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

The scientific case for questionable accuracy

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, February 14, 2011 10:07am - 40 Comments

Stephen Gordon responds to the new Chief Statistician’s claim there’s “no scientific basis” for claiming the National Household Survey will be flawed.

This is wrong, and badly so. So wrong that when his political masters suggested in public that the analysts at Statistics Canada were of this opinion, Munir Sheikh – Mr Smith’s predecessor as Chief Statistician – felt obliged to resign in order to speak freely and correct the record … In point of fact, Statistics Canada has done quite a bit of research documenting the fundamental flaws associated with voluntary surveys; see Kevin Milligan’s guest post as well as this. Insisting that “critics cannot be sure” is a remarkable thing for a Chief Statistician to say; statistics is not in the business of providing absolute certainty.

Tags: census, long-form census, Munir Sheikh, National Household Survey, Statistics Canada, Stephen Gordon, Wayne Smith

More by Aaron Wherry

Stewart_Smith

Sometimes you really have to feel for the Conservative core. Not only is this government spending monies ripped from the taxpayer's bosom like it was going out of style, titillating Quebec ~~whiners~~ voters with the possibility of an icy new palace, now they want to dramatically increase the government's intrusion into the most private places of the citizenry not by a transparent request but rather by widely sharing information throughout government agencies. Fortunately the Conservatives are all about the science so they beta-tested this approach some time ago to determine its effectiveness. http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2010/nr-c_101007…

Personally I see the biggest problem being a dramatic drop in the domestic birth rate. (How many could really have sex knowing SH is in the bedroom?) On the plus side, the government may finally find out that illusive bit of info they have been obsessing over… Just how many toilets do you have?

McC_

ew.

thanks SS, we may never get frisky again…

LdKitchenersOwn

Of course, as Professor Gordon points out, this is the whole reason we have a new Chief Statistician of Canada, because the old Chief Statistician of Canada had too much integrity to try to obfuscate reality like this.

One thing I'm less sure about though is why didn't we just eliminate the position of Chief Statistician all together? If this is the sort of thing we're going to get from the Chief Statistician from now on, why don't we just get our answers about statistical methodology directly from Tony Clement's Twitter feed?

MostlyCivil

"why didn't we just eliminate the position of Chief Statistician all together?"

Tony can't jump in front of the bus himself, you know. That's why you have staff. Or dupes.

LdKitchenersOwn

OF COURSE! I forgot about that.

Wayne Smith is the guy we fire when it inevitably turns out that Munir Sheikh was right!

tedbetts

"One thing I'm less sure about though is why didn't we just eliminate the position of Chief Statistician all together?"

For the exact same reason we still have a Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Minister of the Environment. The appearance of functioning democratic government is very important to this government, for whom appearance is everything/only thing.

TJCook

Don't forget the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – its continued existence helps give the impression that nuclear safety is important.

gottabesaid

Has anybody checked the text of Smith's original comments to make sure someone didn't pencil in a strategic 'not' in there?

Jan

I see the head of Statscan as a hostage – 'Yes, they are treatng me well – please send the ransom money'. And I see the government is looking into the registry system – there goes the anti-government intrusion argument they used,
I'm starting to think they're nothing but a bunch of lying b*stards.

tedbetts

"starting to think"??????????
Andrew (not PorC)

I believe their goal is to destroy federal institutions. Statscan? Mission accomplished!

LdKitchenersOwn

"There is no scientific reason why you would say before it even starts, before I see results, that there’s going to necessarily be a significant problem".

Similarly, there's no scientific reason why you would say before he even hits the ground, before I see results, that the guy who just jumped off that 20 storey building is necessarily going to have a significant problem.

Maybe it's just me, but I think the Chief Statistician of our nation just suggested that statistics have no scientifically valid predictive value. In fact, I think he just suggested that the very notion of rationally predicting anything about the future is hogwash. There's apparently no scientific means for one to predict what's going to happen before it happens. Is the Sun going to come up tomorrow? Is the U.S. going to invade Switzerland? Is the Pacific Ocean going to evaporate? Who knows? No one can know!

Has the head of a federal agency ever made such a succinct case that his entire chosen field of endeavour is useless and that his whole department should be shut down?

tobyornotoby

Give Peter Kent time! He's only been the Environment Minister for a few weeks.
tedbetts

Has the head of a federal agency ever made such a succinct case that his entire chosen field of endeavour is useless and that his whole department should be shut down? "

Isn't that exactly what Harper is doing with government as a whole?

tedbetts

Correction: Perhaps the only beneficiary.

McC_

the extra costs of administering the National Household Survey across the country should also trickle down at some point, and these other beneficiaries may also form a consituency in favour of maintaining this expensive exercise in questionable accuracy.

LdKitchenersOwn

Though, interestingly, the $30 million that was supposed to go towards advertising for the long form in an attempt to mitigate that effects of moving from a mandatory survey to a voluntary one? Apparently that's been canceled. I'd like to think that this is because someone realized that you can't actually correct for the fact that the survey is now voluntary, so why waste money pretending you can, but I'm pretty sure they just decided not to waste money pretending they can keep the data as accurate as it used to be because they DON'T CARE that the data's going to be less accurate.

tobyornotoby

Pshaw. This government doesn't need a reason to waste money.
McC_

I stand corrected; looks like that theory about their cunning plan is fit for the questionable accuracy bin.
tedbetts

See you are way overthinking this.

The "$50M" more for advertising etc. was always only just there on paper so they could use it in the talking points "It'll be OK because we're going to spend $X more to make it OK".

Blue

There is a certain conservatism of the left in this country that is almost too cute.
To validate his agenda, Wherry must go to Gordon, who must go to Sheikh, who is only too happy to predict catastrophe for any changes in a profession where he was used to doing things a certain way for 30 some years. It is normal for older men to resist any changes in the way they have done things for years.
What is ironic in this census situation is that Libs, the NDP, and the left in Canada have taken the role of the conservative establishment. They cannot imagine that their may be a better way of doing things even in a world where there is more emphasis on personal freedom.

gottabesaid

'there may be a better way of doing things even in a world where there is more emphasis on personal freedom.'

Although, the 'better way' being investigated by the Conservatives — that is, getting the information through a 'register census' — will result in a loss of privacy.

LdKitchenersOwn

Yeah, I've got to say, if it's a choice between asking me questions and insisting that I answer, versus "don't worry, we'll just traipse through all of the government''s records on you an cull all the information we need without even letting you know when we're doing it", I'll take the transparent mandatory list of questions once every decade or so, thank you very much.

MostlyCivil

"where he was used to doing things a certain way for 30 some years"

Or, as we also call it "the right way".

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

History be damned. Everything begins with me.
Stewart_Smith

I think the leftie conservatism is more about asking for some internal consistency. For me, I don't look for it from the politicians (I am not that naive) but rather their true blue supporters. If you supported removing the go-to-jail, mandatory census as an unnecessary intrusion into your life then how can immediately support such a massive retraction of protection for private information? If you fretted about the competency of Statistics Canada in managing limited information, why provide the government with an opportunity to vastly increase the scope and detail it collects? Finally, if you dislike the incremental encroachment of government into every aspect of your life, why give it the eyes, ears and nostrils to really rip into your personal junk?

I could actually support what is being proposed here, but then I believe government is generally good, although it screws up like any large organization. I believe taxes are necessary and I simply ask that the government collect them effectively and fairly. I supported the mandatory census, because I felt the public good outweighed the inconvenience and minor privacy threat. So I can imagine a Liberal favorably considering an expanded capacity of the government to monitor the activities of the citizenry.

What I cannot imagine, is a true conservative supporting this. My conclusion is that the only requirement for being a Conservative these day is carrying enough hate for Trudeau in your heart to overlook, well everything.
tobyornotoby

How about we "emphasi(ze) personal freedom" the next time we plan a G20 extravagaza? Or negotiate new border rules, or when we are contemplating what to do with those dangerous cultivators of six marijuana plants? Can't those rightie conservatives come up with a better way of protecting citizens that doesn't involve arresting and incarcerating them?
LdKitchenersOwn

When it comes down to deciding who to listen to, the guy who resigned his job because he wasn't willing to spin the truth to the government's liking, or the guy who replaced him when he so refused, I know who I'm going to stick with.
E_B_

One would have thought that those who professed to be against the mandatory long form census would be against:

“People have suggested that if we could make a register[-based] census work in Canada, we could save buckets of money and avoid annoying a whole bunch of Canadians in asking them to fill out forms.”

As a matter of fact, I am truly surprised that several heads haven't exploded. I could just imagine what the reaction to this if it was proposed by the Liberals.

I would certainly prefer to be asked a few questions to my face, as opposed to having a government that has demonstrated that it is extraordinarily secretive sneaking around behind my back gathering data.

But, hey, if this is what you want from a Conservative government…just wow.
Jan

Stephen Gordon is left wing? That's got to be the dumbest thing you've ever said. Certainly in the top ten.

LdKitchenersOwn

That's uncalled for.

There's NO WAY that makes Blue's top ten!

Blue

I disagree with many of you on this site, however, I usually pay attention to what you say. But there are a few folks I ignore—one of them is Jan because she contributes nothing but negative, insulting, vacuous comments. When I see one of you encouraging her, then I assume you are of like character.

LdKitchenersOwn

It is normal for older men to resist any changes in the way they have done things for years.

Yeah, THAT's why a career public servant quit his job after decades of service – because he's afraid of change!

Halo_Override

That's totally why I left Gawker.

Blue

No matter if you folks deny it, there is a conservative left-wing establishment in this country. Of course the secure, well-paid, indexed-pensioned, government employee will resist any change to the process, if it means they lose some power. So, relax, change will happen and most of us don`t fear it.

Originally the reason for opposing the change in the mandatory census form was the accusation that some accuracy would be lost. That tactic did not work. The people don`t believe you. So the new tactic ( lie ) is to scare people into believing that the gov`t plan to release all classified information about citizens. That won`t work either.

We all know the real reason why liberals are opposed to anything the gov`t proposes—-it`s all about partisan politics. it`s bad politics on your part—–I fully expect the Liberal Party to drop into the teens in popular support by the time the next election rolls around.

gottabesaid

"Originally the reason for opposing the change in the mandatory census form was the accusation that some accuracy would be lost. That tactic did not work. The people don`t believe you."

It wasn't a tactic! It was the truth! And it's not all about 'partisan politics' or else everybody and their dog wouldn't have called the government on their decision.

I get it that the Liberals or anybody else aren't getting any political traction on this, and I get it that a lot of people just don't care. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that it was the right decision, and it doesn't mean that opposition to said decision was politically motivated. There are lots of Conservative supporters on this board who agree that it was a stupid move. The decision brought people together, it was so dumb.

Holly Stick

Dishonest people project their own dishonesty onto other people who may well be honest.
Blue

gbs—everybody and their dog are not opposed to the change in the long form census, though many in the media and some of the 24% still supporting the Liberals would have you believe so.

Trust the people to know what is important—-don`t trust the Wherrys, the Gordons, and the Sheikhs of the world. They with their own agenda.

gottabesaid

Poor wording on my part… I should have said 'everybody and their dog who use the data and understand how valuable that data is'. I acknowledge that plenty of 'average Canadians' don't care. I would say that the number of people who were opposed to the long form census before the change was infintessimal.

I do trust the people to know what is important. However, I also believe that for people to know what is important, they have to be informed, and they have to be engaged. And I don't believe the Wherrys, Gordons or Sheikhs of the world have any more or less of an agenda than Harper or Clement. I just happen to stand on the side of the Wherrys and Gordons and Sheikhs on this one.

Jenn_

What do you call someone who sells themselves for money again?

What do you call someone who gives up the concept of privacy, in the name of preserving privacy?

Are the two names related in some way?