Mr. Speaker, what happens for the third of Canadians who do not fill it out? They are not white, middle-class Canadians. We know this from scientific evidence. We know that those people who are less likely to fill out the questionnaire are the disadvantaged. We are talking about the linguistic minorities, first nations, poor people, ethnic minorities, and they are precisely the people we want to target with government policy, but unfortunately, they will not be represented.
That is what the chief statistician called bias. It is a technical term, but one that is relatively easy to understand if one actually pays attention.
What happens is that the data is skewed. We cannot afford not to continue on our five-year plan to collect important information on the Canadian mosaic so that we have an accurate picture of what Canada is really like and so that we can target policies in an intelligent manner to help those who are most in need. That unfortunately is not going to happen.
I remember the very eloquent testimony of one of the witnesses who appeared at the first industry committee hearing. She represented the Inuit community and was also the mayor of Iqaluit. She spoke about what would happen if it became voluntary. Essentially, she said that if it became voluntary, nobody in the Inuit community would fill out the household survey. Why? Because they have difficulty understanding the questions in the English or French languages and need some help to do so. It is quite an involved process.
People from the Government of Canada go to those communities, which is why they start earlier in the year, in February versus May or June. They sit down with them, ask them the questions and help them fill out the questionnaire. This provides vital information that helps us have an accurate portrait of what the Inuit community is like. That is a dramatic example of why it is important to continue to support making the filling out of the census compulsory.
Let me quote the Minister of Industry who said in July, “I don't accept the fact that every time you make a change on every matter of government business you have to shout it from the rooftop”. I guess he realized this summer that whether he whispered it or shouted it from the rooftop, he sure provoked a reaction, because there was one heck of a reaction across Canada on a subject, as I say again, that I thought would never, ever be on the minds of Canadians as most Canadians dutifully filled out their questionnaires.
Even today the Minister of Industry raised the spectrum of jail time. Does he not know that for a long time now all of the other parties have decided to get rid of that notion? Why? Because nobody has ever been sent to jail. He should know that. Why is he bringing up old-fashioned answers when he is asked questions?
This statement is by James Turk of the Canadian Association of University Teachers:
—we are deeply concerned about the disastrous consequences this will have for the scientific understanding of Canadian society, and for the ability to make informed decisions about social and economic policies.
An economist with SRC Atlantique said:
We will no longer be able to know whether the gap between young and old or the gap between regions has grown. These kinds of analyses will not be possible.
The president of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council said:
You're not going to have the same level of reliability with a voluntary survey.
The executive director of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women said:
This makes us even more vulnerable to a government or an interest group that claims something, because we will not have the data to contradict them.
I could go on with quotes. I want to name some of the other organizations. I will flip to another one of the 12 pages that I have of groups that have protested the government's decision: the Canadian Association of Journalists; the Canadian Association of Midwives; the Canadian Association of Public Data Users; the Canadian Association of Retired People. If these are groups that the government cares about, or at least pretends to care about, why is it not listening to them?
The Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Canadian Library Association and a countless number of municipal city councils have spoken out against the decision by the government to make the changes about which are talking.
The Canadian Population Society, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Canadian Sociology Association, the city of Brampton, the city of Calgary, the city of Edmonton, the city of Fredericton, the city of Hamilton, the city of Kelowna, the city of Laval, the city of Moose Jaw, the city of Montreal, the city of New Westminster, the city of Ottawa, the city of Vancouver and the city of Gatineau have also spoken out against the government's decision
And it goes on. It is never-ending.
Why is this government not listening? These are the people it wants to talk to, the people whose interests, supposedly, are important to it. Why is the government not listening to them?
Despite a sustained outcry from a broad cross-section of Canadians against axing the mandatory long census and the unprecedented resignation of Canada's chief statistician, a man of honour who was forced into that essentially because he could not stand by and pretend that Statistics Canada acquiesced with the decision of the government and was made to look as though it agreed with something with which it did not agree, the government has not listened.
Liberals support the long form mandatory census and I am delighted that my colleagues in the other opposition parties also feel the same way. We have been together all summer on this issue and we will be on this issue during the fall as we present a private member's bill and as we raise this issue again next Tuesday, at least for the first time, and as many times as we can thereafter.
At the moment, the long form census has been shelved and has been replaced by the national household survey. The scheduling is that this is supposed to go out initially next winter to northern communities and then, I believe in June, to the rest of the population. Approximately one-third of Canadians will be receiving this.
I would like to urge the government to reconsider the decision that it has taken and that it persists in holding onto throughout the summer. It is damaging a vital database. It is not too late for the government to change its mind, even though the formulas are being printed as we speak.
We know very well that if a decision were made to reverse the government's decision, an additional page could simply be included with the questionnaire that is going to be sent to constituents, explaining that the government changed its mind and that the questionnaire is mandatory and not voluntary.
It is not too late to reverse the decision. And you can be sure that we will not stop pushing that message.
Munir Sheikh's resignation exposed an attempt by the current government to eliminate the mandatory long form census based on false arguments. Now the Conservatives are grasping at straws to defend their unpopular and unwarranted decision. I appeal to them to recognize that this should not be a triumph of ignorance, ideology and dogma over scientific rigour, common sense, truth and enlightenment. I hope they will take that seriously.
