Herald Column: The Tories' Census Gambit

A little interruption from my vacation (I'm back on the air Monday 26 July) to draw your attention to my latest Calgary Herald column. This piece deals with the controversy over the decision to make the long-form census voluntary, and I argue that the federal government has handled it poorly: 

...Why did the government make the change? Well, it's taken a while to try to deduce that.

Initially, there was little in the way of a detailed and formal explanation from Industry Minister Tony Clement, who is responsible for Statistics Canada.

Eventually, the minister took to Twitter to defend the decision, hinting that the decision was based on the intrusiveness and the coercive nature of a mandatory long-form census.

Clement, though, failed to adequately explain how this would not result in sampling bias, and therefore skewed results.

The Tories, it would appear, are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they are retaining the long form itself, indeed increasing the number of Canadians who will receive it. They are doing so because they still claim to believe the information is of value.

Yet they're proceeding in a way that will not only cost more but will quite possibly -- or even quite likely -- produce inferior statistical results.

However, if the privacy of Canadians is the impetus, why maintain a long-form questionnaire at all? Also, why retain the extensive and mandatory agricultural census?

There are valid concerns about the intrusive nature of the long-form census questions, but it's also worth noting that StatsCan is apparently quite fanatical about privacy. In fact, researchers never actually see the data.

Yes, it seems wrong and unfair that one could face fines or even jail for refusing to answer a litany of personal and invasive questions. Mind you, see what happens if you refuse to show up for jury duty.

Former industry minister Maxime Bernier has now claimed that during the 2006 census, his office was bombarded with thousands of complaint e-mails.

However, as economist Stephen Gordon pointed out on his blog, Bernier was in charge of setting the terms of reference for the post-census review conducted by Statistics Canada. Why, then, was none of this addressed in that review? An excellent question.

But now, rather than backing down in the face of a barrage of criticism, the government is doubling down.

It would appear as though the government is going to reconvene the Commons industry committee to hold hearings on the matter.

In addition, the Prime Minister's Office has gotten involved as the PM's communications director sent out an e-mail release over the weekend attempting to justify the decision.

It contained this odd passage: "Canadians don't want the government at their doorstep at 10 o'clock at night while they may be doing something in their bedroom, like reading, because government wants to know how many bedrooms they have."

The "like reading" qualifier is a nice touch -- was that to placate any social conservatives who might have read some sexual innuendo into the remark?

Furthermore, does that imply that Canadians don't mind the government at their doorstep at, say, 9 p.m.?

The statement, though, amounts to an argument against the entire long-form census -- that you should not be bothered with such questions. Yet the government's position is simultaneously that the questions are important and valid and that more Canadians should have a chance to answer them.

There is no shortage of ways in which governments are intrusive and coercive. There are many Canadians who hoped that under the Conservatives the federal government might become a little less intrusive and coercive.

This is hardly a place to start. Having been backed into a corner by critics, however, government members have suddenly and aggressively adopted the rhetoric of libertarians, when through both word and deed the government has soundly rejected libertarianism.

Those who support changing or eliminating the census are unlikely to be overly impressed by this government. Everyone else is left puzzled at best or furious at worst.

Not the Harper government's finest hour.

 

Herald Column: On Conservatives and the G20 Protest Crackdown

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the debate over how Toronto Police responded to G20 protests, and why conservatives who are otherwise pro-freedom and pro-liberty are so willing to defend police actions: 

...Just as the Charter guarantees freedom of expression, it also guarantees us freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Why then are those who bemoan the overreach and intrusiveness of government so often willing to give police a pass? Police forces, after all, are merely an extension of the state.

It can lead to interesting contradictions. Take the pro-police conservatives who oppose to the national long-gun registry despite the fact that the two major national police organizations both endorse it.

The case against the registry, though, is based in part on the principle of less state intrusion. The fact that branches of the state wish to keep it in a way proves the point.

But it also demonstrates that the state does not always have the best interests of individual liberty and freedom in mind.

Still, a poll released late last week found that 66 per cent of Canadians believe the police response to the G20 demonstrations was justified.

Was it the part where police stood by as private property was smashed and police cruisers were torched? Or was it the part when peaceful protestors, reporters, and passers-by were rounded up and detained in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history? The poll didn’t specify.

According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, nearly one thousand people were detained. Peaceful protests were abruptly and violently broken up. Many more people were subjected to arbitrary searches, violating yet another Charter freedom (Section 8, if you’re wondering).

Defenders of the police response put the blame for all of the above on the actions of violent protestors. It’s unclear why an underreaction justifies an overreaction –it merely compounds the original error and leaves us with the worst of both worlds: smashed windows and violated freedoms.

It was of course virtually guaranteed that we would see these violent elements. Why, then, did we allow protests in the first place?

Well, this is still Canada, after all. The authorities concluded they could deal with any violence and still respect the freedom to peacefully protest. Why must liberties pay the price for such a miscalculation?

The violent or otherwise illegal actions of a few should not be an excuse to infringe on the freedoms of everyone else.

There have been, for instance, elements of the pro-life movement who have committed vandalism or threatened – and even committed – acts of violence. That should not give the state license to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding pro-lifers.

Yet it so often does.

Just ask Linda Gibbons, the peaceful pro-life grandmother who has spent the last 500 days – and approximately half of the last fifteen years – in prison. Her “crime” is having protested within 60 feet of a Toronto abortion clinic. Her “protest” involves asking women approaching the clinic if they wish to talk to someone. Those who say no are left alone.

The list can and does go on and on: a gay teenager was assaulted, so no criticism of “the gay agenda” must be published anywhere. Some mosque’s window somewhere was broken, so let’s make it illegal to draw cartoons of Mohammed. Some gangbangers shot it out last night, so let’s ban handguns.

In such instances, conservatives are quick to come down on the side of freedom. Is that in part because those whose rights are being infringed also happen to be ``conservative” to some degree?

Have we all forgotten the quote which became so ubiquitous during our free speech debate: “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Conservatives should reconsider their support for the actions of Toronto Police. It was clownish and clueless anti-capitalists this time, but it’s easy to imagine a similar fate befalling a rally of gun owners or pro-lifers. What will the objection be then?