Tories scrapping long form census

[Smallc]

And I suppose a horse and buggy also works.

Sure does, but a care works better.

People in 1871 may have used a horse to travel between Toronto and Ottawa but people generally don't use them now.

People today still fill out forms, surveys, and other paper documents though. Bad analogy.

[bebe]

And yet, smallc, Denmark no longer has a formal census and the UK and Germany are about to abolish theirs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/wl_time/08599200524500

UK

"These sources are not likely to be any substitute. They are mostly characterized by a near comical set of gaps, omissions, conflicts of interest and data-protection issues."

...

A 2003 ONS paper looking into the creation of a central system that would link together a wide variety of government statistics and databases - offering a reliable and up-to-date alternative to the aging census - estimates it would take 10 years to get up and running.

There is plenty of information about each of us collected via various government departments. However, each is currently under legal obligation

1) To use the data only for the purpose for which it was collected, and

2) Not to share any personalised data with anyone else.

If we give the government carte blanche to find whatever information they can on us and send it anywhere and everywhere or use it anyway they choose ... well ... I just don't think people are quite ready for that kind of intrusion and lack of privacy.

[August1991]

Bad analogy.

The analogy is appropriate.

In 2011, there are far better ways (more accurate, less intrusive, less costly to citizens) for the government to collect information than to have millions of forms printed up, filled out in pen and then compiled. (And in Canada, we do this absurdity every five years!)

One suspects that if the government ran our phone system, we would still be receiving thick phone books every year.

[Smallc]

The analogy is appropriate.

In 2011, there are far better ways (more accurate, less intrusive, less costly to citizens) for the government to collect information than to have millions of forms printed up, filled out in pen and then compiled. (And in Canada, we do this absurdity every five years!)

No, there isn't.

One suspects that if the government ran our phone system, we would still be receiving thick phone books every year.

You do realize that you can still get those, right?

[August1991]

"These sources are not likely to be any substitute. They are mostly characterized by a near comical set of gaps, omissions, conflicts of interest and data-protection issues."

...

A 2003 ONS paper looking into the creation of a central system that would link together a wide variety of government statistics and databases - offering a reliable and up-to-date alternative to the aging census - estimates it would take 10 years to get up and running.

....

If we give the government carte blanche to find whatever information they can on us and send it anywhere and everywhere or use it anyway they choose ... well ... I just don't think people are quite ready for that kind of intrusion and lack of privacy.

And yet for some reason, you don't apply the same logic to our current census system.

----

Here's another way of looking at this question. Smallc, or bebe, do you think that in 2021 or 2031, we will still have paper census forms filled out by millions of Canadians?

Edited July 23, 2010 by August1991

[bebe]

And yet for some reason, you don't apply the same logic to our current census system.

Census data goes to StatsCan and is never released to anyone with any identifying personal information.

To link all the available information in various departments is a huge task, and requires use of identifying personal information that we have not given consent for them to share.

----

Here's another way of looking at this question. Smallc, or bebe, do you think that in 2021 or 2031, we will still have paper census forms filled out by millions of Canadians?

It might be online by then, but it will likely still be a unique data collection for that specific census purpose.

I don't think Canadians will ever agree to let the government use any and all personal information in various databases however and whenever they want to.

Edited July 23, 2010 by bebe

[scribblet]

You really believe that the long form is relevant - really how would you rate or believe the answers to this:

i) do you own a gun?

ii) if so, is it registered?

[Jack Weber]

You really believe that the long form is relevant - really how would you rate or believe the answers to this:

i) do you own a gun?

ii) if so, is it registered?

i)no

ii)Not Applicable...

Oh no...The gun totin' Libertarians have to talk about thier gun ownership...And the government is going to know about it...

Next stop???

The GESTAPO!!!!

[Smallc]

[Argus]

This one is interesting:

* Public servants shall give honest and impartial advice and make all information relevant to a decision available to Ministers.

And yet, the chief statistician felt that to be honest, he had to resign first.

And yes, he likely would have been fired for being publicly honest to the Harper government. What does that say?

He didn't have to resign to be honest. Nor would he have been fired for being honest. Those were part of his job. No doubt he was honest - unless you're suggesting he was not telling the politicians of his preference for a mandatory census.

He had to resign to publicly oppose the government. As is only proper.

[Argus]

It seems like this was a bad idea on the part of the government (again). There is so much outcry agains the change, that I don't see how it can stick.

You are mistaking whining from the media - who have no important news stories to cover - for an outcry. More than half the population like the elimination of the long form, and of those who disagree, virtually none of them care much. And those who do are the ones who get rabid no matter what Harper does and wouldn't vote for him anyway.

[Argus]

It was a terrible decision that will affect public policy creation in a completely negative way. There's almost no denying that.

I deny it. Suppose you tell me how it will be detrimental to any particular public policy initiative.

[Smallc]

You are mistaking whining from the media - who have no important news stories to cover - for an outcry. More than half the population like the elimination of the long form, and of those who disagree, virtually none of them care much.

Except, you know, the people who actually use the information. To economists, city planners, and provincial governments, this is a huge deal.

[Argus]

Except, you know, the people who actually use the information. To economists, city planners, and provincial governments, this is a huge deal.

Like why, fer instance?

[Smallc]

Like why, fer instance?

Because the information is used to help chart long term economic trends and to draft things like public policy, infrastructure development, educational planning, etc. There is no more reliable information for these people than a mandatory census.

[capricorn]

There is no more reliable information for these people than a mandatory census.

How do you know that? How do you know that a voluntary census sent to more households would not result in reliable data?

[Smallc]

How do you know that? How do you know that a voluntary census sent to more households would not result in reliable data?

Because it wouldn't. Some types of people are more likely to fill it out (something voluntary) than others.

[capricorn]

Just because you say so Smallc doesn't make it true.

[Smallc]

Just because you say so Smallc doesn't make it true.

But it is. There's been research done on such things (and no, I don't feel like looking right now).

[capricorn]

You're talking about the US experience the media is covering? I'm not so sure that's what we'd see here in Canada. We just don't know.

[Smallc]

You're talking about the US experience the media is covering? I'm not so sure that's what we'd see here in Canada. We just don't know.

No, I'm talking about the reality that a certain type of people will do something whether or not they have to, and another type have to be forced to do something. Without a mandatory census, that second group will not provide proportionate information.

[bebe]

Here are some survey results from retired people re the census issue:

Census and Polling Poll

[Argus]

Because the information is used to help chart long term economic trends and to draft things like public policy, infrastructure development, educational planning, etc. There is no more reliable information for these people than a mandatory census.

I want a specific example, please. Not broad categories you might have heard somewhere.

Infrastructure planning? You mean like, uhm, building a highway before the roads get crammed? Right. Like THAT ever happens. Educational planning? You mean like building schools before the existing ones are crammed with portables? Like THAT ever happens.

Leaving aside the questionable accuracy of the mandatory census vs the non-mandatory census, give me a specific example of one reasonably important area which would be adversely affected.

[Argus]

Here are some survey results from retired people re the census issue:

Yeah, not many leading questions in THAT survey.

[Smallc]

All I need to know is people that use the information are very upset about the change. I'll go with what they say.