Evidence of meeting #38 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.
Conservative
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all of you, because you've made this very clear in terms of understanding what is going on and the bits and pieces. Clearly we're not the experts, but you have given expertise that will help us to come to a good decision.
What's been most bizarre or interesting, I guess, about all of this is the motivation behind eliminating unpaid work from the mandatory census and behind the changes. We know it's going to cost about $300 million more to do this.
We've heard from a number of perspectives. For example, Mr. Norris, you talked about the economic repercussions of eliminating the long-form census, in terms of lower business efficiencies, lower profitability, lower productivity. It seems that's a very significant negative. We've heard from Madame Taillon and Ms. Scott about the general impact on NGOs and service providers and those people who deliver the services to our community.
I come back to trying to understand what on earth the motivation is. The government, despite what we've heard this morning, has gone to considerable pains to point out that no one has ever gone to jail for not completing the long-form census, so it's clearly not a punitive thing.
We've also heard in testimony that the long-form census isn't perceived to be particularly intrusive; people are happy to participate, or at least there is a willingness. This collection of data goes back a long way, and you've said over and over again how essential it is, how important it is, not just to marketing but to the fabric of our society and making sure that what is needed is what is provided.
A number of things struck me, and I want to pursue a number of questions. I'll start with Madame Taillon.
You said that without the long-form census our society will be whiter, more middle-class, and less in need of government services. I want to underscore “less in need of government services”, because the mantra of “less government” seems to be the siren call that we've heard over and over.
What are the consequences of this? Could you give me a sense of it? I'm struggling again with motivation.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development
Thank you for the question.
There are lots of theories, and we've heard them all, percolating. One thing that has been unequivocal is the expertise. The statisticians across the country have said that a volunteer survey will not render the same results as a mandatory survey. There is a lot of evidence that supports the fact that certain groups in Canada will fill out a volunteer survey and others will not: the more vulnerable members of our communities—single parents, people living under a certain income level, as well as certain people living over a certain income level. We also know that new Canadians, immigrants, etc., will struggle. They're struggling to adapt to the country. Filling out a volunteer survey will not be a great priority, and language is a key issue.
That has been well established by the experts in the country.
There are those who, when you start to think about the motivation.... Is it that we're trying to paint a different picture of the country? I would hope we're not, but we have to recognize that the census is used as a tool to determine levels of funding transfer to key programs based on population need. If you draw the line between understanding that and understanding what the expert statisticians are telling us in the country, we believe there is a great risk of less money going to where it's needed most in this country.
That's a big problem.
NDP
Counsellor, Professor, Concordia University, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université
In fact, it would be difficult to guess the secret intentions behind this decision. We don't have a crystal ball. I still think that, if this decision persists, we will be tragically blinded. I can see the consequences: we could be given any old figures. People will tell us that, after conducting their own private surveys, they have decided this or that based on their own figures, and they will show them to us. That will be done without comparability or reliability, or anything like that
As it was pointed out, the importance of Statistics Canada in general and of its work has to do with the fact that it is a non-political corporation that conducts its own research and fights its own battles without being steered by political demand. This organization is about to lose its independence, and that's why things are becoming serious, in my opinion.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Just very quickly, again, Madam Naudillon, this government is currently negotiating all kinds of trade agreements and is very proud about the one with Colombia and Panama, and currently an agreement with the European Union.
You said that trade agreements and the free market have a very distinct impact on women, who are perhaps impacted more than others by them. Could you elaborate on that?
Counsellor, Professor, Concordia University, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université
I don't want to say anything silly, but I just want to talk about a simple consequence quickly. A number of decisions are made at an international level and we are not even aware. Sometimes, it has to do with changing a word or a comma in a text, but that makes all the difference when we compare ourselves to other countries.
As to women in particular, the consequences of going backwards with women's issues in Canada will go beyond Canada. It will affect Italy, Africa or China, just because...
Counsellor, Professor, Concordia University, Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université
...international decisions are interconnected.
That's all I wanted to say.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
We'll head into round two, a five-minute round, starting with Ms. Simson for the Liberals.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for appearing.
Every one of our witnesses has brought something very valuable to the table, but certainly not the information in terms of how Canadians see the long-form census as very important and the arbitrary dropping of question 33. I think there was enough outrage about that.
My concern, however, is with the current government's stunning lack of comprehension of the material we are gathering with the long-form census, the mandatory information. We have a minister who said that a complaint by one person in this country is all it takes to change public policy. So all I can imagine is that there was one person who complained and we've changed everything as a result. And the fact that we have another member, quite honestly, who sees this as gathering statistics for flyers...I'm actually stunned, and that I have to sit here and ask questions about something that's so fundamental....
I did want to pick up on our international obligations. We've been hearing in the news that Canada has been taking hits all around the world for policies that it's buying into. This question 33 came about because the question was specific to a UN conference on women in Beijing, where 181 member nations, including Canada, signed onto that. They signed, which indicates to me it was fairly important globally. They agreed to start to tally and value unpaid work.
Do any of you have any idea if any of the other 180 nations opted out of this “survey” in terms of trying to collect data for unpaid work?
Vice-President, Research, Canadian Council on Social Development
To my knowledge, I don't have any information about a particular country that, having signed, opted out. Certainly different countries have proceeded to develop the indicators to track the status of women pursuant to the Beijing agreements.
What was interesting, of course, was that Canada was a leader in that process. In fact, through the late 1990s, as Leroy was mentioning, there was an enormous investment of energy in Canada to develop equality indicators, which really became benchmarks for other countries around the world. That was true as it pertains to gender equality in aid on the international front and certainly here at home in looking at the status of children.
Statistics Canada played a critical role in our investment in the development of different types of data instruments that were hugely beneficial, not only in understanding the conditions of women in Canada, but also as exemplars, as my colleague has pointed out, for other countries in their own data collection. I can't emphasize too much how important that work was in that period.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you.
The government of the day, the cabinet, was actually quite insistent about it. We've heard testimony, and historical data indicate, that the government of the day in 1995-96 pressed hard to make sure this was included.
I'll come back to your point, Ms. Taillon. Because of the sandwich generation, what I really anticipated was seeing this question expanded and enhanced and broken down. We are seeing more and more women both raising children and looking after aging and/or seriously ill parents, so to have it dropped.... I actually thought it would be quite a bit more expanded. Would that not make sense to any of the witnesses?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development
I absolutely agree. I think we need to do more. We have to recognize that more and more families are carrying the burden of caregiving, and we need to understand what things governments could do to assist those families. We need to know more than we do today, absolutely.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my pleasure to be here today. It's nice to see Ms. Taillon again.
I have a few questions for you. Since I only have five minutes, I'll need a yes or a no to help me get through this.
Based on your testimony today, which was a bit different from the last time we talked, in your opinion the difference between the long-form census and the national survey is the penalties. Is that correct?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development
It's the mandatory nature.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Right, so if something is mandatory, you have to have penalties.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council on Social Development
You're absolutely right.