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.
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Well, if the government has answered that question, I don't have any problem with it. All I'm saying here is that it is the government's right to determine the level of punishment of someone who doesn't comply with the legislation.
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
It is the government's right to establish a balance. It is our duty to produce the information that the government wants.
All I'm stating here, sir, is that the quality of the information produced under a voluntary survey would be less than that under a mandatory census. That's a technical question. Every statistician on this planet would answer that question exactly the same way, and that's the only issue on my mind.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I see that Mr. Fellegi suggested that the provision to jail Canadians who don't fill out the census paperwork could be repealed, and I think Mr. Rota made some of those same points earlier.
So if the penalty for not filling out the personal and intrusive questions is removed, doesn't that make the long form voluntary? I think we've heard Mr. Rota suggest that, and Mr. Angus seemed to imply that to some extent, and you've made some of the same assertions, and Mr. Fellegi in his comments on July 22 seemed to say that as well.
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Can I just respond to that again?
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I think I will repeat myself in saying this, but the only thing I am saying is that when a census that is mandatory is turned into a survey that is voluntary, the quality of the information will fall.
The government has every right to go down this path. Nobody is disputing that the government has the right to do whatever it wants, and our job is to implement the government's decision--as long as we all understand that the statisticians are saying that the quality of data will be lower.
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think I need to point out that Canadians do want freedom to choose on this issue. The notion of threat is not ambiguous--we talked about that a bit earlier here. The intimidation and harassment does take place. I've got agriculture surveys that are used regularly in my riding, and I've had to call and ask your former department to quit calling people who were dying of cancer. They would not stop phoning them. So this idea that there's no threat to people, that there's no harassment or intimidation.... It's something that I think needs to be made known. Mr. Garneau talked about agriculture surveys, and clearly did not know what he was talking about.
I want to follow up on some of the other questions. In 2006, StatsCan asked how much a household spent annually on water. That was a mandatory question, right? It seems to be important information to you.
They asked about annual household spending on shelter. I guess you saw that as important enough to be mandatory, as well?
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
Again, we are not the users of the data. It isn't my issue whether or not the information on water consumption is important. It is the users who have told StatsCan that they need that information.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay, but you also asked about annual household spending on transportation--
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
--except that wasn't mandatory. You seemed to think that one was okay to be on a voluntary survey. There seems to be an awfully tight grey area between what needs to be mandatory and what can be voluntary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I'll allow Mr. Sheikh to respond and then we'll go to Monsieur Nadeau.
Mr. Sheikh.
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I think I actually responded to the question. The users tell us what to collect and it is our job to figure out how to collect it.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Since you are statisticians, you could perhaps give me your opinion. Is the fact that 95% of Canadians who receive a long form fill it out not a strong enough argument to say that we have a good system and that we are about to destroy something that works well?
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
From the perspective of data quality, which is really my issue, StatsCan has a world-class reputation that we produce the best possible data at the least possible cost. That is our mantra.
But as the minister said, there could be other things on the government's mind just beyond data quality. For example, he said that the threat of jail and fines, the questions, and all of that stuff, are important to the government. We don't have any issue with that.
The only thing I'm trying to highlight here is that if you go down the path of going from mandatory to voluntary, it is going to have an impact on the quality of our data. Of course it is going to go down. And that's where we left it.
As I said in my response to an earlier question, we are loyally implementing a decision from the government, whether we like it or not, and we have no issue with it.
Former employee of Statistics Canada, As an Individual
I'll just add one point to that, and that is to emphasize that every single question on the census questionnaire is approved by the government; otherwise it wouldn't be on the census questionnaire. If there are certain questions that the government, very appropriately in its own right and judgment, considers too intrusive to be included in a compulsory long-form questionnaire, they should be removed. It's the right of the government. There is no question in my mind about it.
Our problem, as Dr. Sheikh mentioned, is that we need to be open to the public, to the government, to everybody, about the quality of our data and what works better and what works less well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.
Thank you to our two witnesses, Mr. Sheikh and Mr. Fellegi.
This meeting will suspend until 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
We are now going to continue the meeting of Tuesday, July 27, 2010.
I welcome our witnesses and members of the committee to the continuation of the 29th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We're here today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to study the long-form portion of the census.
In front of us today on this panel we have Monsieur Simard,
who is a professor at the Université du Québec in Chicoutimi.
We have Mr. McLeish, who is president of the Statistical Society of Canada. We have Professor Tanny, an associate professor at York University. We have Mr. Doucet, who is the English editor of Le Québécois Libre.
Welcome to all of you. We'll begin, without further ado, with questions and comments from members of the committee, beginning with Mr. Rota.