Evidence of meeting #37 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Co-Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Women's Foundation
Was your question that Stats Can is saying there's no research being done using this data?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
They said that very little research is being done, yes.
Were any of you consulted on the decision?
9:20 a.m.
Co-Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Women's Foundation
To scrap the long-form census?
9:20 a.m.
Co-Chair of the Board of Directors, Canadian Women's Foundation
No, the Canadian Women's Foundation was not.
But I want to go back to your question for a second. As the co-chair of the Canadian Women's Foundation, or as a taxpayer, I don't see that the data is being collected so that research can be done. I never saw that as the fundamental purpose of a census and that the validation of a census is that a lot of other bodies, whether they are educational bodies or private corporations or whatever, are using the data for research.
I don't see the relevance of the question at all. It's about accurately understanding the population of the country so that the government and organizations, non-profit foundations like the Canadian Women's Foundation, can use that data to drive strategy and make change and make the country a better place. It's not about whether somebody does research with the data or not. To me, it's irrelevant.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Well, it strikes me that it's research you're speaking about.
Ms. Smith.
9:20 a.m.
Editor, Recent Research on Caregiving, As an Individual
I was just going to say that I am a big critic of the way they ask the question. I have always been a big critic of the way Statistics Canada asks the question on paid labour because it's so broad. It's ridiculous. How much time did you spend doing a zillion tasks? If you want to know, and if you want to analyze it, at least ask it as a question that is analyzable. How much time did you spend cooking? How much time did you spend reading to the child? Make it specific enough that we have something to deal with.
The other thing is that people don't know what you're talking about. They say, “Okay, yesterday I went for groceries. I got diapers for the baby and I got some steak for my dinner.” Which part of that was for the kid? Dividing up your day to see which part was for the kid and which part wasn't is very hard.
It's a new category, as my colleagues were mentioning. We have to have a better question. In fact, we need more questions, not no questions.
9:20 a.m.
Professor and Chair, Economics Department, Saint Mary's University, As an Individual
I have a couple of comments. I agree that the purpose of the data is not just for research, although Statistics Canada does make money from people using their data for research.
In terms of the unpaid work question, in my own experience there certainly is academic research on it. It's also extremely useful for teaching and for general public education, that sort of lower level of research. At the high level of academic research, I'd have to do my own literature review to answer that question. But of course I was not asked about that when they decided to axe it.
It's quite annoying, in that there are so many other questions on the census. How many rooms are in your house? Has anybody checked on how much research is being done using that question? Is there a reason to ask that question?
In terms of the level of generality in the question, there are similar problems with the unpaid work questions being quite general. There are similar problems of recall, and so on, with regard to the paid work questions on the census. There are a lot of questions on that. People have to make their best guess on what kinds of work they do and how they spend their time, how long they commute to work. All of those things require judgment.
On the strengths of the unpaid work question, I and others have worked with it in conjunction with the more detailed general social survey breakdown of tasks, and they are quite complementary--
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We have gone over the seven minutes.
I would like to ask everyone to please be succinct in your answers, because we're using up the time. Ms. Neville wished to answer another question, but we've gone over--
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We've gone over the seven minutes, so I'm sorry.
We'll now move to the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur Desnoyers.
November 18th, 2010 / 9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will start my intervention the same way I did at the last meeting. In the House of Commons, we passed a motion which reads:
That this House highlights the importance of the so-called "invisible" unpaid work done by parents and caregivers on behalf of their children and aging family members by creating the "Invisible Work Day"...
Mr. Fellegi, who was previously the chief statistician of Statistics Canada, told us yesterday about the importance of the long form census, as compared with the survey that the government in power would implement. He mentioned that in fact, the debate would not deal with statistics any longer, but rather with the reliability of data.
How will we be able to analyze data obtained from a questionnaire that some 20,000 or 25,000 persons will have filled, given the fact that at the last census, the data were obtained through a long form questionnaire that was filled by more than 2.9 million people?
I would like to know what is your opinion, as researchers, on the reliability of the future data concerning the so-called invisible unpaid work. And you are right when you say that through the data that we used to have, we could make this work visible.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Editor, Recent Research on Caregiving, As an Individual
I can start.
From what I understand, in order to do what they are now proposing to do, we will need to make a survey on a greater number of families. And there will be many people who will not answer. So it will take much more paper work, efforts, advertisements, publicity expenditures, and we will not have the same sample, as you indicated. So there is no benefit. Only the official census will have any reliability.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Anyone else wants to answer that question? No.
As researchers who have worked with the previous data, how will you be able to work from now on with a new form and new data? Will it be possible to make comparisons between the two sets of data?
9:25 a.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, As an Individual
Just a quick comment. I've already been talking to Statistics Canada officers who are responsible for different programs I rely very heavily on and they're basically saying they don't have a clue. They truly don't know. There's no plan in place.
Statistics Canada's budget has been cut so severely that the extra money for funding the extra 10% of the national household survey that's been promised may have to come out of StatsCan's existing budget. Another five surveys were cancelled just a month ago, with their accompanying analysis. This is going to put a lot of financial pressure on the whole StatsCan set-up as well.
9:25 a.m.
Professor and Chair, Economics Department, Saint Mary's University, As an Individual
I think the point about the inability to do that historical analysis and the continuity is extremely important. And we have also all made points about the problems of reliability in terms of underrepresentation of certain groups in a voluntary survey.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
I understand.
So your future research could be seriously jeopardized because the data will not be as reliable.
So what they are really doing is making invisible all the data that we had on women that could allow the government to finally consider putting in place programs that could address the needs of women in our society. We know that their contribution, in the form of invisible work, represents one third of the GDP, as Ms. Smith was saying, if I am not mistaken. So it is a major change.
I would like to hear your comments on the economic contribution of women.
9:30 a.m.
Editor, Recent Research on Caregiving, As an Individual
I'm so used to being put down. This is just another blow. It surprises you and you're sick of it, but enough already. We're half of the population of this country and we're the caregivers of this country. And it's just amazing that they would take away that one little thing we had.