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

Let us now speak seriously about data collection

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:54am - 0 Comments

More later on this morning, but early reviews are in from the Canadian Press, Globe, Star, Postmedia, CBC and CTV.

Tags: census, industry committee, Ivan Fellegi, Munir Sheikh, Parliament, Statistics Canada, Tony Clement

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

'Manufactured a crisis'….indeed they did.

But if the govt thinks this will distract Canadians from the G20 mess, and the fighter plane purchase, they don't know Canadians.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Another take would be that they know Canadians rather well, and are banking on summer apathy.

Emily

Well it's never worked before, so it isn't going to now. Canadians aren't apathetic, and they can multitask.

Bob

It's worked plenty, why do you think they're still in power?

Emily

Because there hasn't been an alternative.
Bob

Agreed. But that goes hand-in-hand with apathy.
Emily

No, Canadians are just waiting patiently for things to be sorted out, meantime they keep Harper on a short leash.
Bob

Sorry, but the nearly 40% of Canadians who don't even bother voting speak more to apathy than to "waiting patiently" or keeping Harper on a short leash.
Emily

Again, it's not apathy. As all polls show, Canadians aren't fond of either party, and want something new. The same thing is occurring in other countries.

The 'institutional govts' we have are obsolete and we need massive change to suit the new world we're in.

Time to leave the Middle Ages.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

The picture changes substantially, however, when we isolate the interest levels of those respondents who did not vote in 2000. Over half of this group (54.2 percent) says they were not interested in either politics generally or the election specifically. A further 18.4 percent were interested in politics but not in the election, an indicator perhaps that the specific aspects of the election, perhaps the perceived non-competitive situation, led some people to consider that paying attention to the election campaign, and participating themselves, would not be worthwhile. In Table 23, the most intriguing is that group of people who were interested in politics and the election, but who did not vote, despite that interest. Table 24 takes a closer look at the reasons they gave for not voting.
Emily

Yes, agreed. People don't see much difference between parties, and they don't see govt as being useful generally.

Mostly what they see is the circus in QP, the constant 'gotchas', the endless campaigning and the lack of new ideas. Just more blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile the country drifts.

Normally people wait for a new leader….a 'saviour', but we don't appear to have one on the horizon. So it'll take a big issue….war perhaps…with one side for it, and one side against, before we see a clear-cut choice.

Barring that we wait for the govt mistakes to add up, or for them to go 'beyond the pale' on an issue, and then we vote on the basis of 'well he can't be any worse than what we've got'.

However, not even that seems to be working anymore though, and I think overall people want change from the plodding partisan institutions we have now, that are constantly dealing with old issues and never coming up with anything new.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Let's say you're right in how you describe 'people' – even so, what you're describing are the tools of apathy.

There is evidence to suggest that Canadians are looking for strong, decisive, and charismatic leadership. Something to rally behind. Et cetera. However, we're not foraging through the forest, we're sitting back in the la-z-boy and yelling at the TV. It's the transition from actively seeking out "better ways" to passively lamenting the current state of our politics that is our apathy.

To put it another way: we don't give two hoots; we give one.
Emily

Or maybe Canadians, like many others in the world, have moved beyond what's on offer.

I'd say it's more disgust than apathy. However there's little we can do about it beyond yell at the TV…..unless you personally know someone 'charismatic' who' be willing to go through the system in order to change it?

Oliver

I think the census is far, far more important an issue than the F-35 or the G20.
The planes are needed but could have been purchased at as lower price (maybe, I'm no expert but that's why I keep hearing). The G20 is a non-issue, only deadbeats care about it.
The Census is a serious matter: the problem isn't the dumping of it, the problem is the government telling Canadians we don't care about demographics. And that is much more dangerous that poor money management or over zealous policing at an event where most protesters had nothing to say.

Emily

All of them are important. The planes aren't needed, yet they are the largest purchase in our history, and at a time when we are running the biggest deficit in our history. A structural deficit.

G20 isn't a non-issue….it was another enormous expenditure, and solely for political purposes.

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

At this point, I dont care which issue it is that gets Canadians attention. If its the census as opposed to something else, to show what this government is doing is not right, I`m not about to look a gift horse in the mouth; the fact of the matter is the Conservatives committed an own-goal in stirring up this issue.. and it gained credibility when editorials and organizations tookt he lead in condemning it.. not the opposition parties.

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

(Not to say the G20 stuff and the jets arent important.. but they can be dealt with soon enough).
Emily

I agree. The other things will be dealt with in due course, it's just that no one will forget about them in the brouhaha about the census.

JFran

Either we believe in "peace, order and good government" or we don't. Without a strong fact and data base, we can't have good government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I actually had a very interesting conversation with an old university buddy last night over beers. We got to talking about the census issue, and he reminded me (I had forgotten) that actually was a census "cop" in 2001.

He said that there were quite a few people who didn't fill it out, but the great majority of them were people who were just too lazy to fill it in, and would try to argue that they in fact had already sent it in, that it must have gotten lost in the mail :). There were a few who would complain about intrusiveness and communism and what have you – but after complaining for a bit they generally would take the ten minutes and fill it out with him.

I asked him about penalties for non-compliance and he said that the reason very few people get even fined is that they close the census once they reach 97% completion. So for the people who REALLY cause a big stink they'd pretty much wait them out and only go back to them if it was absolutely necessary.

Anyway, just figured that might be interesting to some here.

Cheers,

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

So you're saying that the laws pertaining to the census are applied, sometimes, just in a completely arbitrary fashion? Seems like a pretty good reason to change the laws.

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

Well, no, I'm not saying that. Not in the slightest. I have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion based on what I wrote…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

It was easier.

Anon 001

You'd have to be extremely arrogant or extremely foolish or both to go against science.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

Well… if online volunteer polling is accurate it is fascinating that 90 to 95% of those polled [strikethru] do not find the census intrusive [strikethru] on the globe link disagree with the choice to scrap the long form. I compare that with the number of vociferously opposed voices in the comments sections.

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

if online volunteer polling is accurate

In a phrase? It's not.

Longer? Those G&M (et al) flash polls are not sampled, they are not controlled, they are not weighted. If we want to talk "selection bias", the dictionary definition must have a photograph of one of those polls beside it. Those polls are based on visitors to the site, which represents a whole whack of uncontrolled variables. And, those surveys can be "freeped", and skewed, despite the cookies (it's not hard to delete one's tracking cookies) used to attempt to control such skew. At best, it's a one-shot glance at what a bunch of people who go to the Globe & Mail's site are thinking at that very moment in an uncontrolled environment. At worst? It's completely worthless data.

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

Doh!

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

Wait.. were you being serious? I thought you were laying bait for a Wilson or somebody to come in and laugh about how since Libs always talk about online polls being biased and not reliable, it's obvious that this one must be biased and not reliable and there's nothing they can say about it without being hypocrites, after which you'd comment along the lines of, "Why yes, voluntary polls *are* biased and unreliable.. so why are you okay with the gov't spending more money to do that to the long form again?"

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

If online polling is worthless, if volunteer polling is worthless, then comments in these discussion threads are worthless. The only thing that counts,then, is opinion, right?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Here's the thing: proper online polling, that follows some kind of methodological standard, is not worthless. Panels that are recruited from randomly-selected participants in the general population have some value. Panels where you can manage and control the types of individuals you poll (so a stratified or quota-based sample to mirror, as closely as possible, basic demographics of the general population) have a value. In more controlled environments, online polling is useful.

The difference between those online polls, and the single-question junk that appears underneath advertising banners on websites, is vast. Let us not confuse the two.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

I chafe. Your need for control is intrusive.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

but…but…controlling for the unknown is the name of the statistics game! Don't take my sampling crop!
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

… And the jackboots… And the leather bustier!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Well, if you're trying to use them to determine how Canada as a whole feels? Yeah. Comments in these discussion boards *are* worthless for that use.

However, unlike online polls, comments in these discussion boards can occasionally offer up new facts to consider, or very rarely, new logic that might be worth considering. And if that occurs, if these forums can be used to create and disseminate a meme that holds a little closer to truth than what's currently out there, then these comments can prove very useful indeed.

wilson

So what if the larger sampling, extra promo, 2011 survey was divided into half mandatory half voluntary. No choice but to eliminate the jail time thing now, even the pro-mandatory side agreed to that.

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

See CR's proposal here

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

Is there anything John Fogerty can't do?

Jan

The government, not Statscan is in control of the questions and the penalties. But the exercise here on the part of the government is to paint Statscan as being intrusive and coercive.

wilson

Clement and Shiekh made that clear in the first segment.
the questions are designed by stakeholders and Statscan, the government can strike them off (to high volume screams of the stake holders)
and the govt did prescribe the penalty, no threats

So how do Liberals suggest the census be made mandatory , without threat.

Jan

As Drummond said, a fine – on paper. Because as he said there is (maybe gone now thanks to the Con fear mongering) a culture of compliance. It's witnessed by the high response rate, without the need for jailing or fineing. This is a manufactured crisis, after all.

wilson

Why then did he resign last week?

Contrary to some previous reports, it was not anything that his minister, Tony Clement had said. In fact, Mr. Sheikh did not want to discuss what the Minister had said, on the basis that it didn’t matter. Instead, he explained that he had resigned because of a headline in The Globe and Mail that day that read “Statscan head finds change acceptable, Clement contends.” The impression created by that headline, Mr. Sheikh said, meant that he could no longer lead Statistics Canada.

Is this what the governance of Canada has come to? The chief statistician resigns because of a sub-headline on page 4 of The Globe and Mail?

a-non

If you're going to quote verbatim from Norman Spector, at least quote the source.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spec…

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

Even wilson is ashamed to quote Spector? Lo, how the sort-of-middling have fallen…
wilson

oops, in my haste to stir the chili, I forgot the link…my bad

Phil

Yup, stir the chili.

It seems that's not the only thing you can stir….;-)

Oliver

If you don't understand what's going, you shouldn refrain from talking about things you have no grasp of.

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

But then we'd never hear from wilson at all… oh wait… I see where you're going now..

lenny

Talk about bad-faith. How do you even look at yourself in the mirror?
It clearly was based on what Clement said, unless the Globe was misrepresenting what Clement said.

wilson

When the clip comes up, we shall see.
Spectors take was exactly my take on what I saw and heard on CPAC.

Wascally Wabbit

Well – the pattern of talking points is emerging. wilson may be a little late on the uptake but the "Colvinization" of Munir Sheikh has begun.
Didn't these spinmeisters get burnt badly enough trying that on Richard Colvin or is it just knee jerk with them – ring the bell – see them saliva…

Jan

I've now read it suggested Mr. Sheikh was an equity hire. Might as well kill two birds with one stone.

http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

It has been suggested that this man's department said that there would be no problem going to the voluntary survey, and that was untrue. Mr. Sheikh felt that the damage to his reputation was not worth maintaining his employment. Sometimes a person's reputation is worth more than a job. This is a especially true when that person is close to the end of his working life and doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who gave the government false advise.

Between this, and Mr. Clement's own statements, I think we can be fairly certain of the view that Mr. Clement was throwing StatsCan under the bus on this one.

“StatsCan gave me three options, each of which they thought would work. I chose one of those options with their recommendation.”

He said he asked whether the voluntary survey would produce “robust” data. Stats Canada replied “in no uncertain terms, ‘Yes, it would give us the data that everybody hankers for’.”

…

Right and I do assert that. When an agency of government reports to its minister and gives that minister options, I am entitled to assume that they are comfortable with those options …

There's a big difference between receiving verbal confirmation, and assuming it. I had quite a bit of respect for Mr. Clement before this nonsense.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh Wilson, you're all over the blogosphere with this crap. You're obsessed with a NON-issue. It can't be easy to hold that position, take it seriously and hold it honourably and make a decision to leave.

Get off the guy's back will you?

Wascally Wabbit

We could move onto Tony Clement's equally foolish and damaging dismissive comments on the Brazilianization of Inco (by Vale) and the clear union breaking tactics that ensued in Sudbury and Placenta Bay – and his subsequent 180 later on some foreign owned communications company — but I suppose Mr. Wherry would feel – supported for once by jarrid and wilson – that this was a diversionary tactic and a non-sequitor…

Jan

Or his totally 'I'm not listening to the experts in the field' handling of Insite. Harper knew what he was getting when he put him in Industry.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

May I say that Cons MP Lake got owned by McLeish (the Statistical Society of Canada President)

May I also say I agree with others that Chong is the most competent and fair MP the Cons. have – much to the dismay of the PMO, I am sure. He's one of the few remaining pre- Progressive Conservatives members.. and he owes the PM and the PMO nothing since he resigned his Minister's position.

a-non

McLeish clearly had nothing to lose, and was visibly irritated by the inanity of it all. And he pointed out something very important: "mandatory" does not equal the Census Police running amok. In the vast majority of cases, it means people won't throw out the forms along with the flyers.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"May I also say I agree with others that Chong is the most competent and fair MP the Cons. have – much to the dismay of the PMO, I am sure."

Which is why the PM can't stand him.

wilson

If PMSH couldn't stand him, he would be sitting beside Helena.

Wascally Wabbit

Well – I agree with you on that wilson…but don't consider it a triumph in any way!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Wabbit, Guergis is a special case. Devinder Shory stands accused of serious crimes yet he's still part of the caucus, yes?

Chong is a smart and thoughtful MP. He's not one seeking the limelight like say Maxime Bernier. Not even sure that he has ambitions to run for the leadership of the party although he should (I would probably vote Tory for the first time in my life if he was the leader). Harper's got enough enemies to deal with before minding Chong.

That being said, make no mistake about how Harper feels about Chong. This MP openly defied him on the QUebec as a nation file and embarrassed him before his whole caucus by resigning on principle. A principle that Harper had claimed to share once upon a time.

Harper does NOT suffer defiance, especially principled ones. Ask Ablonczy. He's got no love for Chong. It's just that Chong hasn't given him any reason to feel threatened.

http://intensedebate.com/people/RunningGag RunningGag

Is it wrong that the first thing I thought of when I read this comment was, "They say the same thing about that Jesus guy"?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

I was going to say it sounds an awful lot like Tommy Douglas' thoughts on eugenics.

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

Weren't his much the same as Winston Churchill's thoughts on the topic as well?

Smear Fail.

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

Tony's Big Adventure…

Thanks to the wonders of the internet I don't have to describe what I was thinking about today's meeting. Instead I'll just show you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXU7EVXs2A

a-non

It's unfortunate that PWH looks most like Michael Chong, though.

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

I was thinking more of the line "I meant to do that" rather than the physical resemblence.

But now that you mention it, get Tony some contacts and a bow tie, maybe a pair of white shoes…

Ariadne

It's ironic that suppose to be "intellegent" people arguing about how you can't get truth out of innocent people without threatening them. I wonder where you guy stands on threatening and torturing truth out from criminals and terrorists?

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

Worst red herring ever.

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

I dunno; I think jarrid's below is in the running as well.

They're somewhat similar. Has a new Info Alert (or whatever they're called) email gone out?

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

you`ll be able to deduce that when all the Con supporters on blogs and comment boards start mouthing the same thing over and over again simultaneously.

wilson

The people that StatsCan can be 100% sure are honest, are the ones who refuse or are uneasy to fill out the long form.

the upshot of this round was 'yah don't have to throw them in jail, just threatening to gets them to answer'
same threat for answering questions honestly.
lenny

So we can mark you down as being against any punishment for those who refuse to report their income, allow tax assessors access to their property, report births and deaths, etc.?

jarrid

Funny thing is that the only time the left/lib types get hot to trot about jailing people, it's for things like failing to answer dumb questions on a census or failing to register the rifle a farmer uses to hunt ducks.

Otherwise they think jail is generally a bad thing. Go figure.

a-non

By that standard, I'm happy to see my pro-death penalty and pro-mandatory sentencing positions are consistent with my pro-long form position.

Charles H.

May I suggest combining the pro-death penalty stance with the pro-long form one? The people who don't want to get counted don't get counted and aren't around to screw up the reality vs. the results. It's win-win!

(I shouldn't have to say it, but I probably would need to otherwise, so: that, I say, that was a joke, son.)

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

Lovely scarecrow you've got there, jarrid. Careful when you play with those matches though.

Now, if only somebody had actually said that jail is what is required if a person doesn't fill out the census.
What's been being argued is that it needs to be mandatory. If you want to concede it needs to be mandatory, then I suppose we can start talking about what the appropriate sentence might be for not filling it out. Until then though, kindly keep your words out of my mouth.. they leave a bad taste.

chet

Mandatory AND free of state sanction for failure to comply.

Interesting.

Jan

Note the Cons are now referring to the government as the state. I expect gestapo and storm troopers soon .Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to what went down at the G20.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

What's interesting is that the only state sanction you can think of is jail. I suppose such a narrow mind goes a long way to explain the overwhelming fear of government.

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

Well, I'm basically against murder, too. You SHOULD get a bit of jail time for that.
wilson

Strange eh, this is a liberal-progressive issue, and they are on the law and order side.
51% of Canadians think the long form census is intrusive, LibDippers will jump on a bandwagon and march in parades with 5% of the population, if it involves 'abuse of rights'.

Kinda takes the 'Cons will take away your rights' out of the next election campaign, eh

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

Cherry-picking polls, wilson? The Angus-Reid poll on the topic says no such number

58% think it isnt vs 24% who think it is.

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

Besides.. That's just a red herring; the real reason behind the change to the census is for the reasons Stephen Taylor declared yesterday; an attempt to end the welfare state in his words.. or in my words, an attempt to remove reliable data so that programs cant be initiated – or can be cut without having reliable evidence.

a-non

Stephen Colbert wrote that entire column in one sentence: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
wilson

And what exactly is the Liberal postion here, other than not the Cons position?
As the privacy commish said, no one can say what is intrusive, that's an individual choice, not her's nor the governments choice.
Do Libs advocate a fine? Because low income persons are the ones to mostly feel the effect of that threat.
It's still a threat, but so what a person is fined, they still haven't answered the question…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Fines can be graduated based on income.

Oh wait.. we can't ask income now either, can we?

wilson

Poll numbers differ between polsters and change,
do you disagree with the rest of my comment?

Wascally Wabbit

Since Harper and Toews are set to make incarceration a business – I guess you CONS will soon be condemning anyone who doesn't agree with you as being against corporations! You can tell us jarrid – is that one of your election platform planks…make a profit on prisons?

http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

What I find most sobering is the fact that Clement has just implicitly admitted to having lied about acting on StatsCan's recommendation, and nobody is outraged or surprised. Welcome to Canada in 2010: we expect our cabinet ministers to be utterly void of integrity.

Meanwhile, new Harris Decima numbers show sagging CPC support. Excellent. Good on Canadians for defying the cynical assumptions about their "apathy" upon which the CPC is obviously operating. And let's see those numbers plummet further…I mean way down—all the way down to Stock Day's IQ.

jarrid

Dream on left/lib partisans, dream on. People like Sir Francis have been smuggly predicting the imminent demise of the Harper regime since January 24th, 2006.

More than four and half years later, they continue with their monomaniacal predictions, delivered with ever-increasing rancour, and ever-decreasing credibility.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

…they continue with their monomaniacal predictions, delivered with ever-increasing rancour, and ever-decreasing credibility.

Fortunately, the monomaniacal assertions of Harperoid partisans are precisely as rancorous and credible as they were four years ago.

jarrid

Sir Rancourous Francis.

Never proposes, always opposes.

A study in fossilized thinking.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Ironic that something can be sobering and simultaneously make one want to start drinking early in the day.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Hmmmm…..it would be interesting to see the hate government, hate taxes Con supporters reaction if they got a tax break for anwwering those questions.

You don't suppose they'd find them not to be coercive and an attack on their privacy do you? LOL

Bets folks