2011 census

[eyeball]

So true ! Why should we concern ourselves at all with making policy and allocating tax money for the needs and interests of those who don't bother to be counted as Canadians? Those who don't want to be counted don't count. ;-)

It's just as true however that those who do wish to be counted still don't count, just ask the majority of Canadians who's vote just counted for nothing in the last election.

[Bryan]

The one page in both french and english, with the code for completing online is the one I got. The online part (courtesy of Lockheed-Martin) didn't make me any more interested in completing it, that's for sure.

[cybercoma]

Tory government is finally realizing that it was a huge mistake to eliminate the long-form census.

Data users in the Treasury Board are complaining about unreliable and missing data now.

The auditor general found that the National Household Survey cost $22 million, far more than the long-form census and produced far less reliable data. That's because the NHS is a convenience sample rather than the mandatory long-form census. Making it mandatory ensures that the sample is random. The people who don't fill out the NHS have certain characteristics in common. Those characteristics, e.g., transient, poor, language difficulties, uneducated, are things the government shouldn't be ignoring. Eliminating these folks from the census by making the NHS voluntary essentially buffs the stats, making Canada appear to be doing better than it is. Accordingly, StatsCan had to withhold survey data from 25% of municipalities due to poor reliability.

The NHS is broken and expensive. The mandatory long-form census was more reliable and cheaper. The Tories, however, have eliminated the mandatory long-form census for the 2016 census as well. It's time to end this foolishness and bring back the mandatory long-form census.

[Keepitsimple]

The NHS is broken and expensive. The mandatory long-form census was more reliable and cheaper. The Tories, however, have eliminated the mandatory long-form census for the 2016 census as well. It's time to end this foolishness and bring back the mandatory long-form census.

We've already been through all the arguments. Just about every country has reduced or eliminated detailed information-gathering through a National Census due mainly to the abundance of information that is publicly available - or for business, can be available through paid-for surveys. Nothing sinister going on here - we actually still do a lot more than most every other country.......but perhaps you know differently. Can you give me an example of any countries that gather as much data as Canada and are NOT planning to make changes?

[Bryan]

One does have to wonder why the NHS was more expensive, when you have significantly less expenses attached to compliance. What actually added to the cost in 2011?

[Bryan]

It's time to end this foolishness and bring back the mandatory long-form census.

Even better: just cut out the census altogether.

[Michael Hardner]

Even better: just cut out the census altogether.

Government is going to start using aggregate data as a revenue source more and more, so cutting it wouldn't be a good strategy towards that.

[Bryan]

Government is going to start using aggregate data as a revenue source more and more, so cutting it wouldn't be a good strategy towards that.

They have all of that data already, they don't need the census.

[Big Guy]

These information forms are a waste of time and money! They are also a major affront to privacy and the right of the individual to keep secrets. Our government can base its economic priorities and plans for the future on images on toast, cloud formations and phrenology. Besides, statistics tend to confuse those uneducated voters and often run contrary to party ideology. You can trust that your government knows exactly what is happening through its secret sophisticated data gathering methods. Can't you?

[Keepitsimple]

One does have to wonder why the NHS was more expensive, when you have significantly less expenses attached to compliance. What actually added to the cost in 2011?

Maybe some or all of the development, implementation and training of a new system/process?

[Bryan]

Maybe some or all of the development, implementation and training of a new system/process?

Good point. Perhaps it was a one time cost for the change-over, that will result in lower costs going forward. We'll see.

That's the same problem with integrating all of the ways the government already collects data on its citizens. It will be expensive at first, but will reduce costs and increase efficiency down the road. Both cases are things that should have been done a long time ago, so eventually you have to eat that cost and do it.

[cybercoma]

We've already been through all the arguments. Just about every country has reduced or eliminated detailed information-gathering through a National Census due mainly to the abundance of information that is publicly available - or for business, can be available through paid-for surveys. Nothing sinister going on here - we actually still do a lot more than most every other country.......but perhaps you know differently. Can you give me an example of any countries that gather as much data as Canada and are NOT planning to make changes?

First of all, I didn't say anything "sinister" was going on. And second, you keep using the bandwagon fallacy. I don't have to show you what other countries do because it doesn't matter what they do. What matters it that our census data so unreliable that we can't make informed policy decisions. I know some people like to just agree with whatever Team Blue tells them, but those with the mental faculties to think critically don't rely on ideology and being spoon fed positions on policies. They actually want to see informed decision making. What's abundantly clear is that the NHS doesn't work and the census data is unreliable. As a result, informed policy is no longer possible.

Bryan, you keep saying the information is out there already and it's in a bunch of different places. It was already explained to you that this is not only horribly inefficient, but the various departments cannot share data openly due to privacy reasons. I can't get your health data from the Ontario Department of Health, then your income data from Canada Revenue. They're not even the same levels of government.

Also, say you could get the data from both sources. It would then need to be compiled into a dataset together in order to make any sort of statistical inferences. This is exceedingly difficult if there isn't some sort of personal identifier that is the same between data sets. How do you connect the health information from a person and their income information? Your income tax forms doesn't have your health number on it and your health forms do not necessarily have your social insurance number on them. Even if they did, the amount of time it would take to get the information released from both sources, match up the data and compile a new data set in order to do analysis is exceedingly cumbersome and costly. The other problem is that people who are transient may be more difficult to find and match up. Those who don't submit an income tax form won't be included in the data. Immigrants who maybe don't have a health card in Canada yet won't be included. First Nations are not included. Since their healthcare is covered federally, you would have to go to a different source for their data. Military families would be yet another set of data completely. The long-form census ensures a representative sample of the population that's not a convenience sample. It puts all of the information in one place, making it easier and more efficient for researchers and analysts to write up informed suggestions and reports. So no it's not good enough that the information is scattered about everywhere already.

[cybercoma]

These information forms are a waste of time and money! They are also a major affront to privacy and the right of the individual to keep secrets. Our government can base its economic priorities and plans for the future on images on toast, cloud formations and phrenology. Besides, statistics tend to confuse those uneducated voters and often run contrary to party ideology. You can trust that your government knows exactly what is happening through its secret sophisticated data gathering methods. Can't you?

The problem with being satirical here is that some, shall we say, less informed individuals actually hold those beliefs. So it loses its comedic punch.

[cybercoma]

Good point. Perhaps it was a one time cost for the change-over, that will result in lower costs going forward. We'll see.

That's the same problem with integrating all of the ways the government already collects data on its citizens. It will be expensive at first, but will reduce costs and increase efficiency down the road. Both cases are things that should have been done a long time ago, so eventually you have to eat that cost and do it.

It was integrated. It was called the long-form census. What you want the government to do, i.e., combining data sources, is practically impossible.

[Michael Hardner]

They have all of that data already, they don't need the census.

? The census doesn't collect data they don't already have ?

[Bryan]

I can't get your health data from the Ontario Department of Health, then your income data from Canada Revenue. They're not even the same levels of government.

That's a good thing. That data is none of your business.

[Bryan]

? The census doesn't collect data they don't already have ?

That's all it does.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you keep saying the information is out there already and it's in a bunch of different places. It was already explained to you that this is not only horribly inefficient, but the various departments cannot share data openly due to privacy reasons. I can't get your health data from the Ontario Department of Health, then your income data from Canada Revenue. They're not even the same levels of government.

You've made a lot of excuses, but offered nothing constructive. Yes, the system is a mess. It needs to be cleaned up. Funny how you care about privacy if a government agency has the data, but you're in favour of forcing people to answer those questions directly. It's exactly the same privacy breach. You're either allowed to know that data or you're not. If you aren't allowed to access the data already on file, don't tell me you should be allowed to force me to give it to you directly. It's hypocrisy. Either synchronize the data, or live without it and stop bitching.

[cybercoma]

That's a good thing. That data is none of your business.

That's a good thing is it? So you don't want any healthcare or poverty research done then. Is that what you're saying?

[cybercoma]

You've made a lot of excuses, but offered nothing constructive. Yes, the system is a mess. It needs to be cleaned up. Funny how you care about privacy if a government agency has the data, but you're in favour of forcing people to answer those questions directly. It's exactly the same privacy breach. You're either allowed to know that data or you're not. If you aren't allowed to access the data already on file, don't tell me you should be allowed to force me to give it to you directly. It's hypocrisy. Either synchronize the data, or live without it and stop bitching.

It's not a privacy breach, Bryan. Have you ever read the Statistics Act? Do you know what rules researchers are bound by when accessing and using that information? If not, then allow me to enlighten you with the text. You may want to take some time with section 17.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

Edited May 11, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I swear, some of you people call on the government to be more efficient and cut taxes, but here you are advocating for them to make decisions blindfolded. It takes some serious mental pretzels to twist those two ideas together.

[Bryan]

It's not a privacy breach, Bryan. Have you ever read the Statistics Act? Do you know what rules researchers are bound by when accessing and using that information? If not, then allow me to enlighten you with the text. You may want to take some time with section 17.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

Completely irrelevant.

[Bryan]

That's a good thing is it? So you don't want any healthcare or poverty research done then. Is that what you're saying?

There's nothing in the census that gives any information related to those topics that the government does not already have.

[cybercoma]

Completely irrelevant.

Seriously?

I guess that's that then. The Statistics Act has nothing to do with the privacy of your data that Statistics Canada collects.

[Bryan]

Seriously?

I guess that's that then. The Statistics Act has nothing to do with the privacy of your data that Statistics Canada collects.

As usual, you're making arguments I never said.

The section you pointed to is irrelevant with regards to my post that you quoted, because it covers what those with access to the data are and are not allowed to share publicly, it doesn't stop them from seeing it without my permission.