Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

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

So looking at a question again, you talk about facts, and I'm looking at the fact that one of the questions we had in the 2006 census that somebody could be threatened with a $500 fine for not answering was as follows:Last week, how many hours did this person spend doing the following activities:(a) doing unpaid housework, yard work or home maintenance for members of this household, or others? ... (b) looking after one or more of this person's own children, or the children of others, without pay?Some examples include: bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities or helping them with homework, talking with teens about their problems, etc. ...

It doesn't seem like a very black and white question. It seems like the type of question where, if someone says for whatever reason, “I really don't want to tell the government that information,” you might not get a perfectly accurate answer.

Does that not make sense?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Noreau.

[Pierre Noreau]

In theory, anything is possible. In practice, we are not talking about information that is so personal that people are giving away family secrets. People give much more problematic and sensitive information to banks, insurance companies and so on. That is really sensitive information. The data that currently come out of the census are much less sensitive that the information out there on most people that is controlled by private information banks. In that context, I think that the implications of the questions should not be overstated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Noreau.

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that we have covered a lot of ground today and that we have a fairly good idea of what the government wants and where it is headed. I think that people really have a social responsibility to respond to a census. It is a way of contributing to the advancement of our society and living the dictum “know thyself”. There is a real need for this. I feel that going with a voluntary questionnaire would put the census on the same level as opinion polls. And any politician here will tell you that no one wants to comment on opinion polls.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Noreau.

[Pierre Noreau]

The cost of the drawbacks compared to the benefits is a basic issue. It is also what is at issue here, I think. It is often said that people have to do this for their community. That is true, but they also have to do it for themselves. In my opinion, people who answer census questions do not do it just for society's sake; they also do it for their own sake, because they are part of society. We have to recognize that the drawbacks are quite minor. The odds are that a person is likely to have to complete the long-form questionnaire once every 25 years, and it takes 20 to 30 minutes. So we have to realize that it represents a very minor inconvenience for anyone, given the benefits that come from it. We have to look at the problem in terms of this balance between the pros and the cons.

The same question applies to all the laws that are voted on here in Parliament: are the associated disadvantages—and every act creates constraints—worth the benefits that come from it? The census is a very good example of a case where the cost of the disadvantages is quite minor compared to the significant advantages for the community and for individuals. I think it should be held up as an example of legislation that is in the public good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Noreau and Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Lake.

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

I'll just continue with Mr. Noreau, if I could.

Coming back to the example I gave, I'll read it one more time: Last week, how many hours did this person spend doing the following activities: ... (b) looking after one or more of this person's own children, or the children of others, without pay? Some examples include: bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities or helping them with homework, talking with teens about their problems, etc. ...

It's a very nice sounding question. I think most people would probably just fill it out. But again, you get a respondent who, for whatever reason, says, “I just don't think I want to tell the government that; I just don't feel that I should do that.” The enumerator comes back again, because the person has refused, and in the manual it tells them to try twice. So they go back again and ask them, and the person respectfully says “no” again. Then out comes the total refusal form, which I read earlier.

I don't know if you heard me read it. Again, in contrast to the light and fluffy nature of the question, the total refusal form notes at the top that it is important that the information provided in the following sections may be used to support a legal prosecution and all details must be complete and accurate.

So the same enumerator who was trying to convince the person to perform their civil duty and answer the question and the person respectfully said “no” then fills out the section that asks for the description of the person who refused: age, gender, height, weight and other physical details such as facial hair, tattoos, glasses, birthmarks, distinctive clothing, etc.

Does that seem reasonable? To me, it seems kind of heavy-handed. Does that seem like a reasonable approach for someone who just doesn't want to tell the government how much time they spent talking to their teens about their problems?

I guess they have one more problem to talk about now.

[Pierre Noreau]

The question shows that there are a number of problems related to the discussion we are having. Ultimately, the question is whether the census should give an accurate measure of Canadians' reality and how that can be achieved. That is the question.

If we get into the questions in the census, we are starting to talk about content. Should we ask this question or that question? In my opinion, we have to looking at that constantly. Do we need these data or other data? This has to do with the content of the questions. But I am not sure that this is the issue here. I believe that the issue is how we can obtain an accurate measure of the reality of our society. That is the issue. The secondary issue is how to go about that, whether by requiring people to complete the long form or making the questionnaire voluntary. In general research practice, we know that, if it is voluntary, the response rate for certain segments of the population will not be high enough to give an accurate picture of the reality of those subpopulations. They are precisely the ones who are most vulnerable. The government should know their reality.

It is important to always come back to the objectives. Otherwise, we could look at the long-form questionnaire and ask ourselves whether each question should be asked. I am quite sure that Statistics Canada does that and that it does not work alone. I am certain that it brings in experts in a whole range of fields to determine which questions are really necessary. If you believe that certain questions could be changed or other variables are needed, then I think that it is part of your job as the government to tell Statistics Canada. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the measure must be accurate and that there are not a whole lot of ways to go about that.

There is another issue, and it has to do with methodology...

I am sorry. This is your forum.

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

I'm sorry. I have only a limited amount of time.

Of course, that's what the government has done. We have decided that there are going to be 10 mandatory questions and the rest are going to be voluntary, instead of the 40—I can't remember the exact number—mandatory questions and then the other thousands of questions that Statistics Canada asks that are voluntary. So that is precisely the decision we've made.

I would argue that, certainly with all of the statistical experts we have in this country, the expertise at Statistics Canada has been lauded by many during this debate. There is no question from our side in terms of that. Certainly we can find a better way to collect information than to threaten our most vulnerable citizens with fines and jail time. Certainly with all of this expertise we can find a better way to address this issue.

If Mr. McFarlane wants to comment, I'd be glad to hear his thoughts there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. McFarlane, would you like to comment before we go to Mr. Masse?

[Lawrie McFarlane]

It seems to me that there's a consensus here that the country needs good information in order to run itself well. The question then comes down to the degree of compulsion and whether there are, both statistically and in other means, ways to get around the use of force.

I believe there are, and if I were a member of the committee, I think I would be spending my energies developing those.

I think it's noteworthy that institutions that use coercion in order to deal with people characteristically have relationship difficulties with the people they deal with. I don't think coercion is a useful sort of policy tool.

For heaven's sake, if the concern we have is around the value and importance of data, I don't know of any data that's more important to the running of the country than health care data, and we do not compel people to give up their health care data.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. McFarlane.

Mr. Masse, did you have any questions?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's redirected. It's a comment here more than anything.

It's not like we have a situation of an unreported crime and someone says unreported census crimes are sweeping a wave across this country. The reality is that the minister could have changed this well before; and yes, there is agreement that there is no necessity for jail time. The reality is that it's the current policy of the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and the administration. They have that policy in place; it exists today. We can't pretend it doesn't exist. That could have been changed before any of this debate even took place.

In the testimony I referred to earlier, the minister was quite candid, saying that he had been working on this for months with the officials. So I think it's important.

I don't think I want the impression to be out there as well to Canadians that there are all kinds of census problems and issues related to reporting.

So I'm going to wrap this up. I think we've gone on long enough in this debate. But I think it is important once again to really point to the fact that it is the government's own policy for the fines and penalties. We haven't seen legislation to cease that, and unless we get some type of agreement to take place as to whether this is going to be voluntary or not voluntary, it has to be passed before the census goes out. So it will be interesting to see whether the government is committed to doing that prior to actually printing the census.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci, monsieur Masse.

Le dernier intervenant sera M. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been listening here and there are a few things that are bugging me a bit.

On the line of questioning we've heard from Mr. Lake in terms of some of the questions on the long form, whether it be mandatory or not, such as the questions on how much time you've spent in the last few days or week helping with family members, whether they be children or whether they be parents, and so forth, it is fairly obvious to me why any government—federal, provincial, or even municipal—would want to have that information to drive good public policy.

The other thing I think should be said is that cabinet agrees as well, because cabinet has kept these questions for the long-form questionnaire that's going to be sent out on a voluntary basis.

There are a couple of other issues that we seem to be glossing over. One is the quality and the accuracy of the information. It is very clear from all the testimony we've heard that a voluntary survey will not yield the accuracy that a census yields. If you're going to start basing your public policy on less accurate information, then by definition your public policy will be less probing, less accurate, and less effective. To want to go in that direction, to me, is rather astounding.

We've heard all kinds of arguments and debate here, and the government should pat itself on the back. They have unanimity, I think, around the table and from all parties about removing the threat of jail. No one has ever gone to jail and we're not going to use the threat, so let's remove it. That is a step forward in the grand scheme of public policy and public good.

That was the reason we were initially provided by the government as to why they were doing away with the mandatory long form, because they didn't like the fact that we threatened to put people in jail. We've agreed to that and we've all agreed to remove it.

However, we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the information that is going to be yielded by a voluntary questionnaire. The experts we had today and at the previous meeting have agreed that it is not as accurate. I recall very clearly Don Drummond, who was on the advisory council for Statistics Canada, appointed there by the government, saying that if we're going to go this route, it's going to take at least 20 years before we can re-establish the benchmark that all and sundry use whenever they do surveys, whether they be done by Statistics Canada or by a myriad of private sector or public interest groups.

So that is the nature of the beast that people have looked at, and I'm astounded that the government is not prepared to understand and realize that an overwhelming group of witnesses here, representing all levels of government, all kinds of academia, have very clearly established that you made a mistake, guys. Correct it, and we are prepared to help you correct it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

I want to thank our witnesses, including our witness in Victoria, for appearing today and providing their testimony.

Your witnessing and testimony is appreciated.

The meeting stands suspended until 4:15.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We will continue today's meeting. So that members of the committee are aware, we are in public and televised.

I understand Mr. Hoback has a motion to move.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair. It's just some housekeeping here. It's a motion for a budget, that the operation budget in the amount of $39,800, for the committee's study of the long-form portion of the census, be adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoback.

We have a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion?

This budget is for the committee travel for witnesses.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We now move to the second item listed on the orders of the day, which is a notice of motion from Mr. Garneau. I believe all of you have a copy of this motion.

Mr. Garneau, would you care to move and speak to your motion?

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you said, I would like to move this motion.

But I would also like to ask if my honourable colleague Mr. Bélanger could propose a friendly amendment to the existing motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I will allow any amendments.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to the motion the words, “and that the committee submit a report to the House of Commons”.