The voluntary short survey will work
Recently the Harper government has decided to replace what is known as the “long form” census, a mandatory 40 page form which Canadians must fill out every four years. What it will be replaced with is the new “short form” census, which the government contends will allow for better privacy for Canadians. However, many francophone groups, which include The Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities and La Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, contend that it may violate the language rights of their sections of the country.
This charge however is facetious as the new census includes two more questions about language. One asks what language one can hold a conversation in, and the other asks which language (either English or French) is the primary language spoken at home and, additionally, if any other languages are spoken. This removes any possibility of claims that the new census will violate the Official Languages Act, a claim made in a recent Ottawa court case.
The new census will also remove the threat of jail time for failure to fill it out. This removes the risk of everyday Canadians being sent to prison for a mere oversight. The new short form census will be voluntary for Canadians, rather than the previous mandatory long form census. It pains this author to think someone could be possibly sent to prison for the failure to check their mailbox.
Liberal MP Bob Rae (Toronto-Center) alleged that Mr. Harper has scraped the long form census because he feels that it will reveal the growing inequality among classes in Canada. However, if one is to track the previous censuses, this simply is not the case. Incomes are increasing, and so are the number of people with college and university degrees. As such, Mr. Rae’s claims are unfounded.
Much of the controversy surrounding the issue comes from NGOs and other such organizations, claiming that they need the information that the census provides. Are they incapable of getting their own information? Is there no one among their employees capable of conducting a simple internet or e-mail poll? Can they not conduct the slightest bit of market research? Charities have begun to subcontract to marketing firms to get their message out, providing large numbers of unskilled jobs. Can these NGOs not do the same? Or are they just too eager to get free information from Statistics Canada?
Many in the Conservative Party have been shocked by how much criticism this action has fueled. Party Whip Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills) has been quoted as saying: “This isn’t an issue people are going to live and die on. I mean it’s not a big issue.” The NDP and Liberals are merely looking for a whipping boy and they have found it in the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement (Parry Sound-Muskoka). The only MP who has received a large number of calls on the issue in John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean)and mostly people working for Statistics Canada.
Many of the questions in the long form which are set to be scraped are considered intrusive by many Canadians. For instance, one question concerns how many hours of unpaid housework are done around the house. Most of the questions which are removed are those which deal with what Canadians do with their time while they are not working, such as questions about their volunteer work. Some even contend that having a census nowadays is useless, as modern methods of polling and market research have almost rendered the census irrelevant. Using these methods, the same information can be gathered with much less human cost, and much less bureaucracy. It would seem Statistics Canada seems to be attempting to justify its own existence.
Incidentally, the Treasury Board President Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan–Coquihalla) has introduced new measures to reduce the influence of lobby groups and promote transparency in government. These issues are not being discussed. The opposition is looking for something to complain about, and this census issue has offered them the chance to. If anything, all this census does is give Canadians time to drink a cup of coffee or smoke a cigarette. It’s not a big issue. The lives of everyday Canadian men and women are not going to be changed by having to fill out less in their census. When the Conservative Party’s mandate is over, will you see the new Liberal Government re-institute the long form? Probably not.—Patrick Langille
The long form census is necessary
If Conservative plans succeed, one in five households won’t be required to fill out a 50-question census that shapes our country’s decision making. Rather, one in three will be given a voluntary survey.
The census is used by governments, charities, and NGOs to shape their policies. Most homes will continue to receive a mandatory short form with basic questions about the age and number of residents. But experts warn that making the long form voluntary will lead to inaccurate results since many will opt out of responding altogether.
In 2003 the U.S. Census Bureau conducted an experiment by issuing a voluntary survey – one quite similar to what the Conservatives propose – to some households. The mail-back response rate of those given the option to reply dropped by a third, and plans for a full voluntary survey were scraped for being costly and ineffective.
The changes proposed by the Harper government will cost an estimated $30 million for distribution and advertising. The census should be left unchanged, and not just because it’s cost-effective. The current system has worked well for over three decades and is vital to our democratic process.
Harper’s supposed rationale is that the census is intrusive and Canadians shouldn’t be threatened with jail time for not completing it. But no one has ever been imprisoned for failing to complete the census, and all federal parties are vowing to remove the jail threat in parliament this fall.
Some conservatives note that European countries are moving away from censuses to more effective means of data collection. But Harper’s proposal is about supposed government intrusion and has nothing to do with better information gathering. Additionally, we should be wary of some alternatives used in Europe.
In Scandinavia, governments issue mandatory electronic identification cards that collect hoards of data on personal relationships and bank transfers. The government gathers so much information that annual income tax forms are mostly completed when one logs in to verify the numbers. Talk about intrusion. Meanwhile, the information collected from Canadian censuses is anonymous.
Politicians in the UK are looking to Switzerland, where this year’s large census is being replaced by an amalgamation of other government data and more frequent microcensuses. But the UK government’s changes will come after their 2011 census, meanwhile Harper is implementing a massive overhaul weeks before our 2011 census is sent to print.
Changing how our government collects data is not a bad idea, but it merits enough time for democratic discussion and debate.
Accurate data is especially needed in Canada because our cultural and geographic diversity far exceeds that of European countries. Without reliable data, we can’t take effective decisions to meet the needs of francophones, aboriginals, immigrants, ethnic minorities, same-sex couples, and the poor.
The Conservatives assert that organizations needing information can collect it themselves. This is not only a ridiculous, but a potentially dangerous suggestion. University researchers and advocacy groups with limited resources depend on this data to shape public discussion. Even if organizations could fund data collection, Statistics Canada has never had a breach of security and our information is put at risk if multiple organizations go about collecting it.
Conservative pundits seem to have very little reason to axe the census and have begun ridiculing some of its questions. Popular examples include the number of rooms in a house and how people get to work, despite the fact that such data are used to track density, standard of living and public transportation needs. Others cite the worldwide phenomenon of indicating one’s religion as Jedi, a red herring which is at most an ineffective personal protest.
In the absence of credible reasons for axing a functional census, many speculate Harper wants to cut advocacy groups’ access to politically inconvenient statistics. That wouldn’t be surprising coming from a government that justifies spending billions on building unneeded prisons to deal with “unreported crime.”
Harper’s plan to cut the census is a rushed, costly, and dangerous proposal that doesn’t make sense. The Rotman School of Management and U of T School of Public Policy and Governance have signed a letter opposing these ludicrous changes. It is my hope that the staff, students, and governors of U of T will organize similar public protest.—Dylan C. Robertson
