Tories scrapping long form census

[Argus]

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?

Can you show me a cite listing the entire professional mathematicians at Stats Can saying ANYTHING about this? Cuz I'm betting they haven't uttered a word.

Bureacrats are there to impliment programs to carry out the wishes of the government. They are not there to advance their own agendas or to argue with the government about their own vested interests. If what the government wants is stupid - and it often is - that's too bad. You can tell them, privately, this isn't a good idea. But you do not ever argue with them in public.

If the "entire professional mathematician" group at Stats Can signs a public letter opposing government policy every one of them should be summarily fired the next morning. We cannot have the public service publicly opposing the government of the day.

[Argus]

So WHY are the Tories doing this? To please their supporters?

They are responding to public complaints. Which is what we elect governments for.

[ironstone]

How accurate is the census information if there are actually 21000 people that consider themselves "Star Wars Jedi Knights"?

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/2010/07/19/14760156.html

[capricorn]

If the "entire professional mathematician" group at Stats Can signs a public letter opposing government policy every one of them should be summarily fired the next morning. We cannot have the public service publicly opposing the government of the day.

I agree. Public servants must abide by a Value and Ethics Code which includes the duty of loyalty. The Chief Statistician is a public servant so the Code applies to him.

Democratic Values: Helping Ministers, under law, to serve the public interest.

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

* Public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

* Public servants shall support both individual and collective ministerial accountability and provide Parliament and Canadians with information on the results of their work.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_851/vec-cve1-eng.asp#_Toc46202800

# Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada, given the public interest in both the actual and apparent impartiality of the public service.

# The duty of loyalty encompasses a duty to refrain from public criticism of the Government of Canada. Public servants are required to exercise a degree of restraint in their actions relating to criticism of government policy, in order to ensure that the public service is perceived as impartial and effective in fulfilling its duties.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rp/icg04-eng.asp#1

Of course, there are certain circumstances where public servants can and should speak out.

# Three situations in which the balancing of these interests is likely to result in an exception being made to the duty of loyalty are where:

1) the Government is "engaged in illegal acts";

2) Government policies jeopardize "the life, health or safety of the public servant or others"; or

3) the public servant's criticism "has no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or on the public perception of that ability".

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rp/icg04-eng.asp#1

Those three exceptions don't apply to the Chief Statistician. If he hadn't resigned, the government would have been justified in firing him.

[August1991]

The examples you have provided above can easily come from the information on a family's tax return.

The tax return provides address including postal code, dates of birth of all family members, net income, taxable income etc... so the long form isn't necessary for the collection of this data.

Curious, I looked through this thread (as I looked through too many other theads.)

Weeks ago, arriving at his post, I have to admit that msj got to the key point.

[bebe]

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

If a (voluntary) survey is used instead of a (mandatory) census, certain types of people are less likely to respond at all - the rich and the poor, for example, likely younger adults and maybe older ones too, and possibly more recent immigrants/refugees. Thus, the resulting data doesn't represent all elements of the population well and over-represents white middle class middle aged Canadians. There is a selective bias in the data and that can lead to wrong decisions about government program needs and funding, etc.

[bebe]

I agree. Public servants must abide by a Value and Ethics Code which includes the duty of loyalty. The Chief Statistician is a public servant so the Code applies to him.

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?

[bebe]

How accurate is the census information if there are actually 21000 people that consider themselves "Star Wars Jedi Knights"?

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/2010/07/19/14760156.html

In England and Wales, there were almost 400,000 Jedis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

The Jedi census phenomenon is a grassroots movement that was created in 2001 ... it is believed the majority of self-reported Jedi claimed the religion for their own amusement, to poke fun at the government,[1] or as a protest against the inclusion of the religion question on the census form. Other news reports also interpreted the exercise as a massive practical joke.

[msj]

If a (voluntary) survey is used instead of a (mandatory) census, certain types of people are less likely to respond at all - the rich and the poor, for example, likely younger adults and maybe older ones too, and possibly more recent immigrants/refugees. Thus, the resulting data doesn't represent all elements of the population well and over-represents white middle class middle aged Canadians. There is a selective bias in the data and that can lead to wrong decisions about government program needs and funding, etc.

And how do they deal with the bias for people like me who will fudge, lie, understate wherever possible on the long form because it is mandatory?

They don't have a friggin' clue how "accurate" there census is because people like myself, and my father, have been do this for years.

It is simply not accurate because it is mandatory so stop pretending otherwise.

[bebe]

And how do they deal with the bias for people like me who will fudge, lie, understate wherever possible on the long form because it is mandatory?

They don't have a friggin' clue how "accurate" there census is because people like myself, and my father, have been do this for years.

It is simply not accurate because it is mandatory so stop pretending otherwise.

People will fudge or not answer questions here and there, but that's 'random error' in statistical terms and can be dealt with as the representative sampling still remains valid. However, voluntary responding causes 'systematic error' that is much more damaging as the survey no longer represents a valid cross section of the population.

[msj]

People will fudge or not answer questions here and there, but that's 'random error' in statistical terms and can be dealt with as the representative sampling still remains valid. However, voluntary responding causes 'systematic error' that is much more damaging as the survey no longer represents a valid cross section of the population.

Till now the error rate may have been small enough to claim it to be random error.

There is now enough information on this topic that more people who don't like the intrusiveness of the census will increase this error rate making it no longer random and very systemic.

[capricorn]

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.

He had to resign to be honest? Frankly, the reason for Sheikh's resignation are murky.

Sheikh had apparently been willing to implement the government’s decision after it was first announced, telling agency employees in a June 28 email that the changes to the census had been published in the Canada Gazette two days earlier. The email notes the change from a mandatory long-form questionnaire to the voluntary one, and that it will go to more households.

It concludes “I know that I can count on your ongoing support to ensure the success of these two important Statistics Canada priorities.”

http://www.thestar.com/article/838880--compromise-calls-for-dropping-jail-time-to-allow-mandatory-census-to-go-ahead

Sheikh did not resign until 3 weeks later.

Sheikh made it clear in a very public letter of resignation that he was leaving over the question of “whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.”

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/07/22/14796211.html

I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.

It can not.

Under the circumstances, I have tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister. I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity of serving him as the Chief Statistician of Canada, heading an agency that is a symbol of pride for our country.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/07/censuswatch-and-thats-all-he-wrote-munir-sheikh-resigns-as-chief-statistician.html

So which is it? He disagreed with the census changes by the Government, or he was peed off at Clement's claim that StatsCan was consulted prior to announcement of the changes? His motive for resignation is unclear. Can you shed light on this bebe?

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

Let me guess. Harper is a bully?

Edited July 23, 2010 by capricorn

[Smallc]

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.

[capricorn]

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.

If anything Smallc, in the next election Canadian voters will have a clear choice between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Liberals won't or can't differentiate themselves from the Conservatives. They prefer to criticize all the Government's decisions and brand Harper/Conservatives as bullying far right wing knuckledragging ideologues. Yet, the Conservatives are confident enough to bring those differences to the forefront and to propose new ideas.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[Smallc]

I doubt this is a big election issue....it's simply a mistake that the government made, and so far refuses to correct.

[Shakeyhands]

....it's simply a mistake that the government made, and so far refuses to correct.

Just like so many others... Hopefully the electorate will wake up soon.

[Smallc]

Just like so many others... Hopefully the electorate will wake up soon.

It's funny, whenever the government gets a good lead over the Liberals, they seem to screw it up in some way. We'll see if this is one of those times.

[capricorn]

I doubt this is a big election issue....it's simply a mistake that the government made, and so far refuses to correct.

You may be right it's not an election issue. But as a couple of pundits have observed, the census issue may lead some voters to form an opinion, favourable or unfavourable, of the Conservatives.

[ironstone]

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.

Most of the "outcry" seems to be coming from the leftist media.I just finished reading an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen which is almost hilarious.One would think the world is surely coming to an end.

If the Tories follow through with their plan,more Canadian households will be getting a different version of a long form census.Think about this,MORE CANADIANS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILL OUT THESE CENSUS FORMS.What's wrong with the voluntary approach?Would you feel the same way if voting were made mandatory with the alternative being the threat of a heavy fine or jail time?

The polls seem to be evenly split on this one as far as I know.

[Smallc]

Most of the "outcry" seems to be coming from the leftist media.

No it doesn't. Most of the excuses seem to be coming from extreme partisans. I don't consider the former head of statistics Canada, provincial governments, city planners, and people like Don Drummond to be the leftist media. Give it a rest.

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

[bebe]

He had to resign to be honest?

Resign first, or get fired later. Yes. That's the penalty for defying the ruling politicians. Professional honesty and integrity in the public service are valued only to the extent that they support the party in power.

So which is it? He disagreed with the census changes by the Government, or he was peed off at Clement's claim that StatsCan was consulted prior to announcement of the changes? His motive for resignation is unclear. Can you shed light on this bebe?

Obviously he (and StatsCan) disagreed with Harper's change to the census, but it's not unusual to be in that situation as a public employee and you are expected to just keep quiet (or resign). I think what was intolerable, and motivated Sheikh's resignation was that Clement stated that the government's decision was due to StatsCan's recommendation:

http://news.therecord.com/article/746808

Embattled Industry Minister Tony Clement says the decision to replace next year's mandatory long census with a voluntary questionnaire stemmed from recommendations made to him by Statistics Canada.

But multiple sources are telling The Canadian Press that is not exactly what happened. The sources say Statistics Canada made no recommendations and only came up with policy options because they were asked to do so by Clement.

And they say the data gathering federal agency did not specifically recommend going the voluntary route.

Rather, they suggested that either the status quo or the complete eradication of the long list of questions would be the better way to go, several sources said.

The option chosen by the federal cabinet was not at the top of the list of options, the sources said. Instead, StatsCan told ministers if they insisted on going that route, they would have to spend more money and dramatically increase the size of the survey in an attempt to get accurate results.

"It wasn't recommended," one source said bluntly.

That's partly because Clement's choice to make the questionnaire voluntary while increasing the number of households it is sent to is far more expensive and less efficient, the sources explained.

That's not how an increasingly defensive Clement presented his case this week.

"StatsCan gave me three options, each of which they thought would work," Clement said Friday. "I chose one of those options, with their recommendation."

It was the second time in two days that Clement had hinted Statistics Canada was championing his choice.

"They gave me options and we chose one of those options," he told reporters in Ottawa on Thursday.

"This is a methodology that Statistics Canada offered to us and if it's good enough for Statistics Canada, it should be good enough for some of our critics."

"Options" prepared for politicians, with relevant pros and cons, are not recommendations. It's assumed that they will make reasonable decisions based on the implications of each option.

StatsCan's recommendation was to keep the long form as is, or do away with it entirely (the implications of which are HUGE).

Sheikh resigned because his agency was being used as a scapegoat for an unpopular political decision.

ps...This is one time (of many) that I am very happy to be retired, and anonymous on this board. lol

Addendum:

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/07/22/14796211.html

Perhaps there’s a Canadian compromise to be found here. The solution seems obvious — maintain the mandatory aspect of the census, but revise the questionnaire to exclude questions that are invasive of citizens’ privacy.

Or alternatively ... leave the long form census as is, and individuals can continue to skip questions that they consider an invasion of privacy.

Munir Sheikh, StatsCan Jedi

Edited July 23, 2010 by bebe

[Remiel]

I think the premise that Statistics Canada need only consider the opinion of the federal government is flawed, vis-a-vis public service. Are they not the department that effectively services all governments in Canada? In fact, the federal government makes up only a fraction of their government " customers " . It only makes sense that they be concerned with how good a job they are doing for the whole country, and not just the part of the country that signs their paychecks. Do we really want provinces to feel it necessary to duplicate expenditures by starting their own census divisions to cover up for the federal census' shortcomings?

[August1991]

No it doesn't. Most of the excuses seem to be coming from extreme partisans. I don't consider the former head of statistics Canada, provincial governments, city planners, and people like Don Drummond to be the leftist media. Give it a rest.

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

And yet, smallc, Denmark no longer has a formal census and the UK and Germany are about to abolish theirs. Why in 2011 is the government using 1871 technology to collect information?

If anything, I think the reaction from Drummond and the others you mention says more about English Canada's incestuous so-called establishment than about Harper or the census.

I'm almost willing to believe like others that Harper designed this kerfuffle as a way to make the anti-Harperites madly chase their tails and make fools of themselves in public. As a minimum, during a slow news time, it has diverted attention away from Ignatieff and his bus.

As Richard Nixon famously said about the lira, "Who gives a damn! There ain't a vote in it!"

Edited July 23, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

And yet, smallc, Denmark no longer has a formal census and the UK and Germany are about to abolish theirs. Why in 2011 is the government using 1871 technology to collect information?

Because....it works.

[August1991]

Because....it works.

And I suppose a horse and buggy also works.

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