News Sections
Conservatives make changes to short-form census
CTV News Video
|
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Aug. 11 2010 9:28 PM ET
Facing a public backlash and possible legal action, the Conservatives have decided to add linguistic questions to the short-form census and drop the threat of jail time for those who refuse to participate.
Industry Minister Tony Clement said Wednesday that three linguistic questions will be included.
An Ottawa group had issued a legal challenge to the government to block the National Household Survey from replacing the long-form census, arguing the census is crucial to the delivery of French-language services. The Federal Court agreed to fast-track the case and set a hearing date for Sept. 27-28.
Clement said the latest changes "will ensure the government's compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Official Languages Act and its regulations."
"Our government believes that this fair and reasonable approach is a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians," Clement said.
Liberal MP Bob Rae said Clement is "scrambling" to answer those who are critical of the government's move to a voluntary survey.
"Everyone agrees that we don't need prison sentences to have a mandatory form. We do need a mandatory long-form to be able to provide reliable data to the provinces and to the people of Canada about the condition of the Canadian people, about how we're doing," Rae told CTV News Channel early Wednesday evening.
"The language issue is now in a compulsory form. But the question will then be, ‘What about the other questions?' I just think the minister doesn't have a logical answer to any of these questions."
Earlier Wednesday, the former head of Statistics Canada, in a last ditch effort to dissuade the government from abandoning the mandatory long-from census, said the move will imperil the reliability of information collected by the agency across the board.
Data from the long-form census "provides the benchmarking" for many of the surveys that StatsCan conducts, Munir Sheikh said.
"If we don't have that benchmarking available we will not be able to tell whether or not the data we are conducting from other surveys is truly reliable or not," he told CTV's Canada AM. "Without that reference point we can't really tell whether that information is good or bad."
Sheikh resigned from his post as the agency's top statistician last month after media reports, quoting Clement, reported that StatsCan recommended Ottawa replace the mandatory long-form census with a voluntary survey.
Clement has since distanced himself from those comments.
Yesterday, the government released nearly 200 pages of emails and briefing notes to the House of Commons Industry committee, which is probing the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census and replace it with the voluntary National Household Survey.
The documents reveal that just before Sheikh resigned he was set to tell agency staffers that the National Household Survey, "will not provide useful data" to groups that use the mandatory long-form census.
However, that meeting was cancelled and Sheikh resigned hours after the government was made aware of his proposed comments, according to the newly released documents.
Sheikh would not comment on whether the Conservatives were trying to control what the agency said about the census change, saying that he would "let the documents speak for themselves."
"The information that has been made public, I think people can read that information and draw their conclusions from it," he said Wednesday morning, adding that he stands by his decision to leave his post.
Dropping the mandatory long-form survey has been widely criticized and experts say the data will be virtually useless because some groups will be less likely to respond to a voluntary survey.
The newly released documents back up a claim Sheikh made to the Commons committee last month that he quit his job over reports the agency recommended scrapping the mandatory census. Sheikh said those reports, which were based on statements by Clement, were damaging to the agency's credibility.
"The one and only factor that led to my decision that I made, was Statistics Canada's reputation," he said. "I thought that if I did not leave my job Statistics Canada's reputation would be tarnished for a long time to come -- and that was something I did not think that I could accept."
The Conservatives have said they plan to push ahead with a voluntary survey despite the controversy, arguing that the mandatory long-form census is too intrusive and a voluntary survey will produce sufficient data.
But opposition parties have described the move to a voluntary survey as a political manoeuvre designed to appeal to the Tories' electoral base.
With files from The Canadian Press
User Tools
Most Popular
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
While Branson's comments (and activities) are arrogant in a million different ways, Clark's response was admirable. She kept her sense of humour with her joke about Branson's brand-name and his bad pick-up line, showing why humour is often the best response to arrogance.
Email
Comments are now closed for this story
havelock Heavy
said
P.
said
Mr Chamberlain
said
Ann
said
eddytoronto
said
Sober, Newmarket
said
Cubie
said
Len
said
Joyce Stares
said
Ray Luft
said
Mark
said
Sue
said
Tod
said
Mary
said
Mike
said
Tom Tass
said
Rob W.
said
David - Ottawa
said
N. Tobin in St. John's
said
mike
said
James T Murphy
said
Elias Nasrallah
said
Tono
said
Jason Parkhill
said
Terry
said
Dom
said
Catwoman 38
said
lamia
said
syko
said
skhan
said
How many 'Bloggers' and commenters did the cons hire to make it seem like Canadians are becoming more and more right wing, when the polls suggest otherwise?
Debbie
said
happy
said
fred
said
Wilbur
said
Joanne
said
RGOttawa
said
Steve O
said
Senior Taxpayer
said
David A. Kelly
said
MayKayBlack
said
charlie
said
peter
said
DLM
said
LDL in ONT
said
W
said
Troglogyte
said
MRC in Ontario
said
And, as others have pointed out, only 20% (ONE-FIFTH) of the country was required to fill out the old long-form...so what is all the squawking about again?? I wouldn't call a 1/5 sample of your population statistically reliable. And want to bet that where the long-forms were sent wasn't very random?...
Prof. Danny Dinosaur
said
Counting-Don
said
Jason Daniel Baker, Toronto
said
Capital Preservation
said
Bryan
said
Raul
said
tryon
said
your all a bunch of cry babies
said
Only morons think what StatsCAN does is silly and a waste of time. The information they provide is the foundation for almost every service provided by the government be it health, educational, taxation, you name it. Without an accurate broad range of replies things in this country WILL take a turn because an accurate representation of the population will not be available.
Funny, if this goes through things will have a very negative impact on Canadians lives. And all you idiots that wanted the long formed scrapped will reap the whirlwind.
Chuck
said
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
Jim in Ottawa
said
Colin
said
Kevin in Vancouver
said
mikec
said
Ron
said
Gord
said
Larry in Winnipeg
said
dean in NL
said
Dave in Courtenay
said
dumb down society
said
Matty from Guelph
said
Julio
said
Linda
said
Bob in Ottawa
said
Geoff in Lethbridge
said
Jacob Lau
said
adam
said
Mugzy from little ol' PEI
said
Steve
said
Havelock Heavy
said
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
Peter
said
Nope, 20% of people, chosen at random, will give a highly accurate picture of the population. When you're dealing with 34 million people, getting information from 7 million is enough.
However, this only works if the survey is mandatory. Otherwise, one group of people might fill out the forms at a higher rate than others. Then, you get an inaccurate picture about the makeup of your population. Like, say, Albertans might tend to mistrust the government more, so the government would have a skewed view of their income levels, health, commuting habits, whatever. Then the government plans their services poorly or inadequately.
Mustafa
said
The reality is that there has been NO ONE JAILED for not filling out the Long census form till date and the idea of changing this stemmed from ONE or TWO MP's who perhaps had to fill out the form and found it useless given their race, status (financial or professional etc.)
For some groups who are not relying on Government funding or programs stats can do only so much but for others it could make a huge difference to ensure Government funds are being routed to the right places/departments.
Randy
said
kenneth
said
Is it not the same political party as Harper's or a name change somewhere a long the way?
My, how the past reappears.
Mahir Haque
said
These statistics are necessary and should be performed by the government who have the means and methods in place. What the Harper gov't is doing is against basic principles in Statistics and truly ignorant in my perception. The data collected by stats Canada is a way we track our economy, the health care system, education etc etc. truly we have avoided many epidemics such as SARS and the swine flu due to the reliability of StatsCan's data. Not so the case anymore.
Pete The Guy
said
Mead
said
James
said
Marcel
said
allan
said
good morning
said
A researcher
said
(1) How many people from different racialized groups have post-secondary education?
(2) How does gender affect income (and education)?
(3) What is education participation by region and province?
(4) How does income change by age?
Often these are basic questions that GOVERNMENT asks when it is making decisions about funding education or determining social policy. Otherwise You are just guessing or making decisions based on opinion and ideology.
Marg Bedore
said
Mark - Fort Erie Ont
said
Gord. Robson, Nova Scotia
said
NS
said
HTC
said
There has to be serious news out there that needs to be reported on. Why is the media devoting so much attention to this stupid issue?
nolan
said
art
said
shockeymoe
said
Having personally worked for statistics canada on both the census as well as other surveys, it galls me to read such shallow ignorance from my fellow Canadians.
I don't expect each commenter here to know the depth of the work performed by the statscan organization, but assuming it is just a money pit is blindly stupid. Our ability to be reasonably accurate in describing our population to the rest of the world has far reaching economic consequences. The long form underpins the credibility of the data. Everyone hears the employment statistics regularly reported and we all believe what we hear. I for one, will doubt its accuracy after the change. It is a domino affect. Once the foundation turns to mud, the house soon slides away.
Clements is a lying puppet. Lucky for him nobody expects any integrity from ANY politian anymore. Thanks Steven. I will never shake your hand again.
Doug On
said
GHW
said
Wes Saskatoon
said
Max in BC
said
Angus Magee
said
CYL
said
Michelle
said
Danny Dinosaur
said
Ron
said
One university stats prof trotted out on national media talked about how lower income Canadians would be less likely to respond accurately to questions on income, and provided a stat that they would over estimate their income by a factor of 2.
He acknowledged the information was already readily available from tax information. So, why are we gathering the information in the Census?
He would not confirm whether the long firm gathering of the information was accurate when compared to the tax information.
So, basically, his argument was that we should keep the long form to gather information that StatsCan already has but which may, or may not, be accurate in the first place.
I'm so convinced this is a compelling reason to attack Canadian's privacy.
People should realize that voluntary stats gathering is how most information is gathered. You don't hear Angus Reid or EKOS, etc. stating that their 'polls' are 'worthless'. Instead they'll claim accuracy to within a percentage (e.g. 1%) 19 times out of 20. In other words: we believe our numbers are accurate.
The Canadian Government should balance right to privacy against the value of good statistical gathering.
I haven't seen anyone discuss the potential improvement in statistical quality if an incentive was offered to fill in the form, as opposed to coercion (e.g. how about a tax break vs. sending me to jail)?
oddie
said
The government already knows all about you.
munir Sheikh should be happy he has a job --lots of Canadians born here do not have one
mark palmer
said
SDC in Nova Scotia
said
Lz in Edmonton
said
Ox
said
None of you obviously understand how statistics works. When was the last time you took a post secondary stats course? You all seem to be experts so I assume you're working on your MA or PhD?
This is simply a government that doesn't rule on logic or rational thought but rather fear and threats, attempting to destroy and institution based on math. Because unlike the Alliance, math doesn't play politics with our lives.
Edb(Hamilton)
said
chevymo
said
The detailed data required from any specific goup is already being collected from the relevant groups by means of every person's application for service, which when compiled provides the necessary target group 'profile'. The agencies performance in responding to requests for service is the more important benchmark to consider.
This is the information that should be submitted to the government - not collected randomly by the government.
The massive data collection benchmarking suggested here by Stats Can is unreliable, unfocused, redundant, intrusive and expensive.
If any special interest wants funding - let them justify their claim by demonstrating the need and their performance in meeting the need.
Government should respond to demonstrated social need - not try to define it by means of an unreliable census.
The long form census exercise is nothing more than a redundant 'job creation project' It needs to be elliminated in favour of shifting the responsibility to where it belongs, with those requesting funding.
Special interest needs to prove there is a need, show us how they have met it in the past and why they need increased funding.
Everybody wants transparency and accountibility from the government - that would begin with those receiving government funding.
Productivity - including government productivity - can only be increased by effectively doing more with fewer services and re-adusting the processes in place.
The 'old way' is never necessarily the best way.
Think. It's your money being wasted. We, the people, create the wealth in this country and we need to ensure that it is being managed wisely by our government.
JFJ
said
Frank Buchan
said
Kevin
said
simon
said
Albertan
said
This Government randomly stopped, searched, and arrested hundreds during the Toronto G-20, many who were tourists or just stuck in a crowd of people. That seems pretty intrusive to me!! More expensive, dangerous, and intrusive, and much more "BIG GOVERNMENT" than a getting good quality data to know our own country's demographics.
ADDITIONALLY - The short form census is still mandatory!! They have not removed the threat of jail time. On top of that, no one has ever gone to jail for not filling out the census. it's more like a parking ticket.
AND THEN - Making the census voluntary and sending it to more household is going to cost millions MORE, not less. That MORE government, MORE taxdollars, for something less that 25 people complained about.
WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON? DOES THE GOV'T THINK WE ARE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS?
TE in BC
said
TEA in SK
said
Brian Fr Labgley
said
djm
said
What is wrong with Harper that he wants to throw away money like this over a non-issue?
Dean in Abby
said
5th Generation Canadian
said
Jimmy
said
Steve in Manotick
said
Joe Szentirmay
said
Bruno
said
Denise
said
Jim
said
Kerry Mark
said
bikerborz
said
lshauf
said
DC in AB
said