Evidence of meeting #32 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, University of Québec in Montréal, As an Individual
I do not use raw data from Statistics Canada. So I will not address the issue from this point of view. However, I use studies that are based on these data. Recently, an example was presented to me during a conference at the Centre interuniversitaire québécois de statistiques sociales. A fairly detailed map of Montreal's neighbourhoods showed pockets of poverty in terms of social problems. This map, which I unfortunately did not bring with me, is very revealing and extremely important for policymakers. It identifies certain areas of Montreal, for example north and east. We are already familiar with this situation, but we see more accurately the places where people have difficulties, at least in terms of a lower level of education, potential delinquency, housing and other issues.
In terms of action both at the municipal and at the supra-municipal level, this type of information and analysis is fundamental. We know this because it has been repeated over and over again, but action is not possible if we do not have quality data provided through a mandatory questionnaire. The groups do not actually respond the same way when they do so voluntarily because they do not attach as much importance to the process. But it is extremely important, hence the need to maintain the long form.
I cannot provide further details on this example because I was not the one who did the study, but there are many similar examples. Mine is academic rather than directly political, but it is this type of information that allows policymakers to make good decisions because it allows them to target—although the term is perhaps a little strong—groups and areas where intervention is warranted.
Conservative
Professor, Department of Economics, McMaster University, As an Individual
Thank you for the question. I'll confine myself to one example.
You'll recall that I was talking about the estimate, which I thought was on the high side, of an 80% response rate. Even at an 80% response rate, it's going to be hard to get the level of geographic detail, census tract by census tract.
My hometown newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, did a detailed analysis by census tract of a number of variables. There's a ton of them, but I'll just choose one.
One is the number of children below the poverty rate. There are a number of census tracts in Hamilton where the child poverty rate is in excess of 60%. The highest is 68%. There are also quite a number of census tracts in which the rate is 0%. So there's this huge span across census tracts. The trouble is that with this change in data there are a couple of possibilities.
One, if the response rate isn't great enough, we might just not get the data at the census tract level. It might just not be accurate enough and we won't know whether progress is being made on this high level of child poverty in particular areas.
It also might be impossible to link it to other variables. For example, we might want to know whether these children in poverty are going to school. That might just be impossible to know at the local level.
If it is available, there will also be some doubt, of course, as to whether the change is in the method of statistical collection.
Thank you.
Conservative
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us.
My first question is for Mr. Bélisle, but other witnesses are obviously welcome to answer.
Mr. Bélisle, could a voluntary questionnaire skew the data collected? As we know, it was previously mandatory for 20% of the population to respond, but a change was made. What is your opinion?
Vice-President, Federation of University Professors of Quebec
I think my colleague Mr. Beaud is more qualified than me to answer this question in detail. However, I can tell you that I personally do not know a single statistician, not a single person working seriously in statistics who will consider data collected on a voluntary basis as being essentially representative of a population. By doing so, we inevitably select people who are more docile, or compliant. So we get a slightly or a very distorted picture—we cannot be sure of how distorted it is—that describes the compliant sub-population within the general population. Just because some Canadians are resistant, lazy or careless and will not respond to the census, it does not mean that we have to refrain from taking the necessary steps to gather information to better understand and govern the general population.
It is a fundamental dilemma. If we do not get good representation in the census, a ripple effect will affect many other surveys, including the Labour Force Survey, which is conducted every month and is weighted based on census data. We will lose all those benefits. It is unfortunate that things are unfolding this way. The procedure has been split into two. In fact, my understanding is that there are now two methods of data collection: one of them is the official census, which barely includes some ten key issues, or eight or nine, and the other is the household survey, which essentially uses the 2006 census formula. All that is now supposed to be done voluntarily. We could make an argument that, by producing the statistics based on the results from those two methods, we would get an effectiveness index, which would help us determine whether the sample is representative, but I do not believe in that. I do not think it would be possible. It is very unlikely.
Dean, Faculty of Political Science and Law, University of Québec in Montréal, As an Individual
I can try to answer that. I mentioned it earlier. In terms of mandatory surveys, rates vary between 97% and 98%. I think part of the population always manages to avoid that obligation. The rates for voluntary Statistics Canada surveys, since there are some, of course, are around 70%. However, when it comes to somewhat different surveys that still rely on the same methodology, including opinion polls conducted by companies, we obtain rates well below 50%. This is also a big problem for the polling firms. It is often difficult to obtain information. It is a problem and it leads to extremely weak conclusions.
Just take as an example the percentages of 98% and 70%. We can see the problems with these figures. As I said earlier, there is no importance attached to the analysis of answers to questionnaires. Unfortunately, not all groups answer in the same proportion. The organizations are then forced to make adjustments. These are possible when you have a solid foundation provided by the census or by a mandatory questionnaire. If we change that, making adjustments will become more difficult. Voluntary surveys are even more problematic. The 70% would not be a problem if it was representative of the whole population, but that is not the case. That's what is extremely problematic.
The worst is that the polling firms themselves are increasingly having a hard time getting answers through a voluntary system. This is not necessarily because people do not want to answer, but because they are regularly contacted to participate. The advantage of a corporation like Statistics Canada is its credibility. We agree to provide answers because it is a public body that distributes its data to the public at large. I do not necessarily agree to answer questions from companies that will use my responses for private purposes. I think that many people react the same way.
As to the information we receive, I think the issue is crucial. Will we be able to make good decisions? Will we be able to identify pockets of poverty within the Montreal area, for example, and to implement policies that allow individuals to cope with poverty, instead of general ones that result in wasteful spending?
Bloc
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I do not know whether Mr. Bélisle or Mr. Beaud can answer my question.
My understanding is that going from a mandatory to a voluntary form reduces the scientific value of the data. Could you tell me if, from a statistical point of view, you believe that this decision will in fact diminish the scientific value of the data collected?
Vice-President, Federation of University Professors of Quebec
In my opinion, and as noted by my colleague, that will definitely be the case. If all the characteristics of the population were evenly distributed across Canada, there would not be many problems. A 10% sample would then be sufficient. But this is not the case. Some features cluster in sub-populations difficult to identify. We are talking about immigrants, Aboriginals, poverty and perhaps all those combined. We are perhaps even talking about sub-populations that have not yet been identified and will never be, but that would need the support of the Canadian government.
It is not really the size of the sample that is a problem; it is the nature of the population. To get back to your question, I would say it is absolutely certain that, scientifically, we are going to invalidate the results that could make the survey scientifically valid.
Conservative
Coordinator, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg
I tend to put things in practical terms, even though I have a major in mathematics and can talk with these people a bit.
The practical issue with a survey is that you don't know where the returns are going to come from; you don't know how representative they are.
Put it this way: Charlottetown, within P.E.I., may not be identified with enough returns to be able to say Charlottetown vis-à-vis P.E.I. Indeed, P.E.I. may not have enough returns to be identified other than in and of the Atlantic or Maritime region. That's what a survey means, as against a census that makes sure there is the distribution of returns to get representation.
In simple terms, that's the difference.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Actually, just to clarify, that's completely not correct. We still have a short-form census that's mandatory and would identify the exact same number of people living in Charlottetown or P.E.I. as we do now. So just to clarify, the short-form census is still mandatory.
Secondly, in terms of the information, we had a lot of conversation about information and we're still going to be collecting information, utilizing the considerable expertise of StatsCan officials, recognized as leaders in the world in terms of statistics. We're still going to be collecting, processing, and providing that information using that expertise.
We all want to reduce poverty in this country. I know it has been mentioned by a few. But surely we can find a way to reduce poverty without threatening the poor with fines and jail time because they don't want to tell the government how much time they spend with their kids or how much housework they did last week. Surely we can find a better way than that with all the expertise we have in this country.
Mr. Rutherford, I note there's an article on the CHED website that talks about you coming before the committee. Marc Garneau is quoted in this article as saying: the Government has trouble finding groups that support their point of view and so they're down to inviting individuals.
So we've scraped the bottom of the barrel—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
—and we've invited you and Mr. Oh and a few other witnesses, who apparently we're “down to” now, to express their point of view. We think it's important that you're here.
And Mr. Oh, we think it's important that you are here.
Mr. Bélisle talked about the radical changes we made. I just want to talk a little bit about the process in how the census is taken.
Speaking of radical, we come to the door and we ask questions of people. We do it a couple of times. The enumerator comes, and let's say you were to say, “No, I don't want to answer that question”. For whatever reason you have, you might not want to tell the government your religion or how many bedrooms you have in your house. After a couple of times, they fill out a total refusal form.
This seems radical to me—and I'll get your comments on this. At the top of the total refusal form, it says that the information provided in the sections that follow may be used to support a legal prosecution and that all details must be complete and accurate.
This is just the enumerator who came to your door and asked you twice and you respectfully said you didn't want to answer those questions. The enumerator fills out the description of the person who refused: age, gender, height, weight, other physical details such as facial hair, tattoos, glasses, birthmarks, and distinctive clothing, etc.
That's the form that the enumerator fills out and passes on to his or her crew leader. The crew leader comes to your house and asks again, and then fills out his or her section of the form, which asks the exact same question. That's just before it goes to the higher levels where I guess they follow up on the prosecution and potential there.
What are your thoughts on that in terms of which is more radical, the notion that we make the changes and have a format that is more voluntary, or the notion that we threaten the poor with fines and jail time because they don't want to answer questions of the government?
As an Individual
Well, as I said earlier, I appreciate very much that I am here. I'm here because I have expressed an opinion that is in support of the government's action. So I don't want to be considered a cheerleader for the government, which is what Mr. Garneau was suggesting; I'm here, I guess, because I have an opinion. I said earlier that I find it interesting that people with opinions are invited to come to a committee to explain themselves.
I agree with the democratic process in this country. I agree with the fact that this is a House of Commons committee, and because I participate in democracy, I'm here. Other than that, I don't know why I'm here.
I'll get to some specifics in a second, because I am a talk-show host, after all. I wanted to jump in on all these guys but I couldn't do that.
Conservative
August 27th, 2010 / 12:25 p.m.
As an Individual
And I will be asking for a commercial break in a second so we can just take some time.
On the idea that other commentators in this country may support one side or another but most of them, if not all of them, support the concern about eliminating the long-form census, they're not here. I don't see a cross-section of media people sitting here. I should be sitting at the table behind us, not sitting here. I don't see a cross-section of columnists from The Globe and Mail or other people who would support the opposition to the decision. Where are they? They're not here, so I find that a little bit telling.
Nonetheless, if I'm here to speak about things that are discussed on my radio program among the audience that talks to me, I'm fine with that. But I hope I'm not here to have to answer to an opinion, because we all have opinions and we all have rights to them.
I express my opinion daily on my program. Am I biased? Yes. Do I come to my viewpoint from a certain political standpoint? Yes, and I make no bones about it, unlike some other media in this country—but that's another story, maybe another committee hearing.
But as a commentator, though, if you don't mind, part of what I'm hearing today is interesting. The assumption is, by my statistician colleagues—and these guys know way more about it than I do, because as I said in the beginning, I'm not an expert—and maybe there is some statistical data to prove that assumption, that a voluntary response is somehow less credible than a mandatory response. I think that's the submission of some of these experts.
Mr. McCallum took the position that if you have a language difficulty, somehow if it's mandatory, you can do it; but if it's voluntary, I guess you can't.
Sir, I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of that one.
Just a moment ago, the lady from the Civil Liberties Association—I'm sorry, I forgot her name—made the point that on their radar this issue is not registering at all, that there are much more serious things that people are concerned about. My submission is, how does she know that? She knows that because I assume she polls her membership on her own and determines what people are concerned about in the Civil Liberties Association. Right?
That's all I can assume. Whether you're opposed to the census is not a census question.
My point is that a lot of this information can be gathered elsewhere. The gentleman from Winnipeg suggested that a church decided what to do in its small congregation based on the responses in the mandatory long-form census, which only 20% of Canadians get. How many people in that congregation got a long form and specifically identified a problem? I don't know.
On the issue of poverty, which seems to be a recurring theme here, we wouldn't know where the poor people are. If the rationale for people filling out a voluntary form is that they're somehow motivated, they're more motivated from a vested interest to fill out a voluntary form, therefore it might not be accurate, which is what I think some of these people might suggest, wouldn't it make logical sense that if you are underprivileged you would be motivated to fill out that form because you would know there would be some tangible consequence to it?
I'm just saying there are some logical overarching themes here that seem to be lost.
I have one more quick comment before my time is up.
The long-form census has not been eliminated, despite what you read in the media. It is still there. In fact, there are more of them. It's just voluntary, not mandatory.
Mr. Lake, I probably didn't answer your question, but thanks for the opportunity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.
Before we go to Mr. Masse, Mr. Oh, would you care to respond to Mr. Lake's questions?
Honorary President of the Mississauga Chinese Business Association, Confederation of Greater Toronto Chinese Business Association
Yes.
My opinion is that the statistics have been going on for so many years, and with today's technology, the data are available. A lot of private companies are constantly doing surveys.
For instance, I mentioned earlier the United Way of Peel Region. Peel region, in the GTA, has a lot of population coming in. We are over 52% new immigrants. The movement of immigrants cannot be based on statistical information from five years ago. Five-year-old statistical information, for the last two years, is normally not accurate and no longer up to date, because our movement in the GTA, in certain places, is just too great, due to the job situation and various situations. So a lot of companies in the private sector are doing their own mapping.
It is important that many countries in the world are now dropping the mandatory situation. Why is Canada not moving forward? Why are we staying with the same thing? I think increasing by 30% the voluntary filling in of the form is a good way to go.
We all talk about human rights, and we want to know where the criminals live, people who have records. Are they my neighbours? It's things of that nature. I think we should be going on a voluntary basis.
In the private sector, for the communities that are asking for funding, a lot of the information is coming from their local situations and not the....
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Windsor West, which I represent, is one of the most diverse in Canada. It also has, continually, one of the highest unemployment rates. It is also a place where there is a university, a college, and a lot of transition.
Back in the year 2000, it was part of what was called the “complete count” and was one of three ridings in this country that were chosen to have door-to-door census canvassing because the rates were so low despite the poverty being so high, and the language and other barriers, because it's an immigration destination, especially when you look at Old Sandwich Town, which is the oldest European settlement west of Montreal. The rates were deplorably low and we were actually losing potential funding for settlement programs and other types of issues because the rate was so low.
That eventually was eliminated. Because of privacy concerns, they took away the door-to-door canvass that was historically part of the census-gathering.
My question is basically to any of the panellists: Given the fact that this census has already been vetted through the Privacy Commissioner and has gone through the Treasury Board process, are there any privacy concerns you have with regard to this process that has actually been completed?
I'll turn that question to anybody who wishes to answer it.
Conservative