Lies, damned lies, and the census

"[The Unites States], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." - Stephen Harper [2], 1997

In an astonishing display of incompetence, and a complete disregard for the facts, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is forging ahead [3] with plans to scrap the mandatory long form census. The move, cited as [4] "government stupidity" by the former directer of the United States Census Bureau, has drawn the ire [5] of academics, statisticians, economists, genealogists, medical associations, provincial and municipal governments, religious organizations, and charitable groups, just to name a few [6]. It has also prompted criticism from former head [7] of Statistics Canada Ivan Fellegi, and resulted in the very public resignation [8] of Harper's chief statistician, Munir Sheikh. In a letter posted to the Statistics Canada website, Sheikh wrote in part:

"I have always honoured my oath and responsibilities as a public servant as well as those specific to the Statistics Act. I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion. This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census.

(Sheikh's letter was quickly removed [9] by the government. Anticipating this act of cowardice by Harper, I captured a screen shot [10] for documentation.)

Sheikh's revelation flies in the face of assurances [11] given by Industry Minister Tony Clement, who claimed he'd "asked [Statistics Canada] specifically, ‘Are you confident you can do your job?' They said ‘If you do these extra things: the extra advertising and the extra sample size, then yes, we can do our job.' "

Clement's false assertion [12] that he had the support of Statistics Canada is one of the many [13] flawed arguments [14] put forward by the Harper government in efforts to garner support for the unpopular, and purely ideological, policy decision.

The primary justification given for scrapping the long form census were based on Conservative allegations [15] of 'outrage' by 'ordinary citizens "who felt [the long form census] was an intrusion of their privacy." Taking this explanation one step further, Conservative MP Maxime Bernier insisted [16] he personally "received an average of 1,000 e-mails a day during the [2006] census to my MP office complaining about all that, so I know that Canadians who were obliged to answer that long-form census - very intrusive in their personal lives - I know they were upset."

So, were Canadians really up in arms over the census in the past? Not according to [17] the Canada's privacy watchdog, whose office received a grand total of THREE complaints regarding the census over the course of the last decade. Furthermore, a comprehensive study [18] undertaken by Statistics Canada following the 2006 census fails to substantiate the government's claim of widespread privacy concerns from citizens. The 53 page StatsCan report, which garnered over 1,200 responses from "government agencies, municipalities, non-profits, community groups, academics, private businesses and ordinary citizens," makes no mention of Canadians finding the census intrusive or overly burdensome.

As for the "thousands of e-mail [complaints] a day" Bernier claimed he'd received during the 2006 census period, he alleges [16] "these messages were obviously not filed for future use by my staff and were deleted."

Regarding the reliability and accuracy of information gathered through a voluntary questionnaire, one only has to look to our neighbours to the south, who in 2003 experimented with [19] a voluntary survey in place of a mandatory census. What resulted was an expensive mess of skewed and degraded data, prompting an about face on the very idea of a voluntary form.

Even so, despite having already proven to be a costly blunder, Industry Minister Clement took to twitter [13] to refute criticism from experts who've warned that a voluntary survey would result in key segments of the population being underrepresented. Clement's argument? "Wrong. Statisticians can ensure validity w larger sample size."

The scope of ignorance displayed by that single tweet was summed up [20] with devastating beauty by Andrew Potter of Maclean's:

"Clement's statistical illiteracy is so profound it gives one vertigo. The notion that simply making the sample bigger can't fix a skewed sample is something undergraduates learn in first-year classes, yet is somehow beyond the mental grasp of a senior minister of a G8 country. And the comedic benefit of watching Clement fail first-year economics is undermined by the cold realization that he fundamentally does not understand the intellectual foundations of the files that he controls. When he is cornered by his intellectual betters, moreover, Clement's instinct is to reach for the debating-hall comforts of cheap populism."

Thus is the crux of the matter: The ill-advised move on the census is based not on tangible arguments nor on substantiated data, but on a shrewd political calculation [21] made to play to the Conservative's ideological base. Notice the champions [22] of doing away with the long form census are Right Wing [23] ideologues [24] who read from a single script of talking points [25]; Who share in a fundamental lack of understanding [26] surrounding the importance [27] of the long form census, and who exhibit a callous disregard [28] for the people who'd be impacted [29] the most.

Even Tom Flanagan, influential conservative and former chief of staff to Harper, fails to see [30] the justification behind the move, noting "it's just never been an issue in the Conservative movement. It just literally comes out of nowhere as far as I can see." Flanagan is also critical of the underhanded manner by which the Conservatives made the change, believing "it was an exercise in bad government to suddenly spring this on the public without any previous discussion, no consultation at all. You don't deal with the public that way in a democracy."

Unfortunately, as recent events [31] have demonstrated, the Harper government isn't particularly concerned about a functioning democracy. They remain oblivious to the havoc created as a result of ill-conceived policy decisions, and at this moment, remain unfazed as a world class Canadian institution devolves into chaos [32]. Regarded as the international gold standard, the legacy of Statistics Canada at risk [33] of being permanently tarnished through no fault of its own; Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale, echoing the sentiment from within Statistics Canada, telling reporters that "[Statistics Canada's] reputation is hanging by a thread at the hands of a bungling minister and a Conservative government that simply doesn't believe in fact-based decision making."

Indeed, ignoring evidence while crafting policy has become a recurring theme [34] for this government; One who'd rather build talking points to support their desired legislation, than build legislation based on indisputable, real world, information.

Our current legislators would be wise to heed the advice [35] of André Pratte of La Presse:

"Before this government does even more harm to the institution that is the government of Canada, the intelligent people within the federal cabinet have a duty to rise up and stop the pillaging. Otherwise, the Harper government may be remembered as one of the most incompetent and harmful governments this country has ever known."

Comments

Submitted by BlueBerry Pick'n on July 26, 2010 - 12:53pm.

Here's a question: is it actually the Canadian gov't doing the census, or another case of a military-industrial contractor subcontracting the job??

because frankly, I'm a little tired of agencies like Lockheed Martin wandering off with our data on the premise that Canada is incapable of doing it ourselves & that there is some inconceiveable proof of a 'chinese wall' of privacy.

Given how much incestuous activity exists between US corporations & their private & gov't 'intelligence agencies' (16 of those at last count), I find it hard to believe that a nation that is comfortable funding WHINSEC & letting the warrantless wiretapping electronic communications behemoths like AT&T fund the Denver DNC... any wonders why they never ended up in Courts? ...don't kid yourselves, its not that much more effort to spy on Canadians than it is US citizens, we're only 10% more effort & funding with the benefit of being sub-human UnAmericans in competition with The American Way

[38]

As far as most US citizens are concerned, they're a rule above the World, better than anybody else, justified in whatever they do [39], & the Rest of the World is simply grateful to be ' [40]Americanized [40]' or ' [40]liberated [40]' from our own sovereignty & cultures [40].

After all, they practically made any political discussion moot without the debate of relative definitions of The American Dream [41].

Submitted by Green Bone on July 26, 2010 - 3:19pm.

Mandatory, or not, the traditional census is obsolete.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-anachronistic-coercive-...

Most people hate filling out the long form census questionaire, with its bizzare, intrusive questions and threat of punitive measures for non-compliance. And people lie on censuses (surprise!), making the data less than accurate. The Tory government isn't stupid, and realizes that this will garner votes. The only problem here is that they should have scrapped the census altogether.

Let's cut the crap and admit that the fits some have been having over these changes have nothing to do with concerns over public needs and everything to do with PSAC, CUPE and other unions protecting pointless public sector jobs. There are dozens of deadbeat bureaucracies in all levels of government, from the Federal Gun Registry to Municipal pet licensing departments, gainlessly employing people at massive public expense and forcing the taxpayers funding these absurd enterprises to reveal what should be private information. Can you remember the pre-internet Federal archive which briefly demanded that any book printed in Canada have an exemplar filed with the agency, under penalty of law? And thanks to porous privacy safeguards, corporations get access to data, like Stats-Can's, wrestled from citizens by state coercion. Don't cry for Munir Sheikh, either--the overpaid pencil-pusher will get quite the golden parachute of a severance package and pension.

Submitted by mybabble on July 26, 2010 - 5:13pm.

Lets go one step farther with Harper's thinking, or lack of it as why not make paying income tax voluntary also, you know provide what information you want as its the same thing as information collected helps decide where best those tax dollars are needed?

Submitted by M. Spector on July 26, 2010 - 6:53pm.

Good blog post, A.P.!

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 27, 2010 - 1:18am.

"... information collected [by Stats Can] helps decide where best those tax dollars are needed ..."

I think those who support the census live in an abstract dream world.

As the previous (to Munir Sheik) chief of Stats Can explained, "I made very clear that Stats Can was to remain at arms length from government." Which sounds to me like Stats Can is an empire unto itself and has an arrogant and overinflated opinion of itself.

If, or even whether, the government uses the infomation gathered by Stats Can to decide where best it should place or spend tax dollars, is entirely up to the government.

Can you give me an instance where the (federal) government clearly used Stats Can info to decide where to place or spend tax dollars, what the program was and whether a/the target group benefitted?

Submitted by M. Spector on July 27, 2010 - 4:46pm.

This is not about giving Stephen Harper the tools he needs to make Canada a decent, equal, and compassionate society. That's the "abstract dream world".

Information gathered by Statistics Canada belongs to the people of Canada, and is available to us (usually, but not always, on payment of a fee). It is not the private database of the government. Progressive think tanks and research libraries, as well as the media (both mainstream and alternative) have access to the data, and researchers can use it to base studies that lead to public policy positions. Cutting off that data cuts off policy inputs from the public and public interest groups. Meanwhile the government is free to use our money and our multiple linked databases to mine for information which it can then keep secret from us.

That's Harper's totalitarian agenda. What's yours?

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 27, 2010 - 11:02pm.

So, the public information portion of Stats Can is not directly available to the government? The public information portion of Stats Can is only available to the government indirectly through progressive think tanks and research libraries, as well as the media (both mainstream and alternative)?

Since 2001, Stats Can farmed out its data collection and storage operations. Stats Can stores its information on the arms industry Lockheed-Martin's software.

There are laws that prevent the government from accessing private/personal information linked to both Stats Can and multiple ministry, department, agency, crown corporation, etc., databases. This is not to say, however, that in both instances, the government may not have already illegally accessed private/personal information.

Possibly, Harper could be the ultimate cynic/hypocrite in that although he makes the Long Form census voluntary in the interest of "protecting our privacy", he is mining the census for personal/private information.

Who am I and what's my agenda?

I'm "John Citizen Nobody" who doesn't want to victimize his fellow citizens by inflicting them with an antidemocratic agenda. I'm just trying to prevent myself from becoming another victim of a Kafka-esque dystopia caused by modern government.

In Canada, we live in a 'democracy'. So, if an agency of the government tells me that I have to answer intrusive, private and objectionable questions under penalty of fine or jail sentence, I tell them (in the negative), "where they can go" and refuse to comply. Whatever agenda they want to achieve, they can include me out of it.

I hear the census asks questions about one's religion - including whether or not one is Jewish.

Q: How do you think the nazi government was able to first identify, then isolate and finally commit genocide against Jewish (and Roma and other) people in the death camps of occupied European countries and territories during WW 2?

A: Through government surveys and censuses. The nazi government prided itself on being a world leader in bureaucratic efficiency and copious and meticulous data gathering. Something modern governments like to brag about as well. I feel government has too much private/personal information about us already.

In the case of Omar Khadr (and his family) and Abousfian Abdelrazik (and others) do you think Herr Harper has or hasn't mined all available data sources, including Stats Can, to get whatever information they can on them?

Do you think any government would be above doing such a thing?

Submitted by a_picazo on July 28, 2010 - 1:06am.

Thank you M. Spector!

Submitted by M. Spector on July 28, 2010 - 1:37am.

Nothing can be kept secret from the government.

They already know far more about you from your income tax returns than they will ever know from a census form. And everyone has to file a tax return every year, whereas filing the census long form is only required of a sample of the population - one in five households - every five years.

The issue here is not protection of personal privacy - that ship sailed long ago. The issue is that without a properly-conducted census using proper statistical controls and methods, no reliable statistics can be produced. It's garbage in / garbage out.

Statistics are important and useful tools for making public policy. It's therefore important to have them available - even if the government chooses to ignore them.

Anyone who thinks Harper's move strikes a blow for personal privacy against government is deluded. Read what Linda McQuaig has to say before deciding to hop on the Harperite bandwagon along with the National Citizens Coalition, the Fraser Institute, and the rest of the right wing lunatic fringe.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 29, 2010 - 12:56am.

This issue is based on a number of assumptions:

1. The Long Form census is given out to 20% of the census target population. The assumption being that this is sufficient to gain accurate information.

2. The Long Form census equally represents the poor and the rich - as well as everyone else.

The first assumption I question.

The second assumption I highly doubt.

Canada's poorest are forced to live in places that charge the lowest rent. These living spaces are often in the most hidden, obscure, inaccessable, remote, etc., places. If these are illegal dwellings where the landlord takes cash, goods or services payments, then the landlord isn't going to want government officials to find out about it.

The poorest people often move around a lot or have 'no fixed address'. For these reasons it is going to be difficult to get census information on poor people.

Rich and middle class people often are more educated than poor people. Therefore, many poor people might look at the Long Form census and not fill it out because they find it too difficult and too intimidating.

When was the last time any (federal) government did anything to help Canada's poorest people?

Yeah. That's why the poor are cynical and say "It's a rich man's world and nothing's going to change that" and not fill out the census.

Marxists and other persons of the far left also criticize the currently used criteria to determine poverty and (structural) unemployment as not going far enough.

Linda McQuaig's arguments are emotionally appealing, but she does not back them up with facts. The "poor" she talks about are a hypothetical construct, typical of some rich intellectual person who studies some group s/he is not a part of, from afar.

The people I'm talking about are real, live, living, breathing human beings - not some hypothesis, statistic or construct.

"They already know far more about you from your income tax returns than they will ever know from a census form."

Not true. Have you ever read a census form (preferably the Long Form)? That is why I "Just say no to the census". It's also why I'm that close to declaring that I'm unemployed to Revenue Canada and may start working underground.

This whole tempest in a teapot issue begs the question:

Is this some well thought out pre-planned strategy by Herr Harper or was this just an off the cuff idea that Harper thought might score the Conservatives an easy uptick in popularity?

The only reason why this issue has any legs to run on is because it is the political 'slow season' for the media.

Herr Harper has inflicted upon us two prorogations, Torturegate and the obscene police state fascist love in festival known as the G-8/20. Any one or a combination of these events could have brought down Herr Harper's government, yet he has survived them so far.

Do you think a (relatively) trivial thing like changing the Long Form census from mandatory to voluntary is going to bring down the government?

I would be v e r y surprised if it did.

Oh look, the media has already turned its attention to the Afghan wikileaks story.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm opposed to the census because of my libertarian, anarchist, egalitarian, grass roots democracy beliefs and values. The fact that in this case, Herr Harper's, the National Citizens Coalition, the Fraser Institute and other lunatic fringe kooks support of this issue converges with mine, is based on the beliefs that are theirs (not mine), and thus is a mere coincidence.

Just because Linda McQuaig and other progressives and 'Lefties' have jumped on the support the mandatory Long Form census bandwagon because Herr Harper supports a voluntary Long Form census, doesn't mean you or anyone else, automatically has to.

I would suggest to get in touch with one's core values and beliefs and stick with them regardless of what Herr Harper does and whether there is divergence or convergence between the two.

Times and governments may change, but my values (if properly grounded) don't.

Submitted by M. Spector on July 29, 2010 - 1:36am.

So now you're reduced to questioning the validity of the science of statistics itself - apparently based on no actual knowledge of that science at all...

It's precisely this kind of disdain for knowledge and expertise that motivates cretins like Harper to kick first the scientists and now the statisticians out of any role in the formation of government policy.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 29, 2010 - 2:39am.

So now you've reduced questioning the validity of the science of the of statistics itself - something scientists and data gatherers do to eliminate any bias or skewing of the results - to a disdain for scientific knowledge and expertise in general ...?

Here are some assumptions Linda McQuaig holds that she does absolutely nothing to prove:

1. The census equally represents poor people. - How do you know? See above for how poor people might be missed or 'fall through the cracks'.

2. Governments have in the past used the census to determine policies to help the poor.

Can you, or anyone else, show me any federal government that ever did anything good or worthwhile for the poor where the policy was demonstrably based on Stats Can census info?

I can show you instances where scientific information was gathered by Stats Can and its predecessors about Canadian citizens that was used by federal and provincial governments to harm people:

1. The massacre of the buffalo, putting Indian peoples on reservations and abducting their children, sending them to 'residential schools', thereby committing both physical and cultural genocide against them during the 19th and 20th Centuries (and possibly to this day).

2. Forcing Chinese Canadians to work as 'coolies' or slaves on the construction of our national railways.

3. The internment of Finnish, Polish, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldavians, Belarussians, Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Czechoslovakians, (any I missed?), etc., - people who were our WW I allies in work camps from 1917 to 1923(?)

4. The discriminatory "Head Tax" on Chinese Canadians in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

5. The internment of Japanese Canadians during 1942-45.

The census is not an unqualified good in all cases. Information is value neutral. It's in how governments use that information that determines whether it is good or bad/evil.

Given what we know about Herr Harper and his fellow Cons, isn't their approach to the census actually a good thing (assuming that what they say they are doing in public is what they are actually doing privately)?

Imagine the harm they could cause by replacing the Short Form with a mandatory Long Form census where they changed and added questions more to their liking.

Submitted by BlueBerry Pick'n on July 29, 2010 - 1:11pm.

funny, nobody seems to have commented (on the post I made which highlights):

military-industrial contractors have been doing the census for several nations for a decade or more. Now, laws indicate that the census bureaus are generally somewhat protected for privacy, but governments have played footloose & fancy-free when it comes to what private companies can accomplish - if nobody is allowed to break a personal confidentiality & privacy agreement.

take a look at what happened with Wikileaks, Sibel Edmonds, Mark Klein (AT&T), & Valerie Plame for chrissakes

We can't trust digital *elections* subcontracted, why should we be trusting the results & privacy for a census?

A quick Google search sample indicates each of these nations have all subcontracted these data surveys to corporate contractors:

Canada

Making it easier to ignore the poor [54]‎ - 12 hours ago, Toronto Star ... contract out census collection to Lockheed Martin. That provoked widespread concerns that the US military contractor might pass data on Canadians to US
Canada's Census outsourced to Lockheed Martin [55]
10 Apr 2006 ... (Lockheed Martin (Canada) inherits technology from the US Parent,Lockheed Martin, who first developed census software for the 2000 U.S.
The Lockheed Martin Census Business Practice team is a premier international provider of integrated census data collection, processing and analysis solutions. More than 10 years of unmatched experience, resources, methods, systems and commitment ensure that our census solutions are flexible, secure, accurate and cost effective.

Our Census Business Practice successes include the U.S. 2000 Census, the United Kingdom’s 2001 Census, and Canada’s 2006 Census, which was the first census in North America that allowed citizens nationwide the choice to submit their census via a secure Internet solution. The team is currently supporting the U.S. Census Bureau with the Decennial Response Integration System [56] for the 2010 Census.

In the United States, the Corporation supported the Census 2000 with the Data Capture System (DCS). The U.S. Census 2000 was the largest, most sophisticated - and most accurate - census undertaken; encompassing 120 million forms with 99 percent accuracy. It represented the first census to use scanned optical character recognition (OCR) technology to process the handwritten forms.
For the 2001 UK Census, Lockheed Martin’s team provided data capture and coding services, including form printing, dress rehearsal services and census services for nearly 30 million forms with an accuracy rate of better than 99 percent.
Lockheed Martin provided hardware and software integration for Statistics Canada’s dress rehearsal and full 2006 census, including the first successful use of the secure Internet channel.
In every census we support, Lockheed Martin’s team strives to:

• Provide the general public with multiple, easy-to-use and secure methods of response.
• Help census authorities collect and capture the data accurately and completely.
• Employ robust processes and tools to ensure complete protection of individuals’ personal information.

Lockheed Martin’s Census Business Practice represents technology expertise that make census taking highly accurate, more automated and efficient, and easier for citizens as well as for governments to use.

Information Systems and Global Services
700 North Frederick Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
(301) 240-7500

CONTACT
Media and Press Inquiries: (301)519-5896
Business Development: (301)519-5760

Britain

25 Oct 2006 [57] ... Lockheed Martin UK has today been named as one of two companies shortlisted to compete for the UK Census 2011 programme.
On July 1, 1999 [58] Lockheed Martin UK Limited was created. ... System as well as a contract to process more than 30 million forms for the UK Census in 2001.
Lockheed Martin Awarded ₤150M Contract to support 2011 Census for England, Wales & Northern Ireland
London, UK, August 28th, 2008 -- Today, Lockheed Martin UK and its industry team were selected by the Office for National Statistics to support the 2011 Census for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The approximately £150M contract award comes after an extensive competition which required the Lockheed Martin UK-led team to demonstrate its ability to provide secure and accurate data capture and processing support services.

"We are proud to again support the Office for National Statistics in conducting its census," said Ian Stopps, chief executive of Lockheed Martin UK. "Together, with our industry team, we are committed to delivering a system that enables the government to efficiently and effectively perform the 2011 Census while ensuring that all information remains secure and confidential"

Lockheed Martin, who successfully provided the data capture elements of the 2001 UK Census, as well as previous censuses for Canada and the United States, has created a consortium of UK-based companies with proven experience. Team members are Broadcasting Support Services (bss), Cable & Wireless, Logica (UK) Ltd, Oracle Corporation UK, Polestar Group, Royal Mail, Steria Ltd, and UK Data Capture Ltd.

Working with the ONS and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) authorities, the team will design, install and support an innovative system using state-of-the-art character recognition and colour processing for paper census forms. The system will, for the first time, allow for census questionnaires to be completed via the Internet in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Lockheed Martin UK, a unit of Lockheed Martin Corporation, is a leader in systems integration working on major programmes spanning the aerospace, defence and civil sectors. Lockheed Martin UK works with more than 100 business partners and employs over 1,700 people at a dozen sites across the UK.

Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.

Media Contact:
UK: Chris Trippick; 02077982888; mobile: 07905356646;

chris.trippick@lmco.com [59]

For additional information, visit our websites:
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk [60]
http://www.lockheedmartin.com [61]

USA

Lockheed gets boost from census work, posts 12% rise in profit [62]‎ -Washington Post
U.S. Census Bureau Lockheed Martin Open New Utah Contact Center [63] http://www.google.ca/images/srpr/nav_logo14.png [64]); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; cursor: pointer; display: inline; margin-right: 3px; height: 14px; vertical-align: 0px; width: 14px; margin-left: 5px; opacity: 0.5; background-position: -117px -117px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border: 0px initial initial;"> 14 Jan 2010 ... The U.S. Census, Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors have now cut the ribbons on the largest of these centers, in Sandy Utah,
Census [65] Systems | [65]Lockheed Martin [65] The Lockheed Martin Census Business Practice team is a premier international ... The team is currently supporting the U.S. Census Bureau with the Decennial

Census Bureau, Lockheed Martin Open Utah Call Center|

http://2010.census.gov/news/img/bkgRightBoxTitleBar.gif [66]); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat no-repeat;">Release Information

CB10-CN.05

Contact:
Jack Martin [67]
Public Information Office
301-763-3691

New 2010 Census Facility Creates 1,500 Jobs

The U.S. Census Bureau today opened a call center in Sandy, Utah, that will assist callers with information on completing their 2010 Census questionnaires.

The center is one of 11 national facilities that will serve as an information resource/hotline for U.S. residents. The Sandy professionals will answer questions about the process and completing the questionnaire and will follow-up with respondents if their returned form is not complete or potentially inaccurate.

The facilities will be managed by Lockheed Martin. Its subcontractor partner, Vangent, will manage the hiring of 1,500 new employees. Each worker will take an oath for life to keep census information confidential. By law, the Census Bureau cannot share respondents' answers with any other government or law enforcement agency. Any violation of that oath is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison.
ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS
The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to distribute congressional seats to states and used to allocate more than $400 billion in federal funds to local, state and tribal governments each year.

For more information, visit http://2010.census.gov/2010census [68]

Submitted by M. Spector on July 29, 2010 - 2:50pm.

This is all old news.

Like I said above:

Quote:

Statistics are important and useful tools for making public policy. It's therefore important to have them available - even if the government chooses to ignore them.

Submitted by a_picazo on July 29, 2010 - 4:22pm.

Thank you again, M. Spector. Clearly, you fully understand the issue. This is not a matter of opposing views where both sides have merit. This is a case of FACT/EVIDENCE vs ideology, period.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 29, 2010 - 11:20pm.

"This is not a matter of opposing views where both sides have merit. This is a case of FACT/EVIDENCE vs ideology, period."

Yikes! Herr Harper currently can only image such a dictatorial statement in his dreams.

Gimme a break. Like I said above, information by itself is value neutral (ie., it is neither good nor bad.) It is how governments use information that makes it good or bad/evil.

Our formerly politically neutral Stats Can has become "political" with Munir Sheik's big public political resignation.

The census info issue has become "political" with supporters of the mandatory Long Form census making specious arguments about how the Long Form, more than any other document, represents the poor and wrapping themselves up in a faux philanthropy for the poor mantle, arguing that in theory, the census could help the poor if only a government, any government, actually ever paid attention to the relevant stats and acted upon them.

Submitted by M. Spector on July 30, 2010 - 2:38am.

Quote:

Our formerly politically neutral Stats Can has become "political" with Munir Sheik's big public political resignation.

That is such bullshit.

Sheikh had to resign as a matter of professional integrity and self-respect.

Quote:

Canada's statisticians are highly qualified professionals with a well-deserved reputation throughout the world. They knew in December that a voluntary survey would be an expensive, biased and unsatisfactory substitute for the mandatory census, and their advice would have been that they could certainly implement a voluntary survey but that it could not be a substitute for a mandatory census.

The government could legitimately have ignored Mr. Sheikh's advice, then proceeded without the compulsory census. Statistics Canada would then have implemented the government's decision to the best of its ability. That is the role of the public service. But that is not what happened.

The problem Mr. Sheikh faced was not the choice between voluntary survey or mandatory census, but that the minister went public with inaccurate claims about the advice he had received. Mr. Clement was selective to the point that his public claims have not accurately reflected the advice given by Statistics Canada and its public service head. This misrepresentation called into question the integrity of Statistics Canada, the office of the chief statistician and Mr. Sheikh himself....

The issue of a voluntary survey rather than a mandatory census is far more than the "technical statistical issue" it was described as by Mr. Sheikh. The voluntary survey will fundamentally weaken the data on which many of Canada's government and business policies are based. But describing it as a technical matter allowed Mr. Sheikh to make public his and Statistics Canada's views on the matter. If he had described it as a policy issue, he would have been in breach of his duties....

But if a deputy minister is compelled to resign every time a minister misrepresents the advice given by the public service, Canada would soon run out of competent and independent-thinking senior public servants. Something stinks in this entire affair, and it is not Mr. Sheikh or Statistics Canada.

Source

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 30, 2010 - 10:14am.

Quote:

Sheikh had to resign as a matter of professional integrity and self-respect.

That is such bullshit.

From your own quote:

Quote:

Sheikh's resignation is akin to a walkout strike and is a politically charged statement of protest and non-compliance.

Submitted by M. Spector on July 30, 2010 - 1:47pm.

The point of the Globe article, which obviously whooshed over your head, was that ministers have to stop misrepresenting the advice given to them by the public service. Otherwise they will lose "competent and independent-thinking senior public servants" like Mr. Sheikh.

It's that kind of conduct by the politicians that politicizes the public service and brings it into disrepute.

StatsCan's well-earned reputation in the world would have been irreparably damaged if Sheikh had allowed the minister's lies to go uncorrected. There's no statistician in the world who would agree with the government that a voluntary census is just as accurate as a compulsory one. To have the rest of the world think that StatsCan had agreed to the contrary would make it, and Sheikh, a laughing-stock.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 30, 2010 - 11:00pm.

Never mind the rest of the world, I don't think it's keeping up or cares about what's going on in Canada wrt this issue - save the U.S.A. which had earlier made their (Long Form?) census voluntary but reverted back to a mandatory one, as it was more costly and less accurate.

Absolutely, this particular instance shows the Harper administration's disdain and ill treatment of the civil service.

However, this doesn't alter the fact that, for a civil servant, Munir Sheikh's public act of resigning and public statement as to the reasons why, were political.

We may not know this until years later, but was the media alerted that Sheikh was going to make a public announcement, was an invitation sent out to the media from the Stats Can chief's office?

Sheikh could have kept it non-political by quietly resigning, saying "No comment.", if asked by the media. Sheikh could have been vindicated and Clement shown to be a liar by an anonymous leak from a credible source within Stats Can or the government, expressing Sheikh's side of the story.

This particular issue raises the following questions:

Was this a foolish error on the part of Clement acting on his own?

Or was he reading from a script? The intention being to either force Sheikh to comply and therefore force Stats Can to knuckle under to the Conservatives or Sheikh would refuse to comply, resign and the Cons. would leave Stats Can leaderless and in disarray or appoint a Conservative hack who would make Stats Can docile and compliant.

Either way, what started out (in my opinion) as an attempt by the Cons. as an easy way to broaden their political base and make a gain in popularity, ended up in a foolish battle with Stats Can.

Foolish because it was unnecessary. The Cons. could have left Stats Can alone and done what all previous governments have done: Allow Stats Can its day in the sun every 5 years when it publishes its data, then ignore it. As Stats Can is part of the civil service, it can't force an elected government to do anything.

Submitted by M. Spector on July 31, 2010 - 3:02am.

Quote:

Never mind the rest of the world, I don't think it's keeping up or cares about what's going on in Canada wrt this issue.

Again, your ignorance of the importance of statistics is showing.

Canada's reputation for producing reliable statistics is important to other countries.

Statistics Canada data are reported to United Nations agencies, the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and dozens of other international organizations that collect data from member nations and publish statistical summaries and comparisons between countries. It's important to those organizations and those countries that their summative and statistical comparative data be reliable.

Moreover, Canada has certain international obligations to provide accurate statistical reporting concerning our treaty obligations and meeting certain quotas and targets - for example under Kyoto and various free trade agreements.

If Canada gets a reputation for producing questionable data based not on recognized standards of good statistical practice, but on self-serving procedures devised by politicians, the world will no longer take our data seriously. And if StatsCan was seen to be acquiescing in such politically-motivated charades as a voluntary census, none of its data would be above suspicion.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on July 31, 2010 - 9:16am.

My otherwise lack of interest on the issue does betray a certain ignorance.

However my general knowledge and common sense tells me that those who have most ardently jumped on the support Stas Can bandwagon are overinflating its importance.

It's not the be all and end all of national data collection in Canada.

As others have suggested there are other ways, means and sources to collect this information that are at least just as good, if not better.

Certainly, Stats Can isn't the only source for the data provided to the U.N. and other international organizations.

You're not going to be one of those pro Stats Can banshees I've run across elsewhere on this site whose argument is going to degenerate into a ludicrous shrieking that making the Long Form census voluntary is going to render all of Stats Can's data useless, which in turn will utterly obliterate Stats Can and thus end (Canadian) civilization as we know it, are you?

As I've said, I'd be very surprised if the Harper administration fell over the Long Form census issue. However, if it did, I'd be beside myself with joy and jubilation. Nothing would make me happier.

Having said that, in my exuberance to see the Cons. fall, I'm not going to suspend my reason, logic and common sense by overinflating the importance of Stats Can with arguments that are just plain ludicrous.

Submitted by M. Spector on July 31, 2010 - 2:33pm.

It's not just about StatsCan - it's about the entire public service. Harper's agenda from day one has been to politicize it, micromanage its public communications (or muzzle them altogether), ignore its recommendations if they conflict with Harperite dogma, and to punish it for any show of independence.

He fired nuclear watchdog Linda Keen for doing her job. He has muzzled climate scientists in the civil service in order to protect his climate-destroying policies. He has blackballed Richard Colvin for telling the truth about Afghan detainees. He got rid of Peter Tinsley, the Chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, when he wanted to investigate the detainee/torture scandal. Now he's forced out Mr. Sheikh, the chief statistician, by embarrassing him among his professional colleagues.

Your own role in this issue is extremely destructive, and gives great comfort to the Harperites.

I'm done trying to reason with you, though I may have a few reserves of ridicule remaining if you persist.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on August 1, 2010 - 12:04am.

Here's how Herr Harper has shaped other country's views of Canada:

1. Leaving Omar Khadr to be the only remaining citizen of a Western country still held in GTMO.

2. Abrogating the Kyoto Accord signed by the previous Liberal government.

3. Sabotaging the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

4. Allowing war criminal George Bush and hate monger Ann Coulter into Canada while denying access to peace advocates George Galloway and Dr. Mustafa Barghouti.

5. Attempting to broker a trade agreement with Colombia, a country that has the highest murder rate of union leaders in the world.

6. Supporting the illegitimate Honduras regime which overthrew the duly elected Zalaya government in a coup.

7. The pimping of Canadian bitumen in the U.S.A.

8. Unconditional support for the rogue criminal/war criminal apartheid state of Israel.

9. War crimes in the Afghan war for not stopping our client state from torturing and abusing prisoners handed over by Canadian troops.

10. The G8/G20 spectacle of police state violence and of police abusing their power and using excessive force against innocent bystanders.

Harper's tarnishing Canada's reputation in the eye's of the world, to use your expression, "That ship sailed long ago." Harper's upsetting the U.N. with Canada's future (possibly) degraded quality of statistics is but the latest miniscule grains of sand on the mountain of harm he's already done.

Besides, the U.N. has more important things to/ought to worry about like:

1. The troubles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

2. The troubled regions of both Darfur and the south in the Sudan.

3. Bringing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the ICC.

4. The troubles in Zimbabwe.

5. The troubles in Somalia.

6. The troubles in Eritrea.

7. The inquiry into the shooting deaths on the Mavi Marmara.

8. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

9. The Saudi government's treatment of its women citizens.

10. The troubles in Yemen.

11. Saber rattling by Israel and the U.S.A. against Iran.

12. The Iraq war.

13. The Afghan war.

14. Troubles in Kyrgyzstan.

15. Troubles in Bangladesh.

16. Troubles in Tibet.

17. Troubles in Nepal.

18. Troubles in Burma (Myanmar).

19. Troubles in Thailand.

20. Troubles in and the horrible way North Korea treats its people.

I don't think Canada's Stats Can issue is high on their list of concerns.

Quote:

... though I may have a few reserves of ridicule remaining if you persist.

Just a bit of friendly advice. It never looks good when an intelligent person loses their temper and makes a spectacle of themselves by resorting to ad hominem arguments. I think you're better than that.

As a libertarian, I believe that people have complete freedom to choose their actions and therefore, whatever they do they must hold themselves, and themselves alone, responsible.

Don't you agree, friend?

Submitted by M. Spector on August 1, 2010 - 11:19am.

As a dialectical materialist, I believe people's actions, concerns, and responses are highly conditioned by their socio-economic conditions and experiences, as well as their individual genetic makeup. It's easy to create the illusion that one has freedom of action in situations where one's actions are in fact highly determined.

Our brains have evolved to give us the illusion of freedom of choice, inasmuch as having this illusion is actually an evolutionary advantage for our species. Read Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett.

Submitted by Frmrsldr on August 1, 2010 - 9:26pm.

Very interesting.

Is there any free will?

If so, how much?

Are you a determinist?

If so, are you a hard or soft determinist?

Do you believe in [a] God or god or conscious creator deity?

If so, do you believe in predetermination/predestination?

What role do prisons serve?

Are they/can they be reformatories, with the proper program, can they rehabilitate people or do they just protect society?

What are your views on capital punishment?

We ought to put up our own thread on this subject.