• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Burning Election Issue - The Census - What?

Dennis Ruhl

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
More mainstream media garbage.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/22/statscan-census-tories-.html
Industry Minister Tony Clement has dismissed growing calls for him to reverse his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are on the same page on the issue.


"There's not a micron of difference of opinion between myself and the prime minister on this," Clement told the CBC's Rosemary Barton in an interview on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.

During the interview from London, Clement said the government has taken a "compromise position" between privacy concerns and ensuring usable data from the next census in May 2011.

Clement's comments came a day after Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada, the national statistical agency, resigned in protest over the move to scrap the mandatory survey.

Having taken an unhealthy number of statistics courses in my life, my opinion is RUBBISH.

Munir Sheikh ain't too swift if he doesn't realize that a sample of 1,000 would provide an acceptable accuracy, not a whole bunch worse than a sample of 8 million.  That's why we have statistics, so we can draw conclusions from a small sample without counting the complete population.

The short form is necessary because electoral redistribution, government grants, etc. require a reasonably exact count of the population. The long form is prepared for social engineering and who has speckled toes or a green nose is less critical.

The Liberals really are dead in the water if they need such help ftom their media friends.


 
Resigning on principle is less painful when you've got 38 years in the pension plan...
 
Dennis Ruhl said:
Munir Sheikh ain't too swift if he doesn't realize that a sample of 1,000 would provide an acceptable accuracy, not a whole bunch worse than a sample of 8 million.  That's why we have statistics, so we can draw conclusions from a small sample without counting the complete population.

And any schoolboy can tell you that we use samples only because it's expensive and/or inconvenient to count the whole population.  If you can count the whole population then you do, because it will be more accurate.  A thousand self-selecting replies to a question is not comparable to eight million mandatory returns.

Much of the reason we have a public service is that politicians are not SMEs on everything -- or very much of anything, for that matter.  If a senior civil servant and his Minister disagree on a question of fact related to the department, the civil servant is usually right.
 
N. McKay said:
And any schoolboy can tell you that we use samples only because it's expensive and/or inconvenient to count the whole population.  If you can count the whole population then you do, because it will be more accurate.  A thousand self-selecting replies to a question is not comparable to eight million mandatory returns.

We might improve the accuracy by a couple percent.  What is the cost of error?  Probably a lot a lot less than the cost of collecting and tabulating the long form.  We musn't think that everything on censuses is at all accurate.  I've looked at hundreds if not thousands of old census reports and my guess is that the accuracy is something under 50%, even on basic detail.  It's probably a bit better today.
 
N. McKay said:
Much of the reason we have a public service is that politicians are not SMEs on everything -- or very much of anything, for that matter.  If a senior civil servant and his Minister disagree on a question of fact related to the department, the civil servant is usually right.
And much of the reason we have politicians is specifically to prevent technocrats from deciding what our national priorities are. Undoubtedly forcing tens of thousands of people to divulge private personal information under pain of imprisonment would be of some statistical benefit in improving the quality of the data that StatsCan sells, but apparently the elected representatives of the people have decided that that's not a business the government wants to be in.
 
hamiltongs said:
but apparently the elected representatives of the people have decided that that's not a business the government wants to be in.

Two of them -- the Minister and the PM -- have.  (But that's only 0.65 per cent, which is probably not a statistically significant sample!)  We'll eventually find out what the rest of them think as the applicable committee of the House gets involved, and eventually the entire House is likely to get in on it.
 
N. McKay said:
And any schoolboy can tell you that we use samples only because it's expensive and/or inconvenient to count the whole population.  If you can count the whole population then you do, because it will be more accurate.  A thousand self-selecting replies to a question is not comparable to eight million mandatory returns.

Much of the reason we have a public service is that politicians are not SMEs on everything -- or very much of anything, for that matter.  If a senior civil servant and his Minister disagree on a question of fact related to the department, the civil servant is usually right.

Beyond my name and that of those in my household, address, maybe age, sex and occupation the gov't really needs to know nothing else about me from a census. They can get my income, etc from existing records. My religion, ethnic origin, or if I have trouble bending at the waist, etc are none of their business. If they need info on property taxes, whether I own a farm, and the like, the information is already there. They can do the work and look it up.

I find the long form highly intrusive and an invasion of my privacy.

No wonder approx 55,000 people entered Jedi for their religion on the last one, if reports are correct. I bet the rest of the form was filled out as accurately. So much for getting a true picture. I'm suprised they didn't try outlaw lightsabres based on this knowledge.

And to threaten me with fines and jail for not participating is absurd.
 
recceguy said:
No wonder approx 55,000 people entered Jedi for their religion on the last one, if reports are correct. I bet the rest of the form was filled out as accurately. So much for getting a true picture. I'm suprised they didn't try outlaw lightsabres based on this knowledge.

Jedi is not a religion? lmao
 
[quote author=Sonar Mike]
Jedi is not a religion? lmao
[/quote]

It's been discussed on the site.
 
It is interesting how the political lines have been drawn on this issue.  In particular, organizations have come out strongly against the decision.

I will make three unfair, speculative, statements of my belief about the types of individuals opposed:
1) They have a direct interest in the organizations, or types of organizations, which oppose the decision.
2) They believe in deferring to experts.
3) They are enamoured of what they believe to be a rationalist policy toward government - that we should strive for perfectability, even at the expense of the general liberty and immunity of people from bothersome nanny-minded intrusions.

The opposition has two counter-arguments I believe to be uncontrovertible:
1) An involuntary census provides data which yields analyses in which the measures of statistical confidence will be higher.
2) A larger number of forms distributed will be more costly to send, receive, and process.

However, the positions are expressed in much the same way that fashionable stances on climate and energy policy are expressed: in descriptive, not quantitative statements.  Thus, "warmer", "more from alternate sources".  In this case, "less accurate", "more costly" (often prefixed with hyperbolic adjectives such as "disastrously", "much").

Some of the statements issued by organizations imply their missions will be impeded by the decrease in data quality.  I think it unlikely in the extreme, for this simple reason: I have yet to read a policy opinionist or organization who wasn't content to hang a major policy decision on the conclusions of small, haphazard surveys and studies among much smaller sample sizes.  So if the data quality decreases: by how much, and will it really affect their missions?  I believe they will happily move forward in the directions they have chosen, selecting whatever studies seem to support their aims.

The cost increase has been estimated at $30,000,000.  I will take that as given; it seems rather high for a mailout, but the transfer from paper to computer may be more work-intensive than I realize.  The exercise is undertaken once each 10 years: $3M per year, and federal spending currently is (discarding extraordinary "stimulius" spending) somewhere north of $250B.  So the cost increase is about 3/250000'ths* of annual federal spending.

Obviously I am at least indifferent to the decision.  I looked at a sample of the long form, and there are indeed questions I would prefer to not answer; in that sense, I lean toward support of the decision.  The organizations can go on doing what they do with "lesser" data, since they do so already.  The cost increase is negligible.  And where such trivial deltas in rationalist perfection are concerned, my privacy >> their convenience.

(*I derided the amount as a "drop in the bucket" on the Macleans bulletin board.  To be precise, at 20 drops per mL and 22.5 L in a standard 5-gallon baucket, there are 450,000 drops in a bucket.  So I am wrong, and the amount is closer to 6 drops in the bucket.)
 
recceguy said:
Beyond my name and that of those in my household, address, maybe age, sex and occupation the gov't really needs to know nothing else about me from a census. They can get my income, etc from existing records. My religion, ethnic origin, or if I have trouble bending at the waist, etc are none of their business. If they need info on property taxes, whether I own a farm, and the like, the information is already there. They can do the work and look it up.

I find the long form highly intrusive and an invasion of my privacy.

No wonder approx 55,000 people entered Jedi for their religion on the last one, if reports are correct. I bet the rest of the form was filled out as accurately. So much for getting a true picture. I'm suprised they didn't try outlaw lightsabres based on this knowledge.

And to threaten me with fines and jail for not participating is absurd.

Apparently, you're not the only one. According to one poll 49% of Canadians couldn't care less if the long-form is scraped.
 
In order to know how accurate a given sample size would be you need to know the population size. The short form Census produces a lot of population counts down to small areas by a couple parameters like age and sex. With that data any organization should be able to do an accurate survey for all the same things they want to use the long form Census for except it would be more targeted and up to date. It would also let people opt out and not be compelled to divulge so much information to government.


 
The real argument is more ideological.

As several people have said, the "long form" is an intrusive invasion of privacy, and the information is is used by unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies as well as being sold to people we might not choose to deal with. "Progressives" like Liberals, Red Tories, the NDP and farther down that line are OK with the State gaining control over such private information because they are convinced that the more technocrats know, the better choices they can make for you and I.

"Classical Liberals" (as represented by far too few CPC party members these days) believe in a more minimal use of State power, and that collecting and using this sort of information is an unjustified power grab.

The fact that the CPC is the governing party provides an opportunity to eliminate the long form on principle, but given the fractured nature of Canadian politics today, doing so openly will arouse the "Progressive" machine (including politicians, bureaucrats, media and academia). Using the ruberic of "deficit reduction" provides a bit of a fig leaf for the government, and I hope they use that more agressively in the future to eliminate other programs. A million here and a million there might not sound like a lot, but the cumulative effect  will be positive for all of us.
 
I haven't been included in a census since 1996, if that is any indication of how accurate they are.
 
- Gathering the information was one thing - selling it to marketers was another.

- Back in the 70's, the story goes,  a major corporation was looking at setting up a plant in the Digby NS area. As the story was told to me, using census data on education, unemployment and so on, they came to the conclusion that if they set up a plant near Digby, they would have to import most of their workforce despite the high local unemployment.
 
There is nothing in that story to suggest "why" the government is supposed to be the source of that information; any company doing "due diligence" should be able to find this out on their own.

Other companies use the same information to come to totally opposite conclusions; remember part of the chase against Prime Minister Brian Mulroney related to a proposed military plant to build armoured vehicles in the same region (presumably in order to feed off govenment contracts and extra government grants for training workers in the first place).

I can tell private companies where to go, and I can fill out marketing surveys with total nonsense if I want, but the Long Form is backed by State sanctions so I can be fined or jailed for refusing to give private information to bureaucrats and private corporations who buy this information from the government.
 
The following column by John Robson is reproduced under the Fair Comments provisions of the Copyright Act. I am taken with his support for the concept of K1A issues.


'K1A' -- the insider epicentre

  By John Robson, The Ottawa Citizen July 30, 2010 8:59 AM

  Ottawa is still buzzing over the government's decision to make the long-form census voluntary. At least some of Ottawa's more, uh, introverted insiders are.

I just can't convince myself it's an important issue, compared to billions of dollars' worth of fighter planes, border security, the crumbling of Parliament and a host of other things it has chased out of the editorial pages. It seems so ... so ... what is the phrase? How about "K1A"?

I endorse this suggestion because it captures the situation, it is very Canadian and comes from my boss at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Brian Lee Crowley. Put those considerations in any order you like. But here's the explanation.

As Brian pointed out on the MLI blog yesterday, Americans have a vivid and highly appropriate metaphor for this sort of flap: they call it "Inside the Beltway" talk. But what's the Canadian equivalent? I've heard "North of the Queensway" as a proposed alternative in Ottawa and I've used it myself. But I've never liked it because there's too much north of the Queensway from shopping centres to residential neighbourhoods that isn't governmental or government-obsessed.

OK, there's a lot of stuff inside the Washington, D.C. beltway too. But that term has stuck, and when you're inside the beltway it is hard to shake the feeling that everything around you that isn't part of the government or supping at the public trough is selling or renting things to people who work for the government or desperately seeking subsidies. Not here.

While we were discussing the matter, Brian e-mailed an observation that became the core of his blog post: "When I was in the UK studying, I heard a talk by a very senior civil servant who, instead of using the 'Whitehall' language to describe British government preoccupations, called them 'SW1 problems', SW1 being the postal code that covers much of the government machinery in London. 'SW1 problems' were by definition 'insider insider', the things that preoccupied grey mandarins and fed the conversations in the pubs around government offices, but had no resonance in Balham or Birkenhead or Bristol." And our equivalent, he went on to suggest, is K1A.

To adopt this term would not just be in keeping with Canada's heritage, given how much of our political machinery and culture, both good and bad, comes from Britain. It's also easy to remember: just think "Keeping 1t Absurd". And it's extremely precise. Not only are all postal codes beginning K1A federal government offices, it is also the only postal code to cross a provincial boundary so as to include those parts of the bureaucracy located for "two solitudes" reasons in Gatineau (née Hull). And only the bureaucracy; all residential and business postal codes there start with J.

As one online commentator with too much time on his hands observes, "the use of K1A for all government offices in Ottawa-Gatineau means a department can be moved between Ontario and Québec without changing its postal code." So can an issue. Conveniently bypassing everyone and everything normal in the country in the process.

Talk about two solitudes. I don't deny that sometimes a "K1A issue" actually matters to the country if not to its inhabitants, including which new fighter planes to buy and in what quantities. Clearly some of my obsessions with parliamentary operations, procedure and staffing are "K1A" or, worse, restricted to the postal code between my ears. But there are other things about which you could not get a conversation going with ordinary Canadians (one commentator called the census flap "the world's most boring political scandal," while going on to devote an entire column to it) and yet we who haunt K1A not only discuss them, we know their acronyms and flaunt them.

I can say this because I have one foot in K1A and if you go up that leg, you reach the pocket with my wallet in it. I make my living commenting on K1A stuff. But at least I feel some sort of unease at how often the preoccupations of those of us who think we speak for Canada, and certainly speak about it, fail utterly to connect with the people who live in the place.

It should convince us there's something wrong with the way we discuss things even when there isn't something wrong with what we're discussing. Instead, so insular are our chattering classes that we didn't even have a proper term for the disconnect. I wish I had coined "K1A" but at least I can adopt and push it.

Admit it. It has that special ring. I mean, is this census flap totally "K1A" or what?



 
One citizen is fighting the good fight in court. This might provide the legal justification for the end of the Long Form:

http://afewfigs.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/she-just-might-win/

She Just Might Win

August 11, 2010
Sandra Finley is currently on trial for refusing to complete the 2006 mandatory long-form census. Her next court appearance is slated for  Sept 9/10 and it should be very interesting to see  how it all unfolds. The media has been very vocal in saying no one has ever gone to jail for refusing but they have been very quiet about the three that have been taken to court. Two of those people ‘caved’ but Finley didn’t and she is determined to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Her email to Warren Kinsella states:

Finished presentation of evidence on March 16th. It was very clear that the Crown cannot win the case.  And is in serious breach of Charter Rights, using the coercion of jail and a fine to force people to hand over a ‘biographical core of personal information.’  It is possible that the Govt’s move to make the long form voluntary was to try and get them off the hook.  The Judge is scheduled to hear the arguments in my trial on Sept 9th.

Finley is basing her arguments against the government on two factors.

The first one involves a judgment made in a previous trial (R v Plant 1993) which reads:

In modern society*, especially, retention of information about oneself is extremely important.  We may, for one reason or another, wish or be compelled to reveal such information, but situations abound where the reasonable expectations of the individual that the information shall remain confidential to the persons to whom, and restricted to the purposes for which it is divulged, must be protected.    …

In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.  This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.

*Hmm , ‘In modern society‘…  sounds a lot what the PM said the other day:

“This has detailed personal information that is being sought by the government,” he said. ….  In this day and age, that is not an appropriate way to get the public’s co-operation.”

Basically, Finley is arguing that The Statistics Act does not trump The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Her second point is based on discrimination. Statistics Canada referred 64 people to the federal prosecutor for failure to complete the long-form census in 2006. Finley is arguing that she is being unfairly singled out because none of the other cases have been brought to trial. This raises the prospects of the Government being forced to prosecute 64 more cases just to avoid the appearance of prejudice.

A commenter to Kinsella’s  post (linked above) had this to say:

Sandra Finley is almost certainly right that the government was about to lose the case on a Charter challenge. …

StatsCan and its advisory committee can only blame themselves for the current dilemma. By pandering to every special interest group that wanted to gather information and ignoring the fact that we are now in a post-Charter era where the government can?t simply intrude into privacy, they handed themselves lots of rope.

So did the Conservatives bring in this change from mandatory to voluntary to ‘get themselves off the hook’ ? And what will the Opposition say if it begins to look like Finley has a legitimate case? She was a Green Party candidate and a very feisty person so not the type  to avoid the camera I would think.

Additional: Some interesting stuff at two protest actions during the 2006 Census.

‘CountMeOut‘ offered perfectly legal suggestions for filling out the forms at the  ‘Minimum Co-Operation‘ link. Vivelecanada has a time line of the 2006 census controversy.
 
So did the Conservatives bring in this change from mandatory to voluntary to ‘get themselves off the hook’ ?

I don't care what the reason. They are doing the right thing.
 
Back
Top