Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, I'm sure you would, but you don't have that opportunity. I'm asking you the question.

[Mel Cappe]

You're raising a substantive point.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[Mel Cappe]

Is the question clear? That's what the point is.

The point is, are the questions on the census clear, and are the answers that are available, to check the box, clear?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Sir, that is correct. That should be changed.

[Mel Cappe]

Well, blame the cabinet. They agreed to that.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I was asking the question whether an individual from government should—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

One moment here. One person at a time will be recognized by the chair.

Mr. Cappe, have you finished your point?

[Mel Cappe]

Thank you. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Are there any other witnesses who wish to respond?

Mr. McKinnon, go ahead.

[Ian McKinnon]

Part of the materials that accompany the census and early statements on it ask people for a telephone number, in part to clarify with people answers that are not understood by Statistics Canada. I'm sure that it was in pursuit of clarifying what the person's intent and meaning was that such a call would originate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Wallace, you have the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Maybe my colleagues from the academic world or the National Statistics Council can answer my next question.

The mandatory piece had a 95% return rate. Of that 95%, how many Canadians do you believe, based on some empirical data you've read, responded only because they were facing a penalty of either a fine or a jail term? Or were they doing it out of duty of being Canadian, that they thought it was good that Canada, the government, had that information so they could plan public social services for those individuals?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Wallace, is that directed to Mr. McKinnon?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I would ask Mr. McKinnon to answer, or Mr. Ornstein.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We'll start with Mr. McKinnon, and then go to Mr. Ornstein and Mr. Cappe.

[Ian McKinnon]

Thank you for the question. That's in fact exactly at the heart of the experiment that the United States conducted. We get a given percentage of response—in their case, in the low nineties—from a mandatory census.

What percentage would we get in response to what's called the “American community survey” if it were on a voluntary basis but we explained the purposes and strongly encouraged people to respond?

The answer is that without arduous follow-up the percentage point difference is about 30%. So if you're assuming that the only difference is whether it's mandatory or not, the answer is about 30% of Canadians.

I think, in part, it's not that 30% of Canadians are dragged kicking and screaming, but rather, part of its being a mandatory census tells those respondents that your country really cares and this is very important to do. So I think some proportion of that 30% reflects their response to the government saying this is important, it matters, and you must fill it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Briefly, Mr. Ornstein, and then Mr. Cappe.

[Michael Ornstein]

I agree with Mr. McKinnon. This is an empirical question, so there's experience on which to base an answer. The answer is that about 20% or 25% would not answer if the survey were not mandatory.

Let me say one other thing. The key thing is identifying the mandatory census as an aspect of citizenship. Everybody has talked about the cost, but the notion of the mandatory census is that it involves a commitment to your fellow citizens. You're providing something at your cost, but there is a community benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Cappe.

[Mel Cappe]

Mr. Wallace made the point that some people feel that it's a duty. I think that's important. When it's mandatory, people understand that it's a duty.

The problem with the debate of this summer has been that the public has been told that you don't have to do it. I think the message out there is “Don't bother”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We didn't tell them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cappe and Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me back up here a bit. The reality of what we have right now is that it is the policy of current Prime Minister and the current cabinet to have a fine and jail time if you don't fill out your census form. If they really wanted something different, they would have actually tabled that legislation, because it requires an amendment to the law over the last number of years. That's the reality we're dealing with right here.

So the nonsense that continues around the threat that you're going to be locked up, put away, incarcerated, because you don't fill out your census form, which is being propagated by the government, is irresponsible on many fronts. The most important one—and I hope the media picks this up at some point in time—is the fact and the reality that it is their policy. The minister has said he will change the legislation, but he could have changed the legislation at any point in time over the last number of years.

That bill will actually have to be tabled in the House of Commons. The House of Commons will have to debate that bill and then move it to committee. It will then have to be studied at committee, if we so choose, and returned to the House for another vote.

So the continuation of the situation about this being Canadians—farmers, new immigrants, and people who don't necessarily understand the census—who are going to actually be locked up, fined, and harassed is an absolute sham to this institution and to our democracy, because the reality is, once again, the minister has to change the legislation through law, which requires procedural elements in the House of Commons that he has chosen not to do, the Prime Minister has chosen not to do, and the cabinet has chosen not to do.

It's a complete distraction from the reality that is taking place here. We are going to lose valuable information necessary for a civil society to actually function and to actually move forward. That's what's really unfortunate and tragic about this, the mere fact that we are not only giving up our current database system that is necessary to make important decisions about taxpayers' money, but we are also going to forgo all the previous information and the comparable data necessary to plan a democratic country properly.

I would invite any comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Cappe.