Evidence of meeting #56 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.
10 a.m.
President, Our Right to Know
Absolutely it should be mandatory, and I would suggest that the legislation should specify that.
10 a.m.
President, Our Right to Know
It does, at the present time, give a financial penalty if you do not answer. It gets rid of the potential prison sentence, and we are in favour of both of those.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I'm more concerned about mandatory in the sense of Stats Canada or the minister using his or her discretion to decide not to go to the mandatory form, but to use the short mandatory form, and then use the long form as a method of survey.
I want to know what we need to change in the legislation if we want to make sure that neither the chief statistician nor the minister has the flexibility to opt not to use the long-form census.
10 a.m.
President, Our Right to Know
I don't have the legislation in front of me right now, but there's no problem in formulating this. It is one of the tasks that will be undertaken at regular periods, and that is part of the law.
10 a.m.
Past President, Statistical Society of Canada
You mentioned that you hadn't received the long form in 2016. The long form is a sample, in that not everyone is selected to fill out the long form. Those who are selected are selected by random means, and that's the important feature.
My understanding of mandatory is that if you receive the form, you are obligated to fill it out, but it does not mean that everyone should receive the long form.
I thought that the previous legislation brought in by the Liberal government addressed that issue adequately, so I'm not aware of what changes should be incorporated into this bill.
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Political Science Department, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
The long-form census is the census, so it's mandatory as it's written now.
This long-form census ceased to exist in 2011. It was replaced by something very different, but the whole thing, the short and long forms, are the census. Now we may have another model. In the U.S. they have a short census, and they have a rolling sample inquiry that goes out on a regular basis with a long set of questions, like a long-form census. It's a sample of the population, but there's still an obligation.
10:05 a.m.
Deputy Director, Statistics Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
I don't have any particular point to make concerning the short or long-term form in regard to Canada, because I haven't studied it closely enough. In general, we do think that responses to the census should be mandatory, and this should be laid down in a legal framework.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you.
One of the things that's been brought to our attention is that former chief statisticians have argued for a preamble on the census in the bill.
How important is that for setting an overall tone? It has been referenced at the OECD with regard to a preamble. Perhaps we can hear from that element of this, because a preamble is not enforceable, but at least it sets a tone for the interpretation of legal discourse thereafter.
Is it something that anybody has any comments on, because this has been raised by both of the chief statisticians that have resigned?
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Political Science Department, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
The preamble is symbolic up to a certain point, but with issues like independence, trust, and confidence, symbolism is important. Things could appear as a violation if they contradict the preamble, even though they might not strictly be illegal.
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Political Science Department, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
Yes.
10:05 a.m.
Past President, Statistical Society of Canada
I would agree as well. I think it's maybe more than symbolic. It sets the broad framework for the legislation, and this broad framework may turn out to be useful in subsequent legal proceedings. So I think it's important.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That's my understanding too, that it may not be specific, but it could set an overall framework for interpretation. It would be almost like a tie-breaker in many respects if there were any unclear, unintended consequences, and so forth.
10:05 a.m.
Past President, Statistical Society of Canada
Yes, it might allow a judge to gain a better understanding of what the intent of the bill was.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
10:05 a.m.
Deputy Director, Statistics Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
We have not looked at this specifically, but it sounds like a very reasonable thing to have.
