I’ve posted a few articles to explain why Stephen Harper should reverse his census decision now. Here are a few more reasons and views that I share.
“The government’s decision on the census, the debate flowing from this decision, and some commentary from the government on Statistics Canada’s independence and the free ride many users are alleged to enjoy are risking the quality of data from both the operational and trust perspectives. Operationally, the long-form census provides benchmarking for many surveys within Statistics Canada (and outside). These surveys will suffer. By making a decision on a technical issue – which the government has every right to do under the current legislation – the government risks the creation of a trust gap.
It takes ages to establish credibility. It takes much less to tarnish it. […] I urge the government to rethink its position on the census. We still have time to reverse the decision.” – Munir Sheikh, Canada’s former chief statistician
“Imagine. Every religious group opposed the Harper assault, as did business organizations representing everything from Bay Street to mom-and-pop stores, universities, trade unions, social groups, aboriginals, minority-language groups – the list goes on and on. Even international statistics experts, who recently gathered in Vancouver for a conference, condemned the Harper decision.
Canadians witnessed the disgusting spectacle of careerist ministers – Industry’s Tony Clement in the lead – tap dancing to the Prime Minister’s tune. Their justification for dispensing with the long form – the best chance of getting the most accurate data – was a mélange of distortions, misrepresentations and exaggerations of so gross a kind that Canadians recoiled in indignation.
To wit: Statistics Canada officials do not show up at people’s homes at 10 p.m. No one has gone to prison for failing to fill out the long-form census, despite ministerial assertions that jail terms await the recalcitrant. A voluntary form is not an acceptable substitute for a mandatory long form, a Clementism so offensive that it forced the head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, to quit. Canadians saw honour in Mr. Sheikh’s resignation, although he really had no choice, so distorted were the Clementisms.” – Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail
“This is the fourth distinct reason that the Conservatives have given for cancelling the long-form census, and each one has been found wanting. First, it was too coercive (even though no one has evidently ever been charged for not filling out the census). Then, they argued that the replacement voluntary survey would be sufficient (even though it is more expensive, and more subject to bias). Then, misleading answers – too many people claiming to be Jedi knights – justified the change (even though StatsCan’s adjustments for the mandatory census make it more reliable than any other survey).
Now, in their disdain for the myriad groups that have opposed the decision, the Conservatives appear to be rallying anew, in defence of an idealized individual who needs government help to fight an “intrusive” government census. But ultimately, no such person exists. No individual is disconnected from society. The “they” Mr. Clement is condemning is, in fact, “us.”” – Globe Editorial, Aug 9, 2010
“We should first dispense with the zombie meme of “Many countries have dropped the census, so we can too.” This has been blown away any number of times, but it insists on lumbering across the political landscape in search of brains.
Yes, there are several examples of countries — especially in Scandinavia — that have abandoned the traditional census. These countries maintain databases that keep track of all interactions between the citizen and the State, so a census is simply redundant: the government already knows everything there is to know about you. For example, they know where you live, they know when you moved there (all movements must be registered with the police), and they know from the zoning registries just how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have. They even know your high school trigonometry marks — why bother with a census? If you’re concerned about issues such as privacy and state coercion, these are not counter-examples that you should be citing.” – Stephen Gordon, National Post
******* ******* *******
For the record and for completeness, I’ve included some of the full text of the above articles.
by Munir Sheikh
Tuesday Aug 10, 2010, Globe and Mail
The Prime Minister, at a recent caucus meeting, took pride in Canada’s economic performance and said it is doing better than many other countries. On social outcomes, Canada is generally regarded as a world leader and a trendsetter.
How do we know this? Because of our statistics. Statistics produced by Statistics Canada, an organization that is respected all over the world, an organization whose advice and leadership is sought by many, including international statistical agencies. I know this because I have heard it with my own ears. I was there. And this reputation exists because of the high quality of its data, Statistics Canada’s hallmark.
There are two distinct parts to producing quality statistics. The first is operational. Quality means that the data Statistics Canada releases must accurately reflect the phenomena it is trying to capture. The creation of jobs and the unemployment rate calculated from a mandatory sample must be reflective of the entire labour market to allow the federal government to develop its economic and social policies. The determination of the rate of inflation from a sample of prices must accurately reflect the inflation rate in the country to allow the Bank of Canada to properly set interest rates. The magnitude of the recent financial crisis that was captured in trustworthy Statistics Canada data allowed governments to develop appropriate policies.
The other element of quality is trust in Statistics Canada’s numbers. Collecting data is a massive, complex exercise whose many elements are totally unknown to many data users. But they have trust in Statistics Canada data because it is a politically neutral, perceived-to-be-independent, objective and highly professional organization. If this trust is gone, it does not matter how good the data are technically.
The government’s decision on the census, the debate flowing from this decision, and some commentary from the government on Statistics Canada’s independence and the free ride many users are alleged to enjoy are risking the quality of data from both the operational and trust perspectives. Operationally, the long-form census provides benchmarking for many surveys within Statistics Canada (and outside). These surveys will suffer. By making a decision on a technical issue – which the government has every right to do under the current legislation – the government risks the creation of a trust gap.
It takes ages to establish credibility. It takes much less to tarnish it.
The issue of Statistics Canada’s independence is a serious matter, and I implore the government to look into this issue. Otherwise, we may not be able to claim that we are the best, even if we are, because the trust in Statistics Canada will have taken a hit.
I urge the government to rethink its position on the census. We still have time to reverse the decision. One option – and the government would need to consult Statistics Canada on this – would be to send the long-form questions for printing as scheduled. If the decision is reversed in the weeks following debate and analysis, one could simply put the short form and the long form in one envelope for the 20-per-cent sample with a letter from the chief statistician highlighting the mandatory nature of both, at the time the census process begins. If the voluntary survey decision stands after a careful rethink, a letter from the chief statistician could simply confirm the voluntary nature of the long form, sent separately from the short forms as currently planned.
We still have time to determine what must be done on the census issue that is in the best interest of the Canadian people.
Munir Sheikh, Canada’s former chief statistician, is a distinguished fellow and adjunct professor at the School of Policy Studies at Queen’s University.
*******
by Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2010 5:00AM EDT
It’s been a fine summer for Canadian democracy.
No, not parliamentary democracy, since Parliament was not in session and the who’s up/who’s down of parliamentary punditry/polling is of even less relevance and interest in summer than the rest of the year. No, it’s been a fine summer because civic society overwhelmingly rose up against the assault on reason and the ephemeral triumph of ideology over fact reflected in the Harper government’s destruction of Statistics Canada’s long-form census.
The Harper government – that is, the Prime Minister and his entourage – tried to slip a fast one past Canadians. It announced the end of the long form in the dead of summer, on a Friday to boot, as a sop to their far-right core constituency.
They must have figured no one would be paying attention, so they could take out their dislike of Statistics Canada when no one was looking – a dislike grounded in their blinkered belief that the agency collects facts that are then used by pressure groups, often of the social activist variety, that want more and bigger government.
Canadian civic society immediately smelled a rat. At last count – the figures are provided by the redoubtable retired professor William Stanbury – more than 200 groups and institutions publicly oppose the Harper policy, while three support it.
The three are fringe, right-wing institutions: the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizens Coalition, the little organization for which Stephen Harper himself once toiled in a Calgary office of two people (himself and a secretary). There’ve been a few supportive, far-right media shills, of course. But that’s been it.
Imagine. Every religious group opposed the Harper assault, as did business organizations representing everything from Bay Street to mom-and-pop stores, universities, trade unions, social groups, aboriginals, minority-language groups – the list goes on and on. Even international statistics experts, who recently gathered in Vancouver for a conference, condemned the Harper decision.
Canadians witnessed the disgusting spectacle of careerist ministers – Industry’s Tony Clement in the lead – tap dancing to the Prime Minister’s tune. Their justification for dispensing with the long form – the best chance of getting the most accurate data – was a mélange of distortions, misrepresentations and exaggerations of so gross a kind that Canadians recoiled in indignation.
To wit: Statistics Canada officials do not show up at people’s homes at 10 p.m. No one has gone to prison for failing to fill out the long-form census, despite ministerial assertions that jail terms await the recalcitrant. A voluntary form is not an acceptable substitute for a mandatory long form, a Clementism so offensive that it forced the head of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, to quit. Canadians saw honour in Mr. Sheikh’s resignation, although he really had no choice, so distorted were the Clementisms.
The assault on reason, of course, has short-term, baleful consequences. The new, voluntary methodology will compromise not only the next sampling but ruin the long-term comparability of data, as every statistician in Canada has underscored.
Worse, in a society that doesn’t question Statistics Canada data and thus can advance to arguing about what should be done based on accepted data, arguments will now revert to the reliability of the data.
Such are the consequences of having people in government who live in a world of political spin and who prefer ideology over data – who claim, for example, that statistics showing a decline in crime rates are not reliable because they don’t fit the government’s “tough on crime” agenda, or who say the situation in Afghanistan is improving despite the fact that the past two months have been the most violent since the war began.
The census debate, so provocative and so needless but for the exigencies of ideology, roused civic society as few decisions have done in recent decades. The census will lodge itself in a corner of the electorate’s collective memory as a talisman for what the Harperites might do if given a freer rein and, as such, has ruined what little chance they had of achieving a majority.
Canadian democracy, in this long-term sense, has triumphed by rejecting ideology over reason. Some day, the long-form census will return.
********
Globe Editorial, Aug 9, 2010 - Senseless census argument number four
In attacking critics of the decision to scrap the long-form census, the federal government is missing the mark. The long-form census benefits everyone in Canada, not a few special interest cliques, and the federal government is uniquely situated to run it.
Tony Clement, the Industry Minister, has turned his guns on the many groups and governments in vocal opposition. The long-form census “worked for them. Doesn’t mean it worked for other Canadians,” said Mr. Clement. They “had a good deal going,” getting data on the cheap with the federal government as enforcer. The new system will work fine, Mr. Clement said, and, “if they don’t want to use that data … they can pay for it another way.”
In a federal state, a national endeavour such as the long-form census helps bind the country. It is an ideal function for the federal government. Like weather reports, another service Canadians rely on their federal government to deliver, the results of the census are a classic public good.
A census is difficult for smaller entities to undertake, and it provides diffuse, but significant, benefits: better information about consumers, which improves efficiency and productivity; and better information for governments, smaller public institutions and researchers, which makes for better public policy, and ultimately better delivery in fields such as health and education.
A government that takes pride in its managerial competence should see these as positive attributes, to be safeguarded and nurtured.
The long-form census is one of the most efficient ways to collect this data. Contrary to Mr. Clement’s implication, Statistics Canada gets some return on its investment. The agency spent almost $500-million last year, but took in over $120-million in revenues.
This is the fourth distinct reason that the Conservatives have given for cancelling the long-form census, and each one has been found wanting. First, it was too coercive (even though no one has evidently ever been charged for not filling out the census). Then, they argued that the replacement voluntary survey would be sufficient (even though it is more expensive, and more subject to bias). Then, misleading answers – too many people claiming to be Jedi knights – justified the change (even though StatsCan’s adjustments for the mandatory census make it more reliable than any other survey).
Now, in their disdain for the myriad groups that have opposed the decision, the Conservatives appear to be rallying anew, in defence of an idealized individual who needs government help to fight an “intrusive” government census. But ultimately, no such person exists. No individual is disconnected from society. The “they” Mr. Clement is condemning is, in fact, “us.”
This decision’s political merits are opaque, and its policy merits are lacking. Rather than offer up any other pretexts, the federal government should acknowledge the emptiness of its own arguments, reverse course, and bring back the mandatory long-form census.
Here is an excerpt from, “Paul Martin accuses Tories of ‘dumbing down’ Canada” Toronto Star
“Martin said that in all his years as finance minister, the long-form census data was crucial during his consultations with municipalities and a whole host of medical, hospital and non-governmental organizations.
As well, he said that Canada’s ability to collect and make policy surrounding census data was an object of international admiration. [...]
Martin also said it was a “tragedy” that the controversy provoked the resignation of Statistics Canada chief Munir Sheikh — with whom Martin worked extensively during his years as finance minister and prime minister.
“I know Munir Sheikh very very well and that Munir Sheikh would have to resign on this particular issue is a tragedy,” Martin said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, what kind of statistician is going to replace him, when every single statistician I know of renown says the long-form census is, without any shadow of a doubt, the best way of going.””
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
