For the record, I agree with the attached Globe Editorial. And I think it is perfect reasonable duty for one in five Canadian citizens to spend 20-30 minutes every five years to share information in an anonymous manner to facilitate government and business decisions. Tell Minister Clement what you think via twitter.
Quoting the editorial, “The elimination of the long-form questionnaire will result in losses across many areas of Canada’s public life, well described by academics and policy-makers.
Yet the federal government has yet to offer any reasons for getting rid of it that can stand up to scrutiny. And that is no basis for public policy of any sort.“
“Flawed arguments for census changes” (emphasis added)
- The elimination of the long-form questionnaire will result in losses across many areas of Canada’s public life. Yet the federal government has yet to offer any reasons for getting rid of it that can stand up to scrutiny.
From Monday’s Globe and Mail
Published on Sunday, Jul. 18, 2010 8:00PM EDT
The federal government has advanced a number of arguments to justify the abolition of the long-form questionnaire in the 2011 census in favour of a new voluntary “National Household Survey.” Each claim is flawed, faulty or incomplete, and together they display a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of census-taking, and a worrying approach to governing.
Tony Clement has made three assertions or suggestions. The first is that the National Household Survey, to be sent to 33 per cent of households (the long-form questionnaire goes to just 20 per cent), will be just as accurate.
But while surveys are inherently statistical, the census is primarily a counting exercise.
The census has its own sampling procedures to ensure data accuracy. But those problems can be managed. According to a Statistics Canada technical report on sampling in the 2006 Census, “calibrating sample estimates to known population counts as part of the census weighting procedures helped to reduce the impact of biases.”
Voluntary surveys, on the other hand, are known to create much larger biases, with lower participation from the poor, the very rich and aboriginals. These generate results that do not reflect the population and require adjustments.
These biases are harder to detect without a good base of objective knowledge. Increasing the sample size, from 20 to 33 per cent, is irrelevant; cancelling the long-form census removes that objective base.
The long-form census also creates reliable data that is the basis for almost all other major sampling exercises in Canada.
Ivan Fellegi, chief statistician of Canada for 23 years, said that the sampling for the Labour Force Survey, which generates unemployment statistics, is based on long-form census data.
And if the long-form questionnaire is abolished, it will be hard to compare the data to past censuses.
In other words, the new survey cannot use the same standards as past censuses, nor can it deliver the same level of data accuracy, and it compromises future surveys.
Mr. Clement has stated that the long-form census questionnaire has generated many privacy complaints.
Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has received just three complaints in the last two censuses. The House of Commons has no record of any petition tabled by an MP about these concerns. Nor has it come up in private members’ statements.
In addition, governments still do mandatory “intrusive” surveys. The Labour Force Survey is mandatory. The Canada Revenue Agency requires disclosure of all sources of income.
And completion of the 2011 Census of Agriculture is also mandatory; failure to participate can lead to a fine or prison.
That census requires a report on the area of fields irrigated, the number of live honeybee colonies hosted and the incurred cost of veterinary services, to name just three examples, of every farm in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Clement said that Statistics Canada vouches for this new process.
However, the agency itself refused to go on the record in support, saying, “Statistics Canada is not in a position to answer questions on the advice it gave the Minister in relation to recent statements the Minister has made.”
If it fully supports the measures, Statistics Canada should be forthcoming with its explanation and analysis.
Taken together, the government’s arguments fail to justify the course chosen.
These are not abstract considerations. The elimination of the long-form questionnaire will result in losses across many areas of Canada’s public life, well described by academics and policy-makers.
Yet the federal government has yet to offer any reasons for getting rid of it that can stand up to scrutiny. And that is no basis for public policy of any sort.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
Obviously you have never been threatened with a jail term, for refusing to answer all the questions on the long census form. I can’t find a copy of the form anywhere on line, but unless the questions have changed significantly, some are simply racist. Others are our own business. 30-40 minutes is not the issue here. The public should be able to refuse to answer any questions that they find offensive.
g.s.
@Gregg
- Has anyone ever been jailed for not filling in the long-form questionnaire?
No.
- Can the Harper government decide what is the appropriate penalty for non-compliance?
Yes.
- Can the Harper government decide what question to change/accept/reject in the long form without turning the whole long form to voluntary?
Absolutely yes.
Check out page 10 of this Census Content Consultation Guide (pdf). It is the Harper Cabinet’s job to accept/reject/modify the questions. So the idea of claiming intrusive questions are bogus red herrings. Don’t like the questions, talk to the experts, consult the users, and change them.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/consultation/ContentGuide-GuideContenu/2011_Census_Content_Consultation_Guide.pdf
and my post,
http://kempton.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/voluntary-census-long-form-questionnaire-wasting-35-years-worth-of-canadians-census-effort/
Actually Gregg, you don’t need to worry. Not only do you not get sent to jail, but you also will never be fined, and there are no fact-checkers to come back and confirm you haven’t just lied.
What StatsCan and the Liberals are really upset about is that a de facto voluntary census is now a de jure voluntary census. The public will generally fill out the census as is. A few (though surely a growing number) of privacy-sensitive individuals and/or utter crankpots will not. They never would have anyways. Clement pointed out that people should want to fill out the long form. He would do it himself, he encourages people to do likewise.
He just won’t let the government bully those who disagree with him.
Only the Harper government can turn a statistical snapshot of Canadians, a picture of who we are as a country into a crisis.
By your logic, there are Canadians that cheated and lied on their taxes, and may be taxes should be voluntary too.
The resignation of the Chief Statistician, true to simple and basic principle of his profession, has sent shock wave around the country and around the world. Of course, there will always be some Canadians who don’t care or don’t have the knowledge to care. But should they be the judge and jury of everything that they are ignorant of (medicine, monetary policies, etc)?
The issue is not the census, but the intimidation used to create compliance among vulnerable segments of the population, particularly the poor and aboriginals. This is citizen abuse, and the fact that we’ve been doing it forever is no excuse. I was quite astonished when I reviewed the questions on the 2001 and 2006 long-forms. Asking people if they’re in a same-sex common-law relationship, or which of the children in the household were born out of wedlock, seems pretty personal. If the government needs to ask these sorts of questions fair enough, but people who feel they’re too intrusive need to be free to decline to answer without any fear of retaliation.
@Dan
I believe it is important to understand the reasons behind why the census questions were asked in 2001 or 2006 before quickly jumping to conclusions. I am no expert in census but I think StatsCan or experts more familiar with census methodology can better ask your and others concerns re some seemingly intrusive questions.
Asking how many bedrooms we have in our house may seem unreasonably to some until we realize that is an important piece of information for home builders and the city planners to issue the right type of building permits, or for home builders to plan, build the right kind of homes for Canadians.
I want to make two points clear:
1) Every single census questions were designed to address at least one or more purpose and the data collected are important to serve Canadians better and the users can include governments of any or all three levels, businesses, and charitable organizations, etc.
2) It is totally within the power and rights of the sitting government to refine or in the worst case reject a census question. There is an existing process for such census questions evaluation. (see my earlier blog entry which links to a StatsCan document) The government doesn’t need to make the whole census “voluntary” which is a survey and not a census.
Hope this help.
Thanks Kempton, you essentially just wrote my short essay haha. Especially with the comments. I agree with you though, changing the long-form into a voluntary survey is rubbish. Hopefully, we’ll see a change.
Aaron,
I hope the government will change its mind too.
P.S. Is the short essay for a stats class? You are making me feel guilty now, if I had “essentially just wrote” your “short essay”. :)