Industry Committee on July 27th, 2010

[Prof. Don McLeish]

Well, I refuse to believe that the damage is done. I believe we can move forward with this, and in fact there's an incredible silver lining here. All of the groups that have spoken in favour of the long form of the census in the data, and Statistics Canada in general, have shown a tremendous vote of confidence in what they have done. Canadians are more than ever aware of the data that's provided and its importance to society, the economy, small business, and so on. I believe that if the mandatory long form of the census returns, we will get pretty much the same response rate that we've had in the past, which is 99% or so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McLeish, and thank you, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Lake.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I have a quick clarification on Mr. Gravelle's comments regarding the last census. Of course, the order in council that established the 2006 census was dated March 22, 2005, under the former Liberal government. This is in fact the first census that this government is responsible for.

Moving to the question of the day here, it seems there might be some confusion about the question. It seems that some people feel this question is a statistical question. But the reality is that the fundamental question that we're debating is about our free and democratic society here in Canada.

In a free and democratic society, which we have in Canada, should individuals be threatened with jail time or fines for refusing to answer, for whatever reason, questions like how many bedrooms are in your house; how much housework did you do last week; or how much time did you spend with your kids last week? Those are all questions from the 2006 census. In a free and democratic society, should someone be threatened with jail time or fines for not wanting to answer those questions, for whatever reason? It doesn't matter what the reason is.

The Liberal Party, of course, has said, yes, that should be the case. Our party says, no, it shouldn't be the case, and we are making a change because of that. That's what this debate is about today.

Of course, then we answer the statistical question and bring in the experts to answer the statistical questions about how best do we collect the information we need to collect. We rely on the experts at Statistics Canada to do that.

Mr. McLeish, I want to go to the fundamental first question. In your view, should Canadians like your daughter--you were talking about your daughter--be threatened with jail time or a fine for not wanting to answer the question, “How much housework did you do last week?”, if she just doesn't want to answer the question?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

Sir, with respect, you're asking a question that you yourself have control over. Statisticians, to the best of my knowledge, have not enacted laws sending people to jail or fining them.

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

Okay, but I'm asking you a question as a Canadian, in your view--because you're advocating for a mandatory long form that would ask these types of questions.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

No. My society has not taken a position on what the penalties associated with non-compliance with the Statistics Act should be, because that's not really our expertise. That's a government decision.

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

Your association does advocate for penalties, though.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

No, my association advocates that the long form of the census be mandatory, as in the past.

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

Okay, so if it's going to be mandatory, there has to be penalties attached to it. If a Canadian citizen doesn't want to answer a question about how much housework they did last week, should they be subject to a fine?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

I think that's very clearly a decision that you should make. The word “mandatory”, for example, assigns to all sorts of things: where I park my car, or how fast I drive on the highway. It's mandatory that I not drive speaking on a cellphone. The fines associated with non-compliance with those laws are under the auspices of our various levels of government, including the government here.

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

But with respect, Mr. McLeish, you say it's a decision for the government to make. The government has made a decision and your organization has waded into it, saying that it is the wrong decision, saying that it should be mandatory, which implies penalties. It's incumbent on your organization, then, to say what those penalties should be. Which penalties are acceptable--the threat of jail time, the threat of fines--for not wanting to answer how much housework you did last week?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

In my personal view, they should not be threatened with jail time, in part because it has never happened and it's a red herring in this debate, and in part because it's all out of proportion--just as I shouldn't be threatened with jail time if I inadvertently leave my car five minutes too long on one of the streets in Ottawa.

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

Fines?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

In terms of fines, look, I have to pay, as do you and most Canadians, a large chunk of my salary to the government for policy, to make decisions on our behalf that benefit society. How much time—

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

Speaking about this particular issue, the concern has been brought up by Mr. Garneau, as well as by you and by one of the other witnesses today, that under a voluntary system the people who might not answer questions are those of low income, for example. Further to that, of course, if it's mandatory, those are the same people you're going to have to threaten with fines. Should a single mother with three kids, who's busy doing all the things she does and decides she doesn't want to answer, like her down-the-street neighbour, questions on how much housework she does or how much time she spends with her kids, be threatened with a fine of $500?

[Prof. Don McLeish]

When you overpark, or drive at 150—

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

We're not talking about overparking or driving.... Driving over the speed limit is dangerous.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

The point is that the maximum penalty associated with non-compliance with rules and laws in this country is not always at the top of people's lists when they consider doing something.

The word “mandatory” is important. I submit that the level of fine associated with it, which is under government jurisdiction, is much, much less important. I am not here to suggest $10,000 fines so that everyone will fill out the long form.

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

What is the appropriate fine for that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lake and Mr. McLeish.

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very kind.

I would just like to point out that the matter of compulsion and imprisonment, which irritates my Conservative colleagues so much, has been around since 1918. Mr. Lake surely remembers 1918 because that was the year that the National Hockey League was founded. Since that time, a number of Conservative and Liberal governments have been in power. This provision has been around for a long time. As you are currently in power, gentlemen, perhaps you could introduce a bill to abolish this provision.

Contrary to what my friend Mr. Bernier said earlier, this is not the issue today. The issue is science. I know that some Conservatives believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, but the world was not created 5,000 years ago. Once again, these are subjective beliefs. Let's get back to the science of the matter.

Mr. Simard, I would like to know how scientific research will be affected by what the Conservative government is suggesting.

[Martin Simard]

Research will certainly be affected. We will be left without tools.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. If we are told that 67% of Montreal's population speaks English, we will not know whether that information is accurate. In reality, the figure is perhaps 61% or perhaps 77%. We will be unable to measure the inaccuracy, but we will always be unsure.

In an information society, scientists in the social or environmental sciences, or in other scientific areas, will no longer really be able to use that data, since it will be considered as unreliable and inaccurate. That could affect the reputation of Canadian research papers published internationally.

In addition to all that, we are wondering how, in an age of globalization and information, a government can reduce the reliability of information on society, economy and the country. It is a bit like making things more difficult on purpose.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Okay.

Mr. McLeish, given your knowledge of the Canadian census and given what we currently know about Statistics Canada, I would like to know whether the privacy of Canadians is in any way compromised.

[Prof. Don McLeish]

As far as I know, there have been no compromises. The fact that you might find out that the average number of rooms in my census tract is 8.4 doesn't tell you how many rooms are in my house, since there are 7,900 other people living there.

So as far as I'm concerned, invasion of privacy is not generated when we provide aggregate information about groups of people. Privacy is invaded only when an individual's details are publicized, and I don't believe that has ever happened.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen.