Tories scrapping long form census

[capricorn]

Now that's a man of integrity!

Really? What I see is a man, 63 years of age with over 30 years service, who will collect a fat federal pension for the rest of his life. Oh, and I see him in the future writing a book....

[bebe]

Really? What I see is a man, 63 years of age with over 30 years service, who will collect a fat federal pension for the rest of his life. Oh, and I see him in the future writing a book....

I see a man of personal principles and professional integrity putting the job ahead of himself.

Harper tried to make this change quietly. Boy, did that backfire on him!

[Borg]

Tories scrapping long form census .............

All the eggheads will be complaining

I want EVERY government out of my house

None of their business what I do onside as long as my taxes are up to date

Borg

[maldon_road]

So what. I'm sure many qualified individuals are waiting in line at Statistics Canada to take his place.

What they need is an individual whose first words will be: "A voluntary census will be just as accurate as a mandatory one".

[maldon_road]

I see a man of personal principles and professional integrity putting the job ahead of himself.

Harper tried to make this change quietly. Boy, did that backfire on him!

Will we see another Lawrence Cannon moment?

I watched the Question Period where Cannon valiantly defended the decision not to finance birth control in their maternal health plan. Two hours later Harper says, "Oh, yeah, we'll pay for birth control".

[ToadBrother]

Tories scrapping long form census .............

All the eggheads will be complaining

I want EVERY government out of my house

None of their business what I do onside as long as my taxes are up to date

Borg

Ah yes, ignorance and resentment in one post.

Statistics have been essential to governance for thousands of years. The long form wasn't developed to piss you off, but to develop an accurate picture for public policy.

[nicky10013]

In his statement this evening acknowledging the resignation of Munir Sheikh, the chief statistician of Canada, Industry Minister Tony Clement once again singled out the supposed invasiveness of this particular query.

“We believe it is not appropriate to compel citizens to divulge how many bedrooms they have in their houses,” Clement says, “or what time they leave for work in the morning.”

Now, we all know why inquiring about the hour Canadians begin their commute is offensive—that was the first bit of information the Stasi always collected on their quarry. But why is the matter of bedrooms so sensitive? Does it have something to do with the state meddling in, you know, the boudoir?

If that’s it, perhaps overheated Tory imaginations would be cooled by reading what Statistics Canada itself says about this matter in its handy guide to the questions on the 2006 census and why they were asked:

“Information on the number of rooms and bedrooms in homes and on housing costs is combined with data on the number of persons in households to assess the economic situation of families in different regions. Provincial and municipal governments use this information to measure levels of crowding within households and to develop appropriate housing programs. Information on the age of dwellings and their need for repairs is used by municipalities to develop neighborhood improvement programs.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/21/statisticians-and-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation/

[Keepitsimple]

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/21/statisticians-and-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation/

With regards to the number of bedrooms and number of people who live in a house:

Public health laws require an owner of property to ensure that all occupants have an area for sleeping space. Public health laws also require certain sanitary and health standards that might be compromised if more than a certain number of people live in the premises. In addition, local municipal bylaws might impact the number of people that can live in a house or apartment.

But of course, why should anyone ever think that the census information would ever be used to check on these things, right? It's not what it's used for....it's what it COULD be used for.

[Argus]

Harper may change his mind on this. I heard the Jewish community is calling on Harper to stop this from going forward. They need the information for their research and Harper never would go against the Jewish community or any other group that supoorts him.

Congratulations. You keep on coming up with new ways to lower the tone of any topic at hand.

[Argus]

I dont agree with you, but I understand your ideology. I get it. The issue here however is the OPTIONAL long form. An optional long form is lose lose. Those who see value in the effective surveying of the entire populace of a massive and varied country lose because the information is completely useless.

Really? Cuz all the private polling outfits operate on entirely voluntary basis. Their political polls are generally pretty accurate. And both government and private industry pay them a lot of money to do surveys and polls, none of which is mandatory for people to answer. Are you saying it's all a big fraud, and none of their information is of any value?

[Argus]

What they need is an individual whose first words will be: "A voluntary census will be just as accurate as a mandatory one".

Not really, just an individual who realizes that the public service is there to carry out the functions assigned to it by government. And if you in the public service disapprove, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

[Argus]

Ah yes, ignorance and resentment in one post.

Statistics have been essential to governance for thousands of years. The long form wasn't developed to piss you off, but to develop an accurate picture for public policy.

Can you tell us something about Denmark's census? As I understand it, the last time they took one was before WW2. Somehow, they seem to have survived without it all these years.

[Argus]

del

Edited July 22, 2010 by Argus

[August1991]

Ah yes, ignorance and resentment in one post.

Statistics have been essential to governance for thousands of years. The long form wasn't developed to piss you off, but to develop an accurate picture for public policy.

Toadbrother, I'll use you as the generic "knuckle-dragger".

As Argus noted above: How is it that Denmark doesn't even have a census?

If statisticians in Britain get their way, for instance, the census planned for next year could be the country’s last. Instead, they are considering gathering information from the vast, centralised databases held by government, such as tax records, benefit databases, electoral lists and school rolls, as well as periodic polling of a sample of the population. It is a global trend, pioneered, inevitably, in Scandinavia. Denmark has been keeping track of its citizens without a traditional census for decades; Sweden, Norway, Finland and Slovenia, among others, have similar systems. Germany will adopt the approach for its next count, also due in 2011.

The Economist

My issue with the census is that it is intrusive and inaccurate. It is open to abuse. But it's obvious too that it's a relic from the 19th century, as strange as a bellows camera at a Best Buy store.

I am terrified to wonder in what other ways the Canadian bureaucracy and academic elite is living in the past. One thinks of the Polish military high commmand around 1938.

------

There are two things in this debate that surprise me.

First, the vitriol being hurled at Harper and Co by a small, very vocal group of academic types and the Usual Gang of anti-Harperites. Second, the obvious indifference of most Canadians to this debate.

Sadly, no one, least of all any member of the Harper government excepting possibly Maxim Bernier, has even attempted to discuss this issue with any intelligence.

Instead, I just see a litany of "this is dumb" or "Harper is an ignorant control freak":

Decades ago, we established that the Bank of Canada needs to operate at arm’s-length from political interference. The same should be true of the national statistical agency. If statistical collection changes with the ideological whims of the government, the very basis of government decision-making, transparency and trust is shattered.

We need a chief statistician who is willing to stand up for Statistics Canada as an independent institution. Where is Munir Sheikh?

David Green, economics department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver

G&M

[bTW, after what has transpired over the past 18 months or so, it is odd for an economist to refer to the central bank when discussing independent institutions.]

Once again the Conservative Gov't is finding itself at odds with all the experts. It's incredible how many times this has happened - Maternal health funding, long gun registry, etc...

What's the big deal?

It is the so-called "intelligent class" in Canada that has no clothes.

Apparently 168,000 people refused to fill out the 2006 census including 35,000 natives.

...

Link to 35,000 natives: http://www.thestar.com/article/294018

Where do they get these numbers? Just make them up? Edited July 22, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

Toadbrother, I'll use you as the generic "knuckle-dragger".

How is it that Denmark doesn't even have a census?

The Economist

My issue with the census is that it is intrusive and inaccurate. It is open to abuse.

------

There are two things in this which debate that surprise me.

First, the vitriol being hurled at Harper and Co by a small, very vocal group of academic types and the Usual Gang of anti-Harperites. Second, the obvious indifference of most Canadians.

No one least, of all the Harper government, has even attempted to discuss this issue with any intelligence.

It is the so-called intelligent class in Canada that has no clothes.

That "small group of academic types" (I can see the envy oozing off of you) appears to be pretty much all Stats Can's statisticians. To me, their opinion holds a lot more weight than miserable little chump that Harper named to cabinet, but of course, you obviously despise academics, so they're opinion must surely be worthless.

If these "academic types" are to be ignored, then why not fire them and, I don't know, put some worthless turd like Clement, the good little Harperite that he is, in charge of all actual analysis. I'm sure Tony the Genius can outperform all those "academic types", stupid math guys with stupid diplomas. Whadda they know about the importance of statistics.

We could extend this to all those other places where "academic types". Who needs geologists, climatologists, physicists, economists, constitutional experts, and so forth. We can just put the politicians in the hands on role. That way those "academic types" can be put in the dustbin of history, where they so obviously belong, for having the gall to become experts in some stupid field or another.

Edited July 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

Not really, just an individual who realizes that the public service is there to carry out the functions assigned to it by government. And if you in the public service disapprove, you are free to seek employment elsewhere.

When you have the entire professional mathematician at Stats Can saying its a dumb idea, I think any politician who isn't an ideological chump probably should pay it some heed. If bureaucrats are just to be slaves to the guy put in cabinet by the PM, then why have bureaucrats at all?

Edited July 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

Depends how you look at things, I guess - since just about half of Canadians think it's a good ide - in spite of all the "outrage" described in the media:

Despite the media’s near-universal condemnation of the federal government for changing the rules on the long-form census, nearly half of you think Industry Minister Tony Clement is doing just fine by making it optional, rather than mandatory, to answer the questions Statistics Canada asks of us once every five years.

And yet, all I’ve read or heard is how “Anger over census mounts” (Globe and Mail on Wednesday) and there is “an uproar growing” (CBC Radio) and “Why Canadians should care about the long-form census” (Ottawa Citizen last weekend.)

So I was gobsmacked when I saw the results of an Ipsos-Reid poll that said while 51% of those surveyed think changing the long-form census rules from mandatory to optional is a bad idea, just about as many — 49% — think it’s a good idea.

Apparently “Approval over census mounts” or “satisfaction growing” would have been equally suitable headlines. But, sadly, we MSM types didn’t seem much interested in reporting it that way.

As an aside.....if anyone has seen the movie "The Princess Bride", there's a little weasel of a character who keeps using the word "inconceivable". Because things keep happening - even though he says they are inconceivable, another character finally says "I do not think that word means what you THINK it means". I feel the same way about how the media use the word "outraged".

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/david_akin/2010/07/21/14784816.html

[maldon_road]

What I suspect StatsCan will do if it remains a voluntary form - as I expect - is to take the returns they have and create the largest possible sample to reflect the country as a whole and that will be the 2011 census. And it will be completely accurate.

[msj]

A few whines/complaints on the topic:

1) The title of the post is inaccurate - it's not being scrapped.

2) Much of the information on the census could/is already gathered on a tax return. Even language (English/French) can be gathered this way (although that's because they are the "official" languages that someone from CRA would contact you and use).

3) I don't understand this nonsense about mandatory leading to better info.

When I filled out the 2006 long form I recall fudging a number of responses because I thought the questions were BS and I didn't like the fact that they were coercing me into answering them.

So, no, mandatory does not give you better information.

4) I don't care if this is a democracy, a fascist state or a communist state - I will never give you my ancestral background other than "Canadian." Oh, you mean you're not getting good quality information even though the form is mandatory? Well, duh, see #3.

5) The reason those of us who hate the Census don't mind filing tax returns is because we know that this has to be done and there is a clear reason for it (to collect taxes to provide services). The Census does not have such a clear benefit and some of the questions really are intrusive.

6) The reason those of us who hate the Census don't mind our credit card companies tracking our purchases is because we voluntarily accept this as a condition of receiving the benefit of using the card.

This is the key - VOLUNTARILY. I accept the credit card conditions willingly.

Why people don't get this is beyond me. Look up voluntarily and willingly in a dictionary, perhaps?

If I can see a benefit for something than I will voluntarily do it.

I would likely fill out most questions on the long form voluntarily and skip the ones I thought were BS.

Instead of lying about it like I have done in the past and will do in the future if it continues to be mandatory.

[August1991]

That "small group of academic types" (I can see the envy oozing off of you) appears to be pretty much all Stats Can's statisticians. To me, their opinion holds a lot more weight than miserable little chump that Harper named to cabinet, but of course, you obviously despise academics, so they're opinion must surely be worthless.

"Envy oozing off me"?

My life has had different turns but IMHO envy, as Laclos said, is a plate best served cold.

ToadBrother, the fact is that Denmark does not have a paper census, and Germany and the UK are about to abolish theirs.

And this whole debate in Canada is not even about a census. The debate is whether we should have a long form given to 20% of the population!

----

Here's another question for you TB, the "resident Big Bureaucracy knuckledragger", why do we have a census every five years? At first in 1871 (one year after the Americans), we had a Census every 10 years - the next in 1881. Then, we somehow got a mid-census census in 1966 (?). Ah, the growth of bureaucracy!

----

TB, given that you're in the prejudiced "hate-Harper whatever he does" category, I suggest that you take a different angle. Harper and his people can't get his message out.

From the start, as Argus noted above, Clement should have simply said that: "The Danes don't have Long Forms, because they don't have a Census. We Canadian Conservatives are choosing the careful middle road."

Clement is not bad at policy - he's bad at communication.

Edited July 22, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

"Envy oozing off me"?

My life has had different turns but IMHO envy, as Laclos said, is a plate best served cold.

ToadBrother, the fact is that Denmark does not have a paper census, and Germany and the UK are about to abolish theirs.

And this whole debate in Canada is not even about a census. The debate is whether we should have a long form given to 20% of the population!

----

Here's another question for you TB, the "resident Big Bureaucracy knuckledragger", why do we have a census every five years? At first in 1871 (one year after the Americans), we had a Census every 10 years - the next in 1881. Then, we somehow got a mid-census census in 1966 (?). Ah, the growth of bureaucracy!

The growth of the need for information. Why stop at comparing 2010 to 1871? Let's go back all the way to the Domesday Book!

----

TB, given that you're in the prejudiced "hate-Harper whatever he does" category, I suggest that you take a different angle. Harper and his people can't get his message out.

From the start, as Argus noted above, Clement should have simply said that: "The Danes don't have Long Forms, because they don't have a Census. We Canadian Conservatives are choosing the careful middle road."

Clement is not bad at policy - he's bad at communication.

You've picked one minor European country and this defends the decision?

I think communication isn't the problem at all. It was an ideological decision, and the government is now paying the price. It's very clear that none of the statisticians at Stats Can are happy, that the claims that everyone was on board were fabrications and that Clement, one of Harper's best little toadies, has got himself into a fix.

I think the Tories haven't been absolute disasters at all policy, but they ain't geniuses, and Clement is among the dumber cabinet ministers, but one who firmly has his lips on Harper's ass.

Tell me, if you were minister, and pretty much everyone in your department who had a professional qualification of one kind or another told you an ideological decision you were making was not only wrong, but outrageously wrong, would you dismiss that as "academic types"?

[August1991]

I think communication isn't the problem at all. It was an ideological decision, and the government is now paying the price.

On the contrary, I think Harper knew about Denmark, the UK and so on. Harper can read the English Canadian world well. Harper's an infomaniac - he's addicted to gossip. He knows what's happening.

Harper's problem is that he cannot communicate his decisions to French and English Canadians.

And in this (current) modern world, having information is less important than being able to communicate it with credibility.

-----

Gawd, what a thread to discuss Harper's failings as a politician. (And I simply want him to find a way to stop spending taxpayers' money... )

Canada's supposedly academic, expert, objective class has spoken (in both French and English, BTW). Without exception, they have announced that Harper is stupid to abolish the Census Long Forum.

Not one said that Denmark (Argus did) has no Long Form because it has no Census!

Canada, English and French, is poorly served by its so-called intellectuals. Some poster on MLW (Argus) has more to say about a Census than supposed university experts.

You've picked one minor European country and this defends the decision?

Denmark. We're Canada.

You lose, in sophisticated Urban Canada World.

Edited July 22, 2010 by August1991

[Topaz]

So WHY are the Tories doing this? To please their supporters? To cover-up the info. that make them look bad as a government? To take the heat of other problems like the detainees issues, all the things they had in the budget, that shouldn't been there, to harmonize again with the US? OR to take the heat off the spending sprees? There's so many reasons!

[August1991]

So WHY are the Tories doing this?

The Tories are doing this because it's the right thing to do.

Denmark has done it. The UK and Germany are about to do it.

And even if these countries didn't do this, it still makes sense to change how our census is conducted. To collect accurate information from all Canadians, there are better and different ways. (For heaven's sake, we can't even figure out how Canadians think of their federal political candidates since less than 70% vote in elections.)

Topaz, IMV, the question is why the opposition is so opposed to this change?

In a world of the Internet, and Air Miles cards, debit/credit cards, and direct deposit, I think it is embarrassing if the head of the Statistical Office resigns because a Minister objects to collecting information through paper questionnaires.

And Topaz, the other question is why the Tories are so incompetent in explaining what they're doing...

Edited July 22, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

Sadly, no one, least of all any member of the Harper government excepting possibly Maxim Bernier, has even attempted to discuss this issue with any intelligence.

No, you're quite correct. You've put forth a better defense of it than I've seen coming from Tony Clement and ilk. As I've said before, the Tories are hopelessly incompetent at getting out a message.