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

Tony Clement will tell you how many bedrooms he has

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:14pm - 0 Comments

It’s not that the Industry Minister himself considers the long-form census to be intrusive, it’s that other people do.

Clement, who is in England on ministerial business, acknowledged he doesn’t consider long-form questions — such as how many bedrooms one’s house has — as intrusive. ”I don’t, but I’ve heard from Canadians who do,” he said. “I’ve heard from Canadians who are concerned about other questions, like whether someone in the household has a mental or physical incapacity, they’re concerned about questions about the characteristics of their commute to work.”

The embattled minister also said he would fill out the long-form census if he were to receive it, but has to be “respectful” of those Canadians who are concerned about the “very private nature of those questions and give them a chance to opt out if they so choose.”

Tags: census, Tony Clement

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

So he doesn't agree that it's a privacy issue himself! He admits he's just given in to a few complainers.

It'll be interesting to see if Harper backs him on this. Good way to get rid of the G20 badboy otherwise, and that must have some appeal. LOL

Where is Harper btw?

Anon 001

Where is Harper btw?

Hiding.

Emily

It's very unlike Harper not to have waded into this mess long ago.
Jan

There's a rumour he's having a facelift.

Emily

LOL he needs a policy lift!
Halo_Override

…a large jar?

(Sorry, you meant Harper. I'd like to change my answer to "a blue sweater".)

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd stay away

Hughes Mearns

http://intensedebate.com/people/MostlyCivil MostlyCivil

Enjoy the added emphasis. Huzzah, sir, huzzah.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

He is hiding in one of his current residences eight bedrooms.

John D

So he'll get rid of anything that a few people complain about? To the email machines!

Charles H.

Dear Minister Clement,

I really don't like that red colour on the flag. It's hard on my eyes. Perhaps a more pleasing blue would be better?

Lotsa love,
Chuckie

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

With the Vancouver Olympic logo (C) to replace that passé leaf.

Dave

With a marijuana leaf. You see those flags as much as the old version anyway.

Dave

Dear CPC Leader:

Get rid of CIMS. Think of the privacy you'll save.
http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

I note that it's now the very vague "characteristics of their commute to work" that he refers to.

Which, I suppose, is an improvement in accuracy over the last time he spoke on that point. Of course, still slightly misleading given that "characteristics" implies it asks more than "How do you get to work," but an improvement in accuracy (by being less specific) nonetheless.

Jan

Hard to believe that Clement has twice been Health Minister given his casualness about data collection. And he needs to see someone about the constant blinking. It makes him look like he's either very nervous or lying.

bergkamp

" …. acknowledged he doesn’t consider long-form questions — such as how many bedrooms one’s house has — as intrusive."

That goes a long way to explaining why Clement provided half-baked defense of his actions. If Cons/Harper are so concerned by messaging, why don't they have someone who hates census to provide explanations instead of insipid Clement. People who are passionate about something will provide more coherent answers than someone who is indifferent.

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

Somebody who felt strongly about it must have convinced either Clement or Harper to do it, and they must have made a reasonably strong case to do so.

This is what I don't understand – if it was a principled decision, why can't they put forward a coherent principled case for it?

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

My observation is that people who insist on holding onto unlikely assumptions in the face of conflicting evidence spent a lot of time confused.

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

Ok…and your alternative hypothesis is what exactly, that they didn't care about it on principle but thought that there would be a groundswell of support??

Holly Stick

Or maybe they were just arrogant and stupid, like with the prorogation.
Olaf

The obviously had a good reason to prorogue, even if was unadulterated self interest. This one is less obvious.
practical mom

I'm not convinced that they have a strong principle guiding them; maybe a soft one around freedom of choice. Only they can't say freedom of choice because that might get confused with the abortion debate.

I am beginning to think it really is about raising money. How else can they fight the forces of evil lining up against their reasoned compromise, made in the best interest of their constituents, except to ask for more donations?

Advertising rules in the Conservative's view. More donations means more ads for the coming election. As well, the ads to urge us to ignore in the invasive nature of the long form and to voluntarily fill it out will be more tax payer money going to advertise the Conservative party. Double win.
Dave

No, they thought — correctly — that it would generate revenue for the party coffers, just as it did for Reform in 1996.

Olaf

It's a fair question though. However depraved you may assume all Conservatives or conservatives are, normally they still act with some sort of rationale. It might not be a rationale you're sympathetic to, but I have to assume there is one. I think Gaunilon and I are struggling with the same question.

Same with anything said by the Liberals or the NDP, mind you. Normally I can point to a plausible reason for their pronouncements or policies, even if I disagree with them. Principle, political benefit, interest group influence, ideological commitment, populism, or what have you. Something. I'm trying to think of what motivated the CPC in this situation, and I'm having trouble coming up with a convincing rationale (not convincing as in "I agree with it", just in the sense of "Ok, well I understand their motivations").

Emily

"Earlier in the week, a Conservative senator publicly questioned the credibility of statistics that showed crime rates declining."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingn…

There's your 'rationale'.
Olaf

You're gonna have to spell it out for me, my imagination won't draw the link.
Emily

Never disagree with this govt or you're toast.
Olaf

But if this government didn't make the decision in the first place, no one would have had to disagree with them, right? I'm looking for a motivation for the initial decision. Good try though.
Emily

Sigh. Statscan showed that crime rates are falling….which means the govt 'law and order' platform costing billions is dumb. So the senator queried the stats.

Then Statscan got wiped.
Olaf

Yes, please sigh again. They didn't abolish statscan, or any of the data sources that go into determining crime rates. There are good reasons to oppose making the long form census voluntary. And there are reasons that have nothing to do with it. On this occasion, you have chosen the latter. I'm not sure you can tell the difference at this point, but unfortunately, other people can.
Emily

If you didn't want an answer you shouldn't have asked for one.

Had you read the article you'd have had your answer, but nooooo
Jan

Harper wants to degrade the data Census produces. They have come up with annoying things like the crime rate in decline. Having reliable estimates of things like poverty, illiteracy interfere with his version of what's happening in the country, This is basically 'shoot the messenger'.
Olaf

The long form census data ask questions on the crime rate? Ya sure?
Jan

Statscan in general – they are a thorn in his side. You really need to spend some time on their website – you don't seem to understand what they do.
Olaf

I don't seem to understand what they do? If they abolished statscan, your first comment would make sense. Their decision to make the long form voluntary has no bearing on 'crime rates', so whether the Conservatives find that "annoying" or not, really doesn't bolster your argument (Conservatives hate all stats) in any way. So your first comment, in fact, didn't make any sense. Which is what I was pointing out.
practical mom

Well, if the voluntary long form produces unreliable data, StatsCan's reputation is diminished and all other StatsCan products become suspect. So I think Jan's comment does make sense.
Olaf

I'm sure you do. But it doesn't. That's like saying the local grocery store got a bad bunch of apples, because their supplier was negligent, and therefore, the ice cream they sell is suspect.
Jan

Ah, yes but you only have to cast doubt on the store's handling of food to discredit it.
Olaf

If Statscan inappropriately handled the data, sure. Receiving faulty data only impugns the reputation of the one delivering it.

This is beyond stupid. I can't believe I'm spending my time explaining elementary logic to such nitwits. Sadly it probably says more about me than them. I'm gonna go cry now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

No, you're not a nitwit, but I do think you are missing their point.

Here's a bit of an oldy, but "it doesn't have to be true, as long as its plausible". Once we discredit Statscan, in general (remember they are the world leaders in good stats–or at least they say so (or I read it somewhere), then it is easier to discredit specific information as not being credible–whether it is or not isn't the issue, it's just that they can say it. Pretty hard to say it now if Statscan is the world leader in good stats, I mean. And also, they couldn't say it tomorrow or anything like that, but Harper's known for his long game.

I'm not saying this IS the reason, but I think it is the idea put out by Emily, Jan, and Mom. I don't think they are saying it is the definitive reason, either, but you asked for ideas.
Olaf

Finally, someone I can rationally converse with. But I still don't buy the notion that a lack of data in one area somehow tarnishes data that has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, people would argue that all Canadian (and British, for that matter) pollsters, or anyone who uses statscan data, have somehow lost 'credibility' (not accuracy, mind you, but credibility) because they're no longer working with the best available information. So if statscan has lost credibility, in toto, because some of the information they get (not what they do with it, mind you) is no longer pristine, then wouldn't every other organization that has been ensuring us that their work depends entirely on statscan long form data be likewise tarnished? Are you going to impugn the credibility of all the organizations that say they depend, however marginally, on statscan long form data?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

"But I still don't buy the notion that a lack of data in one area somehow tarnishes data that has nothing to do with it."

Well, good for you! Thinking people wouldn't. Sadly, the Conservatives are good with the spin, and "it doesn't have to be true . . ." Even more sad, there are an amazing number of Canadians that won't lift a brain cell to think through the obvious ridiculousness of the thing, as you have done there.

But they can still vote.
Olaf

Ok. I'll file your comment Jenn in the 'sad, but true' file, and concede the point. Well played.
Phil

A little quibble with Receiving faulty data only impugns the reputation of the one delivering it.

Receiving faulty data should actually impugn the reputation of the one receiving it, delivering faulty data should actually impugn the reputation of the one delivering it, and supplying faulty data should actually impugn the reputation of the one supplying it.

When you're at the store, looking at those bad apples, how do you actually know what combination of those three reputations to question? The store is right there, the others are partially or totally hidden.
practical mom

It wouldn't matter at all that StatsCan's other products remained pristine. The Conservatives would have more nonsensical reasons to disbelieve 'statistics' and so disregard them as a basis for making rational policy. The fact that the stats were, in fact, valid would have no importance.
Emily

Says so right in the article he didn't read.
Olaf

Henceforth, be it decreed that Ralph Goodale's speculation rises to the status of fact.
Emily

It wasn't Goodale.

Are you literate at all?
Olaf

Sorry, Goodale and 'a provincial source', are the only two that claimed statscan has lost 'credibility' as a result of this move. Henceforth, let it be known that the speculations of Ralph Goodale and all 'provincial sources' shall be elevated to the status of fact. Emily has spoken.

Good grief.
Orson Bean

I'm with Olaf on this to this extent: I think if you think through a hypothetical real-life scenario involving this "impugn the credibility of StatsCan" theory, it doesn't make sense in terms of a successful political strategy. To wit: sometime in the future, after the long-form has been voluntary for some time, some crime stats come out that are unfavourable to the Tory tough-on-crime narrative. So a Tory talking head comes out and says, well, don't believe the stats because they're based on lousy census data. The immediate and obvious retort from the press and opposition would be, well, it's lousy data because you killed the long-form.

That's why I don't think this was the government's long-game on this.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Very good and valid point.

However, if a Conservative senator is already saying he doesn't believe the data coming out of Statscan, they can point to that as the long-form having nothing to do with it. This is good (well, not GOOD) in that we can see if some more Conservatives, just a few, bash any Statscan stats in the next few weeks.
Jan

He likes to play the fool. Remind you of anyone?
http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

Playing the long game is more subtle; the result doesn't have to be immediate
Olaf

For sure, I'm just genuinely curious as to what the long game could possibly be. I don't see any payoff now or in 10 years, but again, open to suggestions. Preferably those that make a lick of sense.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's a conundrum, all right. What if there is no "long game" scenario regarding the census decision? Perhaps they realize it was a mistake, but they're too stubborn to back down.
James Connors

John Stuart Mill strikes again.l
practical mom

Olaf, you needn't be so condescending. If your intellect is so superior perhaps you should find a more suitable forum. If you want to slum here with we who don't make a lick of sense perhaps you could adopt a more helpful attitude and lead us all to your level of understanding.
Olaf

There are many people here whose arguments make a lick of sense – I dare say most make at least a lick. I attempt to be among them, whenever I can, although I admittedly might not always succeed, and I don't mind people calling me out when I fail. I don't always agree with the arguments being made, but I at least see how they are to a certain degree based in reality. But when people make arguments that, after reflection, I believe are based on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories or rank partisanship, I don't feel the need to afford them with any special degree of respect.

If you think the "credibility" of statscan is forever tarnished because they're no longer receiving pristine information on the long form, and logically, that the "credibility" of every organization that insists they depend on long form data is likewise impugned, that's fine. But I reserve the right to think that you're being foolish.
practical mom

I don't see where I said I believed any such thing.

All the statisticians have said that the voluntary survey would produce less reliable data than the mandatory census. My point was that the Conservatives could use that less reliable data as a reason to discredit StatsCan, diminishing their reputation. I don't see the lack of logic in that would prevent them from doing it at all. Once StatsCan's reputation was smeared, their other products could labeled as suspect.

This is all under your original question about what might be the rational for the government to make the long form voluntary. What makes this theory an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory? What were you expecting in response? Substantiated facts?
Olaf

To the extent that Canadians will believe that "due to our decision to make the long form voluntary, all data collected from the long form is completely unreliable (which we vociferously denied previously), we thereby assert that all data not collected from long form data but collected from completely reliable sources that have nothing to do with long form data, are demonstrably false, now please submit to whatever policies we ask you to submit to", you're right. I have more faith in Canadians, as misplaced as it may be.
practical mom

I don't know why I am still arguing this as it is not even my view. I got started by trying to explain that Jan's idea was feasible. My suggestion for the rational behind this was raising money from the Conservative base.

Anyway, you seem too certain that you have superior logic and I lack any sense to make a continued a discussion worthwhile.
danby

I am not the most articulate person, but I'll try to explain what I think they mean.

Statistics purportedly show that the crime rate is going down. "Conservatives" tend to believe that society is "soft" on crime and that the laws and sentences need to be toughened up. A similar approach in the US has proven costly and resulted in a high rate of incarceration – so how do you sell a tough on crime agenda in a "liberal" country? You keep repeating the message/talking points, label your opponents as soft enablers through high profile headline cases, and discredit the offending stats whenever possible. As an example, if statistics show that the number of home robberies per capita is in decline, you counter that the despairing populace are simply not reporting them anymore. It doesn't necessarily have to be bulletproof, it just has to plant a seed of doubt. Given the right climate, a good set of tools and ample time, you can herd voters/society into accepting that something has to be done and hey, maybe it does, but IMHO this stuff costs money and that money has to come from somewhere, especially if you're selling balanced books.
The point is that you can override statistical evidence if you can convince the people who vote (the only ones who really matter) that action is necessary.
I think that Stephen Harper is a verrrry cunning hombre, and a bit of a gambler. He will endure short term pain to plant seeds that can be nurtured into long term gain – hence the "long game".
As devious as that all sounds, the too stubborn to back down scenario suggested by CR scares me even more.
bergkamp

"As an example, if statistics show that the number of home robberies per capita is in decline, you counter that the despairing populace are simply not reporting them anymore. It doesn't necessarily have to be bulletproof, it just has to plant a seed of doubt."

What happens if people are actually reporting crime less because they despair of justice system? How can we be certain what's happening with crime when so many people refuse to deal with our justice system?

———–
" Every five years, Statistics Canada conducts the General Social Survey. It asks a representative sample of Canadians, among other things, whether they have been crime victims.

From the last survey in 2004 (the next one is being conducted now, with the findings to be released next year) Statistics Canada reached the following conclusions.

First, progressively fewer Canadians who are crime victims are reporting the crime to police — only 34% in 2004, compared to 37% in 1999.

Second, based on the GSS, an estimated 92% of sexual assaults were never reported to police, 46% of break-ins, 51% of motor vehicle/parts thefts, 61% of physical assaults and 54% of robberies." The Sun, Oct 2009
wilson

bergkamp,
the General Social Survey is VOLUNTARY,
as are many StatsCan surveys.

Unless it is mandatory, it is unrealiable…….right?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Fun…
Patrick

maybe Harper is petty?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

So it was all part of a dastardly plan to deliberately kill the census so that Harper can have a free hand to pursue the rest of his nefarious schemes?

My only remaining question is this: is it Spectre or SMERSH at the bottom of all this?
Gaunilon

So it was all part of a dastardly plan to deliberately kill the census so that Harper can have a free hand to pursue the rest of his nefarious schemes without anyone noticing?

My only remaining question is this: is it SPECTRE or SMERSH at the bottom of it all?
practical mom

No, just Harper playing chess.
Emily

And he's a crappy chess player.
http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

I can't agree Emily.
He's flawed, but he's not a crappy chess player.
Jan

He doesn't have to kill it – he just has to wound it.
Orson Bean

For Olaf, I'll attempt a plausible explanation: quite honestly, I think this is one of those things that Harper just couldn't resist. He's shown that he he has a strong attraction to wedge-like issues and retail politics. He also likes those "symbolic" issues, issues that are more significant to him — and those that he is trying to get to vote for him — for what they represent, rather than for their substance per se. I think Harper was instinctively attracted to the "nanny state" angle, and that's evidenced by the number of times that it has shown up in Tory talking points about this (witness Clement's use of the term). I also agree with some of Stewart Smith's analysis above on the numbers.

wsam

Mobilize the base. Red meat for the seven Canadian libertarians who actually care about the issue. And weakening the census broadly agrees with this government's overall thrust. Intellectually they are against the public sphere so weakening it is something they instinctively agree with.

ajb

Arguably, since Clement belongs to precisely the demographics that are disproportionately likely to fill out the form, he would do more good for the accuracy of the results by not filling out his own personal copy…
Olaf

Hey Wherry, affirmative action overhaul!

Get with the program. I predict a solid 300 comments, a quarter of which might make any sense whatsoever.

Olaf

Ideally, it would be a post with a snarky title revealing your position on the matter, but then only providing a link because you can't be buggered to actually defend your opinion. Insha'Allah. :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

You keep flinging those red herrings Olaf. I'm sure it's important to distract attention from this issue now.

Olaf

Gender and racial equality is a red herring now? And yes, I think with Wherry writing upwards of 50 posts on the census over the past week, there's a real threat that his readership might lose the plot line.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

How quickly did this Ministerial business in England come up?

Olaf

Are you implying something you'd like to share with the whole class, Jenn? :)

Jenn_

Why, Olaf! You cut me, you really do. It isn't like I was questioning Jay Hill's timing. :)

BCer in Mtl

Industry Minister

Farnborough Air show

Support to Canadian Aerospace Industry (Bombardier, Bell, Pratt & Whitney, etc.)

McC

And from what I understand the Farnborough Air show is a really big deal in aviation circles, fwiw, and the dates are known well in advance.

Rob

Sounds like Tony Clement has found a new way to avoid the issues of the poor by eliminating the census in any meaningful form. I have no patience with knee jerk reaction politicians who have no vision making very stupid choices. The arrogance of Tony in even thinking he can get away with this is enough reason to give him the Big Boot!
Calgary Junkie

You guys forgot to freep this online poll:

Do the resignation of Statistics Canada’s top executive and the clearing of Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer by the RCMP add up to a bad summer for the Conservative government?

Yes, both stories show signs of bad judgment. The govt shouldn’t have gone against the advice of bureaucrats on the survey & shouldn’t have assumed Guergis was guilty & kicked her out of caucus

25.2%

No, both stories show signs of a slow news cycle in the summer. And the Liberals won’t capitalize under Michael Ignatieff’s leadership

72.6%

Other 2.15%
http://www.cfra.com/interviews/default.asp

Matlock

Not terribly surprising results for Lowell Green's audience. But it precisely demonstrates you don't understand self-selection bias – it is very possible (and I'd bet most likely) that non-CFRA listeners are different socioeconomically from CFRA listeners, and as such may respond differently to such a survey.

Anon

This situation is even more serious than people may think:

"Eliminating Canada's mandatory long-form census won't just degrade the quality of census data but will call into question virtually all other information Statistics Canada collects — from inflation to unemployment, B.C. experts say.

That's because the census is the bedrock of data collection in this country and is used to correct flaws in other, less complete, types of surveys."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Census+cha…

Jan

Could you explain this to Olaf – poor dear is really having trouble understanding all this.

NorthernPoV

If anyone wants to know why the Cons did this and why they will not likely back down, check out the news (JUST YESTERDAY) from STATS CAN: "Crime rate falls 17% in past decade"

hard to justify all the stupid tough-on-crime BS in the face of facts – so – get rid of those pesky facts

Livebloggin Junkie

The only thing that report from Stats Can shows is that the principle driver of crime rates is demographics. Neither higher nor lower sentences has much effect on crime rates. Increasing sentences is about restoring justice. How long anyone goes to jail for any crime is completely arbitrary but a majority of Canadians think that the current number is to low to often.

Case in point: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/21/bo…

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Well, thank heaven for the anecdote – when the data doesn't go your way, you can always gin up some outrage with an anecdote.

Garbage like this is why the National Post is usually a complete waste of ink.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I very much agree with that judge's conclusion in the article you linked to. Where in this law-and-order stuff is it getting tougher on child-molesters and sexual assaulters? Because, unless only the fluff is being reported on (which could be the case) I'm not hearing it.

What I mean is, some of the sentences for some of the crimes committed is fine. In the child molester/sexual assault category, it is woefully inadequate. There are probably a few other crimes where the punishment doesn't fit, but the child molester one is the one I'm particularly concerned about. I don't understand why the 'law and order' legislation doesn't just fix the problem areas. Instead, we have to go on about five bloody marijuana plants! I would so much rather have a $500 fine for every marijuana plant found, and call it a day. We'd make money on the deal, instead of spending it teaching minor criminals how to become major criminals.

Gaunilon

"f anyone wants to know why the Cons did this and why they will not likely back down, check out the news (JUST YESTERDAY) from STATS CAN: "Crime rate falls 17% in past decade"

I have to say, it's pretty out there (even for the commenters on a Wherry post) to be suggesting that Harper is (a) making the long-form census voluntary in order to (b) ruin Stats Can's credibility so that (c) he can cast doubt on their crime rate reports in order to (d) justify the tough-on-crime initiative.

I mean, come on, do you people really believe this stuff??

Orson Bean

I'm with G on this in that I don't think Harper & Co. were thinking that far ahead. And for the record I don't support the govt's decision on this. My take, based on what I've read, is that Harper thought that he'd found a nice little wedge/retail politics issue, the whole anti-big govt/anti-nanny state angle is near and dear to Harper's heart, etc. I think this was motivated by a fairly narrow, venal, short-term tactics sort of thinking: basically, the view that a certain group of potential Tory voters would react positively to not having to fill out the long form census. Period.
NorthernPoV

well … I'll see your "you people"remark and raise you an "your ilk"

You people make it sound so simple, so as to belittle the point,
so no,
it was not Harper's singular purpose in this instance but only,
an all too typical example of why he wants to emasculate yet another Canadian institution.
Court system, nuclear safety, meat & agriculture safety standards/boards, Parliament & its committees, Elections Canada, etc
Is there no other locus of power your ilk can tolerate?

Anon 001

BREAKING NEWS:

Lots of people complain about paying taxes. So Harper is going to make taxpaying entirely voluntary.

http://intensedebate.com/people/canon70 canon70

And jury duty as well.

Steve M

I've heard similar arguments during this whole census debate that saying both "I personally don't mind filling out the long-form" and "people shouldn't be forced to fill out the long-form" means that you're a hypocrite, but I don't agree. It's no different than someone who volunteers for the miliatry, but opposes the Draft.

Thwim

Not quite. He's saying "I don't find the long form intrusive" and "people shouldn't be made to fill out an intrusive long form"

If he was saying, "I find it intrusive, but I'll fill it out anyway for the good of our gov't" then his stance would be consistent. Of course, it'd leave open the question of "Why don't you make in non-intrusive then? Fix the questions. Don't break the methodology."

On the other hand if he's arguing that if individuals get to decide what's intrusive and what's not, and not fill out the form because of that, one has to ask how he justifies the short form being mandatory still.