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

Stand up and be counted

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:24am - 0 Comments

The Globe finds the most comprehensive tally of the outrage.

But the National Statistics Council, whose 40 members are appointed by the government to advise Statistics Canada, asked the agency to provide data on all complaints registered either directly with Statscan, or referred to Statscan from MPs or any other source, concerning the last census in 2006. The total number of questions, complaints and concerns: 166. From a census that was sent to 12 million households.

If you add the two complaints received by the privacy commissioner, that’s 168 recorded and verified expressions of some interest in the 2006 census.

Tags: census, Ian McKinnon, National Statistics Council, Statistics Canada

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

And for the sake of 168 people we skew the data, and have a national crisis.

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

See, I disagree. I dont think it was ever that to begin with. It may be used as an excuse; it may be seen as a side benefit to the Conservatives to appeal to their Tea Party base… but the real reason I think is to mess with the data so that it's difficult to pinpoint problems for future governments to deal with via legislation.

Geiseric

I disagree. The census is a symbol of what we can accomplish if we all pull together and chip in even if it does mean having to prod a few cranks, stupid people and the just plain selfish.

For that reason alone it needed to be broken. Its our own damn fault for allowing legislation in the past that assumes present and future governments can be trusted to not abuse the power of Privy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

I disagree, I think it was a bone headed move that wasn't thought through that they thought would appease there base after the G8 fiasco. Fortunately it was an epic fail.
http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

Obviously I have no idea what the Conservatives rationale for this is, so for all I know you could be right. But just speaking for someone who wants a (much) smaller government this plan makes no sense to me for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, if you want less programs then you need as much data as possible to target your scarce resources efficiently. Secondly, one of the reasons I want smaller government is because I believe a fair amount of government intervention is ineffective, or very inefficient and this can only be demonstrated with data.

However, like I said that doesn't mean that you are wrong about the motivation of the Conservatives, just that if you are right their motivation doesn't make any sense at all.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

Well, the other thought has been that it was done because the Conservatives and Harper dont like facts contradicting their pre-held narratives (ie StatsCan releases a report that shows crime rates falling, while the Conservatives are in the midst of a tough on crime/ build more prisons policy spiel)… but the changes to the mandatory longform would not in the short term affect whether StatsCan pumps out such stats or not that may or may not embarrass this Conservative government that a government department is discovering inconvenienent facts.

That's why I think it's more a general long term strategy to try and stop "social engineering" as our conservative friends call it.. or for those of us on the progressive side of the ledger – crimp the ability for governments to have accurate data and pinpoint problems that the government of the day can deal with.

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

I think this is the best explanation for their behaviour. Make no mistake, the government has access to all the data it wants. It's the other users of census data – those often pesky NGOs, other levels of gov't who may be of the wrong stripe, malcontents and agitators, people who are opposed to the government – that are the real targets of this decision.

If you take the cynic's view, and I often do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

I've heard that rationale as well, and while I'm in no position to dispute it I will say that if it is correct it is enormously depressing. It's one step beyond the (sadly) usual practice of doing something dumb because it appeals to a segment of voters. Now we're suggesting hiding the truth so that we can continue doing something dumb to appeal to a segment of misguided voters. I'm still (pathetically naively) thinking that we haven't come that far yet.

http://twitter.com/larrylarry @larrylarry

My theory regarding the rationale is that Statistics Canada is going to have a far more difficult time selling their census data for use by, well, everybody. As a result, the cost recovery for the census will drop dramatically, leaving the agency with far fewer resources to conduct other studies that may go against government policy, or for the government to justify cutting funding.

Loraine Lamontagne

And for the sake of 168 people we bring in the National Household Survey, at an additional cost some say of 30 million dollars.

I wonder, by its own admission, the government has made this decision because of 168 complaints with little or no consultations, so how do they come to a credible estimate of the cost of moving to the NHS? The cost of the NHS and to other ministries who, like Mark Carney explained, will now have to work with StatsCan to find new tools to do their job?

Finally, I would bet $20 that there will be considerably more citizens threatened with jail sentences for not filling in the mandatory census in 2011 than ever before. The government's rhetoric in this debate, not to mention the silly decision of holding this NHS four weeks after the mandatory census is bound to confuse a lot of people.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Someone probably told them that 168 complaints out of a total population of 12,000,000 households would be accurate to within plus or minus 7.6%, nineteen times out of twenty.
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ledeenoe Dominique Noel

Perhaps we can have their names too?

Oh, right. Now that would be intrusive.
IJTO

The best way to deal with the new optional form would be for ALL OF US to ignore it, boycott it. After all, it will be optional!

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

Then the only data being tallied will be that of the faithful conservative base

Olaf

That actually might work out well, because the survey sample would be made up of "real Canadians" only.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

Question: Are "Real", "Average", "Working Families" and "Everday" Canadians all the same group?

I'm a Toronto elitist so I know I don't fall into any of those categories.

Olaf

If you want to generalize, yes, they're synonymous. But there are well defined exceptions. "Working families" can act in a certain way that disqualifies them from real Canadian status, such as if they vote for the NDP, for example. Everyday Canadians are real Canadians to the extent that they visit Tim's everyday and not Starbucks. "Average" Canadians are real Canadians in so far as they're not so 'average' that they're incapable of finding work and thus feel entitled to nurse at the state's ample breast. It's kind of complicated come to think of it… I'll get back to you.

Standing By

You aren't the only person thinking that way. I am a strong supporter of the census and fact-based public policy. However, I doubt that the 2011 census can be saved now. It should probably be canceled until we have a new government in place that can properly explain why we need a census, and try to restore confidence in it.

If Harper continues with his plan of conducting an unreliable census, then I will definitely join in refusing to fill out the long form, and would suggest that others do likewise. Bad data is always worse than no data, and with Harper's meddling, the data will certainly be bad, so we are better off just scuppering the whole thing until we have a change of government.

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

A friend of mine once had his birthday party at the worst bar in town, solely so he could find out who his actual friends were. I'm beginning to suspect that this decision is a similar one, a loyalty test of sorts for Conservatives. "My captain right or wrong" and all that.

:)

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

There's a serious argument to be made for the dismantling of the party system in Canada when one can make comparisons between political parties and cults.
Sigh

Did anyone show up?

Personally, I've always found friends who feel it necessary to test their friends' loyalty rather annoying.

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

Having the opportunity to *finally* go to The Brunny after studiously avoiding it for the entirety of undergrad proved too tempting for most – it was a surprisingly well attended function :)

Orson Bean

Personally, I don't see why anybody would ever resist going to the Brunny. At least during the Golden Age of Irene & Carla . . .

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

Yes, after finally seeing the glory that was Rockin' Irene I must admit I was a little saddened that I had avoided the place for so long :)

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

The numbers don't matter. A thing is either defensible, or not, on it's own merits.

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

Not a very good argument for democratic government.

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

No. It's an argument for principled debate rather than debate by polling.

I could get you a million signatures calling for an immediate ban of abortion in Canda. Would that be a good enough for you?

Thwim

Depends. How many signatures would stand against it?

To be more specific, the numbers of people in favor or not should not dictate the argument, but they are always a contributing factor. And the less hard/objective data we have, the more important become those numbers of people. Well, in this case, the Conservatives are arguing that there's a damage to privacy. There's very little objectivity that can be brought into this debate — especially because even the notion of what is private is being said to be a subjective measure. Thus the numbers of people becomes of primary importance.

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

(what the hell was I thinking when I mentioned abortion?)

As you know, this is the very debate that various Canadian governments have managed to avoid for something like 40 years now. Precisely because there are such strong feelings on both sides of the debate, in typical Canadian fashion, we choose to avoid the debate altogether. But supposing that we did finally put this to a national referendum and the final tally was 51% to 49% in favour of banning abortion, would you accept that result with good grace? I sure as hell wouldn't.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I'd accept it with about as much grace as I accept this Conservative government. That is, while I think it's bloody stupid, and while I hope and agitate for change, I still admit that it's legitimate and that it's how things are right now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

But it's _not_ legitimate. You can't deny a human right on the basis of a poll.

Let's take another example. Omar Khadr is still rotting away in Guantanamo Bay. The Courts have already ruled that his human rights are being violated on an ongoing basis. If 60% of Canadians shrug and say "I'm cool with that." Does that mean you are cool with it as well?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

No, you are quite right (although Thwim isn't completely wrong). If the question is, "what colour should we paint the House of Commons" majority might rule. If the question is, "Should we allow immigration only from the following four countries" it doesn't really matter how many people say 'yes'.

Speaking of which, I received a flyer from my MP this morning, talking about reforming the refugee system (something that probably should be looked at IMO). He used the words "fair and balanced approach." Should I start to get worried about what they are up to?
Orson Bean

Well that goes precisely to why it is so dumb and damaging for the Tories do have done this with the census. It's so damaging to their credibility that even if they subsequently propose something quite sensible in another policy area, many people are going to be inclined not to trust them. It's sort of like when a relationship goes sour — there's that point of no return where the other party just won't give you a hearing any more, because they've been completely turned off.
practical mom

Are we there yet?
Sigh

I agree that human rights should not be subject to majority rule.

But this begs two questions:
1. Is privacy a human right?
2. If the answer to 1. is yes, how is that right to be defined, i.e. what is to be considered an unacceptable invasion of that privacy?

Bob

The abortion example defeats your polling argument – I could get more pro choice signatures than you could anti-abortion ones.

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

Yes, but the validity of the debate does not depend on the numbers, that's my point.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I dunno, wouldn't you agree that at some point if the numbers are so skewed towards the status quo (like they appear in this instance) that the number do in fact matter?

In other words, if 12 million Canadians aren't terribly overburdened by the intrusiveness and 168 are – then couldn't you reasonably conclude that the census isn't overburdomesome?
http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

It's a pretty strong data point, I'll grant you :-)

But it doesn't speak to the merits. I've never complained to anyone about the census formally, but I do think the long-form census is needlessly intrusive –and I've certainly made that argument here — and I also have dealt with a large number of other people who feel the same way. I'm sure that none of them complained about it either.

I think it's a weak argument, particularly when there are so many strong arguments to use. It's like beating someone soundly in a logical debate and then concluding by saying "besides which, you're very short and you dress like you're colour-blind."

practical mom

Here I agree with you. Debate by polling is ridculous. Issues should be debated on merit.

Yet we live in a democracy. The issues need to be voted on after the merits have been discussed leading to policies based on informed decisions.

practical mom

I disagree. Numbers always matter.

Something could be defensible on its own merits, a truly good thing, but be completely unaffordable. Achieving this good thing could only be achieved by giving up something else equally good or perhaps even better. Numbers would have to be part of the decision of which to choose.

Hence the question of balance between protecting privacy concerns, at the expense of data reliability, and protecting the integrity of the data at the expense of privacy concerns. The number of Canadians who had a problem with the mandatory long form is relevant to the decision since scrapping the long form will, apparently, impact all the rest of us who have no significant issue with it.

Loraine Lamontagne

And the cost to taxpayers!

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

$30,000,000 / 168 = $178571.43 per complaint

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

We should translate that into numbers Tony Clement can identify with: that's 1.78 rural gazebos per complaint.
Sigh

Can we send them the bill?

lgarvin

You're right, of course, when the debate is between two or more viable options.

What I was objecting to – perhaps not clearly enough – is the idea that an unpopular position ought to be discounted merely on the basis that it is unpopular. At one time, the idea that women should vote was also very unpopular… and yet, here we are.

practical mom

Excellent explanation. I appreciate that.

The government defends its long form stance on the basis of privacy and intrusiveness. Is there some absolute privacy standard that the government is defending? Or are these relative values that are defined by Canadians?

If they are absolute values, then why keep the mandatory short form and agriculture census? If they are relative, then the number who complain does help draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable intrusion.

lgarvin

Excellent explanation. I appreciate that.

Well, I appreciate that too.

I can't answer your excellent questions, but neither can Tony Clement so I don't feel that bad about it.

You make a good point that the number of complaints makes a good measure of the level of discontent. But remember that we are a long-suffering bunch, generally, and there is so much to be discontented about. LOL

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

Couldn't agree with you more on this. That said, the "merit" of the government position has been established largely through mistruths, unsupported claims of widespread dissent, failing to respond to their appointed body of experts, and thorugh enacting the change at such a time as to make its reversibility near impossible.

None of this suggests they hold the courage of their convictions. Opposing positions ought not be granted equal status merely for coexisting, and a lack of popularity does not excuse basic requirements of fair and honest explanation and outlining of decisions.

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

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

I agree with danby.

That said, the "merit" of the government position has been established largely through mistruths, unsupported claims of widespread dissent, failing to respond to their appointed body of experts,

Gawd, don't I know it.

frobisher

This has to be the best and clearest discussion of this matter I have seen on these threads. Anywhere else, for that matter. I watched with awe.

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

I don't think the complaints or issues about privacy had anything at all to do with what the government decided because:

1. The most intrusive questions are still being asked, and the government seems to have no interest in reviewing them or hearing advice on which to maintain in the household survey.

2. Jail and fines are still in place as potential sentences for non-compliance with the other mandatory surveys (short form, labour market and farm)

3. Nothing has been done to repatriate the database from the third party provider in the U.S.

Like usual, all the Conservatives have done is run around saying "woo woo woo" and make a reactive incomplete decision about something they were in a position to resolve, but didn't. See Graham James pardon, for another example.

Petty saboteurs wrecking as much as they can before we wise up.

Jan

This is all about politics and nothing to do with policy. The Conservatives couldn't even be bothered to provide a decent cover for what they're doing. It shows a complete lack of respect for the voting public.

frobisher

"It shows a complete lack of respect for the voting public."

Not all, just most..

Guy

Don Drummond of the National Statistics Council and Darrell Bricker of Ipsos-Reid North America say a voluntary census is easily doable without compromising the quality of the data. And they both agree that the current mandatory form is intrusive (and apparently so do 51% of Canadians).

So by using existing techniques, the NHS can be adjusted to reflect a statistically accurate sample of the population, exactly what is done now with the mandatory long form, just on a larger scale. It may take a few tries to iron this out according to Mr. Drummond, but he believes this is definitely worth doing. He also is amazed that people do not understand that is long form is intrusive.

Mr. Bricker was quoted as saying that unless something is done about the mandating of the long form census, StatsCan will run into a fairly non-compliant population, laws or not.

So the Conservatives are doing the right thing. However, once again, they are doing it the wrong way. Hopefully, they will work with people like Mr. Drummond and Mr. Bricker and fix the census and Statistics Canada.

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

You mean *this* Don Drummond?

"The government's insistence that sending the voluntary survey to more households will yield sufficiently accurate results "defies any statistical proposition that I am aware of," Drummond said. White, middle-class Canadians are most likely to complete the survey and will be "dramatically over-represented," he said, and increasing the sample size will magnify that bias, not erase it."
http://www.canada.com/news/Coalition+urges+Conser…

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

No he must have meant this one:

Mr. Drummond, who recently stepped down as chief economist of the TD Bank, said the council unanimously believed that abandoning the mandatory long-form census would skew the 2011 results, causing a statistical break with previous surveys that would it make impossible to read and project trends accurately.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/clem…

or perhaps this one:

Don Drummond, former chief economist for the Toronto-Dominion Bank, has been a member of the Statistics Canada's advisory board and didn't hear a word about the change until two days before it was announced. The board wasn't asked for advice or briefed.

Drummond said the move is not only a blow to Statistics Canada, once considered one of the world's best statistical agencies, but also for the provinces, municipalities, community groups and other agencies that rely on its findings for their work and decisions.
http://www.financialpost.com/small-business/priva…

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

but he definitely wants this independent thinker onside:

Darrell Bricker is the CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs. Prior to joining Ipsos Reid, Bricker was director of public-opinion research in the office of the prime minister.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

Right.. so putting aside the Ipsos-Reid poll that you're quoting, that was contradicted by Angus-Reids poll (58% of Canadians polled said it wasn't intrusive, only 24% did), let's go to the rest of your point.

Bricker did show some openness to it, , but I never saw in any recap that Drummond was.. would you care to dig up the quote for him saying a voluntary census was "easily doable"? Because Kady O'malley's live blog never shows him being quoted at any time as saying such.

By the way.. even if you can find the quote for Drummond saying that, you're ignoring the many other organizations that disagree; I also know that Nik Nanos of Nanos polling flatly disagreed last week that a voluntary census is doable.. is his learned opinion somehow less then Bricker's (who I've seen being described by Adam Radwanski in the Globe as a person who holds small-c conservative views?)
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

It may take a few tries to iron this out according to Mr. Drummond, but he believes this is definitely worth doing.

If it takes a few tries to iron this out, it means it could be decades before we have usable, reliable data on the social, economic, cultural, and behavioural patterns of Canadians. In the meantime, just about every single social policy in Canada – healthcare included – could easily be gutted for lack of reliable data. If this is what Mr. Drummond considers "worth doing", I'm afraid I must disagree.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Don Drummond of the National Statistics Council and Darrell Bricker of Ipsos-Reid North America say a voluntary census is easily doable without compromising the quality of the data. And they both agree that the current mandatory form is intrusive (and apparently so do 51% of Canadians).

That's assuming that the response rates hold steady in the NHS as they would in a mandatory Census. Based on the experience of most political scientists who have to deal with data on a daily basis, the response rate would not, in fact, hold steady, thus compromising the accuracy and repeatability of data proportions. And without accurate proportions to which we can adjust, the longform data would be useless.
Jan

Guy, you are totallymis- representing what Drummond said. This is the sleaze technique the Cons use all the time. Take part of what someone says and claim agreement. Drummond said you could move to a voluntary form BUT that it would take years, like 20, before you could start relying on the data. Bricker also said the move could be made but acknowledge what Drummond said about the data. As to the intrusiveness of the questions, Drummond;s solution was to change some of the questions, which is the government's perogative. The Conservatives aren't and seemingly won't work with anyone. That is the problem.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

I'm not your buddy, Guy.

Anon 001

168 people!!!

In Harper's books, that's a majority. That's the Holy Grail. Zero opposition. Ultimate power.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I'd be curious to find out how many of the 168 complaints in 2006 were based on the involvement of Lockheed Martin and not general complaints about invasiveness.
Amateur Hour

Apparently the National Statistics Council is also cheesed off because, at their meeting in April, none of the changes to the long-form census were mentioned by the Minster's department. This was quite surprising to the Council as it's mandate is to advise "the Chief Statistician of Canada on the full range of Statistics Canada’s activities, particularly on overall program priorities."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

And at one time the idea that we should charge interest was very unpopular, and the idea that owning slaves was a sign of status was popular. Things change. They have before, they will again. If anything, that only illustrates the argument how the numbers matter, when such things that we hold now as fundamental beliefs were complete opposites before, can we really say that we are more right than they were? Or merely that we're more right for our time and our people?

Gaunilon

On the contrary, what it illustrates is that society sometimes gets things grossly wrong. If, that is, you believe that items like slavery were objectively morally wrong.

And if society sometimes gets things grossly wrong, then Igarvin's point stands: one shouldn't try to decide whether something is good or bad in principle by looking at its popularity, but rather by examining it by reason. Then one tries to convince the public to uphold that principle. This is what leadership is.
Olaf

when such things that we hold now as fundamental beliefs were complete opposites before, can we really say that we are more right than they were? Or merely that we're more right for our time and our people?

I feel confident that my heroic anti-slave owning position is superior to the prevalent Confederate belief prior to the civil war, yes, and not on the basis of current prevailing opinion. I think that's Igarvin's point (correct me if I'm wrong): just because certain positions are popular with a given group of people at a given place at a given time only proves that those positions are popular, not that they're correct in any objective sense.

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

Who's talking confederate? I'm talking Greek democracy.
And that's the thing, they believed to the core of their being that slave owning was fine, was actually a good thing for the community — provided economic benefits and whatnot — just as surely as we believe to the core of our being that they were wrong. They'd look at us as ignorant fools, dooming people to be free to be idle, to starve, and to not be providing their strength to the betterment of society.

Who knows, I can postulate a matriarchal society developing again one day, with men pushed to the outskirts of power as being far too driven by aggressive, violent tendencies in their very genetic make-up. And they'd believe themselves to be just as firmly right as we would believe them to be wrong. And there would be people like you saying the exact same things about it.

Your confidence simply demonstrates your hubris at thinking, for some reason, that we've finally "got it right" this time. Just like the church figured they'd "got it right" over the pagan systems. If science proves to us anything, it proves to us that 99% of what we believe will be proven wrong in the future.

Olaf

So, if I'm reading you right (correct me if I'm wrong), you don't believe in the concept of morality as a concept divorced from popular opinion or prevailing societal norms? The way women in Afghanistan are treated is no better or worse than the way women are treated in Canada, in any objective sense, only different and more right for their time and their people?

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

Precisely.

Recall that Milli Vanilli won the Grammy for Best New Artists back in the day.

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

I have to get the heck out of here and get some work done so I'll put it as succinctly as possible.

Yes, numbers matter, but they should be used to inform rather than to decide.

Excuse me while I quote you "…things that we hold now as fundamental beliefs were complete opposites before, can we really say that we are more right than they were?"

My point exactly, sometime the minority is right and the majority is wrong and it's bad logic to assume that a minority is easily dismissed by virtue of their being a minority.

bergkamp

"The total number of questions, complaints and concerns …. "

One hundred and sixty thousand people refused to fill out form, why aren't they part of the total of people who complained? And that doesn't count the people who didn't want to fill out census but bully boys from census intimidated them enough that they completed forms under duress.

How obtuse can the Globe/Mail, and other msm, be? How dim do you have to be to fail to recognice that people who are concerned about pivacy and/or coercion are not likely go to public's privacy commissioner (if they have even heard of department). The name is almost Orwellian, can there be such an office as privacy commissioner and who's interests are it protecting.

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

Less obtuse than you apparently, given the number of times people have explained just why the 160,000 thing can't be used to estimate the number of people who objected.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

They didn't just count the total number of complaints that went to the Privacy Commissioner. They were asked to forward all complaints about the longform, including those that went to MPs, ministers' offices, et cetera.

And that besides, we cannot assume that 160,000 people didn't fill out the Census because they had some moral objection to it. That's speculative. They could just as easily have spilled their coffee on the form, lost it in the process of moving, or thrown it out with the flyers they get in the mail as had a conscientious objection to it. We don't know if they don't complain. We'd be guessing.

And though guessing seems to be the way our government wants to make policy in the future, I don't think it's particularly advisable. Maybe it's just me.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

"They could just as easily have spilled their coffee on the form, lost it in the process of moving, or thrown it out with the flyers they get in the mail as had a conscientious objection to it. "

Are you serious? StatsCan does follow up, tracks people down, presents them an offer they can't refuse. How many times does someone have to claim that their dog ate the forms before people get the message.

Amateur Hour

With a 1% non-return rate, I'd blame Canada Post … not a groundswell of principled opposition.
http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

1) They stop trying to followup once they hit 97% completion total (both long and short combined). If you didn't actually object to the census but simply had been too lazy to return your form by the time they hit 97%, then you were off the hook.

2) The majority of those 160,000 cases were ones where the recipient was not contactable before 97% was reached. Someone posted a link to that info yesterday.

Amateur Hour

Some tasty methodology brought to you by the fine folks at 'We Can Count'.
All the facts, none of the paranoid speculation.

Thanks for this.
http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

"The response rate for the 2006 short-form census was 97.2 per cent. For the long-form census, it was 93.7 per cent." Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen, July 28, 2010

According to Gardner, they never reached the 97% combined completion total.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I'm not positive this answers your objection, but it's worth noting that the weighted average of the numbers you just quoted comes out to 97%.

In other words, if "combined completion total" means the total percentage of completed questionnaires (whether long or short), and if my recollection is correct that 80% of households receive the short-form while 20% receive the long-form, then the combined total for 2006 would have been

T = 0.972*0.8 + 0.937*0.2 = 0.965, or 97% if we round to the nearest percent.
a-non

I'm offended by your use of actual mathematics on a debate about statistics.

Jan

bergkamp, you always sound as if you think we have a fascist government…

Holly Stick

Whereas we don't, quite, since Harper has never gotten a majority.
http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Mussolini ~ description of Fascism

By Mussolini's standards, Canada is a fascist state.

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

uh-oh…I think | smell an "all liberals are fascists" screed a-brewing…

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

I gotta say, you're really dumbing yourself down this last week or so. It's pretty disappointing to see in someone whose comments I always used to read completely, even when I thought you were wrong. Now you're just like a robot for the defense. I has a sad.

Standing By

It is impossible to understand Harper's decision on the census if viewed from the perspective of Canadian politics. What explains this move is that Harper now knows he will never have a majority, the numbers just aren't there. When he steps down as PM shortly after the next election, I believe he intends to move to Washington, to work up his reputation as a conservative elder statesman, join a right-wing think tank, appear regularly on Fox news, to support Palin and the tea party crowd, and to lobby for the tar sands.

So what he is now trying to do is to buff up his street cred with the extreme right-wing in the US. This is now his most important political constituency. It explains why he is building prisons we don't need or want, why he used the G8 meeting to re-inject the toxic abortion debate into international development, why he set the stage for a police head-busting riot during the G20, and why he is now wrecking the census and undermining evidence-based public policy in Canada.

In short, Harper has gone all tea party on us simply because he intends to be a future player in the tea bag movement in the the country he has always preferred over Canada.

Jenn_

He's also beginning to go after the refugees. Now, I personally think the refugee system could use some tweaking. I'd be happy to have any other government take a look at how it could be made better. But there are some folks in Arizona, and maybe Harper wants to please them. I just can't trust this initiative.

Jan

Certainly passes the plausibility test. He seems not to care if we like him anymore. And he has no career to return to in Canada.

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

"Just visiting".

NiceGuy

Slow news month?
jay

I heard it was a fake river.

Kevin

I wish he had a river he could skate away on.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Wherry stole the title of this blog post from me :-) http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/24/reality-and-pe…

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

Hmm, that's the second time in two days he didn't give credit for something.

http://www.novaterium.com Rory Rickwood

Hard data obtained from the anonymous census long-form clearly helps in setting public policy and planning. This hard data provides the public with vital information that helps them make the case for many government-financed initiatives. Do some initiatives go against the Harper conservatives vision of what the public should be entitled to? In the absence of hard census data, the conservatives can remove well-supported arguments and implement their view of what public policy and planning should be. No wonder they have dug in their heals on this issue, and keep spouting off their silly talking points that the government will put you in jail if you fail to fill in the unanimous census long-form questionnaire.
Dave

But what about Tony's tweeting buddies, and Maximes thousands of conveniently-missing complaints?
http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

I wonder that number compares with complaints received by all levels of government concerning allegiations of abuse of civil liberties during the G8/G20.
danby

It's kind of funny how the government overrides all reason in eliminating the long form, and is nonchalant about the voluntary form costing an additional $30 million – yet feels fully justified in slashing a $1 million from the budget of the popular and accountable PBO headed by Kevin Page.

Not even the base can defend this sort of sheer idiocy.

Amateur Hour

"Not even the base can defend this sort of sheer idiocy."

Unfortunately, all they're expected to do is attack using one set of lies, then shift gears and use another.

knick

The 'brilliant strategist' who impressed so many members of the press corps and others seems to have somewhat overreached his grasp this time by delaying the announcement of his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census until the dog days of summer when nobody would notice. With nothing else going on presently, and the increasing number of objections from respected organizations and individuals, this story is growing more legs than a centipede. And without the opportunity of drive-by smears against opposition members in Question Period it looks like Harper & Co. are left to suck it up. No wonder Harper is MIA.

practical mom

Apparently Harper is taking a well deserved holiday. I understand Tony Hayward (BP CEO, do I have the name right?) advised him to "get his life back", to ignore the numerous issues developing this summer and to spend time doing what is most important. Can we send Harper to Siberia too?