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

Worthwhile census submissions

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 9:46am - 0 Comments

Stephen Gordon has a go at the libertarians.

If our government was really serious about privacy and state coercion, they wouldn’t be pointing to the Nordic registry model as an alternative to a mandatory census.

If, in your mind’s eye, you see yourself storming the Bastille in order to liberate the foes of tyranny, no-one has ever been jailed for not complying with the census. But, as has become crushingly clear over the past few weeks, the census is the irreplaceable cornerstone of evidence-based policy evaluation. Making the census voluntary offers the smallest possible gains in terms of civil liberties, at the greatest possible cost in terms of responsible governance.

Tags: census, libertarian, libertarianism, Stephen Gordon

More by Aaron Wherry

tedbetts

He could also have focused, as the conservative think tank CD Howe Institute has, on the importance of good data in keeping government accountable.

With good, reliable data, government's can't simply make things up to justify their policy of choice.

No wonder Harper opposes the census.

John_Edgar

The irony here is that you can also use good data to pass judgment on all those expensive programs that the Liberals seem to love so much. The hard facts are, I suspect, no friend of many of the policy decisions of previous Liberal governments. While I still don't know why the Conservatives are doing this (I've read all the theories) it's enough to convince me they are not able, or willing, to behave rationally on this.

There is just no rational reason to replace the long form with a more expensive, less effective version. I can't put it any better than Stephen Gordon did, but if there are any libertarians who support getting rid of the long form then they are particularly stupid ones.

JamesHalifax

The most obvious answer of course…..being the most sensible.

Governments should NOT demand personal information from Canadians, and threaten them with jail or fines if they refuse.

If I don't want to provide personal information…..I shouldn't have to. End of story.

Besides, the census information is currently being used to open new avenues for taxation….it has little to do with social policy or helping Canadians. It's about beaurocrats justifying their existence.

Scrap them along witht the long form. Besides, if some statist like Roy Romanow is FOR the census…..that's a good indication most sensible people should be against it.

Anon 001

I guess you have never applied to the bank for a mortgage or filed taxes then, eh chucklehead?

s_c_f

Do you have a point?
JamesHalifax

Anon 001 wrote:
"I guess you have never applied to the bank for a mortgage or filed taxes then, eh chucklehead?"

If you can not see the difference between applying for a mortgage and being coerced to provide information to the government, then I'm not surprised you believe everything you hear from someone like Roy Romanow.

Here's a hint:

No one is FORCING you to get a mortgage.

It's not about the information anon 001…..it's about the freedom to choose.

Jan

For about the 100th time Harper is maintaining the threat of jail for the short form and the agricultural survey.

JamesHalifax

And I disagree with him there too….

I think ALL census info should be optional.

John W.

Be consistent. Don't pay any taxes you don't agree with personally. Exercise your freedom to choose not to pay taxes or accept any government services and accept the consequences.

Anon 001

No, then he'll be JaneHalifax to Bubba CellMate for 3 to 5 years. Spewing nonsensical spin is much more fun.

c_9

James, in this cabinet document (appendix 1) there's a list of 14 federal government departments that, under legislation, *require* data from the census. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35691646/Impact-analysi…

Can you explain which of these departments is no longer required and should be shut down?

Alternately if they're still needed, can you explain how they can be reconfigured and legislation changed in time for a census which is already now being printed, despite this government having a very hard time passing legislation quickly? (I don't mean because of the minority – the govt has let stuff they liked expire without bringing it to a vote multiple times now)

c_9

Or as a third option: is it just OK for those 14 departments to make worse decisions, therefore wasting more money?

s_c_f

Hey, they could just hand it back to Canadian taxpayers. What a concept. I can assure you it would not be wasted then.

c_9

No seriously though. Did you check the list? Do you want to run your own citizenship department? How about running your own elections? Railway regulation? It's OK to say "I think government is too big" but it's ridiculous to claim we can just turn off 14 departments without any detrimental results to your life, livelihood, taxes, services, etc.
s_c_f

How on earth does the citizenship dept need the census? This strikes me as absurd.
tedbetts

They are imposing tons of new obligations on language requirements for newcomers. How big is the problem? How effective the new initiatives be? Without the longform, we won't know. A perfect example of how the longform helps accountability of government.
s_c_f

Nice try, but that's quite a stretch, it's not even close to being a good example. For one thing, you can't get that data from the census, if you take a look at the language questions! But you can certainly get it from any and all immigrants entering Canada when they apply for a visa, temporary residence, or permanent residence, and those doing the citizenship tests.
s_c_f

Mortgage and housing: maybe they would like to know about housing starts and building patterns. Information easily obtained elsewhere.

Health Canada: there is absolutely no information they need to know from a census.

Canada Revenue Agency: they already ask us everything they need to know when we file taxes.

Indian affairs? Come on.

The list goes on. If these people are plying census data, so what? In most cases they are plying the data because it exists and they need to justify their jobs.

Heck, the police would love us to live in a police state too. That doesn't mean we should. We can have a perfectly fine policing and justice system with granting them whatever request they have,

Citizens don't exist to please the government.

When this census change is made, I can assure you, there will be no noticeable difference in terms of government services.
c_9

I agree with this: "Citizens don't exist to please the government. "

But all your questions can be answered by a) reading the actual long form census, and then b) reading the actual legislation. I'm not suggesting that they all *should* have access.

I'm not suggesting they *need* access to be somewhat or even very effective (though I think that some of them probably do). But this change, quite literally, damages the data that they depend on to be effective. That will make government services less effective – but here's the bad part: they'll be less effective AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL. So you're creating a shell game where the only possible end point is that government sucks, and you already appear to believe that anyway.

Which says to me: "Hey c_9, give up on trying to intelligently discuss this with him/her." So I will.
s_c_f

Neither what you've said can be proven, not what I've said.

Therefore, we simply fall back on our ideologies. You believe government should be trusted to use powers of mandatory compliance as your default position. In my ideology, mandatory complicance should be avoided, and the onus falls on the government to prove their need for it.
c_9

Things I said that need proving (i.e. were not just my opinion):
1. "this change, quite literally, damages the data". This is pure math. Voluntary surveys are known to provide less accurate information due to selection bias.
2. "that they depend on". I could have phrased this better, but 14 departments have legislative requirements, so the law would have to be changed or they would be forced to make decisions based on damaged data.
3. "to be effective". I meant this to be the conclusion: if they had damaged data, and they are legislatively required to use that data, then they will be less effective than if they at least had good quality data.

I truly believe govt makes bad decisions. I truly believe they should have to prove their need for data. And I truly believe that govt should not just be trusted, just like corporations and individuals should not just be trusted. Human nature and mob mentality are too dangerous.

But even if I believed, verbatim, what you stated as your position, I would not accept changing the data in a near-universally-condemned way, without consultation, and in fact (as we now see from the emails) actively ignoring Statistics Canada advice and trying to avoid discussing the reasoning. This change is poorly done in a bunch of ways and there are plenty of reasons to distrust motives and actual actions even if you think as you do. In my opinion. :)
s_c_f

1. So what if the data is lower quality. Like I said, that's irrelevant if the data is not needed in the first place or can be obtained in other ways, or the lower quality has not discernible impact.
2. So what if legislation is needed? Normally leftists love lots of new legislation. Obviously they don't need legislative change because the census change is going ahead without any other associated legislative change.
3. No, the two do not follow. For one thing, nobody is legislatively required to use this data. They are legislated to do a job, and they've decided to extend their mandate to make use of the data. Secondly, there is no logical conclusion that a 10% change in data quality has a linear, a log, an exponential or even a measurable relationship with the performance of government departments. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Your last paragraph is baloney. Either the decision is good or bad, and clearly they have the mandate to make it. Trying to complain they did not make the decision the right way (ie consulting with people who are gonna disagree no matter what they say) is completely irrelevant. I don't care how they made the decision if it's the right one and they had the mandate to make it.

Complaining about the way a decision is made is just a smokescreen. It's just another way of saying you don't like the outcome. If they had consulted with a million experts and came to the same decision, then you'd complain anyway. It doesn't matter how they made the decision, you would complain regardless.
Anon 001

Health Canada: there is absolutely no information they need to know from a census

You're not very bright, are you s_c_f?
c_9

C'mon – this comment board used to be nice with no insults. Want to try again?
Anon 001

Hey, Goody TwoShoes, buzz off :-)
Jan

If you can't see why Health Canada relies on demographic information, there is no point in attempting a discussion.
s_c_f

In fact, of all those cases:
-a small number are cases where they data is needed, but in all such cases this data can be obtained voluntarily
-the vast majority of cases involve the public service deciding to look at the census data first and then trying to find a use for it afterwards, along the lines of – "let's get the data and see if we can find a use for it".

This is how bureaucracies behave. They grab whatever they can get their hands on and then they find new ways to expand themselves for no reason other than to assert more power for themselves.
c_9

The word "fact" has a meaning. Can you provide evidence for your list of facts?
s_c_f

No. It's certainly a fact that I've seen this type of behaviour countless times.

But in my opinion, the onus should be on the public service to prove their essential need for the data, not for the every-day citizen like me to prove that they don't need it. I'm the one providing it and they're the ones receiving it. Those that are asking/demanding should be the ones justifying. And I don't think "we use the data" is good enough. They should say:
1. we use it for A
2. it is essential for A
3. we cannot get it the data with other means
4. the data quality must be of a certain standard that only mandatory compliance can deliver
5. A is essential
If they cannot make this case, they should not get it. None of them have made the case for those 5 items. That is one reason the decision was made.
c_9

Does this mean we should remove, without consultation, without justification, and while regularly changing our public explanations, every single piece of legislation that requires data – things that have been established and in use for decades in many cases – and then require a new explanation according to your list? All those hundreds of laws at the same time, or one at a time? Should we pause all government activities in the meantime, since that'll take a while?

…actually, that sounds not bad… :)
s_c_f

without consultation, without justification, and while regularly changing our public explanations, every single piece of legislation that requires data

This is the usual ridiculous exaggeration. I'm talking about the long-form census changing from mandatory to voluntary. This is not the extent of all data in the universe. I'm talking about a puff of wind. You're talking about a hurricane that destroys the earth.

OMG!!!!! Government as we know it will be destroyed and anarchy will reign!!! OMG!

Luv this leftist baloney.

Like I said, these public departments should prove their case. If they can't then clearly I'm right, we're talking about a puff of wind. Sensible people can easily see that they cannot, because if they could they would have done so already.

This is such malarkey that every single little minor change that a right-leaning government will make will cause government to descend into chaos. These types of scare tactics are absurd.

The whole point of democracy is to avoid this type of thinking, that there is only one road the government can take and if we don't take that road then chaos will reign. You should go hide in a cave if democracy is so miserable.

tedbetts

So you oppose jury duty? You oppose the short form census? You oppose the Conservative's strong defence of the agricultural census? You oppose the mandatory collection of personal information by banks to comply with anti-moneylaundering obligations?
Dave

CRA: How much did you put in your RRSP this year?
Canadian: None of your business.

Customs officer: Reason for your travel?
Canadian: None of your business.

Poll clerk: Your name?
Canadian: None of your business.

Thwim

In the latter two cases, you'd simply be denied what you were seeking. ie, to enter the country or to vote. That seems fair.

Duceppe might be on to something.. we simply deny them the services that the census helps to provide. Things like health care, a Social Insurance Number and all that comes with — such as employability, social services, or bank/trading accounts. I would go further and suggest that they no longer be considered for other public services such as police and fire as well, but given the emergency nature of those services, it would probably be too inefficient to determine if the call being responded to was owed society's assistance.

Dave

But my sacred personal information! That's so unfair! Damn government.

Amateur Hour

"Besides, the census information is currently being used to open new avenues for taxation….it has little to do with social policy or helping Canadians. It's about beaurocrats justifying their existence. "

Policies affecting matters that range from road building to elder-care services to water usage are influenced by census data.

It's one thing to hold on to some ideologically pure maxim. It's quite another to defend it with demonstrable lies.

Shame on you.
Remain Calm

Governments should NOT demand personal information from Canadians, and threaten them with jail or fines if they refuse.

Do you object to having your address on your driver's license? Just curious.

Asking for census information doesn't seem like too much to require from a citizen. Consider this: in some countries, citizens are required to spend a year or more in compulsory military service.

Loraine Lamontagne

I fully agree with Stephen Gordon. On the other hand, what I find puzzling about this government – and this yet another instance – is that it doesn't speak as one. Was Clement voicing a personal opinion rather than expression the view of the government? If that's the case, then he should clearly state so. Indeed it's time Clement takes a cue from Pierre Pettigrew on healthcare, showing up with a piece of paper stating that he was voicing a personal opinion, and not that of the government.

If Clement doesn't do this, than I am left with the understanding that the government is considering mandatory registries of citizens, as is done in Nordic countries.
bergkamp

"But, as has become crushingly clear over the past few weeks, the census is the irreplaceable cornerstone of evidence-based policy evaluation."

Maybe it has become 'crushingly clear' to Gordon but many are still not persuaded that they have to set aside their privacy concerns in order to answer inane questions about when people leave for work in morning.

What also has become 'crushingly clear' is that many rent seekers are trying to make this into more of a crisis than it really is because short form census is still mandatory so the numbers that StatsCan has been collecting since the 1800s will continue.

Long form census was introduced in early 1970s, and if anyone cared to look, Canadians satisfaction with government has been going down as pols, bureaucrats and their minions claim to be omnipotent technocrats who just need ever more numbers to make Canada super awesome. Many people have it ass-backwards, it is long form census that allowed pols to decide they knew everything and no longer had to follow constituents wishes because there are now polls and consultants to tell pols what people want. Census separates pols and bureaucrats from people, it does not bring them closer together.

And when does "evidence-based policy evaluation" ever occur in government? Fed budget just gets larger and larger, programs get larger and larger, but little to none evaluation takes place.

practical mom

The long form census was not something completely new. It carved off many of the questions from the short form leaving a smaller census to be completed by everyone and a longer census to be completed by 20%. It was done both to save money and reduce the burden on Canadians. If we want to abandon the long form now maybe we should return to the short form as it used to be and give all Canadians the opportunity to answer a longer short form.

Loraine Lamontagne

Of course that's where we're moving. Government is not changing the Statistics Act and if it wants to lengthen the short form it can do so.

I've said it before, this debate reminds me of the one on fixed elections date – no longer will the governing party be allowed to manipulate the process, we were told, but of course anyone who can read knew this wasn't the case. And so it is with this census comedy or errors and omissions.

John_Edgar

Assuming that these are all reasonable arguments, how do they justify replacing the mandatory long form with a more expensive and less reliable (in terms of the data) version?
Anon 001

Long form census was introduced in early 1970s

This is incorrect. It's the short form that was intro'ed in the early 70s. The long-form was the one that was there before.
Sean

"Long form census was introduced in early 1970s, and if anyone cared to look."

Actually, 1971 was the first time the census was split into long and short form versions. It's probably more accurate to identify that year as the introduction of the short form, if you must oversimpligy. While the general trend has been toward more questions in the long version, it was hardly a basic head count prior to the split.

Sean

Here's a handy table:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/censusq.htm
bergkamp

"Two questionnaires were used in 1971. The "short" form distributed to two-thirds of Canadian households covered the basic population questions and nine housing questions. The "long" form, distributed to the remaining third, contained the same questions as the short form with the addition of 20 housing questions and 30 socio-economic population questions."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/c1996-r1996/history-hist…

I am going by what StatsCan has on their website. While everyone here navel gazes and cavil's about how long/short census was prior to 1971, I notice people have completed ignored my point that polls, census data and consultants are one of the main problems with pols right now because they think they have more knowledge than they actually do.

Sean

I ignored your unsubstantiated ranting – far too many assumptions and unsupported opinions to bother unbundling and refuting.

You're the one who snottily told us the long form was only introduced in the 1970s, so where in the heck do you get off turning around and calling that navel gazing on my part? Yeesh.

Since you found the website and read the passage – don't you feel a little dishonest only citing that the long form was introduced in 1971, when in fact it was BOTH the long and short forms?

Richard_S_Argent

Don't bother with bergie, here's what he told me about the census a few weeks back:

"Census is one way government implements its learned helplessness agenda. Government wants everyone to be dependent on it, and others, and make them think they are incapable of looking after themselves.
Is it any surprise the well known bolshie PM Trudeau introduced the long form? Trudeau, and others of his ilk, want to destroy the individual and make us dependent on government."

Sufficed to say, when *that* is his starting point, there's probably no point in trying to reason with him.

cheers!

ZestyMordant

There were apparently three people who had privacy concerns they had to set aside to complete the long form census. Was one of them you? Were you advocating for this issue before this summer?
Stephan

"Maybe it has become 'crushingly clear' to Gordon but many are still not persuaded that they have to set aside their privacy concerns in order to answer inane questions about when people leave for work in morning."

Could you tell me which page of the census form it asks you what time you leave for work?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/instrument/390…
a-non

"And when does "evidence-based policy evaluation" ever occur in government? Fed budget just gets larger and larger, programs get larger and larger, but little to none evaluation takes place."

That's like blinding someone because they blindfold themselves when they drive. Mind you, you're not actually taking away their keys and taking them out of the vehicle, but just gouging their eyes out.

s_c_f

If Gordon has some more ideas about reducing government coercion, that's great. The census is a first step.

Lord Kitchener's Own

The census is a first step.

I think that's what people are afraid of.

s_c_f

I think that's what some people are afraid of, and other people are cheering for. That's democracy for ya. Sometimes some people get their way, sometimes other people get their way. Liberals believe they should get their way all of the time.

ZestyMordant

Obama compared governing a nation to piloting an ocean liner. Left wing governments steer to port, right wing goverments steer to starboard.

While your comment indicates that you see this as nothing more than another starboard turn by a right wing government, it's actually more like cutting the phone line between the pilot and the engine room and replacing it with tin cans and string.

a-non

The counterargument is that there shouldn't be an ocean liner at all. Or at least a smaller watercraft. Though the strategy is indeed like hoping that this would eventually make everyone abandon ship, the possibility that it might sink before that being completely irrelevant.
s_c_f

it's actually more like cutting the phone line between the pilot and the engine room and replacing it with tin cans and string

Typical leftist baloney. Create a massive government that spends 40% of GDP – then claim that each and every single minor change will result in absolute catastrophe. Total baloney.

If, in reality, small changes like this one cause the catastrophe you insinuate, it makes me wonder how the human race did not go extinct 60 years ago when government was just 10% the size of the rest of the economy.
ZestyMordant

What catastrophe? Tin cans and string are a perfectly viable way to communicate. And in fact, just to be sure, we'll actually increase the amount of string!

Fiscal conservatives like you must be so frustrated that Stephen Harper thinks the opposite of big government is small-minded government.
s_c_f

Fiscal conservatives like you must be so frustrated that Stephen Harper thinks the opposite of big government is small-minded government.

I'm sure you love that catch-phrase but it's totally meaningless.

There is so much of the usual leftist condescension all over this page from you and others. Please, keep it up, you can be sure that as long as you do the Conservatives will continue to win elections.
ZestyMordant

I apologize for that remark. You're right, it was condescending.

I understand how extreme libertarians would appreciate this move, but there seem to be very few of these in Canada as evidenced by high rates of compliance, miniscule numbers of complaints and no outcry in previous census periods.

What I don't understand is how fiscal conservatives could continue to support Stephen Harper in good conscience. This is a classic example of increasing the size of government (by your own measure) with no significant benefit and significant loss.
s_c_f

I know what the alternatives would be like, which in itself is enough to support Harper. But really, I think he has done a good job overall. Canada has performed better economically than all other G8 nations for the last few years, the fiscal position of the government is good, and the Conservatives have done their best trying to make ground with conservative policies in a minority situation.
Thank goodness we don't have craziness like the Green Shift, a new universal daycare program, or any number of other crazy socialist schemes. Taxes are lower, foreign policy has been strong, and so on.
On most issues the government takes the right position. The opposition forced Harper into stimulus boondoggles, but the damage is far lower than in all other industrialized nations.

Comparing Canada to the rest of the world is one way to see how strong the Conservatives have been.

Loraine Lamontagne

Here is what Clement is quoted as saying (en français):
«Des pays comme la Norvège et le Danemark ont opté il y a plusieurs années pour ce genre de collecte de données», a-t-il dit.

«Nous pensons qu'une collecte de données ponctuelle est possible, qu'elle se fait dans certains pays et qu'elle se fait même au Canada. C'est la direction que nous devrions prendre», a-t-il ajouté. Il a toutefois précisé qu'Ottawa n'a pas l'intention d'abandonner le questionnaire court qu'il vient tout juste de créer.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canad…

I don't know who 'nous' is, but when Clement comments thus, he is speaking on behalf of the government of which he is a minister. He is clearly indicating that Canada will be moving towards a mandatory registry of citizens, as is done in the Nordic countries, in addition to a voluntary National Household Survey!

That is the position of the government of Canada as stated by a minister – unless that minister retracts his comments.

Shiner

Now that's interesting. Funny that he won't say that in English. If it's the direction the government wants to go I'd be all for it, but that's not exactly what they've been saying to the RoC is it?

Proper Conservative

Thirty percent of immigrants don't file income taxes, according to StatsCan, and until the Censusistas address that reality they lose the debate.

Censusistas are perfectly OK with citizens refusing to fill out simple demographic surveys, even if it means tens of billions in lost tax revenue, as evidenced by their tacit approval of immigrant tax dodgers who can't be arsed to fulfill the most basic of civic duties. Threatening census dodgers with jail while approving of tens of billions of dollars lost to tax dodgers – that's some genius public policy analysis, guys. Just kidding, it's ridiculous.

Thwim

I see you're already using the new CPC approved method of gathering evidence.

Did it hurt when they shoved it up there?

SHWM

"Did it hurt when they shoved it up there? "

It's always about anal sex with you guys, eh? Kindly let the grownups have a grownup conversation about public policy and scram, bub.

Thwim

When they do, I do. When they don't.. well.. they get what they excrete.

YYZ

Is there anyone left in the country who isn't willing to drop the jail time threat?

Gaunilon

Just exactly how do you keep the census mandatory without, in the end, using the threat of jail time??

auntie_em_m

Fines, fee for services charges, etc …

Gaunilon, once you accept the need for accepted process in data collecting, you DEBATE in parrliament possible replacements . Trying to slip bad policy by Canadians in the heat of summer is unethical and counter-productive.

Gaunilon

And just exactly how do you enforce fines and fees without jail time for those who refuse to pay?
JustinWordswrth

Immediate execution. Duh.
s_c_f

Confiscation of bank accounts? Appropriation of property? Torture? Normally lefties love to preach about individual rights for those who throw grenades and kill people in a war zone (Khadr), but when innocent John Smith refuses to fill out a form, toss him in jail!
Gaunilon

You don't understand, s_c_f. The very future of our nation depends on a 97% response rate to the long-form census. Without that the government might start misallocating our money.
s_c_f

Stop it! You're making me fear for my life. I am very afraid. So afraid.

I can see the light now. If I don't fill out the form, then I really should be tortured.
Gaunilon

Did I mention the fire and brimstone that will rain down if we only get 80% response rates?
SHWM

That's still better than the 70% compliance rate for filing tax returns – which are a sort of census, with a bill attached which funds social programs – among immigrants.

So, we get:

70% of immigrants filing income tax returns while the rest evade billions in taxes- good.
80% of Canadians filling out a census – bad.

And these people wonder why we don't take them seriously.
s_c_f

And these people wonder why we don't take them seriously.

Don't want to tar all of these people with the same brush, but in general:

I don't think they do a lot of self-reflection.
Jan

Garnishee. It's very effective when dealing with deadbeats.
YYZ

Don't.
Gaunilon

So let me get this straight: we offer people a choice between (a) filling out the census, or (b) not filling out the census and paying a fine, or (c) not filling out the census and not paying the fine.

So….this would be a voluntary census, no?

knick

OMG! Here we go again – somebody trying to reason with the Harper propaganda machine…

Dave

Oh, we all know it's pointless, but dammit (can I say "dammit", or is that too profane?) it's fun!

knick

I'm still confident that it's not pointless. The tide just might be turning for the Harper mob if the press coverage of the controversy over the otherwise obscure national census during the dog days of summer is any indication. The blowback from Canadians when they realize they've been played once again by Harper & Co. just might persuade them to demand that open and accountable government they were promised but have yet to see.
Out There

It's not pointless. Silence can be interpreted as consent.

PeteTong

Last weekend I visited Taste of the Danforth, sorry Pilaro's Taste of the Danforth, and I got roped into doing all these surveys to win a free trip to Greece or a lifetime supply of energy drink. Personally I found the questions quite invasive to my privacy but that slim chance of winning a vacation (when I couldn't possibly get time off work) worth it.

Perhaps the Goverment of Canada should offer a chance to win a trip to PEI or Niagara Falls (or whatever) as a condition of completing the long-form or heck the short form for that matter. In addition to boosting participation it would be a form of economic stimulus.
JamesHalifax

C-9 wrote:
"James, in this cabinet document (appendix 1) there's a list of 14 federal government departments that, under legislation, *require* data from the census.
Can you explain which of these departments is no longer required and should be shut down? "

To which I respond:
You miss the point entirely of course. I'll say it again.

Canadians should not be threatened with jail or fines for refusing to divulge information they deem private. It is NO ONE"s business what a person's sexual orientation is, nor is it anyone's business who does the housework in the home.

YYZ

Everyone in the country is happy to end the part about jail time/fines. Stop using that as an argument.

JamesHalifax

YYZ noted:
"Everyone in the country is happy to end the part about jail time/fines. Stop using that as an argument."

Read what you just wrote YYZ. That is exactly what the Government has done. They've removed the punishments for not filling out the census.

If there is no punishment……how can the census be mandatory? What will the government do if a citizen refuses to fill out the census? There is no fine, and no threat of imprisonment.

The census has now become voluntary. In effect, you are sanctioning what Harper has done. Well done.

Of course, if it would make you feel better…….Harper can remove the fines and prison threat….and just STATE the census is mandatory. I suppose that would make you happy.

JamesHalifax

Make the census voluntary, but send it to more households. If certain segments of society choose not to participate, then that should be their right.

How's this. Get the names and addresses of everyone who's whining about the census, and send them a copy. That should take care of it.

As for the rest of us…………we'll choose what we wish to divulge. If not, we'll fib.

Signed:
JamesHalifax, Master Jedi of the 1st Order – Church of Yoda (peace be upon him)

Shiner

Quantitative research fail. It's amazing that this discussion has been going on for a month or so now and people still can't grasp the very simple problem making the form voluntary creates.

I also love this notion that you just choose the information you divulge to the government. It's cute. Because if the Canadian government wants information on a certain James in Halifax, how on earth could they possibly get it without the long form census!?

Holly Stick

The Conservatives probably have full information on him in their CIMS database, and they is not nearly as concerned about protecting people's privacy as StatsCan is.

Stephan

I know you're being cute with the Mast Jedi thing, but evidently the 2006 long form doesn't even ask you about your religion.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/instrument/3901_Q2_V3...

Also, if you're going to argue in favour of a voluntary census, you may as well argue for no census at all. What's the point of getting a) unrepresentative data, or b) incorrect information? I'm all in favour of people having different opinions points, so long as they are intelligent opinions.

JamesHalifax

Stephan wrote:
"I'm all in favour of people having different opinions points, so long as they are intelligent opinions"

Well.

Aren't you generous. You're in favour of people having their own opinions. You're just swell.

Of course, you do admit that any opinion you disapprove of will be labelled unintelligent.

How very Liberal of you.

Next.

Jan

James, maybe you should give this subject a pass. You obviously know nothing about the Census or statistics. This constant repetition ot misinformation and hackneyed Con talking point is not winning anyone over.

JamesHalifax

Jan wrote:
"James, maybe you should give this subject a pass. You obviously know nothing about the Census or statistics. This constant repetition ot misinformation and hackneyed Con talking point is not winning anyone over"

To which I reply:
Who said I was interested in winning anyone over? I care not a whit if you wish to stay in your bubble.

I am simply pointing out that we have a different opinion. I don't think ANYONE has the right to force me to divulge personal information for the benefit of beaurocrats and social programmers.

If you and everyone else who opposes the move to make the census voluntary want to fill out the census….by all means, do so. Just don't expect me to follow like a lemming.

s_c_f

What the Conservatives have accomplished is they've fired up the Liberal base to toss around their usual condescending insults, which leads to Conservative upswings in the polls.

Let's take a sampling:
Stephan wrote: "I'm all in favour of people having different opinions points, so long as they are intelligent opinions"
Knick: "OMG! Here we go again – somebody trying to reason with the Harper propaganda machine… "
Thwim: "I see you're already using the new CPC approved method of gathering evidence. Did it hurt when they shoved it up there? "
ZestMordant: "Fiscal conservatives like you must be so frustrated that Stephen Harper thinks the opposite of big government is small-minded government."
a-non: "That's like blinding someone because they blindfold themselves when they drive. Mind you, you're not actually taking away their keys and taking them out of the vehicle, but just gouging their eyes out."
Anon 001: "I guess you have never applied to the bank for a mortgage or filed taxes then, eh chucklehead? "
tedbetts: "With good, reliable data, government's can't simply make things up to justify their policy of choice. "
doug rogers: "If a government can't govern responsibly, then they can't be the government. If they can't be the government, then there can be no government. Fait accompli."
Anon 001 "You're not very bright, are you s_c_f? "

With your witty and reasoned comments, you've convinced me: anarchy will reign, the government's intent is to destroy Canada, and Conservatives are neanderthals incapable of coherent thought! All valid points!

What are we talking about again? Nuclear war? 50 years of unending Conservative dictatorship? Famine? Disease?

Oh yeah, we're talking about making voluntary the long form census. OMG!!!!! Is it really true? Can it be true? Have the Conservatives done something that the lefties don't like? Yes, it's true, and that can only mean that anarchy will reign. There is only one way forward, the Liberal way! All other roads lead to anarchy!

The quality of debate coming from the Harper-haters is breath-taking.

Loraine Lamontagne

Considering that we've been answering mandatory censuses for 140 years, all the while avoiding bolchevism, communism, naziism, McCarthyism, faschism, Conservatives who support the government's direction towards a national mandatory registry, as stated by Stockwell Day, still have to prove their case.

Answering a mandatory census of households is not an intrusion of privacy. Mandatory registries of citizens? Not so sure.
Stephan

FYI, s_c_f, I've only ever voted Conservative, but this is just a terrible move.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com StephenGordon

Three questions for CPC types:

1) When was the "nobody cares" line handed down from the PMO? Too many people have come up with the same line at the same time to believe that this is not an astroturf thing.
2) Does it come with a "do not use after" date, or are you supposed to bang away with it until further notice?
3) Do you know what the next meme-du-jour is and when it's supposed to come into effect?

s_c_f

1) well, common sense has a way of getting around, it's somewhat contagious
2) there is no expiry date on common sense, but it's not frozen in time either
3) that's the paranoia talking

I can't say I speak for all Conservatives, so the other 34% of the electorate who would vote Conservative might disagree with me (or the 50% who either support or are indifferent to this census decision). But, on the other hand, you are insinuating we're all mindless drones (Wherry's cult members like the terms conbots or neocons) – so if you're right maybe I do speak for all of them.
SHWM

Libertarians love asking questions, especially "what harm can it do?".

When you address the fact that you are cool with 30% of immigrants not filing income tax returns – income tax returns are sort of like a census except they actually pay for social programs – but not cool with some Canadians, especially Jews and gays and immigrants, having legitimate concerns over giving a hostile entity – gubmint, staffed by fanatically ideological public sector union goon bureaucrats – intimate data, then maybe I'll address some of your questions.

You don't care about data, or social programs, or good public policy; if you did, you'd be doing your job as an economist and raising hell over mass tax evasion by immigrants. Instead, it's all about bashing the CPC.
Gaunilon

Even amongst those of us who think the CPC made a blunder here, there are several who think most people don't actually care. Myself included.

The anti-CPC commenters on these boards far outnumber the pro-CPC commenters (like 5 to 1 in my estimation). Yet the CPC won a plurality of votes in the last two elections, and polls show it still commands 30-40% support. Ergo, anti-CPC types are, if anything, severely overrepresented on these boards (and they very often all echo each other, sometimes to an embarrassing extent). Therefore wouldn't it make more sense, from a statistical point of view, to suspect Liberal astroturfing?

Jan

So nobody cares, but if they do, they're Liberal plants. You are now officially at the bottom of the barrel. Harper has left you high and dry with no rational explanation for what he's doing. Direct your frustration at him.

Loraine Lamontagne

What the Conservatives have accomplished is to fire up some overly exited minds into thinking that Canada could spontaneously combust into some East Germany-like society because of a mandatory census. That we have been answering these questions for 140 years while developing into one of the freeest societies in the world makes no difference – we would suddenly be at risk. Yet the only thing that has changed, that I know of, is the arrival of Stephen Harper at the helm.
Chantal James

Conservatives talk of nothing but fines and jail time, and supporters of the census talk of nothing but the value of the data. No supporters actualy support really jailing or fining an offender, as it would be counterproductive.
When you have a law which the government and courts are unwilling to enforce, and which large numbers of a population do not obey, you must seriously question if this is because it is a bad law.
It would be inconvenient if statscan pushes for better data and increased compliance by actually prosecuting and fining and jailing offenders.
Many respondents break the law, write "object to question".(Look up Jedi Census Phenomenon on Wikipedia).
Chantal James

So a parent claims on the census their five year old son is a jedi knight, or a single mother objects to answering questions from the state that are unwanted and make her feel uncomfortable. Supporters of the census law hope no activist is really gets themselves charged, but isn't it obvious well before it reaches this stage that this is a bad law?

Or maybe it's a good law, as long as no one is really charged or prosecuted for breaking it, because if the law is actually enforced, it could come into desrepute and it becomes a bad law. It's a good law in theory, but a bad law in reality.

Loraine Lamontagne

I wonder how many jedi knights will be reported on the National Household Survey.

Chantal James

Statistics agencies of various countries treated Jedi responses as "Answer understood, but will not be counted". Why? If its mandatory I thought this was the gold standard. How many other purposely wrong answers were given that were were actually counted as the truth?
All democratic governments are trying to deal with the same types of problems. It's no surprise this has come up in Canada.
The only thing that is surprising is how in Canada we're not capable of having a balanced debate, and Harper refuses to talk about the need for acurate census data, and defenders of the census refuse to talk about fines and jail time.
Science might be right about the data but wrong about the law. Meanwhile, the Liberals are being painted as for fining and jailing of citizens who object to some of StatsCans questions about your life.
Harper's taken all the fun out of it, won't play Jedi with me anymore:(
Thwim

Might I suggest that evidence indicates your first conclusion does not at all follow from your first premise.
doug rogers

If a government can’t govern responsibly, then they can’t be the government. If they can’t be the government, then there can be no government. Fait accompli.
John W.

One thing the Harper government has achieved by this is controversy, aside from ending the long form, they have fired up the base to increase the organized opposition to the short form census next year. So it is a step a long the way to no census at all. Surely the activists who are ranting about the invasive long form and the penalties associated with it, do not support the short form. There is another battle to come.
s_c_f

Actually, I doubt it. That's your paranoia talking.