A very bad idea, the 2011 census long form will be voluntary

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So, apparently in 2011, the long-form will not be mandatory. Previously, the form was sent to approximately a fifth of Canadian households of which the response was mandatory. Now it will be replaced by more forms, only the response will be voluntary.

This is not good news.

Some might find this a trivial technical matter, but it's really not. Having access to good population information is critical for legislators, and having good access to bad information makes it far easier for governments to manipulate the information we do have.

It's well known in sampling literature that people with low income and lower education have lower response rates than those with higher income and higher education. So making it voluntary to fill out the census is perverse, in that the lower income/educated citizens will be systematically under-sampled, and when law makers craft new legislation, when R&D considers market trends, when NGO's analyze planned policies, the impact in that segment of society will be unknown. Or rather, the result won't be an accurate appraisal of what will happen.

Consider this, the census is the only data Canadians have access to on aboriginal academic achievement. How will we be able to make objective assessments of policy alternatives?

All sample surveys that are not mandatory have bias, but it can be corrected, if you know what the true population distribution is. When you have a complete census, you know what the distribution is. So it's really shooting Statistics Canada in the foot by hamstringing what data they have.

This really is an assault on democracy, but because of the poor statistical/mathematical understanding of Canadians, this won't get turned into the issue that it needs to be. At least not by Joe and Jane Public.

The government tries to frame this issue by relating it to privacy concerns. The truth is, that the researchers who use this data never see it. They send their estimation codes to StatsCan, just like the recent HST model simulations in BC. StatsCan just runs the inputs the researchers are interested in, and gives them the results. At no time would anyone see the actual data, except for the professionals at StatsCan.

Basically, the census form is no more an invasion of privacy than is filing a tax return. Anyone who has dealt with StatsCan knows that they are compulsively obsessive about protecting this information. It's almost annoying how protective they can be.

If you still think this is not a big issue, consider this. Canada has a well-known productivity gap. I've yet to read of a single economist that doesn't think that Canada needs to make improvements that address the knowledge sector of our economy. That is where countries with good productivity are making those gains. If we don't have good population data, we don't have good access to good data, and we make it more difficult for:
-Investors
-Marketing
-Policy makers
-Academics

So basically everyone involved in the knowledge economy.

This decision was obviously made without consultation from the relevant stakeholders in the Canadian public. It also represents further movement towards secrecy in Ottawa, despite pontification to the likewise.

This was actually tried before, by Brian Mulroney. The backlash from the business community was severe. That put the kibosh to that plan. Let's hope that good sense prevails again.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I think this is one of the reasons Anna thinks there are still 2 subspecies of homonins: the one is sapiens sapiens and the other is sapiens troglodyte.
Sometimes evolution isn't a good thing for one or more species..
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
Some might find this a trivial technical matter, but it's really not. Having access to good population information is critical for legislators, and having good access to bad information makes it far easier for governments to manipulate the information we do have.
I find it hard to consider they don't manipulate the good data too. That is their job.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I find it hard to consider they don't manipulate the good data too. That is their job.

It's harder to obfuscate with good quality data. If the data confirms what is in reality obfuscation, then who would know the difference?
 

numbnuts

New Member
May 29, 2010
43
2
8
Oz
So, apparently in 2011, the long-form will not be mandatory. Previously, the form was sent to approximately a fifth of Canadian households of which the response was mandatory. Now it will be replaced by more forms, only the response will be voluntary.

This is not good news.

Some might find this a trivial technical matter, but it's really not. Having access to good population information is critical for legislators, and having good access to bad information makes it far easier for governments to manipulate the information we do have.

It's well known in sampling literature that people with low income and lower education have lower response rates than those with higher income and higher education. So making it voluntary to fill out the census is perverse, in that the lower income/educated citizens will be systematically under-sampled, and when law makers craft new legislation, when R&D considers market trends, when NGO's analyze planned policies, the impact in that segment of society will be unknown. Or rather, the result won't be an accurate appraisal of what will happen.

Consider this, the census is the only data Canadians have access to on aboriginal academic achievement. How will we be able to make objective assessments of policy alternatives?

All sample surveys that are not mandatory have bias, but it can be corrected, if you know what the true population distribution is. When you have a complete census, you know what the distribution is. So it's really shooting Statistics Canada in the foot by hamstringing what data they have.

This really is an assault on democracy, but because of the poor statistical/mathematical understanding of Canadians, this won't get turned into the issue that it needs to be. At least not by Joe and Jane Public.

The government tries to frame this issue by relating it to privacy concerns. The truth is, that the researchers who use this data never see it. They send their estimation codes to StatsCan, just like the recent HST model simulations in BC. StatsCan just runs the inputs the researchers are interested in, and gives them the results. At no time would anyone see the actual data, except for the professionals at StatsCan.

Basically, the census form is no more an invasion of privacy than is filing a tax return. Anyone who has dealt with StatsCan knows that they are compulsively obsessive about protecting this information. It's almost annoying how protective they can be.

If you still think this is not a big issue, consider this. Canada has a well-known productivity gap. I've yet to read of a single economist that doesn't think that Canada needs to make improvements that address the knowledge sector of our economy. That is where countries with good productivity are making those gains. If we don't have good population data, we don't have good access to good data, and we make it more difficult for:
-Investors
-Marketing
-Policy makers
-Academics

So basically everyone involved in the knowledge economy.

This decision was obviously made without consultation from the relevant stakeholders in the Canadian public. It also represents further movement towards secrecy in Ottawa, despite pontification to the likewise.

This was actually tried before, by Brian Mulroney. The backlash from the business community was severe. That put the kibosh to that plan. Let's hope that good sense prevails again.

A nice blither, but BS...
 

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Oh isn't that cute????

If you don't know the numbers the people who think they are twinnies will have a field day - and what about the "I'm not here folk?"......and the multiple personalities - will they all have a say in things?

I luv government it's funnier than some comedians.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Does the census bureau in Canada do a follow up personally (knock on your doors) if a form is not returned like they do in the U.S. ?
 

relic

Council Member
Nov 29, 2009
1,408
3
38
Nova Scotia
Like i always say sometimes,steve and his gang of lackys are noy going to be happy 'till they run this country right into the ground. Anybody that thinks this is not important is thick as a brick.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
It seems like a positive to me. The less government knows about us and the smaller it is the better.

I don't understand people that want a government to micromanage their lives. Canada is a country damn it not a corporation.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
So you'd like the gov't basing its decisions about our lives not knowing anything about our lives?
I can see politicians rubbing their greedy little hands over that thought. "Hey, Ralph, let's up income tax rates. We think the people's wages have gone up and they're all wealthy."
Or, "Hey, Jane, I think Canadians are ok with getting capital punishment back. Let's do it."
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
How the hell did you get all that out of my post!?!

I mean seriously!!!! I didn't say anything like that! WTF

I know it is human nature to think poorly of the other fellow but this forum takes that to an hitherto unknown extreme.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
How the hell did you get that out of my post!?!

I mean seriously!!!! I didn't say anything like that! WTF
You said: "The less government knows about us and the smaller it is the better.". Figure it out.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
You said: "The less government knows about us and the smaller it is the better.". Figure it out.

well, I'm not going to explain it. Think what you like.

But should you really be interested try going from the specific to the general.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
well, I'm not going to explain it. Think what you like.

But should you really be interested try going from the specific to the general.
lmao Your original post said "It seems like a positive to me. The less government knows about us and the smaller it is the better.

I don't understand people that want a government to micromanage their lives. Canada is a country damn it not a corporation. "
If you meant something specific about what the gov't knows about us you should specify.


I don't think we need a nanny state either but I would like the gov't to be at least a little informed when it makes decisions about what affects our lives.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I don't think we need a nanny state either but I would like the gov't to be at least a little informed when it makes decisions about what affects our lives.

I don't want government to make any decisions for me either. The best way for that to happen is if it is too small for that ability and if they know nothing about me.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I don't want government to make any decisions for me either. The best way for that to happen is if it is too small for that ability and if they know nothing about me.
hehehe Good luck shrinking gov't. Until then, I want the gov't to know what Canucks are like so it won't be making stupid decisions on our behalf. It makes enough stupid decisions on its own. IOW, better stupid informed decisions rather than stupid and ignorant decisions. lmao