Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • CED in Manitoba - The Video January 29, 2018
    Community Economic Development in Manitoba - nudging capitalism out of the way?
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • With regional management BC’s iconic forest industry can benefit British Columbians rather than multinational corporations January 17, 2018
    Forests are one of the iconic symbols of British Columbia, and successive governments and companies operating here have largely focussed on the cheap, commodity lumber business that benefits industry. Former provincial forestry minister Bob Williams, who has been involved with the industry for five decades, proposes regional management of this valuable natural resource to benefit […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Community Economic Development in Manitoba - a new film January 16, 2018
    Cinameteque, Jan 23.  7:00 pm - Free event Film Trailer CCEDNET-MB, CCPA-MB, The Manitoba Research Alliance and Rebel Sky Media presents: The Inclusive Economy:  Stories of Community Economic Development in Manitoba
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Winnipeg's State of the Inner City 2018 January 3, 2018
    Winnipeg's community-based organizations are standing on shakey ground and confused about how to proceed with current provincial governement measurements.  Read the 2018 State of the Inner City Report.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Our Schools/Our Selves: Winter 2018 is online now! December 18, 2017
    For the first time, this winter we are making Our Schools/Our Selves available in its entirety online. This issue of Our Schools/Our Selves focuses on a number of key issues that education workers, parents, students, and public education advocates are confronting in schools and communities, and offers on-the-ground commentary and analysis of what needs to […]
    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