an opinion on the census

Frmrsldr wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Those are disparate datasets that exist across multiple levels of government, and would be very difficult to link.  They also don't give a single-point-in-time picture.

As I've argued, that's a good thing as it reduces the likelihood of the government abusing the data.

To the contrary, it allows them to argue any damn thing they please, and no-one else will ever have the dataset to disagree with them.

Frmrsldr wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Yes, but the handling of personal data within the government is governed by the Privacy Act, and in this case by the Statistics Act as well.  People are so scrupulous about applying those provisions that it slows down work on anything to a crawl, and they won't give out any stats on anything where the number of cases is so small it would risk identifying who those individuals are.

... But I am telling you that no politician gets access to raw census data.  Period.  Saying anything to the contrary is promoting a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence whatsoever in Canada...

Even CSIS is not allowed to gain access to Census data by law.

I'm sorry, but I don't share your confidence. I'm not convinced of the fact that Herr Harper doesn't have ex-con hackers who owe the feds favors in his employ and that this administration wouldn't flaunt/disregard/ignore/break the laws and our Constitution.

I am in a better position than you to know that.  However, if you want to maintain your delusions, there is apparently nothing I can say to persuade you otherwise.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I don't share your confidence. I'm not convinced of the fact that Herr Harper doesn't have ex-con hackers who owe the feds favors in his employ and that this administration wouldn't flaunt/disregard/ignore/break the laws and our Constitution.

Fmrsldr, I'm sure that the census data is the last place our Stazi look for data on us. They have Facebook, where people are more than happy to divulge their most private information most publically. And your logic is faulty: if Harper and his brownshirts are combing through our census data, then why are they so eager to dispose of it? If it were true that Big Gubmint is after our private data for nefarious means, then why are they ideologically opposed to its collection? More likely, the objections of the far right to the census have more to do with defunding those "special interests" they so despise, and the first step is to deny that there is a need. No data, no need.

angrymonkey wrote:

And to help people suggest solutions, would it not be useful to actually have data to consult? Or are we going to rely on anecdotal evidence?

Duh, if the people are directly consulted then it would be anecdotal evidence. As other posters who are supporters of the census have claimed, they lie (misrepresent information) on the census forms. Like that's not going to skew/'dirty'/ruin the information(?)

angrymonkey wrote:

So we're going to throw out useful information on the idea that it may be illegally obtainable in the future? I hope you're throwing away your credit cards, passport,computer, motor vehicle etc. since they are all able to be taken from you and misused.

You're confusing Stats Can info with federal government info with provincial government info.

If I'm suggesting "throwing out" anything it would be the Stats Can census (+info collected from it). Forcing the feds to deep mine for information already held in federal, provincial and municipal departments, ministries, agencies, crown corporations etc., through FOIA requests would help reduce the feds from obtaining it illegally, is my argument.

How do you know that governments in the past (and present) haven't already illegally obtained information from Stats Can? I mean it's not like they're going to willingly publicize this or anything.

Motor Vehicle ownership/insurance is provincial level. Unlike passports and motor vehicles, having credit cards and computers doesn't even fall under the public (government) domain. Although if one is a 'person of interest' to the government and they illegally obtain personal information from credit cards and computers, at least that information is not as easily within the grasp of the government 'dangling like a tempting plum' as with the census information.

They don't even store identifying information in the census data bank.

They have one data bank to track who has filled it in and another what they said the two can never be put together.

The governments attack on the census includes a lie by implication because the government knows damn well the privacy concerns are bullshit but they allow this to be there to score a political point and kill data needed to inform public policy. This decision is sabotage-- it is practically vandalism of data because it will also render useless data collected in the past as the record will be broken and not comparable.

Well if anyone listened to As It Happens, they have their usual shill to back them. The Fraser Institute had an "economist" on saying anyone interested should pay for this information if they need it. Which sound about right to me. Some place like angus reid, or ipsos, will now be the defacto place for organisations to get information and have to pay for it. Its a scam to allow a company to supply you something that government use to do. But we will pay more for inaccurate government data.

Lets follow this logic. Government data will cost more and be wrong. You can pay for a survey that is fairly accurate by a private company. Win Win...private company makes money...government looks like an idiot again. See medicare for example, defunding it while claiming it costs more(proportion only, because they cut more from other programs ) SO we need to privatize it because government is inefficient.

It might not even be as nefarious as the ability to make policy on an idea thought up in the can (like 'intelligent' design) with no facts to suppoprt it. That is only a side benefit to private companies profiting. Gotta dole out some cabage to all the con supporters. Isn't that what being in charge is all about, more pork please.

I'm a bit amazed by the intensity of the faux-libertarian stuff I read in this thread. With taxes, jury service and the right to vote, the census is part of civic duty, and has been around since the Roman empire (remember the story of Joseph and his pregnant wife going to Bethlehem... to fill their census).

As for the idea of merging government databases, forget about it. It's against the law in many cases, and for good reason. There is a real danger of allowing the unfettered querying of cross-linked government databases, especially the most sensitive ones (health and tax records), much greater than the "menace" of form 2B. I'd much rather have a segregated StatCan database than open-season on data mining.

You want a new school, a bus route, a medical clinic in a growing neighborhood? Well, census data will help you argue the demographic growth. You want energy efficiency programs, you need data on the housing stock. You want a new [insert religion here] temple? It's helpful to know about religions in an area. And I could go on. Public officials, at all levels, need some of that information from time to time. That's basic policy-making.

The basic point is this: filling the census is a duty of citizenship. Complete and unbiased census data is required for good governance. Making the long-form questionnaire optional is more expensive, reckless and will skew the results, making it less useful.

It seems like getting rid of the census will cause the government to lose a valuable data set of information,

They have this information about us already, just not in a convenient and useful form. So, CSIS (or whoever reads my e-mail) would not be affected by ny refusal or inability to fill out the form, but the people who have to decide on things like municipal infrastructure for the next twenty years will be unable to get the information they need.

I did not know that it was used as a comparison set of data by the other agencies that collect their own data. For that reason alone, it should be kept.

Industry Minister Tony Clement will appear before a parliamentary committee next Tuesday to discuss his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, CBC has learned.

Clement has cancelled an event he was scheduled to attend in New Brunswick on Monday so he can prepare for his appearance in Ottawa the next day.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/07/23/census-clement-statscan.html#ixzz0uWlb7FLZ

The government by first saying they are making the mandatory form not mandatory because of people's privacy concerns are cutting the legs out of the form when it becomes voluntary- after all if the government thinks there is a legitimate enough privacy concern to justify this then people will believe there is a real privacy concern.

Unfortunately it is all an urban myth since identifying data is not even allowed to be connected even if they wanted it to be.

For political gain the government is generating a fear that is entirely baseless. This is sabotage on more than one level.

The cons (who happen to be Cons.) are also saying that other countries such as the nordic countries have scrapped the census-- but in those countries they have a consensus that does not exist here that the government can share personal data about individuals for statistical purposes. That sharing is illegal in Canada and if the government's propaganda about privacy concerns has any foundation, people here, provided they were properly informed, would find that worse than the form was.

Is there a chance that the scrapping of this form is designed as a part of a two step process where the next step will be the move to sharing data so government will discover it needs to know and show more data about you?

As for the comment about Ipsos etc. If you cannot replace a mandatory long form with an optional one, you cannot replace a mandatory census with an optional opinion poll.

the real point here is that some wealthy people who don't give a shit for any public planning likely can't be bothered to spend the time with the form. More people have trouble with the time involved than the privacy as many people already know that they do not keep identifying information for any other purpose than to know that you filled it in.

Frmsldr-- I will have to just disagree with you because we are too far apart to continue the conversation. I do believe that we as a society need government and do believe in collective responses and collective planning of programs and social policy. Our principle disagree is summed up in your statement that people do not need government. I have to agree with you that if you do not believe in government there is no purpose in a census form. there is no point in derailing a specific conversation about the census to have one about whether you do or do not need government. The same argument can be applied down the line-- if you do not need government, why have a parliament? You would not need to pay taxes either? All functions of government would go in one shot. So I will concede that if you do not need government you don't need a census. Are you willing to concede however, that if you you do need government and you do need to make such collective decisions and planning that then you would need the census? Then we can at least agree that our difference of opinion is not specifically about the census but about the entire role and function of government?

N.R.KISSED wrote:

It's funny how the northern Teabaggers get all upset about the shadowy Govment collecting rather benign stats about them at the same time not minding when the real government violates people's civil rights on a grand scale for all to see.

Yep.

The census crisis has [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/americas/24canada.html]reached[/... the New York Times.

I can think of a counterexample for why good statistical information is important. In France, it's pretty widely acknowledged that there's a problem with racial discrimination. The trouble is, nobody knows exactly how much of a problem it is because it is currently illegal for the government to collect statistics about ethnic origin or religion. Government has resisted doing much about it in part because there's no way to tell if any progress is being made. What gets measured is something for which you can hold someone accountable.

Harper backs down on long form census.

Quote:

Memo from: Statistics Canada

To: All Canadians

Subject: Mandatory long form census

Due to mounting partisan pressure from peeping toms who want to know your favorite sex position, whether you pee sitting or standing and how many chai lattes you drink every week, our great leader PM Stephen Harper has agreed to reinstate the mandatory long form census.

sound cannon | water cannon | jet fighters

the money is there | to shore up privilege
during the decline | keeping small people | down
we disappear | into absent numbers

no longer counted | by Conservative government

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Frmsldr-- Are you willing to concede however, that if you you do need government and you do need to make such collective decisions and planning that then you would need the census? Then we can at least agree that our difference of opinion is not specifically about the census but about the entire role and function of government?

No.

The census is macro (national) level information. If the federal government wishes to deal with a regional or provincial or local issue, more (ever closer to the personal/private) information has to be revealed from the census, like information that can be tied to a specific region or locality.

People are not numbers or statistics. "I am a human being. Please do not crease, staple or fold!"

How many times have you heard the argument, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."?

How many times have you seen government, without consulting with the people, ram some policy down the throats of the people, based on nameless, faceless number crunching and bean counting, doing it with good intentions and saying, "You will learn to accept this and like it, god damn it - it's for your own good."?

I think it's far better if our "representatives" and "public" "servants" get off their thrones and leave their empires (like Stats Can) and consult with the people before they come up with whatever bullshit idea that's going to be the next panacea that's going to turn our society into a supposed paradise.

The social engineers among us have become addicted to Stats Can type agencies. We don't need them. Just like a heroin user doesn't need heroin. Although s/he'll argue vehemently to the contrary.

Franz Kafka was right. Our over-reliance on bureaucracies and stats/data/info collection can (and has) caused dystopian nightmares in human history.

Here are two examples.

1. In the late 1860s and 1870s, private hunters, state authorities and some federal authorities carried out a policy of wiping out the buffalo. Beginning in the 1880s, federal authorities and the U.S. Army forced Indian peoples onto Reservations that could not sustain the lives of the people forced to live there. Also starting in the 1880s, the children of the people were abducted from them and were forced into white communities, into white schools to learn the culture and the ways of the whites.

The (white) people who committed this cultural, and I dare say, physical genocide were not ignorant. In fact, many of them were well educated. They were not evil. Many of them were motivated by good intentions. They saw that the Indian peoples were dying whenever they came into contact with white culture: the result of the "Indian Wars", whites stealing (and murdering them for) their land, whites hunting the animals that the people lived on to extinction and white peoples' diseases. They were informed with the philosophy that, in order for the people to survive, they must be transformed from being Indian into American/Canadian (i.e. "white") citizens.

Their policy was based on the latest social scientific tools (like today) at their disposal like statistic and data gathering, physical and cultural anthropology, etc.

I hope that by providing this example, some may see the logical and moral contradiction in gushing over a macro (national) level census and data collection technique/apparatus as being an in all cases unqualified good. It is not.

2. 'Censuses (both Short and Long Form; are mandatory, backed up by the punitive sanctions of fines and jail sentences) are unqualified goods and can never be abused by government.': During the 1930s and 1940s (in the occupied countries and territories) the nazi government and its puppets conducted many compulsory censuses and surveys of its 'citizens' and 'subjugated' peoples. Later, those identified as 'enemies of the people/state/inferiors/undesirables' were later systematically/scientifically/factory conveyor belt murdered in what has been rightly described as the Holocaust.

The nazi regime considered itself/prided itself a world leader in bureaucratic efficiency and in meticulously and scrupulously gathering data and information.

Why don't you talk to someone about our intrusive mandatory (backed by state punishment) census who survived the European War/Holocaust and see what they think about it? I have.

In Israel today, there is/are censuses the purpose of which are to identify who are Israeli Jews versus who are Israeli Arabs living in (the apartheid state of) Israel.

In conclusion, I am, in fact, thus relieved that Herr Harper is moving in the direction of replacing the Long Form mandatory census with a Long Form voluntary census. Imagine how much more dangerous and sinister it would be (see above) if he was moving instead in the direction of replacing the mandatory Short Form census with the mandatory Long Form census.

In my opinion, there are other and better ways for governments and communities to plan for future growth, changes and development. One that is animated with a human heart beating at its center. Not some inhuman, heartless census or survey that treats people as if all they are is numbers and data: like in the military or in the death camps of World War II Europe.

Please consider it.

[URL=http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-55952-919-.htm#55952]Stockwell Day:[/URL]

Quote:

If you are among the groups of people who are demanding this free info I have a question for you based on past 'quizzes'. Do you think it is right that you can threaten your neighbour with jail time if she doesn't tell you if she has mental issues or not? Or who does what chores in the house?

Or whether she is a Jew or not? Don't you find that one even a little bit chilling?

Soooo ... It would appear that Doris thinks it is "chilling" to be a Jew.

And then there's all the stupidity about your neighbours ever knowing how you answered the census, o' course.

I'm in favour of the long form census.  And I would dearly love to embarrass the Cons for making it voluntary.

Facebook would come in handy but I don't have an account and have no interest in getting one.

But if I had a Facebook account, I would create a page that people could join if they promise to recycle and not fill out the long form census if it remains voluntary.

If enough Canadians signed up to boycott the census the whole project would be wasted.  The results would mean next to nothing.  And the business community and the corporations, who also use the census, would be furious with the Cons.

Perhaps a Babbler who has a Facebook account will set up such a page.  It might be worth the effort.

NO its right here

http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=485124..(Yeah I know what I linked to).

“Earnings of full-time full-year earners rose for those at the top of the earnings distribution, stagnated for those in the middle and declined for those at the bottom,” Statistics Canada said in its report Thursday on changes since 1980 in median earnings of individuals, the level at which as many are earning more as less.

“As was the case during the 1980s and the 1990s, earnings grew faster between 2000 and 2005 among workers in the upper segments of the earnings distribution than among those at the bottom,” it said.

Ted Wannell, a senior Statistics Canada analyst, said the available international data suggest increasing earning inequality is not exclusive to Canada. The evidence suggests it’s happening in other countries and to an even greater extent in the United States.

This is what they don't want to see. Stats can analysis and what it means.

The tax system, however, has helped to reduce the widening gap in incomes, according to the report from the census, which for the first time includes after-tax incomes as well.

The tax system hasn’t completely offset what has been a substantial widening in employment earnings but has come close to doing so, Wannell said, noting that when total incomes and not just earnings are included, the gap has barely widened over the past quarter century.

“So the tax and transfer system does do a lot to equalize the distribution of well-being in the country,” he said.

What do they call that inconvieniant truths.

Frmrsldr that is the reason they don't like it.  The post did a reasonable analysis using the statscan data and it shows how the tax system helps to stem some of the corruption of the system by being progressive. It also shows stuff like the wideing chasm, the education level and where they live. This is all very important and why the census HAS TO BE MANDATORY

Without it we have no way of knowing what is happening and the tax system can be shifted to put more bruden on the poor. Whne you have the rich earning 16% more but the poor being shafted so much that in 25 years the middle income(median not the average) is only a buck a week higher it says a lot. This will all be gone if it is volountary.

Go see the reason given by Kadys luiveblog on CBC its such a farce. The only place supporting thsi corrupt government is the Fraser. They couldn't even get the CD Howe to back them on it.

You cannot even access Revenue Canada taxation inoformation as a government departmtnment let alone a private citizen through a FOIA request. I have the fleeling that you, frmsldr, have never tried doing any reasearch that required any demographic accuracy. Stats Can is the primary source for getting reliable statistics regarding this country and all federal departments use it as well as countless of other who need to study and assess what the current or past status is under numerous subjects.

As for the claim that Stats Can will jail or fine those that don't comply, I call bullsjot. I have never heard of anyone prosecuted for not complying and I think you would be hard pressed to find a case. I know that my work was severely hampered by failure to comply by the rules for gathering statistics. That group did not get fined or penalized in any way.

Jack Layton is holding a press conference in Ottawa Thursday morning about the census, and the NDP has launched a web campaign on it as well.  See:  http://www.ndp.ca/census

ottawaobserver wrote:

Jack Layton is holding a press conference in Ottawa Thursday morning about the census, and the NDP has launched a web campaign on it as well.  See:  http://www.ndp.ca/census

I hate to be a cynic, but you know what bothers me?

If it is categorically wrong to change the Long Form census from mandatory to voluntary, then why didn't Jacques, Gilles and Iggy make announcements of their own immediately after the Cons announced the change?

Why did they wait to see where the (political) winds were blowing and for this issue to start to 'snowball' a bit before they jumped on the 'Oppose the Change to the Long Form Census' bandwagon.

I don't have much patience when it comes to political expediency/hypocracy.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As long as FRMSLDR either does not recongize the purpose of the census and the role it plays in public planning or does not recognize the purpose and value of public planning any argument about its value is pointless and will just go round in circles. The best that might come of it would be to isolate which of these issues is the obstacle-- at moments it seems the issue is a denial of the value of any public planning beyond the most right wing I have ever heard and at others there seems to be no understanding of how census informaiton informs the process.

The answer to this question will help simplify and clarify the issue on social scientific planning:

Can science solve/reverse our destructive relationship with the environment?

Frmrsldr wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Jack Layton is holding a press conference in Ottawa Thursday morning about the census, and the NDP has launched a web campaign on it as well.  See:  http://www.ndp.ca/census

I hate to be a cynic, but you know what bothers me?

If it is categorically wrong to change the Long Form census from mandatory to voluntary, then why didn't Jacques, Gilles and Iggy make announcements of their own immediately after the Cons announced the change?

Why did they wait to see where the (political) winds were blowing and for this issue to start to 'snowball' a bit before they jumped on the 'Oppose the Change to the Long Form Census' bandwagon.

I don't have much patience when it comes to political expediency/hypocracy.

I hate to be rude, but you know what bothers me?  It's people who have little interest in electoral politics pretending to be experts in strategy, and then invoking this expertise to level allegations of hypocrisy.

Frmrsldr, if everyone piles on at the same time, there's no sense of momentum.  This is about changing the decision, not being the first to take the correct position and denounce the mistake.  First you send out the MPs, later on the leaders and premiers.

And if the objective is to get people to actually change their decision, you have to leave them the teensiest bit of a graceful out.

I would have thought Layton's strategic sense would have earned him the benefit of the doubt on this by now.

Frmrsldr wrote:

The answer to this question will help simplify and clarify the issue on social scientific planning:

Can science solve/reverse our destructive relationship with the environment?

Would anyone have known that climate change was a problem, if it hadn't been measured?