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.
No comments:
Post a Comment