From Today’s Toronto Sun editorial:
Statistics Canada, which compiles census data, supposedly guards private information like a pit bull guarding a meth lab.
If that is the case, then why is the decision to nuke the mandatory long-form census being condemned by everyone from Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals, to municipal politicians, to the Canadian Medical Association, to religious groups and charities?
Is it because the info in the census is not “private” after all?
But what was the Sun’s editorial board saying during the last census? I looked it up yesterday and the Sun had exactly two comments:
Too bad, it’s the law — and it’s not an invasion of privacy. Governments have been doing a census of some sort since Biblical times
and
Gripes about the census being an invasion of privacy are sadly misguded
The Sun called their current position misguided. You can’t make this stuff up.
In other news Tasha Kheiriddin has a fantastic editorial in today’s Post. I second her suggestion:
So instead of axing the mandatory long-form census, why not revamp the questionnaire to remove questions of dubious value, or those deemed too invasive? Why not change the enforcement system to be less draconian? Replace the jail term with a fine, or create a list of acceptable exemptions, like those for another mandatory obligation: jury duty. If privacy is a concern, put in additional safeguards to reassure participants that their personal information will never be used against them.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
The Sun is just awful. I can’t fathom why people read it. The cognitive dissonance is nauseating.
sunshine girl, crab bucket meat, and colour pictures.
I like the Sun’s Maple Leafs coverage, despite the fact I’m not a Leaf fan (or maybe because I’m not a Leaf fan).
And I have to admit, “pit bull guarding a meth lab” is a great line.
There might be one effective party to persuade the CPC to about-turn.
If the CEO of Tim Hortons took out an ad explaining that census data is essential to planning business expansion, we’ll have a 100% sample mandatory 100 page census before you can say “leadership”.
If they ever starting awarding Nobel Prizes in Political Science, Mark is my first nominee. That’s brilliant.
Also, maybe with more accurate census data Tim Hortons would bring lemon filled donuts back to London, ON. This needs to be on the questionnaire.
I’m slightly off-topic, but I was wondering if Mr. Gordon has an email address I can write to him at. I have 2 specific questions about the current Census controversy I’d like to put to him in mail.
I see Dr. Gordon will be participating in the CBC town hall. I have a question I thought I would give you a chance to chew on, before I purpose it:
If the change in Census methodology is not reversed, would you, as a journal reviewer, be able to accept scholarly research articles based on 2011 Long Form Census data?
My own conclusion is that I would not accept any future research based on a voluntary census, at least not until the methodology as been fully peer reviewed and properly validated in controlled experiments.
If the change in methodology is not reversed then there does not seem to be any alternative other than notifying all the editorial boards of all appropriate scientific journals of this unvalidated change in methodology, this will have a negative impact on the ability Canadian researchers to publish.
I think we should clarify our language. A ‘voluntary census’ is an oxymoron. It merely becomes a survey.
I’m slightly off-topic, but I was wondering if Mr. Gordon has an email address I can write to him at. I have 2 specific questions about the current Census controversy I’d like to put to him in mail.
Click on the ‘About Stephen Gordon’ link on the top of the sidebar on the right, and click through to my Laval page.
Further information regarding the long form from Brian Lilley of (OMG !) Sun media:
“A sampling of census questions the “experts” want to force you to answer:
48. (a) What time did this person usually leave home to go to work?
53. In 2010, did this person pay child or spousal support payments to a former spouse or partner?
F4. (a) How many rooms are there in this dwelling?
(b) How many of these rooms are bedrooms?
F6. Is this dwelling in need of any repairs?
F8. For this dwelling, what are the YEARLY payments (last 12 months) for:
(a) electricity?
(b) oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels?
(c) water and other municipal services?
47. (a) How did this person usually get to work?
If this person used more than one method of travel to work, mark the one used for most of the travel distance.
Mark “Subway, light rail or elevated rail” for:
• Vancouver SkyTrain
• Calgary CTrain
• Scarborough RT
Mark “Commuter train or VIA Rail” for:
• Vancouver West Coast Express
• Toronto GO Train
m Car, truck
or van — as a driver
m Car, truck Continue with Question 47 (b)
or van — as a passenger
m Bus or streetcar
m Subway, light rail or elevated rail
m Commuter train or VIA Rail
m Passenger ferry
m Walked to work Go to Question 48 (a)
m Bicycle
m Motorcycle, scooter or moped
m Other method”
So tell me what relevance exactly do these questions have to the Government of the day. Perhaps to various other organizations, but that is not what the census is supposed to be about.
In any case, if people really feel strongly about the long form and its value to society, then by all means fill it in, but why do the rest of us have to provide all this extremely personal information ?
Sorry Andrew, I did not catch that mistake as I was typing. I did intend survey, as the voluntary StatsCan census; which should not be referenced in peer reviewed journals until, at the very least, the self selection bias, and the methods for controlling it can be peer reviewed and validated.
“So tell me what relevance exactly do these questions have to the Government of the day”
In other words, why would the number of houses that need renovation matter in the forming of tax policy?
jad – Enough. We can all use google.
The 2006 long form is available here (pdf).
Something like the Home Renovation Tax Credit perhaps?
Mike/Scott, so you believe that the government has used the power of the census to develop one of the most successful programs in recent history – and is now cancelling the census long form so that this can never happen again. Isn’t this taking conspiracy theory to new levels ?
Patrick, I apologize for the detail. You can use Google, and I can use Google, but unfortunately too many other people find it easier to comment without checking their information.
I don’t quite understand that makes Kheiriddin’s editorial “fantastic.” She uncritically accepts the premise that the census needs to be “fixed” because it asks several questions that are “too invasive” and “of dubious value.” In other words, Kheiriddin starts from the same position as the anti-census ideologues; she just ends up at a less radical conclusion. Her proposal aims to appease the anti-census bunch, without any explanation of why they deserve to be appeased (although I guess none is needed when writing for the Post).
The following sums up her logic nicely:
“Queries such as ‘How many bedrooms do you have in your house?’ are bizarre. What the government would do with this information is unclear (regulate house sizes, God forbid?).”
In other words, because the purpose of a question is not self-evident (at least within 3 seconds of reading it), it is “bizzare.” After all, trained statisticians have nothing better to do than conjure up weird, invasive questions that have no purpose whatsoever. And StatsCan bureaucrats allow these purposeless questions to be included in the census just to torment government-fearing Canadians. Also, don’t forget that the federal government probably uses long-form data to plan all sorts of socialist schemes (like house size regulation) designed to take away our freedoms. We should all be very afraid.
So let’s remove questions of “dubious value” — that is, any question that sounds weird to Joe Six-Pack or which is deemed “too invasive” by people who distrust government. And while we’re at it, let’s change the laws so that filling out the census is essentially optional, because no citizen should be required to aid in the exercise of good government. A citizen’s only true responsibility is to care for himself and his family.
The same editorial appeared in both the Calgary and Ottawa Suns. It was mandated from above.