Clement Pummeled By Facts On Census Debacle
Industry Minister Tony Clement appeared as promised to discuss the fate of the mandatory long form census before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science, and Technology.
His opening statement was a defense of the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census filled out by one fifth of Canadians every five years. He continued to speak of the threat of jail and fines as being unacceptable for otherwise law abiding citizens for not filling out the long form, but emphasized that the big problem for the Conservative government and those people who have complained to them, is what he called an intrusion into the privacy of Canadians.
Oddly enough, when you examine the language being used by the government, you could conceivably use the same argument for practically anything that is currently an offense on the law books. Say for example, the responsible use of marijuana for otherwise law abiding citizens.
When asked if the Industry Minister had consulted the Privacy Minister, or the privacy study published in 2008 in preparation for the 2011 census when making his decision, Mr. Clement simply ignored the question, arguing that he consulted with unnamed bureaucrats and a reference to unspecified complaints. The followup question was whether or not the Minister would release the recommendations written by Statistics Canada to Mr. Clement in regards to this issue, clearing making him squirm in his chair when he said that he wouldn't. Similarly, when it came to being confronted on the fact that no one in Canada has ever gone to jail for not filling out the long form census, the Minister skirted the issue. It wasn't the fact that no one had gone to jail, rather it was threat that bothered the government. That begged the question why they didn't consider changing the punishment to which Mr. Clement ironically said that without the threat of consequences you couldn't have a mandatory census.
You would think at this point the Industry Minister would have conceded that his position was light on facts and heavy on ideology, but when confronted with the fact that anyone not filling out the mandatory agricultural census forms and anyone not filling out the short form census, will still be threatened with jail time. Tony Clement simply said that he relies on the advice given to him by the agricultural minister to make decisions, while apparently forgetting that he admitted he didn't check with the Privacy Minister to see there have been only 3 complaints in the last decade on the mandatory long form census.
After Mr. Clement was thoroughly scorched, in some instances simply by his own answers, the question as to why the former head of Statistics Canada resigned. Munir Sheikh after reading his opening statement explained why he resigned saying, "The reason I resigned, which I made clear in my resignation statement, was that when doubts began to be expressed about the nature of the advice that we gave, which to any statistician would come across as not the work of a statistician, I came to the conclusion that I cannot be the head of an agency whose reputation has suffered". In a nutshell, the information was going to suffer without the mandatory long form census under the Conservative plan and he wouldn't participate. It's as simple as that. A voluntary census would have compromised the integrity of any data gathered. Statisticians can account for sampling error, but they can't account for bias. There is no way to know from census to census how many people would fill out the long form if it was mandatory, or what groups they represent, skewing data to a point of uselessness.
The facts are, that the industry minister is arguing against gathering accurate data, useful to both public and private groups allowing managers to make the best decisions possible. How then is it possible, after debunking the fear mongering and ridiculous notion that a voluntary census can provide the same useful information, can the government continue on its merry way?
I've thrown a clip together of some of the more interesting parts of today's testimony that you can watch below:
His opening statement was a defense of the government's decision to scrap the mandatory long form census filled out by one fifth of Canadians every five years. He continued to speak of the threat of jail and fines as being unacceptable for otherwise law abiding citizens for not filling out the long form, but emphasized that the big problem for the Conservative government and those people who have complained to them, is what he called an intrusion into the privacy of Canadians.
Oddly enough, when you examine the language being used by the government, you could conceivably use the same argument for practically anything that is currently an offense on the law books. Say for example, the responsible use of marijuana for otherwise law abiding citizens.
When asked if the Industry Minister had consulted the Privacy Minister, or the privacy study published in 2008 in preparation for the 2011 census when making his decision, Mr. Clement simply ignored the question, arguing that he consulted with unnamed bureaucrats and a reference to unspecified complaints. The followup question was whether or not the Minister would release the recommendations written by Statistics Canada to Mr. Clement in regards to this issue, clearing making him squirm in his chair when he said that he wouldn't. Similarly, when it came to being confronted on the fact that no one in Canada has ever gone to jail for not filling out the long form census, the Minister skirted the issue. It wasn't the fact that no one had gone to jail, rather it was threat that bothered the government. That begged the question why they didn't consider changing the punishment to which Mr. Clement ironically said that without the threat of consequences you couldn't have a mandatory census.
You would think at this point the Industry Minister would have conceded that his position was light on facts and heavy on ideology, but when confronted with the fact that anyone not filling out the mandatory agricultural census forms and anyone not filling out the short form census, will still be threatened with jail time. Tony Clement simply said that he relies on the advice given to him by the agricultural minister to make decisions, while apparently forgetting that he admitted he didn't check with the Privacy Minister to see there have been only 3 complaints in the last decade on the mandatory long form census.
After Mr. Clement was thoroughly scorched, in some instances simply by his own answers, the question as to why the former head of Statistics Canada resigned. Munir Sheikh after reading his opening statement explained why he resigned saying, "The reason I resigned, which I made clear in my resignation statement, was that when doubts began to be expressed about the nature of the advice that we gave, which to any statistician would come across as not the work of a statistician, I came to the conclusion that I cannot be the head of an agency whose reputation has suffered". In a nutshell, the information was going to suffer without the mandatory long form census under the Conservative plan and he wouldn't participate. It's as simple as that. A voluntary census would have compromised the integrity of any data gathered. Statisticians can account for sampling error, but they can't account for bias. There is no way to know from census to census how many people would fill out the long form if it was mandatory, or what groups they represent, skewing data to a point of uselessness.
The facts are, that the industry minister is arguing against gathering accurate data, useful to both public and private groups allowing managers to make the best decisions possible. How then is it possible, after debunking the fear mongering and ridiculous notion that a voluntary census can provide the same useful information, can the government continue on its merry way?
I've thrown a clip together of some of the more interesting parts of today's testimony that you can watch below:
Leave a comment