Cutting the Census

[Jimbo07]

It's a truncation of "I'm alright, Jack. Up yours!" An attitude most often found in healthy, well-placed, white boys under age 22.

I agree, other than limiting the age thing...

 

[Corsair 115]

It's a truncation of "I'm alright, Jack. Up yours!" An attitude most often found in healthy, well-placed, white boys under age 22.

Er, well, I'm not going to make any presumptions as to what it means. So I'll ask for a definition, preferrably one with the requisite detail. Which is what I did!

 

[Captain.Sassy]

If you hanker for cutting mockery, click the link below:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/28/the-drowning-of-tony-clement’s-credibility/

 

[Segnosaur]

Really? I'd much rather see a "true" conservative party, one that truly believes in reducing government influence in our lives, both economically and socially.

If I wanted American-style conservatism, I'd move to the United States. We've got our own way of doing things here and our own history which shapes that way.

Ummm....

First of all, who said anything about "American Style" conservatism? We don't have to necessarily emulate the U.S.; we could in theory bring in 'conservative' policies and still maintain differences with the U.S.

Secondly, even if we had "our own way", wouldn't we be better off implementing the best policies, even if they did have some similarities to the policies of other countries?

And it seems to me we're doing just fine, all things considered, and better than our American friends.

Well, keep in mind that Canada has been quite fortunate... we are a large country (geographically speaking), with significant natural resources (especially when compared to our population base). Given the amount of oil, mineral, hydro electric and other resources we have at our disposal, it would be almost impossible for us not to be "doing just fine". We could replace our MPs with trained chimps and we'd still be economically successful.

So I can't see this pressing need for "true" conservatism, whatever that is. (What precisely does "reducing government influence in our lives, both economically and socially" mean exactly? I often hear that statement, or something rather like it, said, but rarely is a concise definition ever given as to what it means on a practical level.)

Well, I put the word "true" in quotes because I recognize that everyone will have a different definition.

I myself would prefer a sort of pragmatic libertarianism.... On the economic side, cut taxes and certain spending programs (although I do see a point in maintaining things like EI/welfare, since I do believe we should help the truly disadvantaged). On the social side, take greater steps to protect basic rights (e.g. improve free speech, perhaps liberalize some drug laws, etc.) Of course I recognize that that is my particular definition, and may not be the same as anyone else's definition.

I just get a bit annoyed when people claim they want the "old Progressive Conservative" party back. In many ways, the Progressive Conservatives were very close policy-wise to the Liberals (depending on who was leading the party at the time), which isn't really good if you wanted a 'true' choice.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, just wondering, how often are non-respondents tracked down by census takers,

Pretty simple thing, I should think. They only send out X number of long-form censuses and make note of who they sent them to (or left them with). Do you really think it'd be that difficult for them to make note of who's responded and who hasn't?

The fact that they can figure out who hasn't answered doesn't necessarily answer the question about how many times the census takers actually go through the problem of tracking down non-respondents.

and when they are, is the data they provide really that reliable? (After all, if someone didn't answer a question because they thought the results were embarrassing/private, then they may just end up just giving false information.

I'm sure their statistical model has a built-in allowance for people who'll fudge. But inasmuch as they aren't asking the length of one's johnson or how often you and the Mrs. are doing the deed, I doubt very much that honest embarrassment enters into the equation (except perhaps as an embarrassment of riches.

The fact that you might not see a particular question as private and/or and embarrassing doesn't mean that others won't feel the same way. For example, the long form has questions about household income, information that people might not want widely dispersed.

The Conservatives have suggested they want to end the affirmative action-like programs the federal government has in regards to hiring. Interestingly, according to the report, the long census forms provide the data used to make the assessments in regards to such hiring.

Seems like that's a pretty flimsy connection. I doubt that anyone really has to point to population demographics when they make up a job description that says "white men need not apply"; they only have to assume that minorities have somehow been oppressed at some point in time.

Of course, we really wouldn't want to try to have a civil service that's demographically representative of the country's population now would we?

Actually, some of us would rather have a civil service that is based on merit and personal qualifications, even if some demographic groups are under represented in certain areas. But hey, that's just me. Some people have no problem with under-qualified people being appointed as long as it fills some sort of job equity quota.

A personal anecdote... a few years ago, I worked as a college professor in computer science. I was teaching rather small classes (only a dozen or so students), and in one session there was only one female, so males outnumbered females by a 10:1 ratio. Now, since females make up roughly half the population of Canada, do you expect them to make up half of all computer programmers working for the federal government, even if there is an extreme shortage of women in the field?

 

[Corsair 115]

Secondly, even if we had "our own way", wouldn't we be better off implementing the best policies, even if they did have some similarities to the policies of other countries?

That's fine if those policies are the best from a pragmatic, what actually works point of view. If the polices are considered the best only because of their ideological slant, no thanks.

I just get a bit annoyed when people claim they want the "old Progressive Conservative" party back. In many ways, the Progressive Conservatives were very close policy-wise to the Liberals (depending on who was leading the party at the time), which isn't really good if you wanted a 'true' choice.

Let me tell you why I say that: the current Conserative party seems much more focused on ideology at the expense of reality. They are, it seems, quite willing to dispense with what actually works because it goes against their ideological view of how things ought to work. They seem, given the several Republican strategists they have consulting for them, interested in bringing here the kind of rabidly partisan, wedge-issue type of politics seen in the U.S. these days. And that sort of thing can already be seen in a number of the goverment's actions, though to date they have been on smaller matters rather than bigger ones.

I have no interest in seeing that brand of politics imported here. It certainly doesn't seem to be helping the U.S. cure its woes.

Now, perhaps because it's a little before my time, but I don't recall the Progressive Conservatives of old being as ideologically driven. The biggest thing I can recall that might qualify is the Free Trade Agreement, but that was put to the electorate in the form of the 1988 federal election (which the Tories won handily).

Somehow, I get the feeling the current Conservatives would be happy to impose something of similar significance rather than have it decided by the electorate. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but they haven't as yet convinced me to think otherwise. Decisions like dumping the G20 summit on downtown Toronto and trying to claim it as a economic benefit for the city do nothing to inspire my confidence.

The fact that you might not see a particular question as private and/or and embarrassing doesn't mean that others won't feel the same way. For example, the long form has questions about household income, information that people might not want widely dispersed.

Uh, unless that information is publicly disclosed in such a way that it names the specific person, I don't see the problem. When you fill out your tax return you are giving out a whole bunch of personal income data.

 

[fitzgibbon]

The fact that they can figure out who hasn't answered doesn't necessarily answer the question about how many times the census takers actually go through the problem of tracking down non-respondents.

Since the participation rate with the long-form as-is is IIRC around 95%, it would stand to reason that at most, they might have to track down 1 in 20 in any given survey year. And how many in the last 30 years have been charged with anything? 3 IIRC.

Mountain? Meet molehill.

The fact that you might not see a particular question as private and/or and embarrassing doesn't mean that others won't feel the same way. For example, the long form has questions about household income, information that people might not want widely dispersed.

Since the distributed information isn't identifying, where lies the real issue? Certainly it doesn't take a genius to recognise that some neighbourhoods will have a higher median income than other ones. What they're doing is quantifying differences and similarities and doing it in a statistically meaningful and reliable manner, something that seems to give the Tories problems.

Actually, some of us would rather have a civil service that is based on merit and personal qualifications, even if some demographic groups are under represented in certain areas.

Ah! So this is about that damned Liberal-centric civil service where political apparatchiks hold sway. Better not to be representative of the population?

But hey, that's just me. Some people have no problem with under-qualified people being appointed as long as it fills some sort of job equity quota.

Because it's always easier to fall back to that facile argument than deal with an inequality.

A personal anecdote... a few years ago....[snip]

Define a few years ago. And should we then apply your apparent logic stream to different racial groups? And if so, where do we stop? And if not, why not?

At any rate, this is derailing the thread and if you want to continue this particular line of argument, perhaps the mods should split this into its own thread.

If we really believe in equality, we have to know where inequalities exist so that attempts can be made to ameliorate them. The braying against the long form census speaks volumes about its naysayers.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Now, perhaps because it's a little before my time, but I don't recall the Progressive Conservatives of old being as ideologically driven.

I think we can thank Lyin' Brian for creating the implosion dynamic that brought that about. Perhaps the old Progressive party needs to be resurrected to provide the centre-right alternative that the current iteration of Tories seem unable or unwilling to be.

Decisions like dumping the G20 summit on downtown Toronto and trying to claim it as a economic benefit for the city do nothing to inspire my confidence.

Like I said elsewhere, that was Harper's answer to the Salmon Arm salute.

Uh, unless that information is publicly disclosed in such a way that it names the specific person, I don't see the problem. When you fill out your tax return you are giving out a whole bunch of personal income data.

Why let facts ruin an argument, Corsair?

 

[stilicho]

The cutting of the long-form questionnaire bugs a lot of people, cause it will mean that these data will now likely be inaccurate (the LF is being replaced with a voluntary survey, leading to likely selection bias in respondents.)

It's just politics. Nothing to get wound up about. StatsCan will continue to do their jobs and likely outsource information collection and possibly assessment.

I'm reminded of the Alberta provincial government proudly announcing in the early Eighties that it was getting rid of its in-house bilingual translation services. Politically grand. However, the translation still had to be done and small third-party service companies sprouted to provide it.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[Segnosaur]

Secondly, even if we had "our own way", wouldn't we be better off implementing the best policies, even if they did have some similarities to the policies of other countries?

That's fine if those policies are the best from a pragmatic, what actually works point of view. If the polices are considered the best only because of their ideological slant, no thanks.

The problem is, "what works" is not necessarily a black-and-white/Either-or option. In most cases, there are trade offs, with no real solution being considered perfect for everyone.

Take, for example, the CBC. Some people may think funding the CBC "works" because of the supposed benefits they get. However, it still costs the tax payers money, and its purely a personal opinion about whether the supposed benefit we get from the CBC is worth whatever personal tax money goes to fund it.

Let me tell you why I say that: the current Conserative party seems much more focused on ideology at the expense of reality. They are, it seems, quite willing to dispense with what actually works because it goes against their ideological view of how things ought to work.

Ummm... how things "ought to work"?

You know, it seems to me that you have a bias against the conservatives (not a good or bad thing, I just recognize it as your own political philosophy) and instead of saying "I prefer a more left-of-center policy" you accuse the conservatives of doing things that "aren't the way things should be done". Kind of circular reasoning.... vote Liberal because they do things the "way they ought to be done", and things are done the way they are because we have a "Liberal" party.

The Liberals are just as ideologically driven as the conservatives, you just happen to favor the ideology that they are pushing.

They seem, given the several Republican strategists they have consulting for them

First of all, while it is true that the Conservatives have had Republican strategists working for them, I rather suspect that most of the work they've done has been on how to run elections. (Frankly, the idea that we'd need to bring in Republican strategists to tell us what a 'conservative' policy seems a little silly.)

Secondly, keep in mind that the act of bringing in "outside" help is not something restricted to the conservatives. The Liberal party, for example, brought in James Carville in 2002. (And all of the main political parties are members of various international organizations with members of similar ideological leanings.)

Now, perhaps because it's a little before my time, but I don't recall the Progressive Conservatives of old being as ideologically driven. The biggest thing I can recall that might qualify is the Free Trade Agreement, but that was put to the electorate in the form of the 1988 federal election (which the Tories won handily).

Ummmm... every ruling party has voted into law that was either A: not part of an election issue, or B: contrary to what the party campaigned on. Consider for example the issue of gay marriage... Now, I have no problem with same sex marriage, but the issue was never a major campaign issue in the election before it was voted into law.

Decisions like dumping the G20 summit on downtown Toronto and trying to claim it as a economic benefit for the city do nothing to inspire my confidence.

Its called "political spin". Every party does it.

Uh, unless that information is publicly disclosed in such a way that it names the specific person, I don't see the problem. When you fill out your tax return you are giving out a whole bunch of personal income data.

Ok, first of all, while you are right in that the information is already known by the "tax man", by also giving the information to a second group of individuals (stats can) you are basically doubling the chance that such information might end up 'leaking out'. (Remember,

Secondly, given the information contained in the long form, it might actually be possible for someone to identify an individual. Remember, the census contains the postal code (used for geographical information), racial information, etc. If you are an ethnic minority with an unusual income in a particular area, someone might be able to identify your answers that way.)

 

[fitzgibbon]

Secondly, given the information contained in the long form, it might actually be possible for someone to identify an individual. Remember, the census contains the postal code (used for geographical information), racial information, etc. If you are an ethnic minority with an unusual income in a particular area, someone might be able to identify your answers that way.)

Lotsa qualifiers in your rather unlikely hypothetical there. You're definitely don't seem to have a realistic grasp on how statistics get used in the real world. If the KKK or neo-Nazis are looking for groups of non-whites, I very much doubt they'll be buying statistical information from StatsCan.

 

[fitzgibbon]

It's just politics. Nothing to get wound up about. StatsCan will continue to do their jobs and likely outsource information collection and possibly assessment.

And the information will be less reliable making it less desirable and less useful. Better to hamstring StatsCan to appease 6 high-net-worth, easily-embarrassed Tory supporters?

 

[stilicho]

They seem, given the several Republican strategists they have consulting for them, interested in bringing here the kind of rabidly partisan, wedge-issue type of politics seen in the U.S. these days.

This is rather overblown. In case you haven't noticed, "Republican strategists" just recently handed over control of the White House, Senate, and the House to the other guys. Harper's advisors are a lot smarter than that.

You might want to examine the strategies of the parties opposing the Conservatives for a hint about what's costing them support. Maybe they're the ones who've hired the "Republican strategists".

The Liberal party has been unable to unseat a populist regional faction from its own historical stronghold in Quebec. This is shades of what happened to them in the West in the first part of the last century. Perhaps they should buckle down and study the consequences of ignoring the voices of those who ought to be their strongest supporters.

 

[stilicho]

And the information will be less reliable making it less desirable and less useful. Better to hamstring StatsCan to appease 6 high-net-worth, easily-embarrassed Tory supporters?

I am not sure if it's "better" but it is a popular policy. Popular policies generally result in electoral support. If it doesn't and Long-Form Census activists take to the streets in high numbers and stop contributing to the Conservative Party then I'm sure they'll reconsider.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I am not sure if it's "better" but it is a popular policy.

ORLY?

Colour me puzzled.

Coincidence? I think not!

Popular policies generally result in electoral support.

Which given the recent (post-long-form-hatchet-job) polling done suggests the polar opposite of what you're positing.

Could you kindly explain your black-is-white read on things?

If it doesn't and Long-Form Census activists take to the streets in high numbers and stop contributing to the Conservative Party then I'm sure they'll reconsider.

Ah! So bloody revolution's the level that the public needs to express itself to get Steve to listen? Gotcha! Figured as much.

You're not Tony Clement, are you?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Good blog post on the census controversy and Stockwell "Chilling" Day's comments:

http://andrewdsmith.wordpress.com/2...hat-history-professors-are-useful-to-society/

"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?” [Stockwell] wrote. “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?”"...

Of course, university-educated people who were born in Canada and who read newspapers will likely recognize Day`s absurd statement for what it is. They know that the Canadian government, which includes a vigorous privacy commissioner, is one of the most data-trustworthy governments in the world.

The danger is that people who are on the margins of our society culturally and economically, such as semi-literate native-born Canadians or refugees from dictatorships, might very well buy into Day`s alarmism and refuse to complete the 2011 census. Friends who have worked as census takers tell me that immigrants from repressive regimes are very reluctant to provide data. In many parts of the world, the conspiracy theories about the government are sometimes true. As a minister of the Crown, Mr Day has an obligation to put their fears to rest, not to stoke them. Mr Day’s comments are extremely destructive of the levels of social trust that have hitherto characterized Canadian society. He is essentially inviting new Canadians and members of the non-voting classes in society to distrust the State and to fear their neighbour. That will have big implications for future police officers, game officers, teachers, etc., not just for the census officials who go door to door with clipboards. Day`s comments remind me of the Tea Party people in the US who are trying to delegitimize their own government in the eyes of their fellow taxpayers, which is a surefire recipe for increased tax evasion.

It should be stressed that the Canadian government uses the census to produce aggregate data about communities...

Even in the bad old days when Canada had explicitly racist laws such as the Chinese Head Tax on the books, the Canadian government has never used census data to track down specific individuals. To have done so would have been to destroy trust in the confidentiality of next census. The government did not use the results of the 1941 census to identify the addresses of Japanese Canadians. It used other records to round them up


That last point is an interesting one to me.


Another thing that interests me is how the Conservatives have been able to paint themselves as guardians of privacy when they have authored bills like this one:

Second, the bill requires all ISPs to surrender customer name, address, IP address, and email address information upon request without court oversight. In taking this approach, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan has reneged on the promise of his predecessor and cabinet colleague Stockwell Day, who pledged not to introduce mandated subscriber data disclosure without court oversight.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Another thing that interests me is how the Conservatives have been able to paint themselves as guardians of privacy when they have authored bills like this one:

But....but.....but.......that's DIFFERENT!!!!

 

[Blue Mountain]

I f'n hate when people do that.

As someone (can't recall who, now) once said, "It's called Question period, not Answer period."

 

[Captain.Sassy]

But....but.....but.......that's DIFFERENT!!!!

Indeed: the internet police bill has pedophiles in it.

It's like that line in "How to Get Ahead in Advertisint", where the guy is explaining how Britain and the Soviets both have missiles, but the Soviet missiles are the ones threatening the extinction of mankind because the British missiles are made with a secret ingredient: peace!

If we want to save the census we should frame it as somehow helping the government identify possible terrorist targets or catch sex offenders or something.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

As someone (can't recall who, now) once said, "It's called Question period, not Answer period."

touche