Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[James P. Henderson]

We've harvesting then.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think I can go right across Canada and look at the census of agriculture and ask, why is this being thrown on their desks during the two busiest seasons of their occupations? It doesn't make sense.

There is a 40-page long form, and then with another 16 pages added on top of that, you actually have to complete 56 pages in the busiest time of the year, either in May or in September. Is that correct?

[James P. Henderson]

Yes, that's correct.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

And if you don't do it, what's the threat?

[James P. Henderson]

I believe we've all heard it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The threat is jail.

[James P. Henderson]

Yes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

They're easy to threaten. I know I've talked to my neighbours, and they've had the threats. I feel sorry for these guys, because they work like crazy, and then all of a sudden they have to do this.

If you look at September, we have so many warm, good harvesting days, and sure enough, they want this done on that day when you can be combining. So you basically have to shut down your operations.

It depends whether you have one or two combines, but Mr. Masse, if you realized, if you had two combines going in a day, that would probably be two quarters of lentils. The cost of just a loss in production on that day could be $30,000 or $40,000, if not more.

Plus, if you have hired an accountant, that's going to take probably 10 hours, so that's probably another $2,000 or $3,000.

There is a burden here, a huge burden. Does it make sense? I guess that's the question.

Mr. Chartier, I just want to pass on greetings from Ms. Glover. She said to say hi to you. She is an aboriginal and a Métis in our caucus. We have three Métis and three aboriginals in our caucus.

I must say, it was good to see you in Batoche. It was a great event and your comments there were interesting, if not humorous.

I'm just curious. In your association, where is this on your priority list? You have lots of issues to deal with. Is this in your top 10 or top 20?

[Clément Chartier]

Actually, I didn't think it would be a major issue when I first heard of it, because I'm not engaged in that particular level. But just two days before Batoche we had a national conference on the post-Powley legacy on Métis nation rights and research. One of the predominant questions was with respect to the long-form census, and direction was given to me to raise it and state that it needs to be retained.

In fact, shortly after that, I went to the Métis Nation of Alberta—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

What was the basis for that? Again, coming back to my question on your priority list of issues with Métis associations, Métis issues are ones that I'm learning a lot about and there's a lot more to learn.

I know this great lady in Prince Albert by the name of Darlene McKay, who has just been wonderful. I tell you, you can give that lady a dollar and she'll make it work like $10. It's just amazing what she can do. When I asked her about this issue, it wasn't on her radar at all.

So I'm just kind of curious. How big an issue is it in your association?

[Clément Chartier]

As I was about to say, I went to the Métis Nation of Alberta assembly about three weeks ago, and on the weekend in Ontario, and it was a very hot topic, very much spoken about. People want to have it retained because of, as I mentioned in my opening comments, the significance of it to our people. We rely on that data—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So that data is there, in the short form. What's in the long form that they want to see retained?

[Clément Chartier]

I'll leave that for the experts.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, I'm talking specifically towards the Métis association, because that is a concern if there's something that the association feels is important in the long form. I guess you should identify what those issues are.

I think you'd have to understand, a lot of people have this conception that the census is gone. There's a lot of confusion out there in all the associations and the general population that they won't even have to do a census. Well, that's not right. They will have to do a census. There's still the basic data that's going to be garnered; it's just that they won't be subjected to what farmers such as Mr. Henderson were: 56 pages of harassment during the busiest time of the year.

I'm going to move on to you, Joseph. I've been in Hong Kong and I know what you mean about the infrastructure and their ability to do the infrastructure.

You touched on the efficiencies. You talked about using technology from 1971. Are there things that Statistics Canada could be doing now that would make it easier to gather this data? Instead of trying to do it all at once, could it be staged in such a way that it could actually be more convenient and accurate? Do you have any opinions on that?

[Joseph Lam]

Yes. Actually, in a lot of areas you can collect the data—let's say through the financial sector.

Here is a good example. Let's say you want to open a Tim Hortons in any mall or any financial district. Of course, you have to go through the demographic study to find out, if you put the money there, will you make money. So there you go, and you can collect the information from there, and also the credit history. There are lots of areas where you can collect data. It's not only by going through and filling out the form.

They take 20% of the population. Perhaps half of them finish it and it might not really be 100% who put in their own information. So the truth of the matter is that it is in question. Are we going to rely on that?

Europe is changing it. A lot of places are changing it.

Also, since we're talking about costs, I want to know exactly what the costs are—if anyone can answer my question. What does it cost for the 40-page form to be filled out?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lam and Mr. Hoback.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to this committee meeting.

There has clearly been much talk about the census among Canadians. Some claim that it's too expensive, too long and intrusive. People are talking about its length, which is apparently what some find bothersome. However, the 40 pages could be divided into two. The questions could be divided into at least two parts because, based on the number of individuals, there are more pages to fill out.

People are saying that the census is too expensive, and that made me ask myself some serious questions. Some even believe that education is too costly. However, ignorance is much costlier. We are talking about an important source of information. If I were the prime minister of a large country like Quebec, for instance, my first thought would be that, overall, there are not that many questions. There could be even more of them, in my view. I would not be talking about removing, but rather about adding questions. One could say that the survey is lacking certain information that could help in implementing societal projects and in economic policy making.

There are some special cases. Apparently, farmers will be given a 56-page form to complete. Obviously, a successful farmer makes use of an accountant. That person could do two things at once, including filling out the form. I believe that we need this source of information. The information gathered, of course, must remain confidential, but I would like to know, Messrs. Cappe, McKinnon, Turk and Ornstein, what information you would mind divulging in the questionnaire. Maybe you would not be keen on disclosing your salary, but the department already has that information.

I am asking myself some serious questions. I would like to know why, in your opinion, this debate is going in this direction and why the government would want to deny itself information necessary to the implementation of policies in place. When the government brings into force policies that are not based on relevant information, it often ends up spending money needlessly. Instead of being stubborn and arguing about whether or not to keep the form, we should be looking into ways of getting more out of the census.

[Mel Cappe]

I was also disappointed to note that the question on the number of bathrooms, which had been asked for decades, was removed. I believe that this question is very important because, among other things, it provides information about the location of wells. Unfortunately, it was removed from the form. There was a process launched to determine which 30, 40 or 60 questions—I'm not sure of the exact number—are essential. In my opinion, that is what we are trying to do.

I agree with the government when it comes to minimizing intrusion and coercion. However, we should also recognize that public interest has something to do with all this. Everyone will want us to select their questions, which they consider necessary, but a process could be implemented to determine which questions are essential.

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

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ian McKinnon]

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

I would like to make several observations. The first is that I agree wholeheartedly that the information that comes from the census underpins and supports fact-based decision-making and discussion. It doesn't guide one towards a particular policy output, but it means that when you make your decisions you analyze the information and you are basing them on fact.

There is a second issue I would raise, and I would respectfully disagree to some degree. Even if questions aren't very invasive or personal, I think it's of fundamental importance that people's privacy and the privacy of their return be protected. I think Statistics Canada and the ISQ, l'Institut de la statistique du Québec, have stellar records, some of the best in the world, in ensuring and protecting privacy. So whether the question is invasive or one that I'm happy to share with the world, it's still extremely important that we live up to the standards that Statistics Canada has set.

I obviously, in the end, come down to this being extremely important to Quebec, to my province of British Columbia, and to Canadians as a whole in trying to improve the situation of every citizen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Lastly, Mr. Ornstein. Very briefly, please.

[Michael Ornstein]

First, the census is extraordinary in that the entire questionnaire is approved by the cabinet. So the notion that these things come out of midair and there's no reason for them is ridiculous. That doesn't mean we shouldn't examine what's there and consider change, but there is a reason for the questions.

Let me just give as an example the question about the number of bedrooms. The reason you ask a question about the number of bedrooms is to find out whether people are crowded in housing. The question is not absolutely about the number of bedrooms, the question is to get at the adequacy of housing in the country. That's what it's there for. You may say this is not a policy priority, you may say it shouldn't be in the census from now on, but the point is that there is a reason for its being there.

Statistics Canada is under enormous pressure always to have more questions, because there are more issues that you want to address. So the idea that there is no reason just makes no sense.

Change is good, but the census does not have questions there for no reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Ornstein.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests for coming in today.

I have a few comments to make. This is the first meeting that I've had an opportunity to be at to discuss the long form, and I appreciate the date chosen, with three days difference from what we had when we were at the planning meeting a few weeks ago.

I'm going to give you a scenario that's an accurate one, from somebody who has told me about this, somebody who I know and I trust is telling me something accurate, and I would just like a yes or no answer as to whether you think it's appropriate.

The individual was filling out the long form. This person is in his sixties and his parents were born in Canada. His grandparents were born in Canada. Four of his great-grandparents were born in Canada. On the form, this individual marked “native Canadian”—no offence to our native Canadians, but he marked “native Canadian”. An individual called from StatsCan to tell him that they wanted his Indian card number.

The spouse told them that the individual was not Indian and didn't have an Indian card number. StatsCan said, “Well, no, he does,” because he had marked “native Canadian” on the long form. The spouse said, “Well, I've been married to him for 40 years. I don't think he's native Canadian. I'm absolutely positive he's not aboriginal. You can call back and talk to him”.

They did call back and talk to that individual. There was an explanation and a discussion that this individual believed he was native Canadian, but the person from StatsCan said to him, “Well, sir, do you know that it carries a penalty of $500 or jail time for you providing that misinformation?” So the information was corrected on the long form so that he didn't face a penalty.

We all know that nobody has gone to jail for that, but the fact is that somebody from government called this individual because they didn't like the response on the long form.

My first question is, do you think it's appropriate that the government, StatsCan, called this individual and threatened him with jail time or a fine because they didn't like his answer?

I'm happy if anyone would like to answer that. I'm just looking for a yes or a no.

[Mel Cappe]

I would put the question back to you, sir. Do you—