Scrap the Census

[Battletoads]

Less than a week after they swept into office the Cons far right nature is beginning to show through the centralist facade.

Conservative MP Rick Dykstra has stated in no uncertain terms that the Tories plan to neuter the short for census by making it a voluntary form.

"We've already changed the long-form census so that it is not mandatory and that is, frankly, the road we are going with the short-form census as well,"

- Tory MP Rick Dykstra

As most remember the Cons recently scrapped the long form census despite widespread objections. Experts warned that this move would seriously damage the ability of numerous public organizations to allocate funds and respond to changing demographics. Despite these objections, and the resignation of the head of stats-can, the Harper government moved forward with its plans. Now it would appear than they plan to end the census altogether. One has to wonder what the Conservative have against the census, and the data it generates.

The MP in question later claimed his comments were not "clear"

So what do you think, how long will it be until the Cons scrap the census?

and if their pulling this out of their hat three days after the election one must wonder what their plans are for the next 4~ years.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Battletoads

[Topaz]

I saw Mike Lake backpedaling on this yesterday. I'm sure Harper will be coming down in the caucus meeting, telling them to watch what they say or clear what they say before saying it. I'm not sure voters realize what price they are going to pay for voting the Tories in just to get rid of another election. Just wait until more harmonizing with the USA starts among other things.

[Bryan]

Dykstra was simply giving his own opinion, the party is not planning to scrap the census altogether. I wish they were, but they are not.

[Black Dog]

Dykstra was simply giving his own opinion, the party is not planning to scrap the census altogether. I wish they were, but they are not.

Why?

[BornAlbertan]

So what is the big deal about the census anyway?

Based on PREVIOUS census data, if StatsCan, Immigration, etc... were all doing their jobs, could they not extrapolate the data they needed anyway without having to count? I mean, if you can't tell me how many more people there are, of what ethnicity, from what country of origin.....based on the records you have right now, something tells me you ain't doing your job.

We are a lot more technological since the first ship landed. The systems we have are very capable of providing all the data they need if it was cross-referenced properly.

[cybercoma]

It makes things a hell of a lot more difficult to go through other routes. You have to check all the birth records, then all the death records, then all the records of people that entered or left the country as immigrants (if they're even recorded). After doing all that you need to compare it to something, so you still need to grab a census from the past. Moreover, much of that information doesn't record other important information about the respondents that social policy researchers need. Also, the objection to the end of the mandatory long-form was that we lose information about the most at-risk groups. The short form does not provide the detail necessary to make good policy decisions.

What I find actually and truly disturbing about the "Harper Government" is that they are completely dismantling the third sector. This is an arm of our social welfare system and, to be sure, provides a huge amount of support for our social welfare system. So, no. Stephen Harper is not going to get into government and stop universal health care, CPP, and the child care benefits. What he is doing is much more insidious. He's cutting funding to the third sector and destroying their ability to gather information so they can respond to the welfare of society. I don't think people are aware just how much these third sector groups provide. This is what devastation is going to be brought by a majority mandate for the Conservatives. How do they plan on making up the difference when the third sector is no longer propping up our social welfare system? Meanwhile, they'll be able to wash their hands of it and say, "it's not our fault outside groups are no longer providing help." Yes. Yes it is your fault.

[ToadBrother]

Dykstra was simply giving his own opinion, the party is not planning to scrap the census altogether. I wish they were, but they are not.

I'm unclear here? Why exactly do you have a problem with the census?

[ToadBrother]

So what is the big deal about the census anyway?

Based on PREVIOUS census data, if StatsCan, Immigration, etc... were all doing their jobs, could they not extrapolate the data they needed anyway without having to count? I mean, if you can't tell me how many more people there are, of what ethnicity, from what country of origin.....based on the records you have right now, something tells me you ain't doing your job.

We are a lot more technological since the first ship landed. The systems we have are very capable of providing all the data they need if it was cross-referenced properly.

Because any given database, particularly large ones, will be flawed. AS well, we're likely dealing with dozens of different systems with no obvious way to merge the datasets. I do this sort of thing for a living. What you're suggesting would be inaccurate and would probably end up costing as much as a census.

All of this for what? What the hell is wrong with you people?

[cybercoma]

This isn't an attack on Conservatives either. This is just bad policy. Period.

[nittanylionstorm07]

I say let them go ahead. Let all of the Conservatives and their supporters not fill out the census forms.

Then let's see how much they like having all of the funding going to NDP and Liberal areas.

[Bryan]

I'm unclear here? Why exactly do you have a problem with the census?

1) The information they need, they already have, many times over. I'm simply not going to participate in this exercise in government redundancy. If their records are inefficient, fix THAT.

2) The information they don't already have is none of their business.

3) I really don't care about researchers and special interest groups that use the data. Let them gather their own data on their own dime. My information is mine, not theirs. It absolutely is my right to share it or not share it how I see fit. I don't need a reason, if I say no, too bad for them.

[ToadBrother]

1) The information they need, they already have, many times over. I'm simply not going to participate in this exercise in government redundancy. If their records are inefficient, fix THAT.

The information is spread across multiple levels of government, and the co-ordination of it would likely cost many times what a census costs.

2) The information they don't already have is none of their business.

Can you state what information, particularly on the short-form census, is not their business?

3) I really don't care about researchers and special interest groups that use the data. Let them gather their own data on their own dime. My information is mine, not theirs. It absolutely is my right to share it or not share it how I see fit. I don't need a reason, if I say no, too bad for them.

Ah yes, the standard Libertarian battle cry. Except the census is the law, and therefore your whole point is invalid. You don't have the right of not giving a reason.

[Bryan]

Except the census is the law, and therefore your whole point is invalid. You don't have the right of not giving a reason.

Funny. I've always refused to fill it out before, and nothing has ever happened. Apparently I have more rights than you think.

[BornAlbertan]

Because any given database, particularly large ones, will be flawed. AS well, we're likely dealing with dozens of different systems with no obvious way to merge the datasets. I do this sort of thing for a living. What you're suggesting would be inaccurate and would probably end up costing as much as a census.

All of this for what? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Hmmmm...I work in IT myself and we are currently in the process of doing exactly that with millions EMR's from an assortment of databases and repositories, along with DI from various sources and vendors. If you have competent DBAs and coders it is completely doable. You think a database done in SQL can't ever be converted to Oracle or merged? It happens everyday! Sure, I agree, there will be holes in data....but there is ALWAYS holes in a database anyway. And databases are ALWAYS having tables and fields added to them as the desire for more data becomes relevent...and the data that isn't there for the new fields or tables doesn't just miraculously appear either. It is either filled in over time through extrapolation/referencing or it is left <null>. It is all dependent on the compentency of the DBAs to create the links and references.

And even if it did cost as MUCH as a census, hmmm....I would say KUDOS! Cause then you would have a living breathing census that continually updates itself each time you run a report (I would say it would cost much more than a single census, but it would be much more valuable!)

Tie in immigration records, birth records, death records, tax records....etc....would be a HUGE undertaking (I am not that delusional) but it is completely doable given the resources. And imagine the benefits that can result from that. At any given time they could say, here is a population at this snapshot in time, here are all the people died during this period of time, here are their causes....ok, we have a problem....is it environmental, financial etc....

Any kind of data you could ever want. To be honest, I can't believe there isn't something like this being initiated already.

Edited May 6, 2011 by BornAlbertan

[Shwa]

Hmmmm...I work in IT myself and we are currently in the process of doing exactly that with millions EMR's from an assortment of databases and repositories, along with DI from various sources and vendors. If you have competent DBAs and coders it is completely doable. You think a database done in SQL can't ever be converted to Oracle or merged? It happens everyday! Sure, I agree, there will be holes in data....but there is ALWAYS holes in a database anyway. And databases are ALWAYS having tables and fields added to them as the desire for more data becomes relevent...and the data that isn't there for the new fields or tables doesn't just miraculously appear either. It is either filled in over time through extrapolation/referencing or it is left <null>. It is all dependent on the compentency of the DBAs to create the links and references.

And even if it did cost as MUCH as a census, hmmm....I would say KUDOS! Cause then you would have a living breathing census that continually updates itself each time you run a report (I would say it would cost much more than a single census, but it would be much more valuable!)

Tie in immigration records, birth records, death records, tax records....etc....would be a HUGE undertaking (I am not that delusional) but it is completely doable given the resources. And imagine the benefits that can result from that. At any given time they could say, here is a population at this snapshot in time, here are all the people died during this period of time, here are their causes....ok, we have a problem....is it environmental, financial etc....

Any kind of data you could ever want. To be honest, I can't believe there isn't something like this being initiated already.

Well, the concept is called 'data-matching' and has already been done and is relatively easy using the SIN as the primary identifier. So it really doesn't matter that Bryan fills out the census or not does it? They will simply do a data match with the records on file to get the right 'picture' of Bryan.

Sound simple enough right? Well, this Treasury Board page on Data Matching Policy shows it as rescinded. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Putting aside the fact that some of the those big government systems WISH they were SQL, what current government records contain ancestry, religion, schooling, etc.?

Secondly, now considering the diversity of systems compiled under specific Privacy Laws, how would the best coders in the world get around the sheer enormity of merging data from one database collected under reasons tied to the Privacy Act with data from another database collected for a different reason under the Privacy Act?

So sure, scrap the census, and open up all those records about you - at all levels of government - to give StatsCan the data that they want or need, if it even exists in government records.

And really, if you got nothing to hide, nothing to worry about right?

[cybercoma]

They're not randomly coming after people with these figures. The census doesn't even work like that.

Court records are passed between the government and third party NGOs to help provide necessary victim services and reduce crime. Organizations have tons of information on offenders and potential victims. None of it comes from the census and even with that information, the government doesn't send the police to make "pre-emptive" strikes against criminals.

I think people are forgetting that for many crimes there is a victim and this information is meant to help people, not punish people. Likewise, with the census, the information is not meant to be used against you. It's meant to help the government and others make informed decisions about the services provided for people, so we can more effectively and efficiently (you'd think Conservatives would be on board with this, considering efficient means more cheaply) help the people that need it.

[RNG]

They're not randomly coming after people with these figures. The census doesn't even work like that.

Court records are passed between the government and third party NGOs to help provide necessary victim services and reduce crime. Organizations have tons of information on offenders and potential victims. None of it comes from the census and even with that information, the government doesn't send the police to make "pre-emptive" strikes against criminals.

I think people are forgetting that for many crimes there is a victim and this information is meant to help people, not punish people. Likewise, with the census, the information is not meant to be used against you. It's meant to help the government and others make informed decisions about the services provided for people, so we can more effectively and efficiently (you'd think Conservatives would be on board with this, considering efficient means more cheaply) help the people that need it.

You are speaking of how thing would be in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this information can and has been used to persecute personal enemies of politicians and the police. I'm not saying often, but it does happen. We need our privacy and civil liberties strongly protected.

[Battletoads]

You are speaking of how thing would be in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this information can and has been used to persecute personal enemies of politicians and the police. I'm not saying often, but it does happen. We need our privacy and civil liberties strongly protected.

This has nothing to do with civil liberties. The Cons have been moving backwards on civil liberties wince 2006.

No, in fact this stems from the Cons dislike of data, since it usually does not support the Conservatives claims.

Census Questions:

http://datalib.chass.utoronto.ca/censusq.htm

Nothing that is blackmail worthy... In fact they all seem like questions officials would need to know!

[RNG]

This has nothing to do with civil liberties. The Cons have been moving backwards on civil liberties wince 2006.

No, in fact this stems from the Cons dislike of data, since it usually does not support the Conservatives claims.

Census Questions:

http://datalib.chass.utoronto.ca/censusq.htm

Nothing that is blackmail worthy... In fact they all seem like questions officials would need to know!

And Cons and Reps are the most likely to crap on civil liberties, I agree. One of the things I tend to disagree with the "right" position in N America. And yet again I hope the Canadian Libertarian party matures really quickly so I can vote for them. But I am still very suspicious of the government having any personal data. If everything is so safe, why do they need your name?

[Battletoads]

Why do they need your name?

To make sure the head of every household fills one out, to make sure people who realize the value of the census don't hand in multiple forums, to be able to trace the census data to specific cities and regions, ect.

[sk1d]

Secondly, now considering the diversity of systems compiled under specific Privacy Laws, how would the best coders in the world get around the sheer enormity of merging data from one database collected under reasons tied to the Privacy Act with data from another database collected for a different reason under the Privacy Act?

So sure, scrap the census, and open up all those records about you - at all levels of government - to give StatsCan the data that they want or need, if it even exists in government records.

And really, if you got nothing to hide, nothing to worry about right?

The government does have a lot of this information already, but you're right in that the Privacy Laws prevent them aggregating all of these little pieces of information into one giant database.

I've worked for the Federal government before, and if they were to combine all the data they have on you (tax/financial data, health records, government services you've used etc.) you would be giving up a lot more privacy than if you were to simply answer the questions on the census.

[cybercoma]

Often times offices are not allowed to communicate certain information.

I'll give you an example. The NLSCY is the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth that was conducted by Stats Canada. There is a public data set, but the suppress much of the information for public use. In other circumstances, you might have an offender database for particular courts. Only a certain department might have access to all of the information, including names, while other departments may have access to statistics and data, but the name may be turned into a random string of number and other information might be suppressed.

Long story short, it's easy for them to transfer information. For ethical and privacy reasons, they don't even share information between departments.

Fill out you GD census.

[Battletoads]

This isn't an attack on Conservatives either. This is just bad policy. Period.

It's a good policy for Con supporters, usually their views aren't supported by evidence.

It's bad for the rest of us Canadians who like fact to dictate policy.