Roundup: StatsCan’s self-inflicted wounds

The furore and histrionics over the planned administrative data scoop by Statistics Canada continued to boil over the weekend, and there were further interviews with the Chief Statistician, and some other analysis, such as this look at how the agency’s current data collection with long-form surveys are becoming increasingly unreliable, and this private sector view that warns that because of the European Union’s increasingly stringent privacy laws that it could somehow affect our trade or business ventures with European countries.

A few observations:

  1. The Chief Statistician is not a very effective communicator, and I’ve seen several interviews where the host of whichever political show he’s on has completely railroaded him. StatsCan hasn’t been good in demonstrating why they need the data, and what kind of value it holds, and this is important, and they need to better make the case that the way the data are being collected currently is becoming unreliable, and that hurts everybody. They could say that they already have our SINs, because they linked our census data to our tax forms, and lo, there were no problems (and we got more reliable data for it). But they’re not. That they’re leaving the explanation to the government, which can’t communicate its way out of a wet paper bag, compounds the problem.
  2. Most of the journalists and political show hosts out there are exacerbating the problem, worse than the politicians mendaciously framing the issue as one of mass government surveillance, because they’re muddying the waters and trying to get some kind of unforced error from the Chief Statistician or the government spokesbodies, rather than trying to clarify the issues. This in turn feeds the paranoiacs on the Internet (and seriously, my reply column is replete with them right now on the Twitter Machine).
  3. These worries about the EU’s privacy laws are likely overblown, or more likely concern trolling. More than a few EU countries rely on scooping up administrative data rather than using a census, so they will have an idea about how this kind of thing works. Which isn’t to say that perhaps our own laws need updating, but I think the fears remain a bit overblown here.
  4. It remains the height of hypocrisy for the Conservatives to stoke fears about using administrative data like this, because in their attempt to kill the long-form census on trumped up privacy and invasiveness grounds, they were promoting using administrative data in its place. That they’re concerned about it now as being too invasive (while simultaneously lying in their construction that this is somehow a surveillance directive of the Trudeau-led Cabinet that they are using StatsCan as cover for) is more than a little rich, and dare I say amoral.

Good reads:

  • Andrew Scheer has named a former mayor to run for the party in Beauce against Maxime Bernier.
  • Jagmeet Singh says he’s a republican, but apparently thinks that Canada is not a “state,” which is a bit mystifying.
  • The NDP are planning to move a motion around lapsed Veterans Affairs funding, which appears to be a deliberate misunderstanding of how the funds work.
  • Maxime Bernier is getting any members of new riding associations for his party to sign pledges to not embarrass the party, or to challenge his policies.
  • Here’s a look at what a rise in left-wing populism in Canada might look like.
  • Despite the claims of their efficacy in the Ontario election, Ontario Proud is looking to go federal, but the rules around third party advertising are in flux.
  • My weekend column looked at Samara Canada’s latest report on MP exit interviews, and the insights it gives into some party cultures in Ottawa.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

4 thoughts on “Roundup: StatsCan’s self-inflicted wounds

  1. Two small errors: “…StatsCan hasn’t been good in demonstrating why the[y] need the data…” and “…because they linked our census data to our tax [re]forms…”

    I suspect that the furore is more than just miscommunications: people feel very possessive of their financial data (especially in with today’s hacking fears), and while CRA might have a legitimate claim to it, a statistical agency does not enjoy that privilege, unless they can show why they need such information.

    FYI, Rex Murphy had an enjoyably sarcastic critique of StatsCan’s plans in Saturday’s
    National Post.

  2. The conservatives have long known that voters respond to the “here is the danger, feel the fear but we{conservatives} are going to protect you against all of your fears real or imagined.” The right wing believe that they have the answers to everything. It is like religion. No matter the case one should never criticize the church yet they both reserve the right to tell people what to do but err themselves. That is hypocrisy. Andrew Scheer knows full well that Stats Canada will not identify anyone from the study and if it was on his watch he would take the same stand as the Liberals. As reminded by my colleagues from time to time it is just politics and I really don’t think the voters next November will give a fig about this or many other things for that matter. That doesn’t mitigate what I just wrote though.

Comments are closed.