Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

Census day

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:24am - 0 Comments

The industry committee commences a full day of hearings at 9am this morning. Tony Clement will testify first, but the witness list is extensive. Proceedings can be viewed at the link here.

Bookmark and Share
  • bennji

    I am thinking that the CPC committee handbook will be used to its full intended purposes today.

    Fasten your seat belts for one heck of a filibustering ride

    • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

      So far, the filibustering has come from or attempted to come from Clement. He's obviously been rehearsing a prepared script… about how oppressive the mandatory longform is, and how they're standing up for people so they don't get sent to jail (oh, and the Liberals hate freedom).

      • a-non

        Indeed. It's hard to tell what'll happen when the witness is pro-mandatory, but at least I have a bit of faith in Michael Chong's ability to chair a meeting. The other Tories there, well, we'll just have to see.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

        Agreed Scott, so far the MP's on the gov't side have been behaving themselves, but the day is early and there are many witnesses to come.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

          On the other hand, they may just attempt to behave themselves and sound all polite and reasonable (while lying and equivocating). The media is watching for once, after all.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

            Well if Tom Lukwiski is any indication you might be right, but the day is early.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

            I'd classify Anderson asking the 2 ex-heads of StatsCanada whether they need their houses renovated as a low point so far.

          • Sigh

            Did he really think they would take offense and refuse to answer such an intrusive question?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

    It's unbelievable how many witnesses they have crammed into one day. How on earth will anything productive be learned when individuals are only slated for 30 minute blocks of time?

    • Olaf

      *touches finger to nose*

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

      esp after half of them take 10 minutes for an opening statement. although given the quality of questions so far……

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

        and the non answers….

        • a-non

          Looking at the witness list, you'd just wish that half of them were questioning the other half and just keep all the Parliamentarians out of it.

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

            You got that right…

            90 minutes of Clement debating Sheikh would tell us more than 90 hours of this posturing bs.

            Heck, 30 minutes would probably do it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

            yeah a debate or something would be nice….

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

            Yeah, if only there were some forum in which public policy decisions could be debated.

            I seem to recall something like that, but it's used so rarely and so poorly these days, it's all kind of foggy. Anyway, I'm sure King Harper will do the right thing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

    Clement's testimony and answers to questions so far seems to be "we Cons. love freedom" and "Liberals want to throw everyone in jail" – regardless of what question is asked.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

      you didn't expect him to show up with facts did you?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

        not really. I was pleased that Anthony Rota put him on the spot and got him flustered.

        To be honest.. his spiel was predictable. I'm more interested to hear what the 2 ex-chiefs of StatsCan will have to say – the most recently resigned and honourable Mr. Shiekh in particular.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

          I suspect that will be when the Cons antics begin.

          • a-non

            You can actually see Lake swerving back to the jail-and-freedom plank after Fellegi handed him his own ass after Lake tried to take him on technical issues.

  • Anon 001

    BodyLanguageWatch: Tony Clement has the face of someone having a rectal examination.

    • Anon 001

      … while giving his census testimony today, I mean.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

        No.. that's just his face.

  • wilson

    Really dumb line of attack from Angus "why'd yah go and tell everybody about the jail thing?"

    short Clement " we did because we can"

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

      Agreed on that… a "secret threat" is just a contradiction of terms.

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

    Wow! You don't really realize how lame the gov't case is until you see it presented live. If the whole of the problem is the threats, just stop with the threats!

    It's liking bulldozing your new house because the shingles are the wrong colour.

    • wilson

      'If the whole of the problem is the threats, just stop with the threats!'
      Like make the long form voluntary?

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

        But keep the threats for the short form, right?

        It's cool to threaten people with jail to find out their marital status, but uncool to threaten them with jail to find out their occupation?

        It's not even logical, wilson. If Clement is going to launch a publicity campaign to encourage compliance with the voluntary census, then why not a publicity campaign to encourage compliance with the mandatory census?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

          I like how he sloughed of the agricultural census – and the fact its mandatory – on to Minister Ritz.. apparently he takes his direction from him.. so if we throw farmers in jail or fine them for refusing to fill it out, it's Ritz's fault, apparently.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

          As I recall, Igarvin, you've been rather sceptical that the changes from mandatory to voluntary would hurt.. Would your statement here of your disbelief of the govt's position mean you're reconsidering that view?

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

            That's a good question. I would say I am wavering somewhat.

            I still think that much of the long-form census data is of questionable valuable, but I think the solution is not the wholesale slaughter of the long-form that I've advocated (sometimes strongly, sometimes weakly), maybe just a crash diet.

            In the immediate case, I think the 2011 census should be kept mandatory because there probably is not enough time to fix it properly and doing a half-assed job is probably the worst solution.

            Watching this gov't up close gives half-assery a bad odour.

        • wilson

          I suppose it comes down to the questions themselves.
          Unless the government is starting up a cleaning company, what's the need to know on house cleaning?

          Obviously there is the issue of personal info being sold, particularly to non-gov organizations.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            Once again, your personal info is never sold. Aggregate information is sold.

          • wilson

            I know, poorly worded.
            The bundled info is sold,
            the organizations use it to target specific groups and/or neighbourhoods.

            United Church tells me they use the long form, for many purposes,
            one of them is
            * for fundraising beyond the congregation

          • practical mom

            It seems you are assuming that means they will go after the high income neighbourhoods. It doesn't necessarily mean that.

            I read somewhere that some group (not sure if it was United Church or other) used the Census data to demonstrate the need to corporate donors.

          • a-non

            Housekeeping = probably the largest portion of unpaid labour.

            If keeping up labour force participation is a worthwhile public policy, this actually isn't a trivial question to ask.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/auntie_em_m auntie_em_m

            The info sold is data not persional, not ided to anyone.

            Seems to me that conservatives were gung-ho to have stay-at-home moms receive pay. re: housecleaning?

            Would statistics not help in pushing that, Wilson?

          • wilson

            Stay at home Mom's spend more time cleaning their houses than working parents?
            Do people who spend less time cleaning their house have dirty houses?
            Who wants to know?

      • Amateur Hour

        Or keep it mandatory, just like a host of other things you are asked to do as a citizen, but review the questions asked based on their importance to maintaining quality longitudinal data and planning and delivering current and future vital public services.

        No one objects to debating the value or necessity of individual questions on the census. Indeed, Statscan reviews them after each 5 year cycle. The objection is about making the long form voluntary, because it damages the reliability of the data moving forward and weakens the relationship to past results.

        Or haven't you been paying attention?

        • wilson

          I get that AH.
          The long form has been around since the 70's and the majority of StatsCan surveys are voluntary.

          One would think that with the reams of data already collected, StatsCan could find a factor (don't know the correct term) to apply to the voluntary survey, double the questionaire sent out and increase promo to targeted groups, and come very very very close to the same results as a mandatory census.
          One would think.
          StatsCan says they `don`t know`….

          The US experiment conclusion was that with a larger number of recipients and more promo,
          voluntary census would be as reliable as mandatory, but more expensive.
          They did not proceed because of the COST
          Shiekh compared the costs (don`t remember the exact numbers) US costs were over $100 per, compared to Canada at $40.

          StatsCan has identified the groups least likely to fill out a voluntary form,
          if they can do that, they should be able to take historical data, find the factor difference and apply it.

          Will it be perfect?
          Who knows with 100% certainty the mandatory data is 100% truthfull and therefore perfectly reliable.

          • a-non

            "One would think."
            That's not even an argument. You're just claiming something can be done about an idenifiable problem without any proof.

            "StatsCan has identified the groups least likely to fill out a voluntary form,
            if they can do that, they should be able to take historical data, find the factor difference and apply it."
            Sheikh also pointed out that response rates have been dropping. So we would have to extrapolate from historical trends. Thereby using old, out-of-date data to pile onto the errors already intrinsic to extrapolation processes, and then add on the errors inherent in surveying, and weight according to that? MAYBE you can do that for one year? And then what, keep going? Assume that data from 2006 and older censuses are applicable, say, 20 years from now?

            You're illustrating a scenario where, under a responsible, prudent government, a policy is tested, problems identified, and rectified. This scenario, as you've pointed out, would involve massive public education. Meanwhile, in the real world, a voluntary survey is plopped out in the middle of summer through a Gazette publication. Nobody's heard of the idea before that day, and we end up in a maelstrom where a ton of the government's own statements seem to suggest that filling in the survey is a bad idea.

          • wilson

            The US experiment found 20% less particpants in the voluntary census.
            The Govt is nearly doubling the number of households to receive the voluntary form.
            Òne would think“ that would compensate for the drop,
            and that targeted promo of the survey in the identified groups would answer to that concern.

            StatsCan says `we don`t know“

          • a-non

            The actual number of respondents isn't the key here. If you can do a decent enough ad campaign to target expected low respondents, 20% may be just fine. (Drummond is saying this RIGHT NOW.) It's the well-known fact that the people who don't respond to a survey are different from those who do, and the differences are EXACTLY what you're trying to measure.

            And how would you benchmark a successful targetting campaign? You can't be expecting the resultant ratios to fit the old data, since that's the whole point of measuring them in the first place! Maybe survey pre- and post-campaign response rates, but the survey itself would again be subject to sampling bias. There MIGHT be some ideal world scenario where we can fix everything, but honestly, all evidence suggests that we're way off that scenario.

            And another note: how much of this talk about the government itself dismissing the value of its own
            NHS/LFC questions is going to distort things? Ironically, my guess is that all this talk will work the "right" way and rebalance the usual surveying gaps against lower incomes, new immigrants, and such. But what a horrible, disgusting way to do it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

      "It's liking bulldozing your new house because the shingles are the wrong colour."

      NO COMPROMISE!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

    The strongest point for the Opposition in today's committee hearing so far is that at the same time the Minister claims to be responding to privacy concerns, he doesn't appear to be at all familiar with the privacy assessment that was done, didn't engage the privacy commissioner, and doesn't know or won't tell the facts about census enforcement.

    He also didn't and won't meet with business and research reps who have concerns, so in other words the Minister in charge of data gathering didn't use any to make his decisions.

    • a-non

      McTeague is trying to squeeze an indicting soundbite out of Fellegi and Sheikh. Fellegi's been pretty open about his disapproval of the situation, so he's been pretty forthright, but Sheikh just left and is still in the thick of things, and it's bloody embarrassing.

      Of course, a story about a life-long civil servant squeezed out by evil ideologues is much SEXIER than ripping out the heart of statistical knowledge of this country. Just sad that sexiness is the standard by which Parliamentarians are deciding which questions to ask.

  • Amateur Hour

    So Tony Clement wants to save Canadians from the tyranny of … Tony Clement?

    When Garneau kicked off the hearing by asking Clement if he was familiar with the 2006 census — and then pointed out that he and his fellow Cons had been fibbing about the "intrusive" questions that have never appeared on the long-form census — Clement sidestepped and started referring to the proposed 2011 National Household Survey.

    You see, under Mr. Clement's ministerial guidance, Statscan put together the NHS and its draft, released just yesterday (tah-dah), DOES include questions about what time you leave for work, etc.

    The problem is, the NHS is a product of Clement's own term as minister! Moreover, these intrusive and invasive questions will remain on the survey … only they'll be voluntary. The COnservatives weem to think it's okay to be intrusive and invasive … if you're okay with it to.

    So, Clement has manufactured the intrusive, invasive questions that apparently set off this brouhaha in the first place. Then "this government" objected to them because they are intrusive and invasive. Then this government decided the solution is to make the intrusive, invasive questions they manufactured voluntary. But he still encourages citizens to fill them out.

    Clear as mud.

    What a maroon.

    • http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

      Q: Would you prefer an incompetent ideological tyranny or a competant ideological tyranny?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Fish_30 Al O'Wishes

        That's far too personal to ask.

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    Several have noted that Clement sounded a few words of compromise. Wouldn't "close the door" to other options. Maybe we're seeing the start of a climbdown.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

      What? The Cons backtrack on a decision made in the dark of night to placate there base? Oh Canada…..

    • wilson

      I don't see a backdown at all.
      Cons are digging in their heels.
      They got everything they wanted out of that round.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

        If you mean they looked like a bunch of paranoid types,and wanted to convey that impression yea, they certainly did.

  • CAPS

    Tom Lukiwski only wants one question on the Census:

    Are you an A or a B?

    • pulex

      That might be considered too intrusive. How about, "Do you have dirty fingernails?"

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    gah

    Trying to trap the stats guys on policy issues. Fricking high school.

    round round we go.

    • a-non

      Off-topic: that avatar is some classic Vandalism right there.

      • Geiseric

        I'm impressed. I didnt' think anyone would ever figure out what it is.

        What if I told you it's meant in a Terry Jones sort of way? (nb in asking this I am not threatening you with either fine or imprisonment)

    • BCer in Mtl

      They should have had Del Mastro there, he took a couple of stats courses. Would have had Fellegi on the ropes in no time.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

    David Anderson seems to have a remarkable ability to avoid the intrusion of any information into his brain regardless of how many times he asks the same question.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

      I've already put Anderson into the Tea Party faction of the Conservative Party..

      You'll note as well that "Mad Max" Bernier didnt bother to put forth any questions to the StatsCan ex-heads. He probably knew he'd be handed his lunch like his Con MP compatriots were.

    • a-non

      It made for excellent TV though. (I don't say that proudly.)

      Of course, Sheikh had to be diplomatic about the whole thing, saying that it merely degrades data.

      The non-diplomatic answer is that it turns any comparison of the old data to the new data to complete bollocks, because the new data itself will be complete bollocks. And because you've insinuated that I didn't think it was complete bollocks, I've had to quit.

  • Blacktop

    Enough, enough already.

  • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

    Open Question:

    If David Anderson is so angry over the agricultural surveys being so intrusive, why are they still mandatory? And why wasnt he berating Tony Clement over that, since it's his and Ritz's responsibility?

    Lots of hypocrisy and ranting going on here from the Cons MP's today. As Igarvin said earlier, this is doing nothing to bolster the Conservative government's case.

  • wilson

    Not sure your side won that round guys.
    StatsCan: Govt has a right and duty to protect citizen privacy;
    we don't care about mandatory or voluntary, we care about data,
    and that data will be 'less' reliable;
    and 'we don't know' how reliable or less reliable the info will be…
    after wikileak, kinda hard to convince the massess private info is safe with us (for 92 years, until the next govt changes that eh) 'it can never happen'

    • practical mom

      Except for the testimony that after the 2006 census, StatsCan invited attacks to see if its security could be penetrated. It couldn't.

      • wilson

        Good to know, because the Gun Registry was proven hack-able

    • Calgary Junkie

      Munir Sheik (roughly): "I don't know what Minister Clement said. It doesn't matter what Minister Clement said. I resigned because of the impression created by the article on page four of that day's Globe & Mail, that I (approved/agreed with)? the change to a voluntary method"

      I'm trying to figure out and find the Globe article that Sheik is referring to, without success. But I did find this verbatim interview the Globe did with Clement (online only ?) on Wed, July 21st @ 9:03 AM.
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

      • wilson

        That is the one, he quit that evening.

        Opps lost on that score too. They wanted to hear that Shiekh quit because of Ministerial interference,
        got the exact opposite; govt has every right to set policy, StatsCan duty to carry out job to best of ability,
        it was the media creating a perception in the public that …. (can`t remember exactly)

        • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

          No they wanted to hear why he quit, and he told them its because that article appeared suggesting Stats Can advocated the change. He didn't say Clement lied, but its becoming pretty clear as the minister tries to "clarify" his way out of trouble that he did lie.

          • wilson

            No, he said he did not care what Clement said, had nothing to do with his resignation,
            it was the media reports and the perception they left with Canadians and the integrity of StatsCan.
            (my words) that the 2011 survey has been deemed unreliable by the media reguritating select opinions…

          • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

            No he said that what bothered him was the article itself, not whether it accurately reflected Clement's remarks. But clearly it did reflect those remarks, and clearly those remarks were lies, whether or not Mr. Sheikh wanted to call them that, which Clement is now trying to back away from.

        • Calgary Junkie

          As Norman Spector said yesterday on CKNW:
          "If you read what the Minister said, he said he was ASSURED by his officials that they could deliver the data that everyone NEEDS and wants under this revised process. Now THAT will be sorted out tomorrow … we may in fact see a slight revision [from the media] of the kind of thesis that we’ve been getting, by people who did not read and parse what exactly the Minister said."

          So the media again does a slipshod job, in reporting what Clement said. Sheikh reads the media report, sees that it created the wrong impression, and so he resigns !

          But surely Sheikh could have written an op-ed, to clarify things somewhat. He could have told us about the natrue of the discussions he has had with Clement over the last few months. The fact remains that he stayed on all this time, and didn't resign. As Spector said: "Doesn’t this demonstrate, that in YOUR professional view, you WOULD be able to carry out your mandate under the revised system ?"

          • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

            But surely Sheikh could have written an op-ed…

            No, being bound by a civil servant's code of conduct, he could not. Clement, on the other hand, could make up any nonsense he wanted.

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

            Spector started slandering Sheikh's motives from the get-go… with squat for facts and a bizare interpretation of the timeline. Now he is simply spinning.

    • a-non

      I actually agreed that, from a purely political perspective, it looked pretty good to Anderson. He played well against the bureaucratic wishy-washy talk.

      The thing is that Sheikh got caught up in the detail of why he quit ("you made me, and in turn all of Statcan, look like a chump"). He should've been more general and defend Statcan's record on privacy matters.

      The "don't know" and "less reliable" is the unfortunate outcome of applying science-speak to lay audiences. When statisticians "don't know" if something happens, we AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. When the fundamental census stuff becomes "less reliable", all the survey weighting done using it becomes not just "less reliable" but UNUSABLE by anyone that knows stats and has any sense of moral decency to not make stuff up.

  • knick

    Given that the cost of the Harper government has stated that their decision to change the long-form census from mandatory to voluntary will cost Canadian taxpayers about $30M (plus the costs of compiling the data), can anyone explain in terms that those of us who are statistically-challenged can understand what value the public sector, private sector, and individual Canadians will receive from data obtained from a voluntary long-form census?

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

      The Census is the tool that Statistics Canada uses to determine the "true" proportions (or as close to "true" as possible) among the Canadian population. Those "true" proportions are used to compare and determine the reliability and repeatability of just about every other population survey in Canada. When we make such surveys voluntary, we cannot know that we have the "true" proportions by which to compare other surveys, thus undermining confidence in all data-based policy and programming decision-making that would have to be compared to Longform data.

      By comparison to the current mandatory longform Census, therefore, the National Household Survey (the replacement) will be more expensive and provide less reliable data.

      It will, however, ask a few more questions that aren't currently in the longform Census, which could possibly influence policy. But only if the data are reliable, which is a major bone of contention.

      • knick

        Thanks for that helpful explanation. Even I can understand it well enough to tell others.

    • wilson

      The $30 m increase represents .05% of the total projected cost of the 2011 survey.
      Surely those who purchase the data can pick up the extra cost.

  • a-non

    Someone pointed out a poll saying that 20% won't respond to a voluntary NHS. I would imagine a lot of people who wouldn't fill out the NHS would also not respond to private pollsters.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

      and without a mandatory long form, we will have no way of knowing if the data is skewed.

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

        Having worked for Canada's largest surveyors of public opinion, and usually for the government of Canada, I can tell you that a 10% completion rate on any survey would be a lofty goal. The longer the survey the less likely somebody is apt to complete it. I understand they often inflate the completion ratio to hide bias.

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

          There's also about four dozen ways to calculate response rates – and yes, pollsters often find lower response rates than that. The article also accounts for this.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

    As long as the Cons are in power, I nominate Mike Chong to chair all future committee meetings! He is probably the only competent Con in the room.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

    Don Drummond absolutely shredded Mike Lake's questioning.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

      so could a hamster.

From Macleans