Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Budget 2018: The Most Disappointing Budget Ever March 14, 2018
    Premier Pallister’s Trump-esque statement that budget 2018 was going to be the “best budget ever” has fallen a bit flat. Instead of a bold plan to deal with climate change, poverty and our crumbling infrastructure, we are presented with two alarmist scenarios to justify further tax cuts and a lack of decisive action: the recent […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2018 Federal Budget Analysis February 14, 2018
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis Some baby steps for dad and big steps forward for women, by Kate McInturff (CCPA) An ambition constrained budget, by David Macdonald (CCPA) Five things […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 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
Progressive Bloggers


Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

NHS fails low incomes–and Canadians

Unfortunately the following note to readers from today’s release of the third and final set of data from the National Household Survey by Statistics Canada speaks for itself:

Note to readers

Comparability of low-income estimates

Low-income estimates from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) compared with previous censuses show markedly different trends than those derived from other surveys and administrative data such as the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics or the T1 Family File.

Data to support quality estimates of low-income trends require a stable methodology over time that has similar response patterns. With the new methodology of the NHS, estimates of low income are not comparable with the census-based estimates produced in the past.

Previous census income releases compared low-income rates over time using the low-income cut-off (LICO). Given the lack of comparability of the trends and to prevent misleading conclusions arising from comparisons of LICO estimates from the NHS with earlier censuses, estimates of low income based on LICO are not available as a standard product from the NHS. They are available upon request.

The Harper government’s decision to drop the Census and replace it with the voluntary National Household Survey has clearly been a major failure.  As many from across the spectrum expected, the results aren’t comparable to previous Censuses or to administrative data for major sections of the population.     Kudos to Statistics Canada for at least being honest about it.  This doesn’t mean that all is lost and nothing can be considered reliable from it, but it will take some time to determine what can be considered reliable or not, especially with the technical documentation and methodology not to be released until next year.

The NHS will of course provide a greater level of detail in many areas, but I suspect analysts won’t consider most of these credible unless the general results for those populations confirmed by other surveys and data sources.  A dark cloud will remain over the NHS results wherever there isn’t a stronger light shining from other more reliable statistical sources.

Armine Yalnizyan, Kevin Milligan and others have written, blogged and tweeted much more extensively about this and I look forward to their further comments and commentary.


Useful analysis over at   “The only way Statscan was able to publish the 2011 NHS data was by remarkably dropping its quality standard by doubling the acceptable global non-response rate.”

If Statscan had applied the quality standards it used in the 2006 Census, they would have only been able to release data for 19% of the Census Subdivisions (CSDs).   In comparison, 84% of the census subdivisions met this quality standard for long-form responses in the 2006 Census.  Non-response was so high in the 2011 NHS that more than a third didn’t meet these much dramatically lower statistical quality standards.

It’s sad that so much has been wasted through this.  I, like no doubt other analysts, researchers and social scientists, eagerly anticipate new sources of data, especially from the Census.  It’s our raw material, but it needs to be of a decent quality, otherwise it’s not credible and is unusable.   I was hoping for better results, but if Statscan warns about its reliability after significantly dropping their quality standards, unfortunately there’s not a lot we can do with it.  It’s a bit like tainted meat: difficult to figure out what’s worthwhile and what isn’t, especially when it gets used for other products.

Enjoy and share:


Comment from Bill Prouten
Time: September 11, 2013, 1:22 pm

Hmmm…..there will no longer be reliable data on low income Canadians, and most statistics will be called into question….which means that the Conservatives (in this particular case) can denounce any data brought by the opposition to challenge their policies as being unreliable or unconfirmed or unclear…..and then they can continue to make decisions based on their Free-Market ideology, rather than on science and real life.

Does anyone think this result of dropping the Long Form Census was unforeseen? It was planned all along.

Write a comment

Related articles