is not our obligation, it is the government's obligation.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I can't wait to see you again at a hearing of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to debate the motion which was submitted by the Liberals to rectify the situation and propose what you have just laid out.

Ms. Sheutiapik, I am talking about your organization because you know it well, just like all of the Inuit organizations you belong to. Does your organization have the financial means and the human resources needed to make up for the data shortfall that will ensue because of the government's current intention to make the collection of information simply voluntary?

[Elisapee Sheutiapik]

This is provincial-territorial. I think it really is unreasonable to suggest that Inuit bear the cost of collecting data to measure the size and scope of their inequality.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I would like to know if you have the necessary funds to go after the missing information.

[Elisapee Sheutiapik]

No, we don't. That's why I'm saying it's unreasonable, because we are already at inequality in our territory.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You get the picture. Certain government people are claiming that we can always compensate. The minister was telling us this morning that they were taking a risk, but that the fact that these voluntary questionnaires will be sent to 30% of the population rather than having mandatory questionnaires sent to 20% of the population will compensate and balance things out.

In the interview in question, it was pointed out that the organizations could make up the shortfall themselves.

Ms. Kenny, are there other aspects you talked about earlier that you would like to go over to ensure that the government understands your message properly?

[Marie-France Kenny]

The responsibility of implementing the Official Languages Act is incumbent upon the government and not the community organizations. Part IV of the act clearly indicates that in order to measure significant demand the government is to use data from the decennial census in order to determine which offices will be designated.

We would certainly not be in any position to do that. It is incumbent upon the government to do so. By eliminating the linguistic questions from the census, the government is breaching the Official Languages Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Thank you, Ms. Kenny.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for appearing here. Since you are the last panel, I thought I would just take a moment or two to perhaps try to recap what I have heard here today and maybe clarify one or two other points, because I think there is some confusion.

The first point of clarification is that our government is not advocating scrapping the long-form census. There have been some suggestions by opposition members that that is our plan. It is not. We agree that much of the information gleaned from the long-form census is valuable to Statistics Canada. However, the only question is what should be mandatory and what should be voluntary. We're in agreement that the short-form census should continue to be mandatory, but our position is that the questions contained in the long-form census should be voluntary.

I suppose there can be some discussion as to whether all of the questions currently on the long-form census should be included, or whether some should be amended or dropped, as has been suggested by some of the previous panellists. But we are not saying that we want to scrap it. We're only saying that it should be voluntary because there has to be a balance, we believe, between the privacy of individuals and the coercion or intrusiveness imposed upon Canadians, and the need for government to get information that would be valuable to client groups across Canada.

I would point out as well that the only panellist we had appear before us today who deals with voluntary surveys, analyzing and compiling those surveys on a full-time basis, is Mr. Darrell Bricker. Mr. Bricker's testimony suggested that 80% of Canadians would be willing, on a voluntary basis, to answer the long-form census. He went on to say that in his opinion even those people who might tend to be under-represented could somehow be convinced to give up that information. In other words, he says that in his professional opinion, doing it on a voluntary basis could get the proper information needed by the government. And he is the only one who has appeared before us who has expertise in that area.

I would point out to you as well that what we currently have are threats or coercion being used to obtain information for the long-form census. Ms. Stoddart, who is the Privacy Commissioner of this country, has stated that in her opinion that is not appropriate. We agree. We totally agree.

So my first question would be for Mr. Coleman. What is your opinion and your organization's opinion of the coercion, the threats of imprisonment and fines, being attached to the long-form census? Should those be continued or, in your opinion, should we be going to a voluntary method of collecting that information?

[Peter Coleman, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Citizens Coalition]

Yes, I think the biggest challenge for this committee is to deal with that issue by itself. I think it's a critical issue that has to be dealt with. I think in a civilized country like Canada, the threat of throwing somebody in jail because they don't want to fill out a census is ludicrous.

I believe there is good information to be gleaned in this area. But if you listen to all of these committee meetings, and I've been to several, the one special interest group that is not here right now is the Canadian taxpayer, who is afraid of big government and doesn't like big government and understands the duty to make sure information is there and can be valued and used in a proper way. But to think that somebody is going to be thrown in jail....

There are horror stories, as Greg Weston testified today, of people being intimidated and called at home. You must deal with this in your committee and stop that from going forward.

I don't believe you get accurate information when you threaten somebody like that, either. That's my personal belief. I think there has to be a balance between the privacy issue...the fact that we are a civilized country and not a banana republic that can use the threat of a gun to put pen to paper, if you will. I think that process is a really important issue for this committee to deal with.

I honestly believe some of these people today, too--there are all kinds of voluntary surveys done in this country for consumer products or what have you. They get very accurate information from voluntary surveys and polls and questions. There are dozens of cases. Banks use them, consumer products....

So I think you can get good information from a voluntary situation. I think there's a better explanation required for the Canadian taxpayers of what's going on here as well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I appreciate that, Mr. Coleman.

Mr. Chair, my colleague Mr. Bernier has one short question he wishes to ask before we conclude, so I'll cede my time to Mr. Bernier.

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

Mr. Chair, just a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'll allow Mr. Bernier a very short question.

Mr. McTeague, on a point of order.

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

I just want something to be clarified. The witness has suggested that Mr. Weston was here. I've been here all day, and Greg Weston was not here. That's about as accurate as suggesting that the Prime Minister was the former chair in a position at your organization—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague, for that information. It's not a point of order, but we'll take it under advisement.

Mr. Bernier, a short question.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to use the rest of my colleague's time.

All through today's hearing, questions have been put to the witnesses that were against my government's decision. They were asked whether people should be fined and threatened with prison if they refuse to provide us with information. To this specific question, the witnesses replied that we should abolish the imprisonment sanction.

I am happy about that. Several even said that we should perhaps also eliminate the monetary fines. I am satisfied with these statements as they demonstrated that there was a problem and that we were correct to question this today.

There is a fundamental problem when a civilized society uses threats or force to collect data. Today, everyone is recognizing that. So we were right to call this into question and to hold this debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

I was going to go to Mr. Gravelle, but we'll go to Mr. Lake and then back to Mr. Gravelle.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Coleman, I'll have you maybe elaborate a little bit further, if you could.

As we've talked about here, there seems to be a little bit of confusion over the fundamental question we're talking about. Some think it's a statistical question. Of course, when the government took the measures we took, the steps we took, we took them from a more principled basis on a primary question of freedom and democracy: Should Canadians be forced to answer questions?

We've gone through many of those questions about the number of bedrooms, how much housework they do, and how much time they spend with their kids. Should Canadians be forced to answer those questions if they don't want to answer them, for whatever reason they might not want to answer, under threat of jail time or under threat of fines?

We can even set the jail time aside. It sounds as though everyone is unanimous that we get rid of the jail time. But with even the fines, should somebody in a poorer financial situation, someone in a lower-income household, which, it's been articulated--by Mr. Garneau, for example--as more likely to not want to answer the questions, for whatever reason...? Should someone in a low-income financial situation be faced with a $500 fine for not wanting to answer how much time they spend with their kids? Could you comment on that, and maybe on the alternatives to this coercion, this forced answering of these questions?

[Peter Coleman]

Look, I think everybody believes the government should deliver services efficiently, so I think you have an obligation to find the information the best way you can at the cheapest cost to the taxpayers and make sure you can deal with a lot of the concerns that were raised here. But I just honestly don't believe, in a society such as Canada, that by forcing people to answer questions....

I'm sorry about the reference to Greg Weston, but I had read a column and he was talking about that.

But people do get intimidated; they get called, and get threatened with jail. A lot of people are afraid of big government and the bureaucracy that goes with it, as I said earlier. I don't know if you get great information with that threat, too, so I think you have to find a way to educate Canadians on why these censuses are important, deal with questions that are relevant, and drop the ones that quite frankly aren't.

I read it on the plane today, and there are a lot of questions in that survey that I think give you no value. I think you have to work on getting questions that can make the country more effective, more efficient, more opportunistic in today's global economy. But to go back to taxpayers and the citizens and say “Do this or we'll throw you in jail” is just something that a government of any stripe should not be proud of.

This shouldn't be a political conversation. This should be one that we all agree on. Throwing somebody in jail or the threat of it should not be there in a country like Canada.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just want to clarify some of the conversations, because I think there's a lot of focus on information and the value of information. I think that's actually something we could all agree on.

In terms of the changes that have actually been made, we still have a short-form census. There was talk about the number of people in communities across the country. That's still going to be known. We're still asking who lives in the house and what their birthdates are. That's still in the short form, just as it always was. Questions such as those relating to gender and first language are all still in the short form, so they're still going to be asked. They're still going to be mandatory—just for clarification for people, because I think there are some folks who don't understand that.

The changes we've made have been to the long-form census. Again, we haven't scrapped it. It's going to be a national household survey. It will be the largest survey in Canadian history. It will be implemented and run by the experts at StatsCan, experts in statistical methodology.

Are you confident that this course of action is going to yield the information that organizations need across this country but in a way that strikes a better balance for Canadians?

[Peter Coleman]

I think that's your challenge as a committee. The challenge for all of you is to try to remove your partisan blinkers for once and find a consensus that makes it work. These censuses aren't perfect sciences; you have to continue to work to make them better.

It would be best if you around this table listened to all the concerns people had and made sure you had the quality of information you want. But deal with the privacy issues, the threats. I don't think you can say these voluntary surveys won't work. They work in the private sector. I don't know how you can say that until you try it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Coleman.

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

There was a question that Mr. Anderson asked the Privacy Commissioner, and he referred to 342 inquiries. I have documentation here from the annual reports to Parliament from 2000-01 and 2001-02, where those numbers come from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. If you give that to the clerk she will have it translated and distributed to members of the committee.

Our last round will go to Mr. McTeague.