Industry Committee on July 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 9^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, this Tuesday, July 27, 2010.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're here for a study of the long-form portion of the census.

In front of us today are Minister Clement and Deputy Minister Dicerni. Welcome to you both.

We'll begin with an opening statement from the minister.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I'm pleased to be here today to talk about the government's decision to replace the mandatory census long form with a voluntary form.

Our government's reason for replacing the mandatory census with a voluntary national survey on the long form is clear. We do not believe it is appropriate to compel Canadians to divulge extensive private and personal information. We do not believe Canadians should be forced under threat of fines, jail, or both to divulge the answers to questions such as these: How many sick days did you take last year? Were you paid for those? What were your total payments for your primary dwelling last year? Do you have any broken floor tiles in need of repair in your bathroom?

We recognize that the information gathered in the long-form census is valuable. However, we also recognize that a balance must be drawn when the government is collecting data under the threat of fines, jail, or both.

Now, although the census goes back to 1871, the long-form census has only been around since 1971. The level of detailed personal information that Canadians are being asked to hand over to the government has grown. The basic eight census questions have remained constant for decades. The additional questions that suddenly appeared in 1971 have been modified, with new ones added each census.

The short-form census is mandatory and consists of eight mandatory questions on basic demographic information, such as date of birth, gender, marital status and mother tongue. This form will be distributed to all Canadian households.

Now, as both a member of Parliament and the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, I have heard directly from individuals and groups a very compelling message--that the government should not threaten people with prosecution when collecting detailed private and personal data. That is why our government announced that we would no longer punish Canadians for choosing not to complete the 40-page long-form survey sent to 20% of households.

Now, critics of this decision believe that if a Canadian refuses to fill out the long form, that person deserves to be prosecuted to a maximum fine of $500, or to imprisonment of three months, or both. The government asked Statistics Canada to provide options for administering a voluntary long-form questionnaire. I want to be clear on this point: it was our government that took the decision to put an end to the concept of threatening Canadians with fines and/or jail time for not completing the 40-page census long form, and we then sought options from Statistics Canada on how to implement a reliable voluntary survey. This led to the creation and implementation of the national household survey.

This reasoned and responsible approach is about finding a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians. That long-form data will now be collected through this new voluntary survey, the national household survey. The questions that will be asked in the new survey are identical to the questions that would have been asked in the mandatory long-form census. Moreover, on the advice of StatsCan, who recognized that the sample size would decrease as the long form becomes voluntary, we have agreed to send the national household survey to 4.5 million Canadian households, almost double the sample size from 2006. This will be the largest survey distributed to the Canadian population in our history.

The short-form census of population remains mandatory. We count on every Canadian to provide this basic information, as they did in previous censuses. StatsCan will administer the national household survey in close coordination with the census, and will use a variety of non-coercive methods to encourage Canadians to respond to the survey. We will also take steps to strengthen the communications and advertising efforts around the national household survey in order to address concerns about response rates.

Now, this is the first time StatsCan is conducting the national household survey. StatsCan will be monitoring the results carefully, applying the same rigorous methods and standards used for all of its voluntary surveys. This will achieve the appropriate balance between the need to collect information on households to inform public policy without undue legal requirements on Canadians to do so.

A number of concerns have been raised after the announcement. Let me try to shed some light on this debate.

Some critics have raised a concern that the government will not be able to comply with its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

But I assure you that all the questions on official languages that were asked in the 2006 census will be asked in the 2011 short-form census questionnaire.

The new national household survey includes questions on Canadians' knowledge of official languages, mother tongue, and languages spoken at home. This government remains fully committed to take into account the priorities of the office of the commissioner of languages in the development and implementation of its policies, programs, and services.

Genealogists also told us that they worry about no longer being able to refer to the personal information included in the long-form questionnaire after 92 years, without the respondent's consent. In order to address those concerns, I specifically asked Statistics Canada to include in the national household survey a question asking the respondents for their consent to the release of personal information after 92 years.

As I've stated before, our government felt the need to strike a fair and reasonable balance between asking mandatory personal and intrusive questions and making those questions voluntary. However, we've not heard anything from the opposition or critics regarding their views on which questions should be mandatory versus voluntary. Now the opposition parties have promised to force all Canadians to answer personal and intrusive questions about their private lives under threat of jail, fine, or both.

With the opposition failing to support our government's tough on crime agenda, I find it curious that the only people the opposition are willing to get tough on are those law-abiding Canadians who do not want to divulge extensive personal and private information to representatives of the state. We believe, however, that our new approach, combining a mandatory short-form census with a voluntary long-form survey, achieves an appropriate balance between the need for data to inform public policy research while respecting the privacy of Canadians.

I want to comment for a moment on the role of the cabinet and the suggestion by some that politicians should play no role in these decisions.

Under section 31 of the Statistics Act, answering census questions is mandatory, and Canadians who refuse are subject to fine or imprisonment. I understand that there are some who believe that the people's elected representatives should have no say in this decision, but that is not what the legislation provides. The legislation requires democratic accountability before the penal power of the state is engaged. Specifically, subsection 21(1) of the legislation says that cabinet must approve the questions that Canadians are forced to answer.

Mr. Chairman, this just plain makes sense. If a Canadian is subject to imprisonment for not answering, he or she should be assured that the mandatory questions were approved by the democratically elected government. Further, citizens deserve to have the right of appeal to their democratically elected representatives rather than be told that they have no rights because democratic accountability has no place in the census.

As I said, starting with the Trudeau government in the 1970s, Liberal cabinets have dramatically expanded the list of mandatory questions. Now, one can agree or disagree with those decisions, but they were properly made by elected governments discharging their accountability under the legislation.

Our government has exercised our statutory responsibility differently--by reducing the number of mandatory questions and increasing the number of voluntary ones. Again, this is what the legislation provides. So to those in the opposition or to commentators who have criticized not just the decision but the very authority for the decision, I ask this simple question: who do you want to decide under what circumstances you are subject to jail--your duly elected representatives or someone else who is unaccountable to you?

I believe our government's decision finds that balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.

I look forward to hearing the views from today's committee meeting. This coming spring, I encourage all Canadians to fill out the national household survey should they choose to do so. StatsCan will continue to conduct and oversee the census process, and its employees will maintain the same rigorous methods and standards used for all of its surveys.

Thank you, Chair. Merci, monsieur le président.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The members of the committee now have 50 minutes for questions and comments.

We begin with Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Minister, I would first like to congratulate you on your act of courage last Sunday. We all heard it on the news. I hope you will demonstrate the same courage again today in answering my questions.

Mr. Clement, is it true that senior members in the finance department, that senior members in the Privy Council, including the clerk himself, and senior members in StatsCan recommended to the Prime Minister to maintain the mandatory long-form questionnaire?

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

No, I have no knowledge of what PCO or Finance would recommend. I can tell you that we've had a dialogue for months with StatsCan on the nature of the long-form census. We take full accountability for the decision, as a government, to move from a mandatory long form to a voluntary set of questions with the view to balancing off the need for this data with the concerns of Canadians over the intrusive and personal nature of the questions.

That was a government decision. There's no question about that. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. We've worked with StatsCan over the months to implement that kind of decision, to make sure that the data that is collected is usable and reliable for the purposes for which it was intended.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you. I was hoping to get an answer on that one, but let me ask you another question.

Are you intimately familiar with the long-form questionnaire from the 2006 census?

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

I've been working more on the 2011 national household survey, which was released yesterday and is now found online. I'm much more familiar with that. But I'll try to answer any questions, and maybe--

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

The reason I bring it up is that I've heard you, up until very recently, state that, you know, Canadians shouldn't have to tell people how long it takes them to get to work and what time they go to work. But those questions are not actually on the census.

I've heard Minister Baird talk about how many bathrooms. That question is not on the census.

I've heard Mr. Bernier make similar inventions.

I've even heard Mr. Blaney, on the radio, talking about how people have no business knowing what you have for breakfast.

If you're going to speak about these kinds of supposedly intrusive questions, I would recommend to all of you who are going to make these statements that you actually know what questions are on the long-form census.

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

Can I be permitted to respond to that and clarify the situation?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Sure.

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

Obviously I was speaking with knowledge of the 2011 national household survey, which has been released and is found online at StatsCan.

Question 48 asks, “What time did this person usually leave home to go to work?” Question 50 asks you to give the total number of weeks worked for pay, including how much time was taken for vacation, or sick leave with pay, wages, salaries, tips, or commission. Question 53 asks, “In 2010, did this person pay child or spousal support payments to a former spouse or partner?” Dwelling repairs are found in question E6, which asks about “loose floor tiles, bricks or shingles, defective steps, railing or siding”. Question E8 asks what the yearly payments are for electricity.

These questions would have been found in the mandatory long-form census were not the decision made to go to a voluntary form, and they're still found in the voluntary form.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

There are lots of questions like that in, for example, the agricultural survey, which is still, incidentally, mandatory, and has about 200 questions in it.

I would like to go to the question of forthrightness. I would like to ask you why it is--because this is something that many people have brought up--you have created the impression that StatsCan came forward with what you've described as a perfectly workable proposal that would compensate for the fact that the long-form census was no longer mandatory, and that by making it voluntary and educating Canadians we would have the same quality of data.

We know that this is not true. I know that it is not true. We know that the chief statistician resigned as a result of it.

Why is it that you indulged in this misinformation in front of Canadians as opposed to being forthright and open and honest about how StatsCan actually felt about it--namely, that a voluntary approach was not going to yield the same quality of data?

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

Well, let me disagree with your characterization of the history of this. Let me say that probably you and I have a difference of opinion. I do not believe that Canadians who do not wish to hand over this kind of personal and private information--some of the questions that I've read off here today--deserve to be threatened with jail or with fines, or to be fined or go to jail. That's a fundamental difference that your party and our party has.

Having said that, I've been crystal clear--I hope I've been crystal clear, and I think I have--that this is a decision made by government. Government, under the legislation, has the power and authority and obligation to decide which questions are mandatory and which questions are voluntary.

There are many voluntary surveys done by StatsCan. We have changed the mix based on the reasons I have just enunciated. We made that decision, not StatsCan. I've made it clear that StatsCan probably would have been quite happy to move along with the status quo, but we felt, for the public policy reasons I've described, it was important to balance those desires for more and more data with the concerns of Canadians. We made that decision.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I suggest that you manufactured this crisis, because 95% of Canadians filled out the long-form questionnaire in 2006 without any fuss whatsoever. Yet you announced this in the dead of summer, that you were making these changes.

I want to go to your credibility in terms of.... Do you really understand the difference between a mandatory census and a voluntary census? You know, for the longest time, I was quite convinced that you understood it but that you were toeing the party line. I would like to know, do you really understand, from a scientific rigour point of view, the difference between a mandatory and a voluntary census?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Clement, after you answer that, we'll go on the next questioner.

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

Sure.

There's actually no such thing as a voluntary census. There's a mandatory census and a voluntary survey. So yes, I do know the difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Minister Clement.

Mr. Bouchard, you have the floor.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister. I would also like to congratulate you on your recent act of bravery in saving a person from drowning. I hope you will be equally brave in recognizing that there is a consensus in Quebec, and even outside Quebec, against your decision.

Here is my first question. In an important notice, stakeholders described the loss of data accuracy resulting from your decision to replace the mandatory form with a voluntary form. Could you tell us whether your department has conducted the necessary preliminary studies to assess the consequences of losing the accuracy of the information?

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

Of course, as I have said, the government made the decision to change the long questionnaires in order to protect Canadians who worry about the penalties provided for in this act.

Of course, I am aware that Statistics Canada recommended the status quo. It is true and it is important to acknowledge it. But our government chose an approach directed at striking a fair balance between the burden placed on Canadians and the needs of data users. In my opinion, it is a fine balance.

However, it is important to specify that the long questionnaire is no longer mandatory since the situation changed. That is why I asked Statistics Canada to weigh the options. We have chosen one of the options provided by Statistics Canada to address our concerns and those of all Canadians.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The Council of the Federation will meet in a few days to discuss the changes you have made to the census form, among other things. If the council reaches a consensus against the voluntary form, and since Quebec is going to ask you to reconsider keeping the form mandatory, like in the past and the last censuses, would you give up your bill on adopting a voluntary rather than a mandatory questionnaire?

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

Of course, we have received many comments saying that the long form should be mandatory, but, as I said earlier, we decided it was important to strike a fair balance between the needs of the institutions, provinces, territories and private companies that always want to obtain a great deal of information on our census results, and the protection of Canadians. Actually, it is important that Canadians do not face very severe penalties if they consider that the answers to some questions are of a very personal nature.

I could say to you that obviously we are trying to be fair and reasonable about how best to balance those interests of citizens and of those who would like to have more and more data. If there are other solutions that are arrived at by this committee or by the provinces or by other groups that do not do violence to the principles that we are trying to express, I would certainly take a look at those. I'm not closing the door to any of that. But at the same time, it has to be consistent with the principles that the government has enunciated and that I have described here today.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I am not telling you anything new by saying that we are currently fighting the deficit. Have you assessed the additional costs that might be incurred as a result of your decision? How do you justify the increase in costs?

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

As I told members of the media, there is an additional $30-million cost for a public campaign launched to convince Canadians to fill out the questionnaire. At the same time, each census is expensive. In our opinion, it is important to pay the price for achieving a fair balance between Canadians' rights and information needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard.

Mr. Lake.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming before us today.

I want to go back to the question that Mr. Garneau was asking, focused on the difference between mandatory and voluntary. Of course, for something to be mandatory there has to be some threat attached to it. Back in the early 1970s, the Liberal government of the day introduced the long form. They decided to force Canadians to answer the questions under threat of jail time or fines.

Obviously we've made a little bit of a different decision. I want to go to the basis of this decision and ask what went into making this decision. What was the government thinking about as we made this decision?