Industry Committee on July 27th, 2010

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you for the question.

Of course, as we ramp up closer and closer to another census, we know that the concerns of Canadians--not all Canadians, but some Canadians--who felt that the long-form questions were too personal, too intrusive, were going to bubble up again, just as they do every census. In fact, our tracking indicates that the number of complaints from Canadians increases every census. That was what we were facing again for 2011.

Again, we have heard the objections--that Canadians be compelled by law to answer detailed questions, which I've outlined and can do so very briefly again. Those are questions about child support, in question 53, or about spousal support, dwelling repairs, detailed questions about income, about when you usually leave home to go to work. These kinds of questions are being asked.

We believe, and we've come to the conclusion, that it is not appropriate to threaten jail, to threaten fines, to exact fines; God forbid someone actually takes it to the limit and actually finds himself with a three-month jail sentence for objecting to answer those personal questions.

That is why we sought different options. That's why we had this months-long dialogue with Statistics Canada to see whether we could have usable and reliable data that could be obtained at a reasonable cost for the purposes for which surveys are intended, while at the same time allowing those Canadians who object to this kind of personal information the ability to say no without sanction or penalty. That was a decision that we made.

So that's what we've been trying to do, and that's why we've upped the sample size to 4.5 million homes. This makes it the largest survey in the country's history.

That's a crucial difference between ourselves and the other side of the aisle in the House of Commons. We do not feel that Canadians should be forced, on threat of jail or fines, to provide this detailed information; we should at least give them the option of declining to do so.

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

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to host a few round tables, three round tables, in my constituency. About 45 constituents overall came to these round tables. It was interesting; despite all the media coverage, not one of those constituents actually brought up any opposition to this decision at all.

In my conversations I've had with constituents, they're very surprised, actually, when they understand, when they hear, that there's a threat of jail time or fines for not answering questions on how many bedrooms you have in your house, or how many hours you spend doing yardwork or housework. One of the questions in the 2006 census was on how much time, basically, you spend with your kids.

When I articulate to them that these are the types of questions that have been in the long form, and that if they refuse to tell the government how much time they spend with their kids they can be threatened with jail time or fines, they're astounded by that. I think many Canadians don't really.... You know, they fill out the long form, maybe, if they're the one in five who get it, but they don't actually know that they're threatened with jail time for not filling out those questions. They're surprised and quite agitated by the fact that we would actually threaten them with jail time for not answering a question about how much housework you do or how much yardwork you do.

Now, I've heard our opponents on the other side, the Liberals, go forward and actually, I think quite surprisingly, continue to press for prosecution for not answering these questions, or press for the threat of prosecution for not answering these questions.

Is that the crux of this issue? Is that the defining difference between the parties?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes, it is. It's a combination of the intrusiveness of some of the questions that are being asked in the 40 pages of the long form and the fact that if you object to some of those questions or wish to decline to answer those questions, the threat is fines and/or jail time, up to three months in jail.

That is in fact used by census takers. I was speaking to a former census taker on the weekend who indicated that they were instructed to use those threats of penalties quite a lot if they encountered resistance from Canadians. So it is part of their repertoire to threaten the jail time, threaten the fines.

For some people who may be new Canadians who have escaped from hideous regimes, they see this as a very real threat. This one census taker told me this story about how people were in tears, absolutely terrified of being deported if they didn't fill out the long-form census. So there are instances of that fear.

I don't think government should be around, for law-abiding Canadians, to instill fear. I think we should encourage people and use non-coercive methods if we want data from them. That's simply our position, and maybe that's a great disagreement that we have with our friends in the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Minister Clement.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

It's good to have you here this morning, Mr. Minister.

I think you probably deliberately mischaracterized, or maybe you and your members are so blinded you accidentally mischaracterized, the fundamental difference between us and you--that we expect that an industry minister makes his decisions based on fact, not on urban myth, not on supposition, not on what people on talk radio would posit as government threats.

Now, my colleague Mr. Lake certainly lays it out. He has to hold a meeting and warn people...that they had no idea that they'd be jailed, that we have to create this belief that jackboots are going to kick down the doors and make poor immigrants cry.

I've checked the statistics. Nobody in 40 years has ever gone to jail. This is a manufactured crisis.

So if we look at the manufactured crisis, we have to look at whether there was any due diligence done or any preparatory work to justify this. Could you provide the privacy impact assessment analysis that was done on the 2011 census? Were there any problems with that?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, of course the 2011 census hasn't been done yet, but--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But there was an privacy impact analysis done on it. Do you have that?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Let's be clear: StatsCan does its own consultations prior to any census, in a very professional way, with not only Canadians who are interested in this matter but also with the groups that are the recipients of the data--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do you have the impact analysis? Have you done that? Have you looked at it?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

--so in that sense they do their job. Our job is to set the public policy for....

Sorry.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But I'm asking you, did you look at the impact analysis? Did you look at it? There was a privacy impact analysis done. Did you look at it?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

We take advice from Statistics Canada as well as public servants throughout the departments. Any analysis done there is then forwarded to us--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Did you consult with the Privacy Commissioner?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

The fact of the matter is that--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Did you consult with the Privacy Commissioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Angus, let the minister finish his answer--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm just looking for a clear answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

--and then you can go to your next question.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

The fact of the matter is that, as I've said from the outset, we as MPs, we as individual members of government, have also heard from Canadians who might not automatically go to another arm of the House of Commons or another arm of government in order to make their position known, but they make it known to their MPs.

The fact of the matter is that we did it on a principled basis, that we wanted to balance off the interests of those Canadians who were worried about this with the desire for more and more data.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I was asking because, again, as the industry minister, one expects that you make decisions not just based on blind ideology. I would have expected that you would be able to refer to the privacy impact assessment that was done, because you would have found there weren't any problems. I would have expected that you would have called the Privacy Commissioner, who addresses these, and that wasn't done. My colleague Brian Masse was speaking with the Privacy Commissioner, and they have had three complaints in ten years.

Now, I suppose if you go out like my colleague Mr. Lake did and have to tell constituents that they're threatened by it, they might think there was a problem. But the fact is that this was a manufactured crisis. You don't have evidence to show that this is bubbling up as a problem.

You talk about the need for balance. You talk about the fact that nobody's offering you alternatives. Last Monday a group--quite a divergent group, including the Canada West Foundation, key bankers, municipal planners, provincial thinkers, all the top bank economists--tried to meet with you in order to address this issue and try to find solutions, and you blew them off.

How can you find balance if you're more than interested in following the people who believe black helicopters are falling from the sky but you won't meet with people who rely on the data, who are credible, and who want to find solutions?

Why did you blow off that meeting?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, you and I, Mr. Angus, are colleagues in the House of Commons. Perhaps I differ from you; I don't characterize people who disagree with me in the way that you have just done, for those Canadians who legitimately have some concerns.

I am willing to acknowledge here that people, institutions, private sector businesses, banks, love to get this data. They do. Yes, they do, and they would love to have the status quo, absolutely. What we are trying to do is find a way to balance off their desires for more and more information, more and more data, with those Canadians who have concerns about the intrusiveness of the information that is requested—demanded, not requested—and the penalties they are threatened with if they don't comply. That's the reasonable approach that we are seeking to find.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But don't you think it would be reasonable, as the Minister of Industry, that when key bank economists, social planners, municipal leaders, and provincial governments ask to sit down and meet with you about the implication of an ideological decision you made, that you would sit down and meet with them?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, I have round tables all throughout the summer. Since the House has risen, I've had round tables with businesses, round tables with Canadians generally—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But you didn't meet on the census. You refused to meet them.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

—and people are free to raise whatever issue they wish to raise with me. It's no holds barred, I can assure you of that.

And I have met with—