[dennis1]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chief-statistician-asked-to-rethink-census-for-2016/article1904832/

Problem?

[madmigs]

When it comes to the 2011 census, however, Mr. Smith said he is sure about one thing: there’s no justification for critics to say that moving to a voluntary long-form survey will wreck the quality of the data.

“I’m asking Canadians to suspend judgment because there’s no scientific basis for saying this is going to be fundamentally flawed.”

umm yeah right! Enforcing the random long-form survey ensured that it was that a random sample. Now we are spending more money to send it out to twice as many people, who have no compulsion to fill out, so even if the same # of people fill it out as before, the randomness is ruined as certain demographics are more likely to fill it out than others. The US tried this approach a couple censuses ago, and discovered that the costs to fix the data were just too high and quickly reversed course. After all our previous head of StatsCan didn't resign in protest just for the hell of it.

[Waterlooson]

^^ No he resigned because he was a very frustrated dictator.... Canadians are forced to file enough forms without the census.

[vid]

No he resigned because he was a very frustrated dictator

Harper was the dictator. Sheikh resigned because he felt like he had let down StatsCan by not being able to prevent the changes forced on them by the government. The move greatly damaged StatsCan's integrity and reputation world wide and he couldn't deal with that kind of responsibility, so he resigned to give the appearance that someone was at least taking responsibility for the problem. It was discussed on the January 8 edition of Definitely Not the Opera (http://www.cbc.ca/dnto/episode/2011/01/07/dnto-tackles-the-big-decision-jan-8/).

We're probably going to see a lot of wild and unpredictable demographics shifts as a result of this decision, and that will result in bad spending decisions. In the long run this is going to be very costly and hurt a lot of people who depend on this information, or on organizations that use it to provide their services. Municipalities and provinces will likely have to spend a lot more on studies to obtain accurate data for planning purposes.

I've always said Stephen Harper was just as bad as the Liberals when it came to poorly thought out decisions and policies, broken promises and costly mistakes. Every month he proves me right, and the census will be no different.

[niwell]

^^ No he resigned because he was a very frustrated dictator.... Canadians are forced to file enough forms without the census.

Yeah, I have to file so many forms, it's incredibly irritating. Like, I'm about to fill out my taxes (multiple forms, can you BELIEVE IT?), and guess what? I HAD TO DO IT LAST YEAR!!! And what's even more galling, 5 years ago I had to fill out a census form as well!!! I mean, 2 forms in ONE YEAR? That's literally minutes of my time I'll never get back.

[MolsonExport]

^the horror!!! Of course citizenship shouldn't involve a single civic duty!

time for a Canadian Teabag party. ;) Or has Phil already phounded one?

[madmigs]

Harper was the dictator. Sheikh resigned because he felt like he had let down StatsCan by not being able to prevent the changes forced on them by the government. The move greatly damaged StatsCan's integrity and reputation world wide and he couldn't deal with that kind of responsibility, so he resigned to give the appearance that someone was at least taking responsibility for the problem. It was discussed on the January 8 edition of Definitely Not the Opera (http://www.cbc.ca/dnto/episode/2011/01/07/dnto-tackles-the-big-decision-jan-8/).

We're probably going to see a lot of wild and unpredictable demographics shifts as a result of this decision, and that will result in bad spending decisions. In the long run this is going to be very costly and hurt a lot of people who depend on this information, or on organizations that use it to provide their services. Municipalities and provinces will likely have to spend a lot more on studies to obtain accurate data for planning purposes.

I've always said Stephen Harper was just as bad as the Liberals when it came to poorly thought out decisions and policies, broken promises and costly mistakes. Every month he proves me right, and the census will be no different.

Not to mention Sheikh resigned for the gov't putting words in is mouth by saying that StatsCan said these changes would have no impact on the validity of the stats gathered when nothing of the sort had been said.

[Aylmer]

Edited to oblivion.

[madmigs]

Edit - no longer applicable

[Waterlooson]

Harper was the dictator. Sheikh resigned because he felt like he had let down StatsCan by not being able to prevent the changes forced on them by the government. The move greatly damaged StatsCan's integrity and reputation world wide and he couldn't deal with that kind of responsibility, so he resigned to give the appearance that someone was at least taking responsibility for the problem. It was discussed on the January 8 edition of Definitely Not the Opera (http://www.cbc.ca/dnto/episode/2011/01/07/dnto-tackles-the-big-decision-jan-8/).

We're probably going to see a lot of wild and unpredictable demographics shifts as a result of this decision, and that will result in bad spending decisions. In the long run this is going to be very costly and hurt a lot of people who depend on this information, or on organizations that use it to provide their services. Municipalities and provinces will likely have to spend a lot more on studies to obtain accurate data for planning purposes.

I've always said Stephen Harper was just as bad as the Liberals when it came to poorly thought out decisions and policies, broken promises and costly mistakes. Every month he proves me right, and the census will be no different.

Hold on chicken little.... the sky will not really fall. Even if we canceled the census altogether and held it only every 10 years, things wouldn't be too bad.... the US seems to manage.

So, Harper's a dictator because he did what he thought was politically expedient? Is that your definition of a dictator? The PM (through Parliament) is the political representative of the people of Canada... if the head of Stats Canada feels that his duties conflict with the political reality, than he should resign... I say good riddance.

Considering that Canada doesn't even bother to adjust the number of ridings each province gets after every census count (which should be the most important reason for a census), but threatens its citizens with jail if they don't fill out the census form, then it clearly has its priorities mixed up.

If you're suggesting that the threat of jail resulted in more accurate census data I have to disagree.... there is no evidence to support that position.

What really bugs me on this issue isn't having to fill out some form... it's the threat of jail if you don't.... meanwhile, census in and census out (over many decades), Ontario, Alberta and BC got screwed with the number of seats in Parliament that they are allotted. In the US, this is automatically adjusted.... why not in Canada?

[vid]

So, Harper's a dictator because he did what he thought was politically expedient? Is that your definition of a dictator?

Pretty much, yes. When the head of the executive branch of government makes a unilateral decision regarding a department against the wishes of a, the people in that department; b, the members of the legislative branch; c, the people who rely on that department's work; and d, the clear majority people who elect the members of the legislative and executive branches, it is a dictatorial action. (Bev Oda's 'not' was just stupidity; there exists a procedure to correct erroneous documents and that the document didn't reflect her wishes in the first place is a sign that something isn't working under her leadership; not even Liberals fucked up like this as far as I can remember!)

The PM (through Parliament) is the political representative of the people of Canada

No, he is the leader of the largest party made up of political representatives of the people of Canada and therefore is the leader of the part that, at this time, forms government (albeit a minority one); and while he heads the cabinet, chairs the executive and represents us abroad, it doesn't mean he should be allowed to just change shit on a whim when other people (read: one or two people) hate it. Even if the move was politically expedient for him, it scored, what? 10 votes for the Conservatives?

Considering that Canada doesn't even bother to adjust the number of ridings each province gets after every census count (which should be the most important reason for a census), but threatens its citizens with jail if they don't fill out the census form, then it clearly has its priorities mixed up.

So instead of changing the process to redistrict to every 5 years from every 10, we should make the census data less accurate? Instead of removing the threat of jail for not filling out a census form (a threat that was never carried out in the life of that law), we should make the census data less accurate? Instead of reflecting the majority of Canadians who had no real problem with the mandatory filling-out of the long form census our Political Representative should side with a handful of paranoid citizens who sent a few emails (which apparently use mitosis to reproduce at an awesome rate then die without leaving a trace) and compromise the integrity of the single most important survey conducted in this country?

If you're suggesting that the threat of jail resulted in more accurate census data I have to disagree.... there is no evidence to support that position.

The threat of jail didn't result in a more accurate census and I agree that that punishment should have been removed. The census was accurate because making mandatory the filling out of random long form surveys makes them more accurate than sending them to almost everyone and saying "you can fill this out or whatever, no biggy man; chill".

What really bugs me on this issue isn't having to fill out some form... it's the threat of jail if you don't....

THEN WHY NOT CHANGE THAT?! :fruit:

meanwhile, census in and census out (over many decades), Ontario, Alberta and BC got screwed with the number of seats in Parliament that they are allotted. In the US, this is automatically adjusted.... why not in Canada?

Because our constitution is different from theirs. I know this is a hard concept to understand for some people but we are not the United States of America and their laws to not apply to our country.

Is our system flawed? Yes. Should it be changed? Yes. Can it be changed? YES! But if we apply the same logic that resulted in abolishing mandatory filling out of long form census surveys will it be changed? No, we will just make ridings optional. It's not like Manitoba really uses theirs, you know? I mean, what have Rod Buinooge and Merv Tweed really done lately? I'm drawing a blank. :\

The formula for distributing ridings is broken and needs to be fixed, but addressing this issue by compromising the data quality of the census is like changing the radio station on your car stereo because the tires are flat. :koko: If the issue you have is unbalanced political representation, then I hate you break it to you, but this policy doesn't fix that. :pet:

if the head of Stats Canada feels that his duties conflict with the political reality, than he should resign... I say good riddance.

I forgot to address this part.

Suppose Trudeau created the NEP because it was politically expedient. Suppose the director of some government department disagrees with that decision.

"But vid, Pierre Trudeau is the political representative of Canadians and his decisions are politically expedient!! If the head of Government Department feels that his duties conflict with the political reality, then he should resign, and I say good riddance!!"

The year is 1987, and Canada is a Soviet Socialist Republic. How that *that* for "the sky is falling"? :stunned:

I'm sorry, but when it comes to the integrity of statistics, I am going to trust a statistician to tell me what is most appropriate for that department, policy wise, over an economist who couldn't actually become an economist and so he became a politician instead. But then, I could be wrong about all of this and making the census less accurate is the cure for achieving better political representation in Alberta, BC and the GTA--I mean, I have been called retarted before.

[madmigs]

Hold on chicken little.... the sky will not really fall. Even if we canceled the census altogether and held it only every 10 years, things wouldn't be too bad.... the US seems to manage.

So, Harper's a dictator because he did what he thought was politically expedient? Is that your definition of a dictator? The PM (through Parliament) is the political representative of the people of Canada... if the head of Stats Canada feels that his duties conflict with the political reality, than he should resign... I say good riddance.

Considering that Canada doesn't even bother to adjust the number of ridings each province gets after every census count (which should be the most important reason for a census), but threatens its citizens with jail if they don't fill out the census form, then it clearly has its priorities mixed up.

If you're suggesting that the threat of jail resulted in more accurate census data I have to disagree.... there is no evidence to support that position.

What really bugs me on this issue isn't having to fill out some form... it's the threat of jail if you don't.... meanwhile, census in and census out (over many decades), Ontario, Alberta and BC got screwed with the number of seats in Parliament that they are allotted. In the US, this is automatically adjusted.... why not in Canada?

The political reality is that Harper unilaterally decided to change the census, and from the haphazard, nonsensical, and ever-changing explanations given for the reason why, it was done on a whim. It was supposedly all about privacy yet the Privacy Commissioner got only a very small number of complaints(if i recall correctly < 10).

It was not the threat of jail time that made the data better. It was the fact that the long form census was randomly and evenly distributed and because everyone who got one had to fill it out, the returned forms were random and evenly dispersed. Now we are randomly and evenly distributing the long-form to twice as many people, but because it is optional, only the demographics that are prone to fill out the forms are likely to return it, thus resulting in the returned forms still random, but not evenly distributed. Thus making a mess of the statistics and now comparisons between this and previous census data, cannot reliably be done due to the differences in stats gathering, unless the stats were relying exclusively on short-form q's.

And as for the jail time, we could have simply just removed the jail time punishment and have it as a significant but not overly huge fine or something. It has to be significant enough to ensure non-compliance is very very low.

The census is not only to adjust the # of representatives in Parliament. Keep in mind there are also a number of other rules that must be followed to conform to our 1867 constitution and I believe it currently takes an act of Parliament to do it which due to political ramifications the ruling party may not want to do it(ie. it might give more seats friendly to opposition). Whereas in the US, I believe it is an automatic thing. Canada does adjust riding boundaries(apparently just within provincial boundaries) on census data, just not increase seats. I don't know if I want more seats as more seats = more money, but I would happily agree with a readjustment between provinces, but due to previously mentioned rules may not be possible without changing our 1867 constitution.

One of the main things the long-form did was to help get rid of demographical bias for filling out forms and surveys for other vital stats such as unemployment, crime rate, etc. But now the long-form will suffer from the same problem, and removing that bias, if possible, will take a lot of time and efford(read as $$$). I also feel I must mention that it is also used to correct for demographical bias in political polling as well, hope in the future nobody decides to call a snap election only to discover that the polls were very wrong.

And in some ways you are right, this one census by optional long-form survey won't be the end of the world, as some can no doubt be corrected from 2006 census data. But the further we get away from that, the less reliable the data. In any case, I suspect we will end up going back to a mandatory long-form like the US did after their voluntary form debacle.

[madmigs]

One good thing though to come from this discussion about the census is(from the article in the first post):

Mr. Smith, who took over from embattled chief statistician Munir Sheikh last summer and was appointed permanently in January, has been asked to study how other countries gather information and report with options that could shape the 2016 census.

Examples range from a register-based census, where governments dip into their records on their citizens, to surveying a different part of the country every year.

“The government wants to step back and say okay, ‘Let's look at those other models: what is possible in Canada,’” the new chief statistician said.

“People have suggested that if we could make a register[-based] census work in Canada, we could save buckets of money and avoid annoying a whole bunch of Canadians in asking them to fill out forms.”

Register-based surveys appeal to statisticians – because they could pull together all sorts of information – but could generate huge privacy concerns, he said.

The chief statistician, who will work with his advisory committee on the matter, said while no decision has been made, everything is on the table.

But the thing that sticks out to me is that while the register based surveys will be more accurate and less visibly intrusive, since no forms will need to be filled out, but behind the scenes could actually be more intrusive in terms of privacy. That said, its not like the various forms of gov't haven't already collected the data, as they have, it just means they need to compile all the data together(ie. instead of the long-form census) and then aggregate(ie. depersonalize) it like they do now. And of all the departments of the gov't, StatsCan is the one I trust the most(for now assuming no more political interference).

[Aylmer]

This comment has died. A memorial will be held next week Thursday.

[Aylmer]

Hold on chicken little.... the sky will not really fall. Even if we canceled the census altogether and held it only every 10 years, things wouldn't be too bad.... the US seems to manage.

If your friends jumped off a cliff...

Considering that Canada doesn't even bother to adjust the number of ridings each province gets after every census count (which should be the most important reason for a census), but threatens its citizens with jail if they don't fill out the census form, then it clearly has its priorities mixed up.

1. Exactly How many people were thrown in jail for not filling out the census? How many complaints were there concerning the census, even?

2. If it's a crime, wouldn't the 'right' thing to do be to increase jail times? You know, get tough on those criminals wandering our streets.


If you're suggesting that the threat of jail resulted in more accurate census data I have to disagree.... there is no evidence to support that position.

See questions 1. You know, I'll answer that for you:

- No One ever went to jail. EVER. EVER.
- In the last 20 years, there were less than 50 complaints about the census, two of which concerned the long-form census.

What really bugs me on this issue isn't having to fill out some form... it's the threat of jail if you don't.... meanwhile, census in and census out (over many decades), Ontario, Alberta and BC got screwed with the number of seats in Parliament that they are allotted. In the US, this is automatically adjusted.... why not in Canada?

3. I repeat, no one ever did a second of jail time because of the Census.
4. This is what I don't get. It's a tragedy when workers at a auto plant get laid off, but nothing could be easier than cutting jobs in the public service.
These are peoples' careers we're talking about, not some McJob you'll forget in a week. It isn't as simple as you'd like to believe to just cut ridings.

Source 1 (http://www.canada.com/Privacy+commissioner+sees+complaints+about+census+form/3277449/story.html)
Source 2 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2010/07/behind-the-numbers-taking-census-privacy-versus-the-public-good.html)


The Harper Conservatives' arguments are simple and bite-sized. Reality is complex and hard to swallow.

[Waterlooson]

I see that what the Government of Canada did on changing the census has driven you guys to the edge... so this may push you over it:

"Harper Conservatives closing in on majority support:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up a wide lead against their political rivals in public favour and would be close to winning a majority if an election occurred now, a new poll has found."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Harper+Conservatives+closing+majority+support+poll/4367960/story.html#ixzz1FSSOIjKr

Seems most Canadians aren't too upset with any changes Harper made regarding the census... it would appear that he has a lot of support.

[niwell]

Yes, because if you show general support of a government then obviously you support EVERYTHING THEY DO ALWAYS.

Of course polling done when the census decisions were made revealed a majority of Canadians did not agree with the changes. We'll ignore that though.

2011 may not be crucial, but I can safely say that if the long form remains voluntary, service delivery at all levels of government will be compromised and will inevitably cost more (read: taxes) due to increased reliance on third-party data. One viewpoint I am increasingly hearing from those who liase with upper levels of government is that this is the beginning of a deliberate shift towards the privitization of data collection, which is not entirely surprising.

But, y'know, privacy or whatever.

[Aylmer]

Public support does not equal the right thing to do.

The one thing Harper can do well is sell the simplest, most emotionally charged message in a soundbyte.

Oh, and you should know that polls don't mean jack.

[vid]

I see that what the Government of Canada did on changing the census has driven you guys to the edge... so this may push you over it:

"Harper Conservatives closing in on majority support:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up a wide lead against their political rivals in public favour and would be close to winning a majority if an election occurred now, a new poll has found."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Harper+Conservatives+closing+majority+support+poll/4367960/story.html#ixzz1FSSOIjKr

Seems most Canadians aren't too upset with any changes Harper made regarding the census... it would appear that he has a lot of support.

How nice of you to refute (or should I say refudiate?) our valid points with this totally meaningless bullshit. :)

The issues, please.

[Waterlooson]

^^ LOL... I take it that you're not a big Harper supporter. ;)

Ah, the burdens democracy places on elitism.

I made my points, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Aylmer]

Ah, the burdens democracy places on elitism.

I made my points, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Please, please don't resort to this kind of 'argument'. It's been seen so, so many times and it usually precedes the end of intelligent discussion.

Would you please delete it? I'll do the same for this post afterwards.

[Boris2k7]

2011 may not be crucial, but I can safely say that if the long form remains voluntary, service delivery at all levels of government will be compromised and will inevitably cost more (read: taxes) due to increased reliance on third-party data. One viewpoint I am increasingly hearing from those who liase with upper levels of government is that this is the beginning of a deliberate shift towards the privitization of data collection, which is not entirely surprising.

But, y'know, privacy or whatever.

The is the part that really unnerves me about the whole decision and the people who jump on the government's bandwagon. Private data collection is almost certainly going to be far more intrusive (in the sense of how individualized the data gets collected) and far less transparent (in the sense of policies relating to what data is collected and how it is sold) than the long-form census, so increasing reliance on it increases the risks to privacy.

[madmigs]

I see that what the Government of Canada did on changing the census has driven you guys to the edge... so this may push you over it:

"Harper Conservatives closing in on majority support:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up a wide lead against their political rivals in public favour and would be close to winning a majority if an election occurred now, a new poll has found."

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Harper+Conservatives+closing+majority+support+poll/4367960/story.html#ixzz1FSSOIjKr

Seems most Canadians aren't too upset with any changes Harper made regarding the census... it would appear that he has a lot of support.

Regarding polls -

OTTAWA—Canada’s notoriously competitive pollsters have some surprisingly uniform advice about the parade of confusing and conflicting numbers they’re about to toss at voters ahead of a possible spring election: Take political horse race polls with a small boulder of salt.

“Pay attention if you want to but, frankly, they don’t really mean anything,” sums up Andre Turcotte, a pollster and communications professor at Carleton University.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/938345--election-polls-are-fun-but-they-don-t-mean-a-thing-pollsters


AND

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Although public backing for the Conservatives has slipped, the party would easily retain power with a minority government if an election were held now, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

The Harris Decima survey for the Canadian Press put support for the Conservatives at 36 percent compared with 28 percent for the Liberals. A poll by the same firm two weeks ago had the Conservatives ahead by 37 percent to 25.

The survey was the latest to show the Conservatives comfortably in front of the Liberals ahead of an election that could come as soon as early May. The gap between the two main parties was less than that shown in recent surveys by other firms.

[...]

The Harris Decima survey of 2,020 Canadians was conducted between February 17 and 27 and is considered accurate within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/conservatives-shot-majority-poll-20110302-081534-750.html


In any case the thread for that is here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=189074