Status of Women Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I will call the meeting to order. I know it's a few minutes late, but I think the rain has put a bit of a vehicle to our getting here.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is the study of the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census and its impact on women's equality in Canada. I believe this is our final session with witnesses.

I'd like to welcome Leroy Stone, who is here as an individual; the Canadian Council on Social Development, and we have Peggy Taillon and Katherine Scott; the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, Françoise Naudillon, counsellor and professor, Concordia University; and the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, and that's Doug Norris and Greg Jodouin.

We're going to give you ten minutes each for your presentations, which will be followed by a question and answer period.

At the end of today's session we'll perhaps leave ten minutes for the committee to do some wrap-up business.

So to start, Mr. Stone.

[Leroy Stone, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Madame Chairperson and members of the committee, it is an honour to be invited to speak to you and to make an input to your proceedings as an individual.

To begin, I'll make a few remarks about my professional background. In the mid-1990s Canada established an international lead in formally incorporating measures of unpaid work into the assessment of gender equality. I was the principal statistician behind that effort, and that effort was based on a system called the “total work accounts system”, which is based upon time-use data.

Later on, after three questions concerning unpaid work were inserted into the census, I was the co-author of a small book entitled The 1996 Census: Unpaid Work Data Evaluation Study, published by Status of Women Canada.

Finally, it is relevant to note that I have served brief terms as the president of the Canadian Population Society and as a member of the board of directors of the Population Association of America. These are organizations of social scientists specializing in demography and related aspects of non-partisan data development and data analysis.

You have already heard some excellent testimony, and your members have raised interesting questions. Your past hearings form part of the context for what I will now say.

In trying to provide a helpful contribution to your proceedings, I have kept two general questions in mind. First, to what extent does the change in the design for gathering data in the census put at risk the quality and/or quantity of support provided by statistical data or by data analysis for programs and policies that bear upon gender equality? Second, what are the consequences of having no questions on unpaid work in the new national household survey?

As you're all aware, these questions lead to complex discussions. There is consensus on some points of knowledge and there is also a great deal of speculation around other issues, because the information required to resolve those issues will come in the future. I hope what I say will be a small contribution to the points of generally accepted knowledge and to those speculations that are fruitful from a scientific discussion context.

With regard to the impact of the design change on questions that have been approved for inclusion in the census or in the new national household survey, there appears to be a consensus on two important points.

First, there is almost certain to be an impact, for reasons already explained to the committee by experts in assessing the quality of census data.

Secondly, we have little idea at this time concerning the extent of the impact. On this point there needs to be some concentrated thinking about the particular census or national survey variables, which are especially important in the assessment of data on gender equality.

Census variables that have been repeatedly used among indicators of gender equality include income, education, labour force participation, class of worker, and occupation. In order to interpret variations in gender equality values based on those variables, it is essential, within our national context, to also take into account variables such as language, various dimensions of ethnic origin, place of birth, aspects of family and household status, and age.

When I was a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania, which at that time was one of the leading population studies centres, and later when I was a professor in the University of Michigan, we had many discussions about census data. During that time it was understood that there are some variables within the census that are measured with very good quality, others with consistently poor quality, and others with quality in between. Now, I would imagine that in 2011 that kind of knowledge will be much more advanced than it was when I was a student.

So we already have good grounds for sensing where we ought to look for strange data patterns in measuring changes over time between earlier censuses and that of 2011.

Unfortunately, this knowledge will not take us very far. As you have already heard from the experts on data quality, if we are in the presence of strange data patterns, without access to independent sources of information we probably would not be able to assess the extent to which those patterns are affected by changes in the design for gathering the data; hence those leaders in any sector with projects based on data that are thought to be reliable and who learn that the available data patterns are of highly doubtful validity will be required to bring new financial and professional resources to the table in the search for independent data. I am speaking about new resources that would need to be brought on stream after Statistics Canada has delivered the data.

Within any of the relevant sectors of our society, the harnessing of professional and financial resources to search for independent data could be a major new product that has to be put on their books at the expense of other uses of those same resources. The projects could be so large that a consortium of sponsors might be required to get it started.

Now, I wish to emphasize that what I have just said deals only with the context in which an important stakeholder learns that the available data patterns are of highly doubtful quality. There is a strong consensus that for many uses, strange data patterns will not be found. Only the future will tell the relative frequency of good and bad situations concerning these data patterns.

In this connection, we should note that many users troubled by what they feel are serious defects in data delivered to them by Statistics Canada will turn to Statistics Canada for help. Experts in data analysis who are well grounded in such subject matters as income are the key Statistics Canada resources to provide that help to those users. Are sufficient professional resources to respond to users who need help going to be available from Statistics Canada as we go forward?

What are the consequences of a new national survey in which the former census questions about unpaid work are absent? I wish to make three points in connection with this debate.

Please study the central conclusions of the book I cited earlier. There you will learn that when unpaid work questions were inserted into the census, the authors did not think it possible or even advisable to try to estimate the total volume of unpaid work using census questions, and this for two reasons.

First, significant elements of unpaid work are not covered, such as volunteering for organizations or unpaid inputs to a family business. Second, the kinds of questions used in the census risk double counting of time between at least two of the activities in question 33. So these activities need to be treated separately when you are using the census data.

In inserting those items into the census, the idea was that communities concerned with services pertaining to child care or pertaining to elder care could turn to Statistics Canada for assistance in connection with background data. When I speak of concerned communities, I would like you to think of the mayor of Kamloops in British Columbia. As Dr. Fellegi has already pointed out, the role of the census in these areas was to provide complementary data. I repeat for emphasis that what we are thinking about are such specific services as child care and elder care, and not the overall volume of unpaid work.

The second point I would like to make in connection with this debate concerning the time-use data is that where these data count only the primary activity undertaken within a given time slot by a respondent, the census question on child care provides better data about the amount of time being spent on child care. You will find evidence for that in my book. However, on listening to the hearings of the 16th, I learned that the latest time-use survey has arrangements to better record activities in situations in which people are doing more than one thing at the same time. This will be an important improvement in the time-use data.

My last point in connection with the debate is to plead with you to reflect upon a process in which the debate is resolved by thinking only about the needs of the federal government departments and what Statistics Canada may or may not be able to do to meet those particular needs.

Traditionally, work done at Statistics Canada has had to be sensitive to at least the following three classes of stakeholders: one, the designer of a marketing or product innovation program in the business sector; two, the non-profit organization leader developing a program of assistance to specific population groups; and three, a government policy or program leader needing to fine-tune a municipal, provincial, or federal policy program to address the situations of particular subgroups of men and women in our society.

Sensitivity to the widely varying data needs of these three classes of stakeholders was explained on the grounds that Statistics Canada was a national resource when viewed from the perspective of society as a whole. At the same time, we all need to be conscious of the fact that this agency is now subject to constraints that are affecting its ability to be adequately helpful across the range of sectors that I've just identified. Some of these constraints are demographic; I'm referring, of course, to the wave of baby boomer retirements.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to try to respond to your questions as an individual.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you, Mr. Stone.

We next have the Canadian Council on Social Development.

Ms. Taillon, are you going to be doing the presentation?

[Peggy Taillon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development]

Yes, thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Okay. At about nine minutes I'll try to gesture so that you can wrap things up.

[Peggy Taillon]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all. It's a pleasure to be here today.

I'm here along with Katherine Scott, our vice-president of research, who's also been appointed director of programs at the Vanier Institute.

As you all likely know, CCSD is Canada's longest-established social policy organization. We were founded in 1920 by Charlotte Whitton. We have a long history of working collaboratively with successive Canadian governments. CCSD developed the concepts of some of our most fundamental social programs in the country, including EI, disability, and old age pension, at a time when Canadians needed it most.

One of our flagship programs is called the community social data strategy. This is a pan-Canadian partnership where members collectively purchase about $900,000 worth of census data at a discounted rate. Consortium members include police services, municipalities, United Ways, provincial government departments, and front-line service agencies, just to name a few.

Our partners use the data to respond to troubling trends in their local communities. The information allows communities to focus their efforts at the neighbourhood level, making better use of our tax dollars and targeting services that respond to those most in need. Yes, we're talking about $1 million worth of revenue for the government, and now we're at a point where we have to determine whether or not we would purchase it at all.

As we've said many times since the decision was taken, losing the long-form census is equal to the government turning off Canada's navigation system. Those in government who support this decision must consider the impact of this decision very carefully. For over five months now, Canadians certainly have, and their response has been unequivocal. Over 370 organizations have come forward in opposition to this decision. They represent every aspect of Canadian life. Hundreds of others have spoken out more quietly, as they fear there could be repercussions for their organizations if they were more public in their criticism. Over 17,000 Canadians have petitioned for a reversal of the decision; 11,000 more have joined a Facebook page.

As we all know, Canada's chief statistician resigned in protest. Opposition parties have been unanimous and vocal in their condemnation, and challenges have been launched in the Federal Court. Tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians have written and called and visited their MPs to voice their concerns. Polling on this decision has been quite consistent as well, showing 60% of Canadians want the decision reversed.

For so many, it is inconceivable that our government would choose to navigate the country's current and future direction without the most comprehensive source of information that is universally relied on as a tool to respond to the needs and priorities of every Canadian, doing so against the advice of experts across the country.

And the experts have been clear: a voluntary survey will underrepresent significant communities, such as aboriginal Canadians, Canadians living with disabilities, and visible minorities. A voluntary survey will underrepresent the numbers and skew the service needs of marginalized communities across this country. This under-counting will be most evident at the local neighbourhood level, rendering this data virtually unusable for local service planning and depriving the under-counted of the services to which they're entitled. In essence, we will look whiter, more middle class, and in need of less government support.

Despite the government's contention that it is too late to reverse this decision, we know it is not. A simple cover letter from the chief statistician, our Prime Minister, placed on every national household survey could make it mandatory: yes, a note could make this all go away. Until the surveys reach our mail boxes, there's an opportunity to restore the long form.

If the logistics of implementing a reversal requires time for StatsCan, there is no magic in a spring census. As Ivan Fellegi has said, move the census to the fall. The most important thing here is to get it right. Why pay more and get less?

This is worth fighting for, and we're pursuing every possible option to have this decision reversed. CCSD, along with 12 other organizations in the country, have launched a legal challenge in the Federal Court defending Canadians' equal right to be counted. Partners in our challenge include the Canadian Arab Federation, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and many others.

You need not look far to determine where these data are used. Each and every one of us in this room today has likely used and most certainly has benefited from this information.

Let's be honest: this is an experiment, and a costly one. Statistics Canada itself has said that it has never conducted a survey of this scale, nor does it know if the country has anything in place to actually mitigate the unanticipated negative impacts. One thing it does know is that there will be a significant non-response bias--that is, people who don't respond tend to have characteristics different from those who do. StatsCan says that the voluntary survey will just not be representative of all Canadians.

The moral, legal, and economic dimensions of this decision just don't add up. We're selling our children's future, weakening evidence that will direct how and where tax dollars are spent, and further weakening our social infrastructure at a time when we all know we need it the most--and we're doing so by discriminating against some of the most vulnerable groups in this country.

I'm now going to turn it over to Katherine Scott, if time allows, to provide some additional opening comments.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

You have three and a half minutes left.

[Katherine Scott, Vice-President, Research, Canadian Council on Social Development]

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.

Cutting to the chase, I want to come back and follow up on Peggy's comments in terms of recommendations, taking into account the fact that the committee is looking at the mandatory nature of the long-form census and questions around unpaid work.

We would urge the committee to use its powers to ensure that the mandatory long form is included in the 2011 census, as Peggy has outlined. As well, we'd like to put on record that we support the recommendations that the National Statistics Council has forwarded to this government in respect of the census and Statistics Canada. As well, we would like to register our support for the proposed amendments to the Statistics Act that would ensure the integrity of Statistics Canada and its autonomy to pursue the highest-quality data collection possible. We would like as well to support the letter that was forwarded earlier by the chief statistician, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, and two former clerks of the Privy Council.

It's not an exaggeration to say that the census is the foundation of our data collection systems in Canada. The decision to abandon the long-form census will certainly critically undermine the integrity of our census, but as well it will undermine the integrity of many other surveys and data collections in Canada. It will compromise the ability of governments at all levels to pursue evidence-based decision-making and informed policy and program choices, most especially at the community level.

I'm coming today as a researcher. I can touch briefly on some of the work we've done at CCSD in Vanier and about how we have used the census in our own work, but I actually wanted to bring forward a more personal anecdote. I've been doing research in the community sector for upwards of 20 years, and I really truly cannot tell you the number of times I get phone calls from people across the country--from Kamloops, as Leroy was saying--with simple questions, asking me, for example, how many single moms live in Campbell River, British Columbia, or what types of supports are available in the communities. People in this age are wont to pick up the phone, and I turn to the census. This is really, exclusively, the only source of information at the community level. This decision in particular will have an extraordinary impact on the availability and quality of data available to communities across the country.

In the absence of the census in the long form, where will communities turn in the future to answer these questions? Will they have the expertise or resources to pursue this information to help plan their services and the like? Will they have the ability to collect these data themselves? I would put forward to you that they will have neither the resources nor the funds to pursue this important information and that they will go without. Many communities will be steering, as Peggy has said, without any type of navigation tool.

In some of the research we've done, the census has been critical for us at CCSD in pursuing studies of urban poverty. I can cite the research. For instance, some of you may be familiar with “Poverty by Postal Code”. That report was done in Toronto back in 2004. That particular piece of research identified emerging patterns of urban poverty in Toronto, and that led directly to the United Way's profoundly changing their programming and setting up neighbourhood revitalization programs that are influencing policy today.

To wrap up, I would say that just as we have, over this past number of months, invested in our critical physical infrastructure, it's as critical to invest in our knowledge infrastructure. In that regard, the census is a foundation, and I urge the committee to lend its weight and its voice to maintaining the long-form census.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

Next we have Ms. Naudillon.

[Dr. Françoise Naudillon, Counsellor, Professor, Concordia University, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université]

Good morning. I am Françoise Naudillon from FQPPU. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for giving us the opportunity to share our point of view on the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census.

Very early on, the Fédération des professeurs et professeurs du Québec was opposed to the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census, as were many other Quebec organizations that have either a broad or specific interest in the status of women. I refer, for example, to the Conseil du statut de la femme, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Comité des femmes des communautés culturelles and Action travail des femmes. Among the more specific organizations, we can name the Institut de la statistique du Québec, the Centre interuniversitaire québécois de statistiques sociales, and so on. I would also like to mention that there is the Quebec coalition for the future of the census, which brings together a number of these organizations.

I would like to point out, like the previous group did, that there are about 75 university research projects in Quebec that use the statistics from the census. A number of these projects deal with women and the status of women.

I will only give you one concrete example of the type of very important information that we need and that is available through these statistics. The document Portrait des Québécoises en 8 temps, for example, was published this year by the Conseil du statut de la femme based on data collected in the 2006 census. This paints a portrait of the status of women in eight areas of their lives: demographics, education, family, work, income, health, leisure activities, and, finally, employment and power.

The survey says the following:

Women are more numerous in the classroom, even far more numerous than men, and they perform very well in school. But, in terms of employment, the picture darkens: women are concentrated in a limited number of low paying professions and their income is lower than that of men. Even though men are doing more of the housework, women are still responsible for a significant portion of the work. Single parent families are still mostly run by women. Too many women continue to be victims of domestic violence. While their representation in positions of power has increased considerably, parity is still far off.

So it is not by chance that university researchers, professors and students in humanities, social sciences and health sciences are at the forefront of this debate on the future of the mandatory long-form census. We need to remember that the current government's decision is putting an end to a 35-year-old tradition and that we have conducted surveys in Canada since 1852. We all know—and we even heard it once here—that statistical research has to be traced through time.

Women in particular would have everything to lose if the mandatory long-form census, as conducted until 2006, was cancelled. Cancelling the form opens a giant gap in the Canadian heritage of statistics, and the coherence, reliability and comparability of data will be lost. It is actually due to the production and systematic analysis of gender-based data that it was possible to implement programs to fight gender stereotypes and inequality between men and women.

If the decision is maintained, how will we be able to know the following, as indicated on the Statistics Canada site on September 10, 2007:

Immigrant women in the core-working-age group of 25 to 54 had higher unemployment rates and lower employment rates than both immigrant men and Canadian-born women, regardless of how long they had been in Canada.

If we continue along the same lines, how will we be able to have access to analyses such as the one entitled Les effets des accords de commerce et de la libéralisation des marchés sur les conditions de travail et de vie des femmes au Québec, 1989-2005, which was published in the 23^rd issue of Cahiers de l'IREF? How will we assess women's entrepreneurship?

How will we be able to look at “the heterogeneity of socio-economic status and experiences of women and the diversity of identities, practices and positions at a local, national and international level”? This question was raised by Francine Descarries, a professor of Sociology at UQAM.

In other words, it is by comparing data over time that the programs implemented to address inequalities can be assessed, changed or improved. University research will make it possible to refine both the chronological process, meaning traced over time, and the instant process, since these studies also have to do with the study of sub-populations and microdata. Researchers who work with detailed analyses can address the inequality between men and women, the issue of immigrant women, single mothers or issues like prostitution, sex work, parity, economic recognition of caregiving, new reproductive technologies, same-sex parenting, and so on. These are core issues that affect not only the development of the status of women, but also of society as a whole.

However, it is known that any statistical survey must set a reference point, for itself, ideally every five years, to establish its validity and reliability. It really is about comparing the past to the present in order to build our future. By dropping the mandatory long-form census, we condemn ourselves to the production of phantom data and make a dangerous bet on the future. In addition, as mentioned earlier, it is precisely those marginalized and vulnerable groups of people who, as we know, will provide very low response rates when it comes to voluntary polls, as proposed for the national household survey.

So the future of large sections of Canadian research is at stake. Eliminating the mandatory long-form census will not only diminish the quality of the results, but will also increase the costs of information because polls or surveys administered by private organizations will have to be used, and, as a result, the privatization of this acquired knowledge will be looming over our heads.

I would like to conclude by talking about the already significant consequences of the government's announcement at the international level.

In June, when the elimination of the mandatory long-form census was announced, a real earthquake hit. For example, we can see the condemnation of this decision by Kenneth Prewitt from Columbia University, former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, in the August 26, 2010 issue of Nature.

Robert McCaa is the director of IPUMS-International, a database quoted as a reference by all researchers around the world who use statistics. When the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census was announced, he said that the 2011 data that would be collected in the current form of the Canadian census could no longer be included in this international database. I must point out that the database has collected data from 55 countries around the world since 1960. Canadian data will no longer be included because it will be impossible to harmonize and compare them with those of other countries.

As an aside, I would just like to mention that the infamous question that had been considered intrusive, the question on the number of rooms in the house is asked in 20 of those countries that are part of this international database. This question makes it possible to understand the living conditions of children, for example, and their mothers.

The international demographic database, as indicated by Lisa Dillon, professor of demography at the University of Montreal, “allows us to measure the wage gap between men and women and see how great it is from one country to another”. What I want to emphasize here is that the elimination of the mandatory long-form census has consequences for Canada and its communications outside the country.

I would like to conclude by saying that, in this debate, it might be worth mentioning the well-known Japanese parable of the wise monkeys. To avoid misfortune and spreading it, one must see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. However, we must not forget the yin and yang side of the story, which says that pretending to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is harmful behaviour.

Cancelling the mandatory long-form census will condemn women to see, hear and say nothing about themselves.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

We'll go to our final witness. That is Mr. Norris, who is from the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.

[Doug Norris, Representative, Senior Vice-President and Chief Demographer, Environics Analytics, Marketing Research and Intelligence Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I want to thank you, first of all, for inviting our association to appear before you today on this very important issue. Many of our members feel quite strongly and are quite concerned about what this means in terms of their future business practices.

My name is Dr. Doug Norris and I am currently senior vice-president and chief demographer for Environics Analytics. In that capacity, I work with many large businesses, small businesses, non-profit organizations, and governments at all levels in using the census information and other information to help them make their business decisions.

Previously I spent 30 years at Statistics Canada, most recently as director general of social and demographic statistics. While there, I was a member of the senior census management team. However, today I am here as a representative of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association—I'll refer to it as MRIA. With me is my colleague, Greg Jodouin, who is our organization’s government relations consultant.

MRIA is the single authoritative voice of the market and survey research industry in Canada. Our membership includes over 2,000 individual research practitioners and more than 400 corporate members—large businesses, small businesses of all types—who are users of research information. MRIA is tasked with developing and enforcing the standards for the Canadian opinion research industry. Overall, we account for about three quarters of a billion dollars a year in economic activity in Canada.

Our association considers the issue of the mandatory long-form census to be of prime importance. We have written to the minister on this issue, and I believe a copy of our letter to him will be circulated to committee members. We'll also be making available a copy of the brief here today.

Our basic concern is that the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census will affect the availability of data, the quality of data, and the reliability of data—all that is considered essential to Canadian businesses and many other organizations in trying to navigate through what is becoming a very complex economy and complex and rapidly changing society. We have the baby boomers aging, we have high levels of immigration, immigrants struggling in many cases to adapt to Canadian society, our aboriginal population becoming an important part of our future labour market. All of these issues are being faced by businesses trying to sort this out and depending for that purpose on census information.

Although the new voluntary national household survey will come into play and may provide good data for some purposes, it is not expected to be able to provide reliable information for many purposes. I think you've heard from many commentators on that issue. In particular, the concern with the loss of the mandatory census is the loss of our ability to track change over time. It's often the trends that are important rather than a level of something—which is, however, of interest. It's the question of whether things are improving or deteriorating. Do we need a new program put in place? Do we have to modify a program? It's those trends, and also the data on small population groups and small geographic areas.

Our businesses operate in different parts of Canada, in rural Canada, in urban Canada, and in big parts of the large CMAs. Toronto is by no means homogeneous; Ottawa is not homogeneous. Our businesses need to understand the local population around, for example, a store or other operation that they engage in. That population is changing as well. It's the loss of both the trend information and this small-area and small-population-group information that's of real concern to our members.

As many others have pointed out and as you've heard this morning, the response rate in a voluntary survey will likely be substantially lower than average for hard-to-reach segments of the population: low-income groups, marginalized communities such as the aboriginal population, immigrants. Also, high-income households will probably be hard to reach. The new national household survey is therefore likely to lead to skewed data. This will give rise to doubts about the accuracy.

Unfortunately, we just won't know which of the data is accurate—some of it will be—and which is not, so there will be concerns raised about all of the census information. Large sample sizes, although the national household survey is larger than the last census, don't address the issue of bias and skewness.

Although the census decision will impact on many aspects of our work, I'd like to give you a few examples of the negative impact on our association members' ability to measure and monitor trends and plan targeted programs related to women's equality.

Many businesses have particular programs targeted at the recruitment, retention, and promotion of women. In looking at those programs, they rely on census data as a benchmark, as a comparator, to see how well they're doing. For example, they may compare their own workforce profile to the profile of the local labour market outside: how do they compare, and are things improving? Are they moving in the right direction? Do we need to modify our programs or introduce new programs?

More generally, relevant comparisons of male/female income differences, an important indicator of gender equality, really require very detailed data by age, education, specific occupations, class of worker. Only a census can provide this information. It's important again to do these comparisons at a local level: the labour market in Toronto is not the same as the labour market in northern Alberta, for example.

From the survey industry's perspective, another important concern is the loss of the long-form census as a benchmark for the many surveys our members carry out. Survey researchers rely on the census data—and refer to it as the gold standard of surveys—in order to monitor their own surveys and adjust their surveys to be representative of the population as they see it in the census. We cannot stress strongly enough that without the data from the long-form census, without the “gold standard” to refer to, all survey results, including those from the national household survey, will likely be biased to some extent, particularly on important dimensions such as income, education, housing, and many other characteristics.

Corporate and government decision-makers rely on accurate and reliable research data to help them make the right decisions and to navigate through our complex society. Measuring the trends and conditions of women and other population groups will be more important than ever as we come out of this post-recession and our economy develops. There will be a lot of interest in how well various groups are doing as we emerge from the recession. How well will our labour market be responding to the many changes we see around us?

In the future, the lack of reliable information may in fact result in poorer decisions, lower business efficiencies, and likely increased costs for businesses as they go out and search for other information to replace what the census can't provide. I'd suggest that overall, productivity and our competitiveness may in fact be affected by the loss of this very valuable navigation tool.

We therefore urge the committee to recommend that cabinet reconsider and reverse its decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form census.

I think I'll leave it there. I look forward to your questions. Thank you again for asking us to appear.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you very much.

We will now head into our question and answer period. For those who haven't been to a committee before, each group takes turns, and the first round is seven minutes for questions and answers for each member.

We'll start with Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all very much for being here this morning. We've certainly heard opinions from a varied group of presenters, and we welcome you.

My first question is for Mr. Stone. In your opening statement you referred to your work in preparing three technical papers published in The 1996 Census: Unpaid Work Data Evaluation Study, which you co-authored with a colleague—I think it was Sandra Swain. My understanding is that the stated purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the census data on unpaid work is valid data and how the census data compares with the GSS time diary data on unpaid work of various kinds.

I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not going to go into reading it all, but it appears that the study reached two conclusions of interest to the committee. You said:

With its large sample size, census estimates will be more reliable than the GSS in terms of sampling variability for dozens of significant sub-populations.

You went on to say, further on, that:

...with regard to child-caring work, it is almost totally misleading to suggest that the GSS time-diary estimates of time spent doing child caring as a primary activity are comparable (let alone superior) to the census-type, stylized question....

You go on, but I don't want to take the time to read it all.

Is it your professional opinion that these findings are still valid; that you're not aware of any studies that would show that those findings, albeit 15 years ago, are incorrect?

[Leroy Stone]

I would certainly stand by them, with the proviso that we take note of the fact that Statistics Canada is making an effort to deal with the key problem in the time-use survey. In the latest cycle of the survey, they are now trying to handle multi-tasking--for example, women ironing and keeping an eye on the kid at the same time--so there is improvement in the last round of the time-use survey on this issue. At the time we wrote it, it did have that rather important problem.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

You say there is improvement. Is it sufficient to meet the requirements of providing accurate information?

[Leroy Stone]

At the national level I would say that it almost certainly is, but notice that I emphasized the case of the mayor of Kamloops, for whom the GSS is of no use.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

My question is to whoever wants to answer. Is there any jurisdiction worldwide that does not have some kind of mandatory collection of additional demographic data of the kind that existed in the previous mandatory Canada long-form census? We all know about the Finland cards, but apart from that, is there any jurisdiction?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Is anyone able to tackle that question?

[Doug Norris]

I'm not aware of any country that carries out a census on a voluntary basis. There are countries that do not carry out a census and collect that information through other means, generally through some kind of registration system, but that system is mandatory in itself, and people have to report that information. I can't say I've canvassed the world, but I'm not aware of countries that do not carry out a mandatory census.

The U.S. actually moved to a new method of data collection. They do a survey, but that survey, since it replaced the census, is actually mandatory as well.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Is there anybody else?

What has struck me, listening to those who are here today and to the representations last week, is the real frontal assault on women's equality through the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census and the removal of question 33, and the fact that this assault has not been articulated in the public domain.

Do any of you want to comment on that, and would you agree with my observation?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Go ahead, Ms. Scott.

[Katherine Scott]

When this issue first came up and when I looked at and read the new household survey, I was certainly struck by the fact that those particular questions on unpaid work had been excised from the household survey.

It brought to mind the real fight there had been in the women's movement back in the 1960s and 1970s--and indeed stretching back to the time when Charlotte Whitton was president of CCSD, back in the 1920s--around the number of women engaged in trying to elevate the importance of unpaid work. Those groups ranged across the ideological spectrum. They were people who were concerned about the labour market, but concerned also about unpaid caring work that women were doing. Certainly the fight for the inclusion of these questions in the census had everything to do with understanding women's equality and making the case that women who were labouring in the home were doing incredibly important caregiving work that was not being captured in our formal economic accounts. We can document that history with the national accounts and the work of Marilyn Waring in If Women Counted.

How quietly this happened. This one set of questions, without consultation, was excised from the 2011 census. I have been struck by the silence, because it really does strike profoundly at questions of women's equality.

While there are now new data collection instruments and surveys, such as the GSS, that look at care and elder care and child care, they don't facilitate the ability to do the kind of far-reaching analysis around gender equality that Leroy and Doug were talking about that you are able to do with the census.

You're absolutely correct that this has been quite striking, and the silence has been profound.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

We thank you.

We'll go on to Monsieur Desnoyers.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, everyone.

For a few days now, we have been receiving dozens of people to discuss the long-form census that allows us to collect important data. This form is for 2.9 million people, compared to the survey that is sent to 25,000 people. The cost of the survey would be $30 million higher than that of the long form. We are trying to understand this process. Yet we know that we are losing important data.

Ms. Naudillon, you were first to be asked questions. You often talked about comparability, both at a local level and at a marketing level. My questions are for all of you. You can all answer, including Ms. Taillon.

The loss of data will be significant at a municipal, provincial, federal and even international level. Ms. Naudillon, you mentioned that this was being done in a number of countries around the world, even though it was not included in any agreements. We are comparing our methods to be able to move forward with the work on women issues. As a committee, we are trying to get this work done. We are aware that women have been working for a long time to add questions to the long-form census. These questions are going to disappear and women will be silenced.

My colleague Nicole Demers told us that, unfortunately, on March 6, women were told to keep their mouths shut because they were taking up too much space. Personally, I simply say that you are taking up space, because the space belongs to you.

I would like to hear what you have to say about the reliability and quality of data, comparibility and the future losses from not having these data.

Ms. Naudillon, you can go first and then it will be Ms. Taillon's turn, followed by Mr. Norris.