Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • CCPA in Europe for CETA speaking tour October 17, 2017
    On September 21, Canada and the European Union announced that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a controversial NAFTA-plus free trade deal initiated by the Harper government and signed by Prime Minister Trudeau in 2016, was now provisionally in force. In Europe, however, more than 20 countries have yet to officially ratify the deal, […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Twelve year study of an inner-city neighbourhood October 12, 2017
    What does twelve years of community organizing look like for a North End Winnipeg neighbourhood?  Jessica Leigh survey's those years with the Dufferin community from a community development lens.  Read full report.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Losing your ID - even harder to recover when you have limited resources! October 10, 2017
    Ellen Smirl researched the barriers experienced by low-income Manitobans when faced with trying to replace lost, stolen, or never aquired idenfication forms. Read full report here.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA recommendations for a better North American trade model October 6, 2017
    The all-party House of Commons trade committee is consulting Canadians on their priorities for bilateral and trilateral North American trade in light of the current renegotiation of NAFTA. In the CCPA’s submission to this process, Scott Sinclair, Stuart Trew, and Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood argue for a different kind of trading relationship that is inclusive, transformative, and […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Ontario’s fair wage policy needs to be refreshed September 28, 2017
    The Ontario government is consulting on ways to modernize the province’s fair wage policy, which sets standards for wages and working conditions for government contract workers such as building cleaners, security guards, building trades and construction workers. The fair wage policy hasn’t been updated since 1995, but the labour market has changed dramatically since then. […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Rolling Thunder Census Review

The sound of backlash to the government’s decision on cutting the Census long-form questionnaire continues to rumble across the country.

Tuesday’s Globe and Mail published a story on the topic as well as a column by Andre Picard which was drawn primarily from the open letter on this blog.

The next day the sound of outrage came from Mr. Harper’s backyard as Calgary city planners decried the government’s decision in a  story posted by the Globe.

Yesterday Jim Travers at the Star continued the charge launched by their editorial last week, and Haroon Siddiqui’s column in that paper on Sunday will be on this subject.

Today’s  letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail continue the sound and fury of responses to this bad decision, of course in the reasoned tones expected from readers of the Globe.

Nobody but the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, Tony Clement, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Marjorie LeBreton, who took on questions during Question Period in the Senate earlier in the week, seems to know where the concerns over the “coercive” nature of government, the “intrusive” nature of the Census or the “unreliable” nature of answers given to a mandatory questionnaire are coming from.  Yet these are the official reasons given for the Cabinet decision to ax the long-form questionnaire. If there is evidence to back these claims up, they are not sharing it.

Changes to large public exercises, like the Census or the budget, are regularly preceded by public consultations in most democracies.  Yesterday I circulated the report of the consultation Statistics Canada took on changes required for Census 2011 to a group of researchers across the country who are part of a municipally-based data consortium that relies heavily on Census data.

This report is the type of evidence that the Cabinet would have had available to make its decision on what kind of changes are being sought for the Census. [There may be a story on it later today from Canwest report, Shannon Proudfoot.]  The Statistics Canada’s consultations indeed did raise the issues of “respondent burden” and privacy – clearly the government’s biggest concerns – but raised other important considerations when changing the Census:

Preparing for a new census requires a careful evaluation of data needs. The decision to include new questions and modify or eliminate existing census content is not taken in isolation. The input and insight gained from consultation is an important part of the mix. Equally necessary is the consideration of a number of factors, such as support to legislation, program and policy needs, respondent burden, data quality, costs, historical comparability, privacy, operational considerations and alternative data sources.

The summary of their consultation is fascinating.  Most people wanted Census to ask more, not fewer questions.  Not once was privacy raised by the 1,200 in-person conversations and written submissions, including private individuals, even though people were discussing religion, family arrangements, etc.  Nor was the issue of “burden” imposed by filling the Census out raised by any of the submissions.  (That’s not so surprising – it takes about 25 minutes to fill the thing out, and the average Canadian might have that civic duty every 25 years.)  That said, people were clear that they didn’t think Census is the appropriate data-collection tool for everything.  Some areas of inquiry, such as unpaid work, were judged to be more appropriately considered through a different survey.

2006 was the first year we had after-tax income data avilable.  This wa sonly possible because respondents were asked if they would permit StatCan to link their Census answers to their tax files at CRA. (Customs and Revenue Agency).  That was a voluntary check off box.  StatCan officials told me the response rate to that question was 82.4%

Clearly the vast majority of Canadians do not mistrust StatCan, the Census of the government.  But if this government works hard enough at it, all that will change.

Instead of standing by and letting that happen, a remarkable cross-section of Canadian society – bankers and business consultants, city planners, immigration and settlement workers, community service providers, charities and municipalities, academics and public health officials – is discussing how best to come together to reverse this decision.

Stay posted for more developments.  Meanwhile, if you can’t stomach what is happening either, sign this petition , make a comment on this digital government consultation, and call your MP.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Kelsey Kirkland
Time: July 9, 2010, 2:09 pm

“Nobody but the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, Tony Clement, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Marjorie LeBreton, who took on questions during Question Period in the Senate earlier in the week, seems to know where the concerns over the “coercive” nature of government, the “intrusive” nature of the Census or the “unreliable” nature of answers given to a mandatory questionnaire are coming from. Yet these are the official reasons given for the Cabinet decision to ax the long-form questionnaire. If there is evidence to back these claims up, they are not sharing it.”

Even if they produce the evidence, don’t believe them. Consider the case of S Korean Cheonan sinking evidence produced by multiple international partners(all S Korean Allies) which did not stand up to the scrutiny of global community and UN.

Comment from Salty Crackers
Time: July 9, 2010, 2:49 pm

good point Armine, one of the outcomes of this entire fiasco is a giant hit to Statcan’s credibility.

Fostering a trusting relationship with one’s citizenry is such a difficult and complicated, delicate and very long, process. It has taken statcan 100 and some years to get it to the point where most Canadians feel Statcan is neutral non-partisan, and trustworthy. How can such a huge decision be made, with such little regard for consultation of the user base. Is anybody in charge of the place???????

Pretty strange and just plain idiotic for sure, and that is precisely how one goes about destroying all those millions of bonds of trust we all have with such an institution.

I truly believe that if Harper was left to run the country on his own, without all the support form the liberals, he would soon be gone.

Just another example of how not to run government.

I did like Jim Traver’s article in the Star.

National Building is not easy stuff.

Write a comment





Related articles