Evidence of meeting #42 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Mr. Smith, you said you were satisfied with the 69% response rate for the national household survey, but do you really think that's an acceptable number?
11:25 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
It's important to put it in context.
It's true that the response rate has dropped, going from 93.5% to 69%. And the problem that gives rise to is this. If we do nothing and keep the sample size as is, we will lose statistical reliability. But we have offset that effect. Instead of having a sample size of one in five households, we established a sample size of one in three households. In the end, more people responded in 2011 than in 2006, with the mandatory long-form census. So we rectified that problem.
A lower response rate can skew the data. Some segments of society happily respond, whereas others refuse altogether. We invested a considerable number of resources and made sure we had a tremendous amount of information at our disposal to make every possible effort to correct that kind of bias. We'll never be able to fix it 100%, but our analysis shows that we've been able to largely offset that response bias. There has always been a certain measure of response bias, even in the census data.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
Did you have access to all the resources you needed to address the problem?
11:25 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
We had all the resources necessary, but we can only do so much. There's no way to offset the bias 100%. When we identified the problem, we made information to that effect available. We were transparent with Canadians, telling them where exactly we had found problems.
Furthermore, because of the methods used to collect the data, we observed greater volatility in the data on small regions with very small populations. So, owing to quality concerns, we didn't release a portion of the data that we normally would have.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
We couldn't provide Canadians with data that was, in our view, inappropriate and quite possibly misleading if used as the basis for decision-making. Nevertheless, the quality and reliability of the national household survey data are very good, overall. Although we did experience some loss and there were consequences, it's important not to blow them out of proportion, either. They weren't as significant as some claimed.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC
It's just that there are some blanks, if you will. Certain pieces of data, as far as certain regions and certain groups are concerned, are missing. These gaps are the reason that you weren't able to complete the work. As for the rest, I understand.
Fine. Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Thank you, Joe, for figuring out a way to fix what the government said in 2010 was the biggest problem with the national household survey, that it was coercive and it could cause jail time.
Now that you've fixed the problem, assuming this bill passes—and I think we're supporting it over here—will you urge your government to put back a mandatory national household survey?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your kind comments about my piece of legislation but it is only about that, the pieces that I've talked about. There are a number of mandatory forms that are still out there, not counting the household survey, and my bill doesn't really talk about the household survey except for the release of information. The answer here is removing jail time from all of those mandatory surveys whether they're agriculture-related, small business-related, or censuses in themselves.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Maybe you didn't understand my question. I understand that would remove it from a bunch of mandatory surveys. But the reason the government gave for eliminating one of those mandatory surveys way back in 2010 was because of the jail term. Now that's gone.... That was one of the reasons, that it's coercive and people shouldn't have to go to jail for refusing to do this.
Having taken that out, can we expect that there will only be one asterisked year in Canada's history books, one dark period where we didn't have a national household survey?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I leave it to greater minds than mine to decide that. The answer here is.... In talking to constituents in the riding in that period of time I found it was about the threat. No one for the sake of not filling out a form for the Government of Canada should ever be threatened with jail time or receive jail time, so it truly is both.
I tried to make this as simple as I possibly could. I'm not saying I'm simple, the bill is. It has two things. First is to remove that threat and remove the possibility, even though it's not been used. Mr. Smith has shared that with us. It's not used, but there is still the opportunity to threaten its use so it's just to remove that. In a country as great as ours to talk about incarcerating people for something as small as not filling out a form.... Canadians were appalled by that and told us so, so let's fix that.
The other piece is simply the release of historical data, and there are many citizens and eco-social groups that need that information, so let's keep doing that too.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
My final question is for Mr. Smith and it's on the release of data with consent. It may be my own ignorance of the process but is that the consent of any person named on the form or is it the consent of the person who filled out the form?
11:30 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
In principle, as I recall the instructions, it is supposed to be the desire of the person who is named on the form but it obviously poses problems for children. Clearly parents have opted to answer on behalf of the child in some cases, so the result, the effect, has been probably a mixture of people who have chosen not to answer for their children and others who have.
Therefore, it's a mixture of the two scenarios. In some cases it really reflects the views of the person completing the form and in other cases it reflects the opinion of the individual who is directly concerned.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
In 2103 when the 2011 census is able to be able to be revealed, if a parent of a two-year-old didn't specifically authorize the release of that two-year-old's existence we won't know about that two-year-old in the census, or...?
11:30 a.m.
Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada
The way it would be applied by Statistics Canada and the way we understand it was expected to be applied was that if we have a response indicating, yes, you can share this, we will share it.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Seeing no other questions, we'll say thank you very much to Mr. Preston and Mr. Smith.
We'll just maybe pause for two minutes while we allow for the witnesses to go and then we'll move to clause-by-clause.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the alternative title, is postponed.
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to)
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
The meeting is adjourned.