Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'The death of smart government'

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:01am - 0 Comments

David Eaves—with the essay that seemed to start yesterday’s Twitter exchange—condemns the census decision on a variety of fronts.

This is a direct attack on the ability of government to make smart decisions. It is an attack on evidence-based public policy. Moreover, it was a political decision – it came from the minister’s office and does not appear to reflect what Statistics Canada either wants or recommends. Of course, some governments prefer not to have information; all that data and evidence gets in the way of legislation and policies that are ineffective, costly and that reward vested interests (I’m looking at you, tough-on-crime agenda).

The Liberals are musing of an amendment to make the long form mandatory.

Tags: census, David Eaves, Tony Clement

More by Aaron Wherry

Stewart_Smith

The death of smart government actually makes a historical presumption that I am not certain is justified. Perhaps more accurate would be: was dumb, now dumber.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I regret that I have but one thumb to up.

no more non-partisan

The death of "smart government" is a statement of a political point of view. I call this the death of coercive big government. The less the government knows about me and my fellow citizens the better. Canada is not a laboratory for social engineers so the less data they can compile the more protected we will be from big government schemes. "To a government hammer everything looks like a nail." I just want them to protect freedom of the person and that doesn't require a lot of data- name, rank and serial number.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

1. In a data driven world where so many policies are inspired by social and statistical trends, how do you propose to challenge "social engineering policies" that are so misguided without your own reliable analysis?

2. I can think of a lot more things that are far more coercive coming from our government than a long-form Census document, over which they won't bother to follow up with criminal charges if you don't fill out and mail back. The "let's throw 14-year-old criminals in jail for life" and "anyone who approaches a public works building and refuses search and identification shall be arrested" come to mind.

no more non-partisan

"Social engineering policies" should be limited to those based solely on data that the government is currently entitled to gather- money, justice and defense. Every other piece of data can be gathered the same way all other enterprises gather it- by paying for it -to those willing to to provide it.

I've completed the long form and was furious about almost every bit of information that I was required to provide. As a law-abiding citizen the only thing open to me was to include a covering letter that said I felt violated and disgusted by the depth of questioning about each member of my household. Maybe as you suggest I should have ignored it since there is no criminal responsibility and who needs civil responsibility.

Emily

Amazing. Cons used to stress personal responsibility. I guess that's gone by the wayside too.

no more non-partisan

"Cons" …you lose.
Emily

Well you're being rather obvious.
no more non-partisan

Can't someone be conservative without being a "Con"? I didn't call you a "Libtard" or a "Librano". I thought we were discussing privacy versus the need for the government to have good information for policy making purposes. These are long-standing debates since the beginning of political philosophy- why do I have to be a "Con" in your world.
Emily

It's just a short form…like PC used to be. The word was your choice, not mine. Interesting you read another meaning into it. LOL

And since I'm not a Liberal, it's irrelevant.

This is not a 'long-standing debate since the beginning of political philosophy' either…it's a census form.

Same kind of thing as King William did…and the Romans did.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

This comment appears to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what the census is for, and how deeply the data is used to provide government services. Every day – every day – you are impacted by census numbers, even in such a basic way as where your town decides to put traffic lights or super-mailboxes in new subdivisions.

The more data they compile, the more they understand the actual makeup of the country. Not social engineering or experimentation. Then the more they understand (for example) how old people are in each area, so social services can be correctly (and more cheaply) provided.

Maybe you believe government should do almost nothing. That's a valid belief, but many claim that view without thinking it all the way through.

no more non-partisan

Coercion not data quality is the issue- government should not have the right to force anyone to divulge personal information. It can be obtained the same way scientific research, commercial research and academic research is obtained- voluntarily.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

How do you square that with government forcing you to divulge income?

no more non-partisan

Income information is transactional between two parties and is subject to a tax on the transaction (income or sales) – it is not personal.
Emily

There is nothing more personal than your income.

People will freely blab about their drinking, their families and their sex lives….but the one question people won't answer….and get angry about if asked….is 'how much do you make'?
no more non-partisan

No it's not. The government can obtain income information from your employer, your clients, you are only a party to transaction. Citizens provide it to government because Revenue Canada agrees not to provide it to any other government department. It is a mutual agreement of trust between the citizen and a department of the government.
Emily

Yes, they can.

Are you aware it was a Con who decided to sell the census information?

Business you know.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Frankly I think we'd cut the problems of government by half if we had more information sharing between them.

But that's a debate for another day.
no more non-partisan

God, I hope so.
Wascally Wabbit

What a crock NMNP! You fundamentally don't understand or communicate privacy correctly or factually (and facts are critical). Information provided under the Income Tax Act is identifiable to YOU by SIN number and basic demographics – and its privacy is protected under the government's own rules imposed upon itself (the only part which is voluntary is whether you want your demographics to be passed onto Elections Canada!
Census data is NON-identifiable – but can be sliced, diced and spindled by virtue of the values of the fields you agree to provide input to.
Chalk and cheese information – as I expect you fully know!
no more non-partisan

Are Name, Address and Telephone number that are supplied on the form not sufficient to be identifiable and do they not reside in a computer somewhere.
For instance – let's give up our personal health information.
Name of Person 1
Does this person have any difficulty hearing, seeing, communicating, walking, climbing stairs,
bending, learning or doing any similar activities?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Personal identifiers are not disseminated when Census data is purchased or used. They're stored for verification purposes only.
no more non-partisan

I agree but the government holds this information about those who completed and submitted the long form. They have it. They coerced it from its citizens.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

They coerced an address they could have just as easily tracked down from the phone book?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Hey, look what I found: It's the Statistics Act!

S. 24, on the sharing of income tax information, if you're so inclined.
no more non-partisan

Thanks; Note that this access is by GIC only and on the advice of the Minister of Revenue who must deem what information can be provided. There is no Statutory right for other departments to have access to National Revenue records. Normally this information is aggregated before it leaves Revenue so that it can be analyzed by Statistics Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

If coercion was really the issue, then why is just the long form voluntary. Why not all census information collected in the short form too?

And how coercive is it really to ask a few questions of a few people once every 5 years under strict confidentiality obligations????

No. The reality is as you first pointed out: government data is used to make good policy in areas you don't want them to make any policies, so the solution seems to be to make the data useless knowing getting rid of the long form altogether would cause too much of an uprising by sensible people.

no more non-partisan

Census information was designed to obtain raw data as to numbers and location of citizens and non-citizens.

If government wants more information they can ask for it voluntarily.

You may wish to advise tax staff who were "strictly confidentially" looking up spousal data for personal purposes of your confidence in them.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

But let's be consistent here. Why should the government be entitled to any of your personal information at all? Why should they be able to obtain data about the number of people in your household or your family relationship, age, sex, marital status, and mother tongue etc.

This is outrageous state coercion! Freedom now!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

"Why should the government be entitled to any of your personal information at all?"

Good question, tedbetts. The government should know nothing about me – no income numbers, no census, no nothing. I am not breaking any laws so The State has no reason to bother/harass/monitor me.

The census is about government control – they like having power over people and this nonsense about making better policies based on census data is utter bs.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

So I take it you are opposed to Harper and his coercive government control in collecting such information as how many people in your household and what your marital status is and the like?
no more non-partisan

The census is to be used for parliamentary districting and military service in the event of war. It wasn't until social engineers started adding new intrusive questions that we got the long form. If government wants to know more about its residents let them ask for information to be supplied voluntarily not exercise the coercive power of the state to obtain it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Just so I'm clear here: you think it is offensive and the actions of a coercive state to ask you what your gender is, what your marital status is, what your mother tongue is? And you oppose Harper and the Conservative government for trying to force you to provide this information?
no more non-partisan

If you are asking me to design the short form I suggest Name, Age, Gender, Marital status and official language spoken of each person in the household (serves for voting and military conscription purposes).
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

'Cause asking for personal information so you know where and how many roads and hospitals and power lines and schools is coercive.

But asking for personal information so you can send someone off to war is not coercive.

Gotcha.
no more non-partisan

'Cause locating a road or school is not as important to the security of the state as a war that threatens the survival of the state.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Who is claiming it is? No one.

But some would say that it is far more "coercive" to collect and spend my tax dollars inefficiently and wastefully when creating policy in the dark without the best available data. To build a road to nowhere or with too much or too little capacity, to build too few schools or too many… is wasteful and far more coercive than being asked to fill out some basic information because it is wasting my money.
no more non-partisan

You really should examine the long form more closely to see how you get roads and schools out of the questioning. Another commenter has suggested that provinces who are responsible for roads and schools don't use census data they use provincial records.

Would you be open to another data gathering approach if we could cost-effectively obtain quality data by non-compulsory means?
tedbetts

You are completely mixing up two very different issues.

The issue that has everyone up in arms is the collecting of this data voluntary. It makes it pretty much useless. It now costs way more and is way less useful.

That is a separate issue from what data is collected. Most of the data collected is no less sensitive than marital status or the info collected on the short form, but really it is there to support good policy decisions. If it is the policy decisions you object to then object to those and try to change the policy. If the questions themselves are objectionable then object to those (like was successfully done with the ethnicity question).

If you are going to collect data, though, then you should collecting good data, or at least the best data you can. If you don't need to collect it, then don't collect it. But making the census collection useless is the about the worst possible way of objecting to the policies that may be supported by that data.
no more non-partisan

I don't agree with you about the sensitivity of the information when it comes to personal health and education questions contained in the long form, but I suppose sensitivity varies for each of us.

We should be collecting good data using voluntary means. If good data can't be collected voluntarily then it shouldn't be collected. Your point that the voluntary approach is more costly and less useful is a supposition that has not been tested as far as I know.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

"Your point that the voluntary approach is more costly and less useful is a supposition that has not been tested as far as I know. "

On the contrary, that is the very point being made by many many people. It is Statistics 101 that voluntary sampling does not create random sampling and the resulting data is less reliable because different demographic groups submit differently and so the results are skewered.

As for the cost, Clement is bragging that there will be a much much larger response rate. That requires much more mailings, much more processing. I have read that the additional mailings and processing will cost at least an additional $30 million.

Harper's voluntary solution is the worst of both worlds and exacerbates both your concerns and mine.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Technical points:

I believe the term is "skewed", not "skewered", though your intended meaning, I suppose, is the same…

And whoever claims that simply by sending out more surveys, you increase your response rate, doesn't know what the term "response rate" means. There may be over a dozen ways to calculate a response rate, but that ain't one of em.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Except that now that we've scrapped the draft, that second part isn't really relevant anymore. Also, while StatsCan collects numbers for the purpose of cataloguing population by FED, they're not the ones in charge of drawing boundary lines between FEDs.

And neither, I might add, is Canada Post, who maintain household counts by FSA.
no more non-partisan

You never know when a draft will be required. It's usually legislated at the time of war.

An Electoral Boundaries Commission which is established for each decennial census, the Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the receipt by the Minister of a return certified by the Chief Statistician under section 13, establish by proclamation, published in the Canada Gazette, an electoral boundaries commission for each province.
Guy

When is the last time you've seen good policy from a government? I'm 48 years old and the next time I see it will be the first time I see it!

Mike T.

commie!

Emily

Actually, if you give someone your 'name, rank and serial number' it's more than the census asks of you. LOL

And you can be traced simply by posting on here.

no more non-partisan

You've obviously never completed the long census form which is the point of the discussion.

Emily

Yes, I have, and more than once.

Standing By

So is the short form census also going to be made voluntary?

If not, why is this terrible coercion still to be inflicted on hard-pressed citizens (other than the fact that not having a census would be stupid?)
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

You mean, "big government schemes" like the amount of roads, sewage, electricity, schools and hospitals we need for any region? Or whether the data supports our efforts to get new capital and investment into our markets?

no more non-partisan

Yes schemes like the roads of Toronto- most congested in the world, like sewer and water systems in native communities, like Canada having the lowest percentage inbound investment in the G8- working great so far.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Oh I see. So because the census doesn't solve all the world's problems, we should make it completely useless so it has no chance of helping policy makers. Gotcha. Good, sound conservative thinking at its best! When you have a problem, make it go away by making it worse.

Guy

Why use old and incomplete data from a census when you have data updated daily in provincial vital statistics offices? Provinces don't use census information for infrastructure and policy, they rely on their own data. It is current and more accurate.

Holly Stick

Provinces use the Statscan census information all the time. How much are the stupid ignorant Conservatives paying you to lie about this, Guy?

Guy

I'm not a Conservative. For example, schools are built based on enrollment figures and population changes. The latest census information can be up to 7 years old! Provinces use the population information from their vital statistics departments because it is current (it is updated daily) and enrollment because the school divisions have their own information on completion rates. Using old information from a census means that schools will not get built at the proper place and time.

So tell me now, why would government use old information when it has better information in its pocket?
Holly Stick

If you are being paid by the Conservatives to lie for them, you don't necessarily have to be a Conservative yourself; just dishonest. You are spending much time thinking up specious arguments which are convincing no one.
Guy

In 2009, my provincial government fast tracked a new school in a town of 6,000 based on these factors:
1) The local government recruited 50 families from Europe as part of the effort to grow the town
2) a new factory was built employing 100+ employees
3) the local birth rate started accelerating
4) a new personal care home was built employing 50 people

All of this happened AFTER the 2006 census. The school will be ready in 2011. If the government waited for information from the 2011 census, the school would have been ready in 2015 at the earliest, provided funding was available. Sorry to bother you with the facts.

My local school board has presented a request to the province for a new school in a new development. The data it used was not from the census, but from its enrollment records and the plans of the developer. Since in 2006 there were no homes and the city and province had not approved the development, no information existed. Sorry to trouble you with more facts.

Dated and incomplete information is useless. We have better information available, why not use it, like in the above examples? Can you answer the question? Or is name calling the best you can do?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

There are WAY too many talking points in your comments to be overlooked.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Thinking that the government not having data will somehow protect you from big government schemes is incredibly naive. All it will do is make sure that the schemes cost more and are more often wrong in what they demand from you and apply to you.

Or do you really think that bureaucrats are going to stop coming up with reasons for their jobs to exist just because they don't have the data to make those reasons useful and accurate?

no more non-partisan

I don't have a problem with the government having data. Like all other parties in the public square they should obtain the data contained in the long form voluntarily. No government bureaucrat/technocrat should be able to force a citizen me by weight of a statute to divulge it.

Thwim

Sorry.. I forgot a word in that first sentence: "Thinking that the government not having reliable data.."

However, it sounds like you're willing to pay extra taxes so that the government can provide incentives to get that reliable data in place then?

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

David Eaves is described as a "public-policy entrepreneur" below his essay. Ironic then that he rails against vested interests.

Eaves claims that "Like roads were in the 20th-century economy, data is the core infrastructure of a 21st-century economy." That's a bit of a platitude as far as I'm concerned, but let's treat it as a given for the sake of discussion. Why should the power of government be used to compel the surrendering of data for the benefit of commercial enterprises and entrepreneurs? If the data has so much commercial value, then it's all the more important that citizens be empowered to retain their personal data if they so choose. Since Stats-Canada sells the data, they should be paying the suppliers as well, shouldn't they? I wonder what the response level would be if long-form recipients were offered a tax deduction for completing their forms?

Poker Face

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said, except for that last sentence. Such an incentive would push a self-selection bias, IMO.
LynnTO

I'm inclined to think that StatsCan data should be free for personal use, and charged through the nose for corporations.

Also keep in mind that while they may sell the data, IIRC it would constitute a violation of privacy laws to provide said data with personal identifiers such as your name, street address, and phone number.

And, the largest users of StatsCan data are other governments and public sector agencies. Large corporations can fork out for their own survey data (which is most always weighted by StatsCan data that is publicly available for free or purchase).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Why should the power of government be used to compel the surrendering of data for the benefit of commercial enterprises and entrepreneurs?

I guess the answer would be that the purpose of having a country is to enhance the lives of its citizens and having successful enterprises and entrepreneurs generally is a benefit to the citizens of the country. You can certainly argue that the cost in terms of individual freedom is too high… but the arguement that government's only legitimate role is to hold invanders back at the borders was copyrighted by Ms. Oulook quite a while ago.

On the paying side… I agree completely. If those that get the long form suffer the duress of filling it out they should be compensated.
http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Ooo, interesting idea! I think that concerns about selling the data are valid, and should be addressed as a separate discussion. But very interesting idea about tax deductions for census completion – maybe could apply to voting and other civic duties as well.

Yes, I'm aware of the irony about deductions to convince people to do their duty. :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I want a tax deduction for filing my tax return.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

It kills me to actually have to pay for a stamp for the flippin thing!

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Word to the wise: tele-file. Free!
Lord Kitchener's Own

What's a stamp?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

You kids, always with the joking…
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, I'm not really a kid, but seriously, a stamp??? I don't think I've even used PAPER for filing my taxes in over a decade (not counting my T4 and other "paperwork", which I'd be happy to receive electronically given the option…).

I can't even remember the last time I put a stamp on something.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I was being ironic(al). If anything, I'm the joking kid in this equation…

Anyhow, agreed, I haven't used paper filing since my first return. Ever since, I've been an eFiler.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Oh, I did get it, sorry if I seemed wounded or to have taken it seriously. The ironing was delicious.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Thanks for the responses, folks.

What you say makes sense.

But I do have this feeling that the non-response rate to the 2001 long-form was higher than we might expect. Anyone seen the numbers on this rate?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I haven't seen the 2001 numbers, but that was before the Conservative formed the government. As of this year the non-response rate will no longer a problem in Canada.
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Well, sorta. There will still be a non-response rate from the voluntary survey. They just don't have to worry about following up with those who didn't respond.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I think we agree that it should be manditory… which means that it is not a mechanism to convince but rather to compensate. The government has the right to appropriate land that I own but it has to pay me fair market value.

Richard

I think the state "pays the suppliers" quite amply already. If a citizen refuses to fill out the long form (or short form) of the census, the state should refuse them access to the government programs whose efficacy relies in some part on the accuracy of national population data.

lgarvin

I often argue that we ought to view ourselves as citizens rather than subjects. The state must always justify itself to the citizens rather than the reverse. Your approach seems to go even further than the citizen as subject, yours has the citizen as supplicant. Not the way I want to live, not the kind of society I want for my children.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Saying that smart government is dead is like saying that stones are blind. You can't lose what you never had by nature in the first place.

Emily

Gosh, lack of govt is what's made Canada into Somalia then I guess eh?
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Forgive my ignorance – I'm just an interested citizen and not a statistician – but aren't there already many problems with the accuracy of the data collected by the mandatory long form? Isn't there bound to be a sizeable error rate in the self-identifying questions about ethnicity, for instance?

Here's one example of thousands of people already refusing to comply with the census: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/294018

Does having a "mandatory" long-form really produce a higher response rate than a voluntary one? Especially among people at the fringes?

Emily

Of course it does.

Would most people bother to take 10 minutes to fill it out voluntarily?

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/mowat mowat

Yeah, I guess "most people" would.

Aren't there groups out there that, due to their very nature, won't respond to a mandatory or a voluntary census? Say, tax-evaders, for instance. Or various sorts of people involved in other criminal activity?

Emily

Unlikely. LOL

There are people out there that rob and murder too…but that doesn't mean we should give up the census.
Guy

Actually, quite likely. And it's a growing movement. Consider it a form of civil disobedience.

no more non-partisan

They can't match the phone book address to a disability unless they demand that I record it on their form.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

They don't give two hoots if someone in your specific household has a specific disability. They care about the overall trend, which has nothing to do with their collection of your name, your personal street address, or your telephone number.

Your form gets marked complete or incomplete. Then it's entered. They'll only trace information back to your address if they need to verify it.
no more non-partisan

"In government we trust" You live by it, no else should have to.
Guy

If it's incomplete, they send a canvasser to your door. Happened to me. Someone who lived down the street knows way more about me than he should.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The issue is not response rate but accuracy of the sampling.

In fact, Clement's argument that there will be far more responses with the voluntary approach is probably accurate since they are spending some $30 million more to send out far more long forms meaning that there will be a much larger response rate.

But the problem is that the responders will reflect the actual demographics far less and therefore the data will not reflect the demographics as well. The effect is that any inaccuracy in the data will be compounded and even hidden, making the data far less useful.

Guy

Since, with all the inaccuracy in the data in the first place, being less accurate is not possible.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

If the sample size is sufficently large, and there are no biases in the selection process then having problems in the accuracy of the data is not a big problem. (It averages out)

When entire reservations do not participate there is of course a big problem in selection bias. No doubt, Statistics Canada does its best to provide adjusted numbers but there would still be issues with respect to the applicability of the data on reservations. No doubt, this poor quality of information has been a contributor to the woeful state of affairs on some reservations. It is hard to see why some would want to reduce the quality of life across Canada to that level, just to avoid 10 minutes of paperwork.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

There are problems with the long-form census, as there would be with any mail-back survey. People can lie, fudge, misinterpret, et cetera, and respond (or not respond) accordingly. These types of response bias are usually covered in methodological overviews and/or can be accounted for in other ways (such as weighting or a verification method).

With all this being said, sample selection bias – that is, the bias that is introduced by making a Census form optional – is not a solution to response bias. Two wrongs don't make a right. Only those inclined to do the survey will fill it out and mail it back. As an example, in opt-in surveys, response rates among low-income and low-education groups are even lower than in traditional methodologies, but if it's opt-in (and a Census form!) there's no way to account or adjust for it. Making it mandatory at least reduces the risk of this lower response rate.

Guy

In other words, StatsCan makes an educated guess and fills in what it thinks the answer should look like. Fudging fudged information. StatsCan cannot even tell which answers may be incorrect. No government at all should be using this information. Lynn, you've just made my argument about the quality of the information on the mandatory form being useless.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

No, StatsCan doesn't make up answers based on what they think things should look like. The law precludes them from doing so.

There are methodological notes to just about every survey. Reading them helps the interpreter take in context what numbers are saying.
Lord Kitchener's Own

"Reading" and "context"?

That's a bridge too far.
Guy

Sorry, I meant a data set, not an individual form (still, no one can tell if a group of answers is all correct or not). However, the law does not prevent any one in StatsCan from making an "interpretation" .But my point is the same, someone interprets the gaps. There should be no interpretation necessary. Again, if this is necessary, the data is not very good. So, the methodology becomes irrelevant.

The census is not the way to do this. Any important information is already collected and there is incentive to keep it correct. If you do not register a birth, you do not get child tax credits, for example. Want a GST rebate? File your taxes. Threatening people with fines and jail time is no way to go about this.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Although my impression is that Stephen Gordon leans to NDP, he has given Liberals advice in the past. I hope he will take the opportunity to connect with Marlene Jenkins and tell her to play this piece of politics a little smarter.

Rather than allow the Conservatives to frame this issues as one of privacy, the Liberals should frame it as one of good governance or more precisely evidence-based policy making. Stamping your feet does the former, asking hard questions the latter.

no more non-partisan

The Conservatives can add "smaller government" to "privacy" since they will argue that to Liberals "good governance" is code for "big government". I agree that Ms Jennings could be playing this better.

Emily

Cons can't claim 'smaller govt' at all. That's the party that wants an elected senate.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Except the stupid decision actually costs more for worse results than keeping it mandatory. So it is not a choice of big versus small government, especially when Harper has made the government bigger than it ever has been even before the recession. It is a choice between dumb government and dumber and blind government.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Actually, since it's going to cost them more to send the long form to more people, many of whom will just trash it since it's not mandatory, this change actually results in BIGGER government (or at least more costly government), but with less information. We're spending more money sending out more forms, all of which are now voluntary.

We pay more, and we get less.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Spend more money, generate more paper must be about economic stimulus & carbon sequestration!

Harper has now evolved full circle from a tax crusader to a green progressive lefty.
no more non-partisan

I agree. Why don't we hire a research firm like EKOS to do the research for us. Probably cheaper to phone a few thousand households to get willing participants. Less paper, statistically sound, and voluntary. Smaller, smarter government in action.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Doesn't EKOS correct for their sample biases using the data from the Census?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

If "census" means 100% data collection, then there would be no skew, and therefore, no reason to weight data.

So, if a contracted research firm (who obtained what would inevitably be the most massive polling contract in the history of mankind) conducted both the Census and the Longform, they would be able to weight by their own Census collection numbers.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I don't think no more non-partisan is saying that we should just get EKOs to run the Census, he's saying we should just get EKOs to call up a few thousand households and conduct voluntary phone polls with those who agree to be polled, like they do today. The problem is, the only way those phone polls by EKOS can come anywhere close to representing reality is that EKOS corrects their sample bias by comparing the people who agree to answer the phone poll against the information we have from the CENSUS which more accurately reflects reality than a random group of people who choose to stay on the phone once they realize it's EKOS calling.
no more non-partisan

I wouldn't ask a third party to conduct the census- that is the job of the government. The long form data where a lot of other detail is required should be sought voluntarily by the most cost-effective method possible. Could be by government or by private sector and by whatever scientific method gets the job done VOLUTARILY.
no more non-partisan

oops VOLUNTARILY

Lord Kitchener's Own

Just for those who didn't follow the link, I think it's worth pointing out that Eaves isn't just arguing that this move represents the death of smart government. He's arguing that this move represents the death of smart government, a less competitive economy, and a weaker democracy.

Guy

I read the article, but disagree. The less information a government has the less it can interfere in and manipulate the lives of its citizens. The government that governs least governs best. How can we expect to show respect for each other when our governments to not respect us?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I replied to this Guy, but below in a new post by accident, just fyi!

Lord Kitchener's Own

I read the article, but disagree. The less information a government has the less it can interfere in and manipulate the lives of its citizens.

Or, arguably, the less information a government has the more incompetently it will interfere in and manipulate the lives of its citizens. One may assume that if we keep the government ignorant they'll stay out of our lives, but I rather suspect they'll actually get even MORE involved in our lives, just with even WORSE (or at the very least less predictable) consequences.

I like the old "The government that governs least, governs best" line, and it's a useful reminder for governments, but I'm not certain that it similarly follows that "The government that knows least, governs least".

Guy

Unfortunately, the track record in Canada is that the more a government knows, the more it thinks it knows better. Given all the discussion and information in the blog comments over the last few days, I am even more convinced that the information of past census is not all that good. Too many forms not being returned, too many people making honest errors, too many people sabotaging their information, too many canvassers leading the citizen, too much jiggery-pokery by StatsCan to get the numbers to mean what the bureaucrats want/think them to be. And to base public policy on this…yuck!