SHARE
Follow this article on Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Bookmark and Share
Home >> Leadership

Why IT must oppose Tories on long-form census

Why IT must oppose Tories on long-form census

By:  Dave Webb  On: 29 Jul 2010 For: ComputerWorld Canada Creator

OPINION You can't run a knowledge economy on dumbed-down data. Why IT has more to lose than most Canadian industries

Let's cut to the chase: The Conservative government's position on the long-form census is wrong-headed, regressive, and willfully ignorant. (Let's not forget the dissembling part, too – Stastistics Canada recommended eliminating the mandatory long-form? Puh. Leaze.)

This is not based on an ideological bent. In fact, my fear is that, as many wiser commentators than me have noted, the elimination of the long-form is rooted in ideology. It is reflective of what one pundit called the Conservative government's aversion to fact-based decision-making.

This should be very, very, very alarming to the IT industry in Canada. In fact, to any industry in Canada. But particularly IT.

This is the government that is taking into consideration submissions on strategy for growth in the knowledge economy. Yet it appears to want less accurate data upon which to base decisions. Excuse my French, but WTF?

A knowledge economy is based on better decisions based on better data. A voluntary long-form census is about as accurate as a Web poll because of the phenomenon of self-selection – those who don't fit into the demographic of self-interest don't fill out the poll. It introduces not only a bias in the data collected, but a completely unpredictable bias. It can't be remedied through science.

(Oh, and by the way, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: You said Canadians would fill out the long-form voluntarily “for the good of the country.” If it's for the good of the country, why would you eliminate it?)

Industry Minister Tony Clement has consecutively argued that a) StatsCan recommended the change, which has shown to be a untrue, and that 2) people have complained that the long-form is intrusive. Yes, people have. Three complaints were made to the Privacy Commissioner in almost 15 years. Actually, four: One of our readers complained about its intrusiveness in response to a story on our Web site that included a whole lot of head-shaking by a professional demographer (what a cool job title, BTW) over what the point of the whole exercise was.
The future of the knowledge economy is based on better decision-making, based on better data collection. Those in the IT industry, regardless of political orientation, have a responsibility to demand that this government make a return to fact-based decision-making instead of government by ideologically informed fiat. The Loyal Opposition doesn't have the guts to force the issue. You must. Call, e-mail and harrass your MP until your voice is heard.

Or, as another of our readers put it – sarcastically, I hope – just eliminate StasCan and save the money. A Ouija board in every boardroom will do.


Sign up for our Newsletters












Print |  Views: 2657   |   Rating:onononoffoff  (13 votes)
Rate this article on a scale of
1 to 5 stars,5 being the best.




Dave Webb Dave Webb Dave Webb is a journalist of 20 years experience in newspapers and magazines. He has followed technology exclusively since 1998 and was the winner of the Andersen Consulting Award for Excell... more

Comments (4)

Matthew
by Matthew 7/30/2010 11:28:14 AM

What lame justifications and excuses for more intrusive government, no matter how many times you repeat the word "very".

No ideological bent, puh leaze, indeed.

I want less intrusion and government control in my life. I want the government to have fewer reasons to spend and squander our money and I think most regular Canadians would agree with me.

As a tax payer and a citizen, I don't want to give government mandarins any more than the absolutely most basic information possible. The short form is perfectly sufficient for that.

If a boardroom or the government wants to know more about me, let them ask me or pay me for my voluntary participation to provide it, not coerce me to comply by threatening imprisonment.

Only 3 or 4 people to use your example, have taken the issue to the Privacy Commissioner, like that's supposed to make it acceptable. No one that I know was happy to do the long form. They complied and only grumbled more with every question asked.

Rob
by Rob 7/30/2010 1:18:42 PM

Matthew is correct, and Mr. Webb's rant is also "rooted in ideology". It turns out that all who oppose the mandatory long form census are those who have their hands out, and expect a proper propping up from the powers that be. Our tax monies mind you, but fringe groups "ENTITLEMENTS".

If it involves less government intrusion, and indeed less government, then I'm for it. I think this is one opinion piece which is not worth the electrons which carry it, sorry Dave, but you're WAY out in LEFT field, so to speak.

Former Newcomer
by Former Newcomer 7/30/2010 1:22:09 PM

1. I am not Canadian born. I was shocked when found that I might be jailed for not filling the long-form cencus! It is not that I got the request to fill it out and I am not sure if I ever will. Anyway, to me the "jail" does not sound reasonable.

2. The government could give some insensitive to the voluntary only participators like a tax credit for the next year. In this case the government can insist on providing the correct and full data and even to come up with some sort of punishment if the participator did not comply.

Dave Webb
by Dave Webb 8/4/2010 10:52:55 AM

I was hesitant to wade into this debate in the first place, because this isn't a political venue. I stress again: this is not an ideological issue for me. It is a data quality issue. Better data quality equals better decision-making, especially regarding program delivery.

(As to whether I'm "out in left field," it seems to be pretty crowded out here, in step with such a broad spectrum of business and social organizations. But that's as may be.)

I'm curious how others feel about this issue, too, so keep commenting. Perhaps we should create a forum topic.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, even if (especially if) you disagree.

Name: (required) eMail: (optional)

Your email address will not appear online and will be used only if the editor wishes to contact you personally for additional comments.