this post was submitted on
213 points (80% like it)
283 up votes 70 down votes
all 114 comments

[–]toxiccandles 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And don't forget, please, that the conservative alternative will cost quite a bit more to produce less reliable information.

It is also clearly not about privacy because Stats Can has to abide by very stringent privacy laws. There are and have been no breaches of privacy.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nor did they consult with the Privacy Commissioner prior to making this decision.

[–]toxiccandles 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And speaking of money, the conservatives have suggested that if people want reliable statistics on Canadians, they should pay for someone to get it for them.

Considering that loudest complaints for this policy change have come from the municipalities who need the information, doesn't that mean that the conservatives are saying that municipalities need to raise their taxes because they aren't going to get a free ride on the census anymore?

Conservatives: They don't think you pay enough taxes for the planning that needs to be done.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is something terribly wrong with this. The reasons I've heard from the Conservative government as to why they're doing this are all bogus. Saying its an invasion of privacy, when there have been very few complaints. Saying they don't feel its right for citizens to be threatened with prosecution if they don't fill it out, when very very few have ever been prosecuted. And the number of offices and administrations that depend on this information that have spoken out against this have been ignored. It's full of wrong. It ain't broke, don't fix it. But it's being broken by them for some reason.

Census branch director-general Peter Morrison called the response to the census a "resounding success," especially on Canada's native reserves. (2008)

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Inaccurate data will allow them to push bullshit legislation through in the future without people being able to point out how obviously wrong it is.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But the conservatives have been very shrewd rounding out the corners and making elitist and polarizing governance easier by the day. Every decision is not that big a deal, but the cumulative effect is the transformation of Canada into a polarized and brutish society, relinquished of it's sympathies for the poor and respect for the diverse

[–]bobdobbsisdead 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it's more likely the first step in getting rid of the census (and likely statscan) altogether. You eliminate a key piece, then a year down the line point out that it's not providing any useful data and needs to be scrapped to save tax payers money.

[–]mylescloutier 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If this is an invasion of preivacy what about S-10? The copyright bill...

[–]Arkkon 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I despise their decision. My best friend just got his degree in Human Geography. This will undo five years of his studies. His job will disappear without reliable statistical information. So will thousands of other Canadians, when it's suddenly revealed that Oh! There are hardly any rural Canadians! Just look at the census data! And there aren't that many immigrants, so why worry about them? Or minorities! Or the disenfranchised and illiterate, they've all magically disappeared!

This decision will both cost more money and result in utterly unreliable statistical information that is vital to the functioning and growth of Canada. There is literally no good reason for this decision. It boggles my mind. The only reason I can think of is if Harper and the PMO want minorities, the uneducated, and those who live in rural communities to be vastly underrepresented.

[–]jeannaimard 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do you really think that the Canadian Reform Alliance Party gives a fuck about your best friend’s carreer???

[–]daisy0808 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No. They don't give a CRAP.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey, I remember that one!

[–]zombieaynrand 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

(Gee, why would conservatives want underrepresentation of already disenfranchised people? It's like y'all's government is taking all the wrong lessons from Bush II.)

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Arkkon 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Have you read the rest of this thread? It's not a minor change. It will create a distinct split between "before" and "after," and the information gathered after can not be compared to information gathered before. Imagine being unable to compare unemployment statistics from a decade to now. Imagine being unable to estimate the growth of immigrant populations because you can't compare. Imagine being unable to plan for infrastructure expansion, new hospitals, points of government service, all because you no longer have reliable information.

That is what's happening. My best friend has studied statistical analysis with a focus on Human and Urban Geography. Without reliable statistics, any analyst is in deep trouble.

[–]PeonVoter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Private business can plan for infrastructure and points of service without making everyone fill enormous forms simply by following demand.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But all our sampling is based on population estimates. You can create a new sample with extra detail but to determine it's generalizability requires knowledge of the population. Moreover, this is not just about private business. This is Canada's mist clear portrait of herself for all sorts of reasons.

[–]PeonVoter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And most of these sorts of reasons are bad reasons.

The government shouldn't have a mint-clear portrait of the population.

[–]1pointlessidea 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The government shouldn't have a mint-clear portrait of the population.

It's not just for the government, it is for absolutely every individual in Canada. It is freedom of information, it allows business owners to identify desirable locations, it allows you to know when you are being lied to, it allows for every person in Canada to have an image of Canada. And allows us as citizens, and the government to both determine what steps are necassary, to create the growth and sustainable infrastructure necessary to keep moving Canada forward.

Statistics Canada's information is one of the most important things we as Canadians have. It is used by students everywhere, to determine their chosen fields for instance. It allows for informed decisions to be made by all.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh yes, because the Nazis are coming, and if we know who the Jews are then the census is responsible for their death (see: Netherlands).

Remember, we're not getting rid of the census, just keeping the long-form mandatory. Its a random 20%, so its not like people are out finding specific individuals and stalking them.

[–]daisy0808 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Private business relies on government statistics in order to understand demographics and key areas for growth. Gathering data is expensive, and people are much less inclined to give over personal information to a private entity than a public one. There are checks and balances in the way public institutions manage personal information and privacy - we can't guarantee that with private institutions.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You know what? I worked as a statistician too ( published in statcan, btw). Congrats. It's besides the point. Your vague discussion of the possibility ofthe voluntary sample belies your ignorance regardless of where you worked

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You must have been terrible at your job.

[–]senae 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh, ahh, I see. I remember reading that the government would be hiring plants to troll the internet whereever there's a dissenting opinion.

What are Steve's shoes like? He seems like a man that cares about a good pair of shoes.

Edit: Also, a first year art student that took a stats course for an elective and then failed would be able to point out that if you don't have unbiased data, it's not usable data. An elective study is not a census, and can't be used.

[–]aedes 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I feel sorry for your boss then.

Either that or youre just making shit up on the Internet - much like how I would be very suspicious of someone on the Internet saying they're a doctor, but they don't see how banning pharmaceutical research could be detrimental.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's got to be troll talk or some puffy devils advocate pantomime bullshit. This ain't a minor change.

[–]ThinkFreeCanada 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From my perspective, the census is no more a privacy invasion than the Income Tax Return. I don't see the gov't eliminating my requirement to file income tax. Privacy is a BS response and the Prime Minister knows it. That is why he tried to bury the story by announcing it in the Canada Gazette on the weekend of the G20.

This is pretty shameful. I would consider this incident along with the aftermath of the G20 the greatest tests our democracy has faced in recent memory. If this government is allowed to get away with these actions without penalty, well the future is not bright for Canadian democracy. Remember, this is incredibly similar to the shit the neo-cons in the US pulled. First they came down hard on civil liberties, then they started actively hiding policy decisions from their citizens.

I am glad to see the Liberals taking up arms on this issue. Though after Ignatieff's non-response on the G20 police actions, they are highly suspect in my book.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would consider this incident along with the aftermath of the G20 the greatest tests our democracy has faced in recent memory.

Is this a joke? Making long-form census forms optional is one of the greatest tests our democracy has faced? Of all the mundane things to whine about ... you kids ought to learn your history.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is, actually. It is hard to see but still important. It's a test of whether people will continue to trust the state and participate in it's governance on a huge national scale.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Proroguing to avoid a confidence vote. Proroguing again to distract from the detainee scandal. Withholding documents from Parliament. withholding witness from parliamentary committees. Attacks on access to information. Making the budget an omnibus bill to push through legislation without proper debate. (Just a few of their greatest anti-democracy hits...) The census change is on that continuum, definitely part of the overall program, but I wouldn't say it's near the top of the list.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I consider it a very large issue because its effects are so important...but so indirect. Its easy to see the problems with proroguing Parliament. Its difficult to see the problems with this, despite its consequences.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The people's trust in the state should emerge from its actions, not be bought with optimally distributed bread and circuses.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sure - and in this case (or rather the actions of this wing of government, not parliament) its actions have heretofore been completely classy, sensitive to privacy and statistically robust.

If you want to criticize a state for its bad actions, I think it is also fair to reward it with good faith when it shows consistently good judgment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I should have added the qualifier: "If one is inclined to trust a group of politicians and bureaucrats with the power to initiate violence against otherwise innocent people, then that trust should only emerge..."

I do not fall into that group. I trust no one with the power to initiate violence, or threats thereof, against me; I trust even less those who would assert they have a right to such power.

To hold any other sentiment is to be illiberal, naive, and dangerous to ones fellow man.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's a lovely sentiment, but also one that would strain under the need to organize large numbers of people. Moreover, I do think its important to disentangle politics from bureacracy, purely because I don't think we should extend naive trust to our politicians. Bureaucracies, on the other hand, can be run with clear and transparent goals, as well as create positive externalities (such as data that can be used by, and hence lift up, everyone involved).

In this vein, I don't think that anyone from Statistics Canada up or down is interested in the government's relationship to power. I take a pragmatist, rather than libertarian view. In this view, the census is trying to facilitate an accurate reflection of the country to the country in order to prevent the need for 'trust me' politics, and instead provide as accurate reporting as possible. And to do this while preserving the privacy of the citizens - its a tall order but one that they do well.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that would strain under the need to organize large numbers of people.

Nonsense.

[–]stevescorpio -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would agree that the short form census is no more an invasion than Income Tax but the long form has a few bits that push the line. Most of it I am fine with and I don't think it should be done away with. But it is no business of the government what religion my family practices nor should we be required to state what "ethnicity" we belong to.

[–]atcoyou 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I guess the only issue is if non-alberta-white-christians fail to fill out the long form, and the alberta-white-christians do. Bam! Policy of shifting all the nations wealth to a Church in Calgary becomes viable "on the data". I would want to say our representatives would be slightly more subtle, but I suspect they could just prorogue if there is any opposition. (btw I have nothing against alberta-white-christians just using it as a random example, the same as the people who have to fill out the full form will be 'random')

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]atcoyou 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sounds like a very creative plan. I think I will include this example in my letter to my MP. Special interrest groups would have a new tool.

[–]stevescorpio 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The issue from my perspective is the government should not be making policy around religion and ethnicity so why are they asking about it?

[–]beeblez 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ethnicity is important for the planning of both immigration, policing, and education policy, and many other areas I'm probably forgetting.

For instance, I grew up in east Vancouver (the nice part) which is "highly multicultural" to put it mildly. Many immigrants may not speak English. Now without looking at census data, how many translators should the police force hire, and how many of each language will be needed?

Similar questions pop up across a range of government services.

edit: upvotting you anyway for bringing up a legitimate point of view. Don't know why you're getting the reddit hate today. :(

[–]stevescorpio 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Good points but when I think "ethnicity" I think "race", not necessarily language. Asking somebody what languages they speak is more reasonable than assuming their spoken languages based on race.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Now without looking at census data, how many translators should the police force hire, and how many of each language will be needed?

Police statistics would provide a far more accurate indicator than the hugely lagged, and statistically inapplicable census numbers. Stevescorpio's point still stands.

[–]beeblez 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The census numbers are statistically applicable though, ant not nearly as unreliable as you seem to think. They are relied on frequently at many levels of government. Police statics are not flawless either, and I having fewer points of information to compare things too does not make analysis more accurate.

For instance if police statistics say 50% of all arrests in Vancouver are south Asian (picking a random demographic, sorry South Asians), I think it would be relevant to what percentage of people living in Vancouver are South Asian. etc.

The point is that "the Government" by and large actually does spend most of its time "serving communities" in some fashion, and that it's helpful to know who lives in the community you serve. It allows the government to improve over time.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]Palestrina 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sure they are. You need to indicate whether you are M or F on the T1; you indicate whether you are married or not (and, if you are married, your return is matched with your spouse's, hence providing a strong clue to your sexual orientation) and, if you live in Ontario at least, your municipal property tax form DOES ask at least one question about your religion (indirectly, by asking whether you will participate in a Catholic or public school).

[–]katana2k 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How is it more appropriate for the government to ask how much money you made last year and where it came from?

[–]themusicgod1 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why not?

What a better way to make society more equitable than to do this? Or are you against that too?

[–]senae 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you're honestly against the information being collected in the census for privacy reasons, fuck you.

Seriously, there's a part of me that hates you, and wishes you thought about things seriously before saying them.

[–]jellicle 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The government knows your gender already.

There are no questions about sexual preference or religion on the census.

Maybe you should learn something about the issue before commenting.

[–]scottb84 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]CDLTO 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you for taking the time to do so.

[–]eberndl 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you, I've used it as a template for my own letter.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't believe they did this. Why do the conservatives pander to lazy people? Apparently it's wrong for a government to ask citizens to do literally anything. This mentality of "I refuse to do something if you tell me I have to" is frankly a little sad.

It's not socialist to simply require you to acknowledge under what capacity you live in this country. Christ these people toppled the government based off the fact they were to lazy to tell the government how many human killing devices they keep in their home.

This is NOT about privacy this is about childish laziness and egotism. "How dare someone force me to do anything". I associate this with the type of person who doesn't move over to the empty left lane when you are trying to merge in traffic. "I don't have to do ANYTHING for you!".

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, it isn't about privacy, as much as they are trying to make that appear to be the reason. This article shows the actual numbers of complaints that have been received over the past 20 years because of the census: http://www.canada.com/Privacy+commissioner+sees+complaints+about+census+form/3277449/story.html tl;dr: in the past 20 years, 50 people complained about questions on the long form. After these issues were addressed, the number dropped to 16. That's right, 16.

[–]senae 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

50 people complaining about anything the government does is such a low number it's practically 0.

[–]Siraf 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

50 people complained about questions on the long form. After these issues were addressed, the number dropped to 16. That's right, 16.

And the fact that we can gather statistics about gather statistics? Would not the value of that be lost too?

My fear is the message it sends to those wanting to make legislation: market it, lobby it, cartel it. Hmm. Seems kinda corporate. But even corporations love statistics.

[–]jeannaimard 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What the Canadian Reform Alliance Party wants is to deprive the government of the data it uses to take meaningful decisions, in order to “prove” that government “doesn’t work” in order to reduce it to a minimal level consistent with their ideology (that government should only protect the rich).

[–]Balso 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The original intent was to cancel the census entirely. That would have required, however, a bill in the house of commons. Making the long census optional was a way to get rid of its validity without asking anyone for permission.

Source: Muzzled Statscan civil servant

[–]Palestrina 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What? Whoa. Really?!

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Please elaborate, if you can. If this is true, it could blow the Cons out of the water.

[–]Balso -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, to be perfectly honest, I heard this from person A who works for Person B that had lunch with the high ranking person from Statscan.

There's also no way a public servant would divulge that kind of information and risk losing their jobs.

Also, consider Harper's history and background. I always refer to the speech he gave at the Council for National Policy to impress on people what his personal views of Canada are. Why this speech didn't "blow him out of the water" is beyond me.

Now look at how in the US, the Libretarian movement is purposefully not answering the census. In fact the American Response rate was 71% There is a serious movement amongst conservatives to not answer the census, and Harper forcefully brought it into Canada without asking if Canadians want it.

tldr; Harper only cares about what HE wants, and the people who know are too scared to tell the world

[–]MrSchadenfreude 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"There's also no way a public servant would divulge that kind of information and risk losing their jobs."

Right there. That upsets me. Public servants, by their very nature, should be working for us, the general populace. They should not be at risk of losing their jobs by doing something beneficial for common man.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What is perhaps unfortunate is that many people I know completely agree with Harper's logic that the census long form is a privacy invasion. Many people do not feel even the government should know these sorts of things, no matter how secure the data is kept.

And I do empathize, but I think this is a situation that is neither black nor white. There is a benefit associated with the government having access to this information, and it needs to be weighed against the risks of the information being used nefariously.

Personally, though, I'm still on the fence. I've never been asked to fill out the long form, so I don't have the perspective that other people might.

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 12 points13 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What makes me laugh (a sad, cynical laugh) is that people who think that the census is an invasion of their privacy probably don't think twice about giving away this kind of information to private companies, who just use it to target marketing and make more money. Anyone who fills out an Angus Reid survey, for example, is giving the same level of detail, but to a private corporation who probably make few promises about security of data. Statscan, on the other hand, is unbelievably careful with privacy issues. To the point of ridiculousness, in many cases, I might add.

However, the census is actually used to make society and the economy function!

People need to get their heads out of their asses. Seriously.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the comment - I too used to believe that the census was a privacy invasion (picked the habit up from my parents). However, I'm starting to change my mind I think.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's astonishingly secure data. Have a look into the Research Data Centers across Canada. Canada has been very serious up to now about keeping this safe and very good, too.

It's so secure I would be absolutely shock if a harper plant could even get access to that data let alone "accidentally" misplace it in a bomb the Reichstag moment.

[–]MasturGrate 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You would never get more secure data in a private organization. Research is done in a controlled environment in the data centres, papers not allowed, access to the buildings and data is tracked. I remember a controversy with peoples health records blowing in the wind and being found on the street. But this would never happen with census data, the information couldn't be more protected.

[–]onebit -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is the census optional in canada? i think a citizen should only be required to fill in basic information

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, the census is not optional. You are randomly assigned either the short form (very little personal information) or the long form (more detailed questions).

I've only had to fill out the census twice, and got the short form both times. From what I remember, it basically boils down to "how much do you make in a year, and how many people live in your household". The long form apparently has detailed questions about purchasing habits, lifestyle, nationality, etc.

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 3 points4 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh dear... no, there are no questions about purchasing habits, or anything like that. It is all demographic data used to inform and target programs and services.

Here is a list of the questions asked on the 2B (long) form:

  • name
  • date of birth
  • marital status
  • place of birth
  • disability
  • citizenship
  • immigrant status
  • language
  • ethnic ancestry
  • Aboriginal status
  • visible minority category
  • mobility/migration
  • place of birth of parents
  • level of education, and where education was received
  • occupation, labour market activity and unpaid work, how do you get to work, language of work
  • income
  • questions about your dwelling

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh, and every ten years, religion is asked too.

[–]CDLTO 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No questions about purchasing habits or lifestyles. That data comes from voluntary yearly surveys. The long form covers topics such as immigration, commute, your household, and religion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This. Look up community profiles on Statcan, it's basically all the information that goes Ono the long form in aggregate form about cities across Canada.

[–]atcoyou 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We must continue to assert that this is about accurate data so that government can represent Canada properly. We must not allow this to be framed as a privacy issue. In arguments or speaking with representatives make sure to emphasize that the issue is we want a representative Canada.

[–]wolever 1 point2 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A few bits of information:

  • Organizations which oppose the scrapping of the long-form census: 1 2 3
  • Privacy-related complaints (and the lack thereof): 1 2
  • Uses of Census Long-form Data — “As part of my PhD dissertation research I have been investigating the Census of Canada…”

I'll update this as I find more information…

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Request for edit: don't you mean "Organizations which oppose the scrapping of the long-form census"

[–]wolever 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Err… Yes, that is what I mean =\ Thanks.

[–]jawndisease 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Aren't they just making it optional?

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No.

Here is what happened: the PMO told Statscan that the long form was going to be scrapped. There was no call for this; it was a 100% political decision from the top. Statscan freaked out, and told the PMO that was incredibly stupid, and that most of government would likely grind to a halt without access to data. PMO said, well, suck it, the long form is scrapped, so if you need data, you'll have to come up with something else. So, with a gun to their heads, Statscan presented Clement with three options, all of which were lousy.

The one Clement chose was to have a voluntary "National Household Survey", which would be sent to 30% of the households in Canada. This will cost $30 million MORE than the current long form census (proving that this was political decision, not a fiscal one).

So the new survey will be voluntary, but it will no longer be a census. People who are captured by the real census will not fill out the new voluntary survey, so those groups will be severely underrepresented in the survey. For example, the Aboriginal population of Canada will instantly appear to drop from nearly 6% to nearly 0%. The number of recent immigrants will also drop to nothing, as well as those whose first language are not English or French. Suddenly, Canada will be populated by third generation, middle-aged, white, well-off Europeans who live only in cities.

That is one issue. Another is that there will no longer be a data source anywhere that will allow for anyone to make decisions about things like hospitals, roads, schools, bridges, public and private transportation, environmental assessment, placement of garbage dumps, public housing, epidemiological planning and crises, government service access points, etc, etc.

There are countless other issues.

Go to Globe and Mail and read any article on this topic, and that will tell the same story.

[–]jawndisease 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh.

Yeah, that's fuckin' weak, man.

[–]getting_old_not_wise 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think its a bad move but fear different results. I fear it will be the lethargic apathetic middle class that will be disproportionately under represented by the optional data collected - they won't be motivated to submit an optional form. I expect that the heightened awareness of the issue will help campaigns be organized by groups that want funding for this or that in particular regions. The census was always opened to be gamed by activists but now it is more so - in fact, i suspect you can claim it is now easy to manipulate the data. I'll start: let's all copy the UK and claim to be Jedi

[–]kiri_cheese -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another is that there will no longer be a data source anywhere that will allow for anyone to make decisions about things like hospitals, [ect]

this information isn't going to disappear. Market research companies will compete for it. It probably won't be as precise as census data, but it will still be collected. So I imagine they will still know where to build all the things you listed.

It's a bad move by the government but won't force cities, schools and businesses to start walking completely blind.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't express how shitty market research data is compared to the census. it's virtuallyimpossible to get something as high resolution as the census. This is a Hubble versus top of the line prosumer telescope difference.

[–]sibtiger 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How does a private polling company know if their sample is representative of the population at large? They compare it to the census and weigh the data accordingly. Without the census private polling becomes worse.

[–]kiri_cheese 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They can also compare it with data from other polling companies.

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This wouldn't work either, since most polling firms have now gone the route of online polling, the most flawed of all polling methods because of the (self) selection bias. They "correct" their results by using census weights according to the known distribution of demographic groups in Canada.

Without the census, no company would have an authoritative yardstick against which to weight their results. Everyone would be shooting in the dark.

[–]docproctopus 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They are making the long form census optional. That does nothing to mitigate the negative effects of this news.

The long form, which until now was compulsory for 20% of the Canadian population, is the only access to reliable demographic statistical information about Canadians. This is precisely because it was compulsory and not optional. If it's optional, we'll still get responses, but they will be affected by selection bias — more rich people than poor people will respond, more highly educated people will be more likely to respond, and so forth.

The government's response to this is to distribute the long form to 30% instead of 20%. Even if only 10% of people who got it decided not to fill it out, this does not change the fact that the results will be skewed by selection bias, when the census was previously the only source of statistical information that was not.

If these changes go through, all of the sorts organizations listed in the title will have to work from inaccurate demographic data. Additionally, data collected under these optional forms will not be comparable to census data from previous years, effectively forcing Statistics Canada to start from scratch.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That does suck for organizations that base decisions or recommendations on census data. However, they will probably operate by transforming the data based on random phone surveys. For instance, they will try to determine what percentage of poor people are likely to respond, and then what percentage of rich people are likely to. Then they will attempt to correct for the bias introduced.

It would be far from perfect, it would cost them (us) a lot more money, but they could still sort of work it out.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm doubtful the will get the sort of precision they need. Basically, it's just an ideological decision. It's shoehorimg a version of "live and let live" libertarianism into what ought to be a completely coordinated effort.

[–]nerox3 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes they will be able to modify the data to adjust for the self selection bias but that doesn't improve the data and introduces a new source of potential error. There will fundamentally be a larger variance because of this extra degree of freedom. The larger variance will come into play when someone starts attempting to analyze small subgroups, such as a particular neighbourhood of Toronto.

[–]murderous_rage 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, the OP's headline is slightly inaccurate but the truth is even worse.

[–]talso 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take a moment to learn from the past..

Census data? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

YOU'RE NEXT PASTAFARIANS. You and your noodly ways. You make me sick.

[–]Gash77 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Caps lock is not your friend

[–]alephip 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Census would be much better if IT HAD MORE CAPS LOCK.

[–]burtzev -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

 There's something missing in this. What does it say about the "social planners" if they don't have an immediate understanding of the communities they are commanding (excuse me, "planing for") ?

[–]CDLTO 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So you think they should make decisions based upon gut feelings rather than qualitative analysis?

[–]burtzev 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I thought the implication was clear ie that the social managers have no connection to the people they are presumably serving. They have to learn about them from outside of their experience. Think about that for awhile.

[–]CDLTO 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Uhhh... yeah? Should the planning department of the city of Calgary have an intimate knowledge of every city block's average household size? How about the Ontario Ministry of Health knowing income levels for every community in the entire province?

Of course people have to learn from outside their experience. This is how society and industry works.

[–]PeonVoter -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personally I feel this is probably the one good thing this government has done simply by the outraged reaction of very dangerous bureaucrats, who assure us that our rights were not violated by the system before, and never will be, and assure us that they can't do their jobs without it.

[–]lifelonglearning 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Name two "very dangerous bureaucrats". Any two, and tell me why they are dangerous (or provide links) and I will eat my hat and and apologize for calling you an idiot. Idiot.

Full disclosure: I am not a bureaucrat.

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't really know what to say to you, besides just shake my head and smile a sad smile. I will just say this: the idea of a "dangerous bureaucrat" is so far off the mark, you have no idea. 99.9% of bureaucrats have no power at all. That is what makes public service so dejecting a lot of the time. People go into the public service in order to do just that - serve the public. Don't laugh, it is true. You can insult us all you like, but when it comes down to it, we are hardworking, well-meaning people doing our jobs the best that we can, with the tools we have, just like you. For most of us, taking away the census data is like taking a hammer away from a carpenter.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

But really, do you realize value when you see it, ordont you?

[–]Vital_Statistix[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So move to a third world country where you can live free of all of this annoying developed country nonsense. Have fun with that, you stupid, snivelling, spoiled brat.

[–]PeonVoter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why do we have to move? You're the one who is against government policy.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

r/canada opposes everything Harper does.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Against long-form census papers.