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

Three more for the list

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, August 1, 2010 10:11am - 0 Comments

The mayor of Surrey, the Economic Development Association of British Columbia and the Catholic Civil Rights League are unimpressed.

Tags: british columbia, Catholic Civil Rights League, census, Economic Development Association of Montreal, Statistics Canada, Surrey

More by Aaron Wherry

wilson

''..recent immigrants, Aboriginals and low-income families – are least likely to complete and file a voluntary survey..'

Then give them an incentive, like a tax credit,
and the end users that can't make a decision without the data, will have to pay a bit more, to cover the cost of the incentive.

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

Why do you keep pulling this chestnut out, when it's been debunked twice now?

wilson

I missed the debunking,
please expand Jenn

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

Certainly. Three days ago, on the "Much Ado" thread, you brought this up. I explained then that we'd gone over this before and we couldn't afford it. At that time, Style and I continued to discuss it, and Style brought up a study (actually dealing with something else, but relevant to this) indicating that paying for responses actually skews the data further. Much Ado–three days ago.

Prior to that, a discussion of the idea took place on "The Libertarian Calvary" thread, way back on July 17th. The idea that paying skews the data was brought up here as well, along with hard numbers on how much it would cost depending on the incentive amount.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to link specific sections of a thread and the discussions are too long to reproduce here.

wilson

'paying for responses actually skews the data further' I assume to the benefit of those most in need…?

The cost can and should be reflected in what the end users pay. The increased $30 m is .05% of the cost of the census, I think last quote was somewhere around $660m.
1/2 a percent increase in cost can surely be picked up by those purchasing the data.

Also, if the questions are changed every census (added and deleted) where is the almighty 'comparision' debate on that?
Jenn_

Yes, and by those wealthier deciding whatever the incentive is "it isn't worth it." So response bias would skew the results in the opposite direction, but there is no telling by how much. I was arguing your side of the thing back on July 17th–why couldn't you have backed me up then? :)

The $30 million is what the voluntary Household Survey is going to cost us to send to additional households (20% of households got the long-form census. 33% of households will get the voluntary Household Survey). That has nothing whatsoever to do with paying an incentive for filling out the form. THAT amount (we've been bandying about $62 million but it could be anything depending on how many people are a "household" on average, and what the incentive amount is) would be on top of the $30 million, if they incentivized(?) the Household Survey. So, if you are looking at end users paying for the increase in costs, they'd be looking at quite a large jump. Meaning it would be prohibitive for many, meaning they couldn't afford it, meaning it wouldn't be cost recovery, meaning WE'D have to pay.

Also, Style found $300 to $350m from the main estimates I think of 2007-2008 (could have been 2006-2007). Do you have a source for the $660m? Because that seems like a ridiculous jump in cost.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Don't worry, she'd simply "forget" again. It's a necessary evil.

wilson

''In the League’s view, it would be more helpful to retain the question on the census, and accompany it with a question about religious activity, since numerous surveys show that religious practice is a better predictor of volunteerism and charitable giving than affiliation itself.''

The Catholic church wants more questions on religion, not less.
Is there some kind of competition between religions for market share?
Does it matter if a person in need is Lutheran, Baptist or Catholic?

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

So, they explain why they think that even in the part you quoted. Yet, you just ignore that and come up with some reasons out of thin air.

I'm fairly offended at the Catholic League's position, but then they cite studies to back them up, and I have nothing. So I really dislike being in the position of defending it, but they did make a clear, easy to understand point–the least you could do is argue against that instead of making up your own motivation.

Just because we've come to expect misleading statements, hidden motivations and the like from the Conservative Party, it doesn't mean everyone does it. :)

wilson

Where the churches are concerned, I am having difficulting understanding them taking a self serving position.
In a back and forth email, I asked Ms Denis of the United Church, why they search for people in need from data bases, rather than walking amongst us. No response.

I don't have a whole lot of nice things to say about religions, so I'll let it at that.

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

Well, here we can agree. :)
http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

I don't have a whole lot of nice things to say about religions…

Well then, Wilson, your aptitude for rising to the philosophical standards of current Canadian "conservatism" is admirable indeed. At least your irreligion is honestly worn; I wish that could be said of more of your colleagues.

Emily

Getting harder to find anyone that LIKES it.

Well, except Tony.

wilson

Emily, organizations are not 'anyone', you are personifying an organization.
That's what is getting lost here with the ongoing 'list' of organizations that use the data for self serving purposes.
Holly Stick

Yeah, funny that all those commenters who complain about Aaron making this kind of post have yet to respond with the list of organizations that support gutting the census. Up to six, wasn't it?

Maybe even they cannot keep straight faces while pretending the Fraser Institute and its ilk have any credibility.

Emily

Wilson, as usual, is grasping at straws.

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

The Straw Grasper ~~Union Collective~~ Association of Canada has seen a quadrupling of membership over the last month.

Jan

And they seem to have run out of straws and now are just grasping.

Bob

When does Wherry just start listing individual people's names… I'm sure there's a FB group or three by now.

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

Wherry doesn't need to, because the petition "with individual names" has been linked to on these threads at least once before.

Although, Aaron if you're reading, it might be a good idea to link to it again.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

There is the Census page at FB – "Keep the Long Form Census". I believe it's at about 7000-8000 people "liking it" (They didnt set up a group because they wanted the ability to communicate with everyone once they got over 5000 members, whcih is a limitation of the groups on FB).

The actual petition itself is larger then that, I believe, in the amount of people who've signed on.
Bob

Um, ya, I was being sarcastic. I think we all know by now that anyone with a brain realizes this is a stupid idea. I just don't happen to care that the Mayor of Surrey has voiced an opinion…

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

Sorry, I didn't catch the sarcasm; don't know you well enough, I guess.

I think it's kind of funny that organizations had to mull it over THIS LONG before deciding they, too, would publish an opinion. That probably isn't fair because organizations have to get people together to determine this is something the organization thinks, but at this point I'm amused when another one pops up. As for the (individual) mayor of Surrey, that was REALLY funny–until I clicked on the link and discovered it was really Surrey City Hall.

Jan

Surrey is a municipality particularly plagued with drugs and he crimes that go with them. Demographic and crime stats are obviously very useful to them.
Halo_Override

Am I mistaken in remembering that Surrey was also judged the best-managed municipality in Canada earlier this year? (Which is not to say those two things would automatically conflict.)
Jan

Hadn't heard that but if they did it's something to note. Surrey is a bedroom community but with all the problems of the inner city. Really tough place to run.

Amateur Hour

An aide to Mr. Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) confirmed what a source told The Hill Times—that $25-million of the And Mr. Clement seems to have "misrepresented" census matters, again:

$30-million Mr. Clement referred to as advertising money to promote the long questionnaire is actually for additional follow-up once the short census, which by law is mandatory to complete and return to government, is mailed to all Canadian households. The government is aware, without saying so publicly, that its decision to replace the 40-year-old mandatory version of the long census will likely result in confusion among Canadians over which of the forms they must fill out by law, the source said. "People will be confused, 'This is the census, I heard it's voluntary,'" the source said. "Of course, the short form isn't [voluntary] but people will be confused and in order to safeguard the short form, which guides billions of dollars of federal-provincial transfers, they expect, Statistics Canada expects, to have to do much more followup."
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/integrity-08…
Amateur Hour

Correction to above (bloody cutting and pasting!):

And Mr. Clement seems to have "misrepresented" census matters, again:

An aide to Mr. Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) confirmed what a source told The Hill Times—that $25-million of the $30-million Mr. Clement referred to as advertising money to promote the long questionnaire is actually for additional follow-up once the short census, which by law is mandatory to complete and return to government, is mailed to all Canadian households. The government is aware, without saying so publicly, that its decision to replace the 40-year-old mandatory version of the long census will likely result in confusion among Canadians over which of the forms they must fill out by law, the source said. "People will be confused, 'This is the census, I heard it's voluntary,'" the source said. "Of course, the short form isn't [voluntary] but people will be confused and in order to safeguard the short form, which guides billions of dollars of federal-provincial transfers, they expect, Statistics Canada expects, to have to do much more followup."
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/integrity-08…
Richard

"I don't see people at the bus stop talking about this big issue"

- an unnamed political pundit, nearly three weeks ago.