Evidence of meeting #55 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, on whether the census should be legislated, I think we're trying to get away from an overly detailed prescriptive act, to give the chief statistician more autonomy, while at the same time resetting the relationship between the agency and the government. It is interesting that the decision in 2011 led to such a wide outcry across the country. It brought protests from both public and private organizations, which suggests that there is political content to these decisions and that therefore it's appropriate at the end of the day to have responsibility reside with elected and accountable ministers and the government.
Chair, National Statistics Council
I agree strongly with Professor Thomas, that trying to legislate the scope is a mistake. On the other hand, I'm sensitive to the concerns that were raised in the earlier committee hearings that the government might instruct that the census be extremely brief and that everything else be done by surveys.
Chair, National Statistics Council
Centrally.
My first point is that they would now be much more public in owning the responsibility. I'm not sure about the legislative impact, not being a lawyer. I would say it would be similar in scope, but tying the scope is a mistake, and I will use the example of the agricultural survey. StatsCan is well aware that it's burdensome, and it is trying every which way. We have on the horizon technologies like remote sensing, which might allow the census to collect that kind of material directly.
Chair, National Statistics Council
On the mandatory side, I believe with the census that we must have our benchmark data mandatory for sound methodological reasons and because we base all of our voluntary surveys on benchmarks back—
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Do you agree, Mr. Sheikh, that rather than making it mandatory as part of the bill, just making section 21 subservient to section 22 will do the job? I'm just asking—
Former Chief Statistician of Canada, As an Individual
Let me just clarify. The reason, in my mind, it would work is that the chief statistician—if I understand the bill correctly—has the option of making something voluntary or mandatory but informing the minister. So I cannot imagine that a future chief statistician would want to make the existing long-form census voluntary. The minister may, but not the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
A hearty thank you to our panellists; you've been very informative and given us lots to think about.
Before we break I just want to do a quick housekeeping. On the 11th of next week we have three more witnesses, perhaps four, we're still working on a fourth. The 13th—as you know, it's the day before Good Friday—is going to be a regular committee day for us. We are pushing the minister from 8:45 to 9:45. He's going to go from 9:45 to 10:45. In the first hour we're going to talk about our Washington, D.C., trip because we won't see each other before then. We really need to button down our witnesses and so on. Beyond that we're in Washington, and when we get back on the 4th we will be doing clause-by-clause. I did forget to say that on April 20 your amendments are due for Bill C-36; that's very important. We're leaving the 9th open for potentially more clause-by-clause if we need it. If not we can move other things forward to that day.
Liberal
Frank Baylis Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Let's say goodbye to our guest, Mr. Thomas. Thank you very much.
Professor Emeritus, Political Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Thank you.