Whatever one may think of the military and those who enter it, those who complete their service whole deserve our appreciation, those who leave it hurt, broken and disabled deserve our support and the survivors of those who never came back our undying condolences for their loss. Whether or not we support the missions they undertook, it was on our behalf that they served, in two World Wars, in Korea, in UN Peacekeeping and other missions, such as in Bosnia and more recently in Afghanistan. Remembrance Day is upon us and so it is a good time to reflect on whether we, as a nation, are upholding the sacred trust that was passed to us from failing hands in Flander Fields, these many years ago.
You see, I can speak of these things with feeIing, and some knowledge, having spent the first sixteen years of my career in the public service of Canada with the Department of Veterans Affairs, an entirely fitting vocation for a young pacifist. In the early seventies, I was a Correspondence Clerk, or a letter writer, for the Canadian Pension Commission, the agency that administered the Pension Act, under which disability pensions were awarded to veterans. At that time, the report of the Wood Committee formed the basis of a government White Paper in 1969 under Trudeau, which led to a major revision of the Pension Act in 1971. Two changes were of particular importance: one that established that in inconclusive cases, the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, the second that any veteran whose application for pension had been denied at any time prior could resubmit an application under the revised Act. The Royal Canadian Legion took this up with gusto and put on a wide ranging information campaign. It resulted in a flood of applications, swamping the Commission's ability to keep up. Processing times for new applications stretched to three years, prompting many anxious enquiries. This to say that I have read and replied to literally thousands of letters from veterans or their widows and know firsthand what the ongoing link between the veteran and the Department really means. It is, in and of itself, a form of on-going recognition: you will never be forgotten, we will always be there for you.
This is why I was pained and shocked to learn that under the new Veterans Charter, passed in 2006, the disability pension, which was a monthly benefit, indexed annually and continuously adjusted for evolving levels of disability, with additional amounts paid for spouses and dependent children, was changed to a one-time lump sum disability award. Here is your money, Charley. Goodbye.
Not only that, but the lump sum is a paltry amount compared to the pension that would have been payable over the lifetime of the veteran. For example, in the case of 100% disabled veteran, say a quadriplegic, the one time disability award would be $276,000, whereas a disability pension would have amounted to $2,895,000 over the lifetime of the veteran and his spouse (assuming they were both 28 at the time of discharge, with a life expectancy of 72 and 78 years, respectively.)
This is because the disability award is meant to recognize and compensate only for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability, such as pain and suffering, whereas the disability pension provided compensation for both the severity of the disability and its impact on earning capacity. Under the new Charter, other benefits are available to deal with economic impact such as the Earning Loss benefit, the Permanent Impairment Allowance, Rehabilitation costs, but these are subject to other application processes and are conditional on participation in the Rehabilitation program and going through other hoops under the Financial Benefits program. Even if all available programs are accessed, the total benefit available is still nearly $300,000 less than the disability pension, and no survivor benefits. (It's even worse for a moderately disabled veteran, say 40% disability: pension = $646, 000; disability award, all available benefits accessed = $214,000, barely one third of the pension amount).
Why make it harder for veterans to get the full compensation they deserve? According to Veterans Affairs "clients receiving large monthly disability pensions did not have any incentive to transition to civilian life."
Well, as I have related above, I have read and replied to thousands of letters from veterans and their widows and transitioning to civilian life was not an issue. Veterans with service related disabilities were for the most part proud, self reliant types who worked to the full extent of their limited capacities, and beyond. A blind medical examiner, a double amputee Minister, a one-armed statistical clerk: they all drew a pension, a fitting thank you from Canada, and kept on serving. If we want to help veterans reintegrate civilian life, it should not be done on the back of their pension entitlement. I am afraid this is more "homo economicus" thinking, using money to incentivize everything. Anyone who has served knows that there are other, more powerful motivations in life.
Our newer, younger veterans are definitely getting a raw deal under the new Veterans Charter. Yesterday, a new Veterans Ombudsman was appointed. Hopefully, he will continue to take up the cause as vigorously as his predecessor. Today, November 6, veterans are taking to the streets in protest. This is a very, very rare occurrence and if it has come to that, you know that something is wrong. All of us should be protesting and telling our political leaders it doesn't matter under whose watch these changes to the Veterans Charter were introduced. Just fix it.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Scrap the National Household Survey?
I left off on my last post suggesting that if the voluntary National Household Survey is to go forward, it should be completely decoupled from the Census. (The recent court challenge brought by the Canadian Council for Social Development provides faint hope for another possible outcome, and I will comment on this in a future post).
But, assuming that the content previously collected in the census long form is now to be collected on a voluntary basis, what would be the best way to proceed if this proposition were to be considered coolly and rationally, instead of in the rushed, under the gun, last minute manner that was played out after Statistics Canada was punk'd by the government last spring? The NHS as currently planned has problems numerous and deep, to the point of being fatally flawed. Running it as part of the census operation, in the weeks immediately following the census, puts the census itself at risk. I am convinced that it will be much more difficult this time to get the cooperation of Canadians even for the mandatory census. I think we can safely predict that thousands will refuse to fill out the Census, even if it is mandatory, and openly challenge the government to coerce them to do so, under the threat of fines or jail, knowing full well that the Prime Minister and his cabinet support their resistance. It will take all of Statistics Canada's skill and energy, over a much longer period than usual, to get a good outcome just for the basic Census. Throwing the voluntary NHS into the mix as part of the Census operation will only compound the problem and risk a meltdown of the whole system. (As an aside, when Statistics Canada was ordered to bring forth a voluntary option for the long form content, I imagine they thought that this one, the NHS, was too outlandish ever to be selected by Cabinet: more response burden, less reliable data, more expensive - a loser all down the line.)
So, move the NHS as far away from the Census as possible for the sake of preserving the integrity of the census itself. There is no deadline for the NHS, and, unlike the census, no requirement that it be held at a given time. Since 1986, post-censal surveys, linked to the Census, but operationally distinct from it, have been conducted many months after the census. For example, in the case of the 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey, data were collected from August to October 1991, several months after the 2001 Census Day, which was June 4, 1991. More recently, data collection for the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities took place from October 2006 to January 2007, nearly six months after the 2006 Census. So, there should be no problem shifting the NHS back in time so that it is well clear from Census data collection. Even though there may be a lag in reference dates between the Census and the follow up survey, this has not caused any quality issues for post-censal surveys in the past nor should it pose any problem for the NHS now.
The second problem will be getting any cooperation at all from Canadians to fill out this voluntary survey. Moving it several months after the census will help, but all those who resisted filling out the census proper will almost surely refuse to complete the NHS. Many of those who agree with the government's point of view that these questions are intrusive or outright silly will gladly take advantage of its voluntary nature and refuse to respond. Among those who disagree with the government's decision to discontinue the mandatory long form, a not uncommon reaction will be to show their displeasure by boycotting the NHS. And those who simply find it burdensome, who are too busy, or who feel that they have already done their civic duty by completing the mandatory census, will just let it slide. So, I believe the controversy surrounding this decision, and the confused and mixed messages coming from the government have poisoned the well and have made it nearly impossible to achieve even the modest 50% response rate that Statistics Canada now expects.
The third problem is the sheer size of the thing. One third of households: over 4 million questionnaires! That's crazy. You can get reliable estimates of social characteristics of the population for all Census Metropolitan Areas, representing over 85% of the Canadian population, with a sample of 25,000 (see the General Social Survey). The Labour Force Survey, which provides estimates of employment for all CMAs, economic regions and EI regions, uses a sample of around 54,000 households. The Canadian Community Health Survey uses a sample of 65,000 respondents annually to produce detailed health variables for 121 subprovincial health regions. How can they do it with such small numbers, orders of magnitude smaller than the planned sample size for the NHS?
Three reasons. First, the sample sizes for these surveys do not support estimates for small areas, such as city blocks, census tracts (which are like neighbourhoods) and small rural communities. The expectation, or rather the hope, is that the very large sample size of the NHS will support the production of this type of small area data (which is the main strength of the mandatory census). Second, these surveys acheive higher response rates than what is anticipated for the NHS. The sample for the voluntary NHS consists of one in three households because a response rate of no better than 50% is expected, yielding about the same number of usable responses as the 1 in 5 sample did for the mandatory census. Third, these surveys do not fear non-response bias (i.e. where the characteristics of non-respondents are systematically different from those of respondents, thus skewing estimates to represent only respondents and not the whole population). This is because, up until now, they have been able to compare their estimates of these characteristics to a benchmark, the mandatory census, and to correct for any biases they find. This is what the NHS will not be able to do, regardless of its sample size. So in summary, the very large sample size was chosen so as to support the production of small area data, it was bumped up by 50% to account for high expected non-response but in the end the resulting data will nonetheless contain unmeasurable biases that will make it suspect. Why try to produce small area data if you can't stand behind the results? Actually, why try to produce estimates for any area if you can't stand behind the results? It makes no sense.
And that takes us to the last, and most serious problem with the NHS as currently planned, non-response bias. All surveys are subject to non-response bias. In the case of sample surveys like those mentioned above (GSS, LFS, CCHS), the presence of bias can be detected by comparing their estimates to the census estimates, which is taken as an accurate benchmark, and correcting for any bias detected. How do we know that the Census itself does not contain non-response bias. Actually we don't, but because it is mandatory and response rates of 97% or 98% are achieved, any bias is so small as to have no practical effect on the estimates. So the census can confidently be used as a benchmark to detect and correct for biases in other sample surveys. As previously mentioned, this cannot be done for the NHS. With response rates of 50% or less, the potential for non-response bias is huge but without a benchmark against which to compare, such as the mandatory census, the biases cannot measured or corrected. The only remedy for this would be to have a data source with a 98% response rate, for the same population for the same reference period, a practical impossibility. (In addition, the NHS estimates containing unknown and unmeasurable bias cannot serve as a benchmark for other sample surveys, as the census did, leaving surveys such as the GSS, LFS and CCHS, and all other household sample surveys, high and dry). So this leads to a major impasse. Why conduct a massive survey, burdening one third of Canadian households, and costing $110 million, to produce data no one can trust?
So what's to be done? The long form variables are very valuable to data users, as demonstrated by the near unanimous outcry against the government's decision. So it's not a question of just scrapping the NHS and leaving it at that. If I was blue skying about what to do for a replacement, I think I would give up on the small area data. That is specifically the price of abandoning the mandatory nature of the census. It is what the mandatory census can give you that no other vehicle can. If this was not made clear when the decision was taken, it should have been. But what is done is done and there is no way to make it better. So aim for a sample design to support quality data at a higher level of geography. Maybe all CMAs and CAs and some broad rural areas per province. Then, I would try to reduce expected non-response. Divorce it from the census and the name "National Household Survey", which is now like response kryptonite. Break it down into manageable, less burdensome, content modules and spread it out over time, thus exercising the longer term strategy of using the census infrastructure for sample surveys. Then, I would try to deal with response bias by running a split panel for each content module, with a mandatory and a voluntary component, allowing the survey to essentially benchmark itself.
In the end, while still not as useful was the mandatory census, such an approach would provide more useful, usable data than the NHS as currently planned, for less money, less response burden and less damage to the national statistical system.
But, assuming that the content previously collected in the census long form is now to be collected on a voluntary basis, what would be the best way to proceed if this proposition were to be considered coolly and rationally, instead of in the rushed, under the gun, last minute manner that was played out after Statistics Canada was punk'd by the government last spring? The NHS as currently planned has problems numerous and deep, to the point of being fatally flawed. Running it as part of the census operation, in the weeks immediately following the census, puts the census itself at risk. I am convinced that it will be much more difficult this time to get the cooperation of Canadians even for the mandatory census. I think we can safely predict that thousands will refuse to fill out the Census, even if it is mandatory, and openly challenge the government to coerce them to do so, under the threat of fines or jail, knowing full well that the Prime Minister and his cabinet support their resistance. It will take all of Statistics Canada's skill and energy, over a much longer period than usual, to get a good outcome just for the basic Census. Throwing the voluntary NHS into the mix as part of the Census operation will only compound the problem and risk a meltdown of the whole system. (As an aside, when Statistics Canada was ordered to bring forth a voluntary option for the long form content, I imagine they thought that this one, the NHS, was too outlandish ever to be selected by Cabinet: more response burden, less reliable data, more expensive - a loser all down the line.)
So, move the NHS as far away from the Census as possible for the sake of preserving the integrity of the census itself. There is no deadline for the NHS, and, unlike the census, no requirement that it be held at a given time. Since 1986, post-censal surveys, linked to the Census, but operationally distinct from it, have been conducted many months after the census. For example, in the case of the 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey, data were collected from August to October 1991, several months after the 2001 Census Day, which was June 4, 1991. More recently, data collection for the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities took place from October 2006 to January 2007, nearly six months after the 2006 Census. So, there should be no problem shifting the NHS back in time so that it is well clear from Census data collection. Even though there may be a lag in reference dates between the Census and the follow up survey, this has not caused any quality issues for post-censal surveys in the past nor should it pose any problem for the NHS now.
The second problem will be getting any cooperation at all from Canadians to fill out this voluntary survey. Moving it several months after the census will help, but all those who resisted filling out the census proper will almost surely refuse to complete the NHS. Many of those who agree with the government's point of view that these questions are intrusive or outright silly will gladly take advantage of its voluntary nature and refuse to respond. Among those who disagree with the government's decision to discontinue the mandatory long form, a not uncommon reaction will be to show their displeasure by boycotting the NHS. And those who simply find it burdensome, who are too busy, or who feel that they have already done their civic duty by completing the mandatory census, will just let it slide. So, I believe the controversy surrounding this decision, and the confused and mixed messages coming from the government have poisoned the well and have made it nearly impossible to achieve even the modest 50% response rate that Statistics Canada now expects.
The third problem is the sheer size of the thing. One third of households: over 4 million questionnaires! That's crazy. You can get reliable estimates of social characteristics of the population for all Census Metropolitan Areas, representing over 85% of the Canadian population, with a sample of 25,000 (see the General Social Survey). The Labour Force Survey, which provides estimates of employment for all CMAs, economic regions and EI regions, uses a sample of around 54,000 households. The Canadian Community Health Survey uses a sample of 65,000 respondents annually to produce detailed health variables for 121 subprovincial health regions. How can they do it with such small numbers, orders of magnitude smaller than the planned sample size for the NHS?
Three reasons. First, the sample sizes for these surveys do not support estimates for small areas, such as city blocks, census tracts (which are like neighbourhoods) and small rural communities. The expectation, or rather the hope, is that the very large sample size of the NHS will support the production of this type of small area data (which is the main strength of the mandatory census). Second, these surveys acheive higher response rates than what is anticipated for the NHS. The sample for the voluntary NHS consists of one in three households because a response rate of no better than 50% is expected, yielding about the same number of usable responses as the 1 in 5 sample did for the mandatory census. Third, these surveys do not fear non-response bias (i.e. where the characteristics of non-respondents are systematically different from those of respondents, thus skewing estimates to represent only respondents and not the whole population). This is because, up until now, they have been able to compare their estimates of these characteristics to a benchmark, the mandatory census, and to correct for any biases they find. This is what the NHS will not be able to do, regardless of its sample size. So in summary, the very large sample size was chosen so as to support the production of small area data, it was bumped up by 50% to account for high expected non-response but in the end the resulting data will nonetheless contain unmeasurable biases that will make it suspect. Why try to produce small area data if you can't stand behind the results? Actually, why try to produce estimates for any area if you can't stand behind the results? It makes no sense.
And that takes us to the last, and most serious problem with the NHS as currently planned, non-response bias. All surveys are subject to non-response bias. In the case of sample surveys like those mentioned above (GSS, LFS, CCHS), the presence of bias can be detected by comparing their estimates to the census estimates, which is taken as an accurate benchmark, and correcting for any bias detected. How do we know that the Census itself does not contain non-response bias. Actually we don't, but because it is mandatory and response rates of 97% or 98% are achieved, any bias is so small as to have no practical effect on the estimates. So the census can confidently be used as a benchmark to detect and correct for biases in other sample surveys. As previously mentioned, this cannot be done for the NHS. With response rates of 50% or less, the potential for non-response bias is huge but without a benchmark against which to compare, such as the mandatory census, the biases cannot measured or corrected. The only remedy for this would be to have a data source with a 98% response rate, for the same population for the same reference period, a practical impossibility. (In addition, the NHS estimates containing unknown and unmeasurable bias cannot serve as a benchmark for other sample surveys, as the census did, leaving surveys such as the GSS, LFS and CCHS, and all other household sample surveys, high and dry). So this leads to a major impasse. Why conduct a massive survey, burdening one third of Canadian households, and costing $110 million, to produce data no one can trust?
So what's to be done? The long form variables are very valuable to data users, as demonstrated by the near unanimous outcry against the government's decision. So it's not a question of just scrapping the NHS and leaving it at that. If I was blue skying about what to do for a replacement, I think I would give up on the small area data. That is specifically the price of abandoning the mandatory nature of the census. It is what the mandatory census can give you that no other vehicle can. If this was not made clear when the decision was taken, it should have been. But what is done is done and there is no way to make it better. So aim for a sample design to support quality data at a higher level of geography. Maybe all CMAs and CAs and some broad rural areas per province. Then, I would try to reduce expected non-response. Divorce it from the census and the name "National Household Survey", which is now like response kryptonite. Break it down into manageable, less burdensome, content modules and spread it out over time, thus exercising the longer term strategy of using the census infrastructure for sample surveys. Then, I would try to deal with response bias by running a split panel for each content module, with a mandatory and a voluntary component, allowing the survey to essentially benchmark itself.
In the end, while still not as useful was the mandatory census, such an approach would provide more useful, usable data than the NHS as currently planned, for less money, less response burden and less damage to the national statistical system.
Monday, October 18, 2010
End of the line for the 2011 Census long form
With the announcement that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes will not appeal the Federal Court's ruling concerning the 2011 Census long form, it's all over now for the 2011 Census.
For the first time since Confederation, that's 143 years ago, the decennial census will not include questions on housing, religion, education, race and occupation of each person (1871 Census), birthplace, citizenship and period of immigration (1901 Census) and all the other population characteristics that make the census such a powerful source of information, beyond basic demographics. Instead, the 2011 Census will be a very basic affair, just 8 questions. For this, Canadian taxpayers will pay $550 million dollars over the full eight year cycle it takes to plan, develop, run and publish the results of a census of population. The full census would have cost $80 million more, for a total of $630 million. That's right, over 85% of the cost of taking the census is taken up just finding and counting the population. It's very cost effective to ask the extra, mandatory, questions to 1 in 5 households as part of the census.
Now instead, that $80 million, plus a promised additional $30 million, will be used to conduct the untested, voluntary National Household Survey, which will be sent to one in 3 households. Census systems, which were completely re-engineered for the 2006 Census to enable a mail-out/mail back method of collection, with an Internet response option, will need to be re-jigged to trigger the mailout of the NHS questionnaire upon receipt of a completed Census questionnaire. This wasn't the methodology that was used in the National Census Test in 2009, which was supposed to be a dress rehearsal for the real thing.
So this is definitely a high risk gambit, which may not only produce poor results for the $110 million spent on the NHS, but which could jeopardize the $550 million being spent on the Census itself. The previous, previous Chief Statistician, Ivan Fellegi, used to say that there is only one way of running a census: running scared. It's a huge beast, which can easily spin out of control, with a high potential for huge cost overruns and unacceptable undercounts. That's why everything is tested and tried in advance, extensive consultation is conducted and high profile endorsements are sought.
I don't know about you, but after filling out and returning my mandatory Census questionnaire, I am not sure I would be that enthusiastic about receiving another, longer questionnaire. Having performed my civic duty, I might be tempted to give it a pass, especially as it is voluntary. And if I were of the political persuasion that shares the Prime Minister's, and Tony Clement's, and Maxime Bernier's, low opinion of government data collection, expressed clearly and frequently on the national airwaves - it's almost like PSA's for not completing the census - I would very certainly not fill it out. So I think we can predict very low response rates for the NHS and probably more difficulty getting cooperation for the mandatory census itself.
And why are we doing this again? Oh yes,
"We recognize that some people are a bit hesitant regarding their private life," Harper said in the House of Commons on Tuesday in response to a question from Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe. "We intend to work co-operatively with the population. We don't threaten to prosecute them for being hesitant. We work with them as adults."
Except when it comes to Swiss bank accounts, of course.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed Thursday that the government would pursue with "the full extent of the law" Canadians who are using secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.
Anyway, at this time, the fiscally prudent thing to do would be to decouple the NHS from the Census altogether in a bid to reduce the risks for the Census proper. If the content that was previously collected in the census long form is to be collected henceforth on a voluntary basis, do the research and testing that will provide for the best, most cost-effective results, including, in the absence of a mandatory census as a benchmark, how to quantify and correct for the biases that will inevitably be found in voluntary surveys (for example, it's pretty safe to predict that Conservative supporters will be underrepresented in the NHS as it now stands).
Maybe it's too late. The train has left the station and it's barreling down the track. Let's hope against hope that we are not headed for a train wreck.
For the first time since Confederation, that's 143 years ago, the decennial census will not include questions on housing, religion, education, race and occupation of each person (1871 Census), birthplace, citizenship and period of immigration (1901 Census) and all the other population characteristics that make the census such a powerful source of information, beyond basic demographics. Instead, the 2011 Census will be a very basic affair, just 8 questions. For this, Canadian taxpayers will pay $550 million dollars over the full eight year cycle it takes to plan, develop, run and publish the results of a census of population. The full census would have cost $80 million more, for a total of $630 million. That's right, over 85% of the cost of taking the census is taken up just finding and counting the population. It's very cost effective to ask the extra, mandatory, questions to 1 in 5 households as part of the census.
Now instead, that $80 million, plus a promised additional $30 million, will be used to conduct the untested, voluntary National Household Survey, which will be sent to one in 3 households. Census systems, which were completely re-engineered for the 2006 Census to enable a mail-out/mail back method of collection, with an Internet response option, will need to be re-jigged to trigger the mailout of the NHS questionnaire upon receipt of a completed Census questionnaire. This wasn't the methodology that was used in the National Census Test in 2009, which was supposed to be a dress rehearsal for the real thing.
So this is definitely a high risk gambit, which may not only produce poor results for the $110 million spent on the NHS, but which could jeopardize the $550 million being spent on the Census itself. The previous, previous Chief Statistician, Ivan Fellegi, used to say that there is only one way of running a census: running scared. It's a huge beast, which can easily spin out of control, with a high potential for huge cost overruns and unacceptable undercounts. That's why everything is tested and tried in advance, extensive consultation is conducted and high profile endorsements are sought.
I don't know about you, but after filling out and returning my mandatory Census questionnaire, I am not sure I would be that enthusiastic about receiving another, longer questionnaire. Having performed my civic duty, I might be tempted to give it a pass, especially as it is voluntary. And if I were of the political persuasion that shares the Prime Minister's, and Tony Clement's, and Maxime Bernier's, low opinion of government data collection, expressed clearly and frequently on the national airwaves - it's almost like PSA's for not completing the census - I would very certainly not fill it out. So I think we can predict very low response rates for the NHS and probably more difficulty getting cooperation for the mandatory census itself.
And why are we doing this again? Oh yes,
"We recognize that some people are a bit hesitant regarding their private life," Harper said in the House of Commons on Tuesday in response to a question from Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe. "We intend to work co-operatively with the population. We don't threaten to prosecute them for being hesitant. We work with them as adults."
Except when it comes to Swiss bank accounts, of course.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed Thursday that the government would pursue with "the full extent of the law" Canadians who are using secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.
Anyway, at this time, the fiscally prudent thing to do would be to decouple the NHS from the Census altogether in a bid to reduce the risks for the Census proper. If the content that was previously collected in the census long form is to be collected henceforth on a voluntary basis, do the research and testing that will provide for the best, most cost-effective results, including, in the absence of a mandatory census as a benchmark, how to quantify and correct for the biases that will inevitably be found in voluntary surveys (for example, it's pretty safe to predict that Conservative supporters will be underrepresented in the NHS as it now stands).
Maybe it's too late. The train has left the station and it's barreling down the track. Let's hope against hope that we are not headed for a train wreck.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Last chance for the 2011 Census?
It is clear by now that reasoned argument, public opposition, political pressure or bad press will not sway the government's decision on the 2011 Census of Population. Even a public letter to the Prime Minister signed by the ex-Chief Statistician, the ex-Governor of the Bank of Canada and two ex-Clerks of the Privy Council, a rather extraordinary event by itself, barely registered with them. This government just does not back off from silly decisions unless forced into it by the courts (and even then, reluctantly and in bad faith). So it will be interesting to follow the Federal Court's hearing of the Fédération des Communautés francophones et Acadiennes' request for an injunction to suspend the government's decision to make the census long form voluntary.
The Court agreed on August 10th to fast track its hearing of the case, which is scheduled for next week, on September 27-28. Even though the government reacted to the Court's scheduling decision by adding a few language questions to the mandatory short form,the FCFAC has decided not to comment on this move and to let the legal procedures play themselves out.
At issue is whether the Charter rights of francophones can be respected in the absence of the language data collected in the long form census (the same case can be made for anglophones in Quebec). The Official Languages Act requires that the government provide services in the official language of choice of Canadians in areas where there is sufficient demand. In this respect, the Act states,
"In prescribing circumstances under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the Governor in Council may have regard to
(a) the number of persons composing the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served by an office or facility, the particular characteristics of that population and the proportion of that population to the total population of that area;"
The requirement to use census data for the calculation of the official language minority population, which is what prompted the government to add language questions to the short form, is found in the Official Languages Regulations, made by the Government pursuant to the Act, but not in the Act itself.
If the Federal Court finds for the claimant, the government can argue that they have already acted in accordance with the decision by adding the relevant language questions to the mandatory short form. But the Official Languages Act also refers to "the particular characteristics of the population", which may include characteristics such as education, employment and income, found only in the Census long form. It also refers to "area", which in the Regulations is defined, among others, as Census Metropolitan Areas, which are delineated using data only available in the long form.
A favourable decision would also open the door to other legal challenges. There is similar language in the Employment Equity Act and Regulations. In this case, the relevant Census data include aboriginal status, visible minority status, which is derived from race and ethnic origin, disability status and occupation, all found in the Census long form.
Such legal challenges are likely the only remaining avenues for prodding this government into restoring the integrity of the Census of Population. That, or an electoral defeat.
The Court agreed on August 10th to fast track its hearing of the case, which is scheduled for next week, on September 27-28. Even though the government reacted to the Court's scheduling decision by adding a few language questions to the mandatory short form,the FCFAC has decided not to comment on this move and to let the legal procedures play themselves out.
At issue is whether the Charter rights of francophones can be respected in the absence of the language data collected in the long form census (the same case can be made for anglophones in Quebec). The Official Languages Act requires that the government provide services in the official language of choice of Canadians in areas where there is sufficient demand. In this respect, the Act states,
"In prescribing circumstances under paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the Governor in Council may have regard to
(a) the number of persons composing the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served by an office or facility, the particular characteristics of that population and the proportion of that population to the total population of that area;"
The requirement to use census data for the calculation of the official language minority population, which is what prompted the government to add language questions to the short form, is found in the Official Languages Regulations, made by the Government pursuant to the Act, but not in the Act itself.
If the Federal Court finds for the claimant, the government can argue that they have already acted in accordance with the decision by adding the relevant language questions to the mandatory short form. But the Official Languages Act also refers to "the particular characteristics of the population", which may include characteristics such as education, employment and income, found only in the Census long form. It also refers to "area", which in the Regulations is defined, among others, as Census Metropolitan Areas, which are delineated using data only available in the long form.
A favourable decision would also open the door to other legal challenges. There is similar language in the Employment Equity Act and Regulations. In this case, the relevant Census data include aboriginal status, visible minority status, which is derived from race and ethnic origin, disability status and occupation, all found in the Census long form.
Such legal challenges are likely the only remaining avenues for prodding this government into restoring the integrity of the Census of Population. That, or an electoral defeat.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
The secret is out - Tories don't use statistics
We don't govern on the basis of statistics,'' Nicholson said. ``We govern on the basis of what we hear from the public and what law enforcement agencies tell us. That has not changed in the four and a half years we've been in government.''
Ugh.. there's the ugly truth. We don't govern on the basis of statistics....says Minister of Justice Nicholson. Only on what we hear from the public. Where does the Minister think the statistics come from? Your own statistical agency, Statistics Canada, asks the public what it thinks and reports it back to you, sir. On crime victimization, they ask 25,000 Canadians if they have been a victim of a criminal incident in the previous 12 months, the type and whether they reported it to police. These 25,000 Canadians are part of a properly constituted random sample that will give you reliable estimates with a degree of precision that can be measured and quantified. This is an infinitely better way of getting a picture of what is going on than relying on the emails and phone calls received in the offices of MPs. As for what the law enforcement agencies tell the government, the Minister should know that every month, every police department in Canada sends the government's very own statistical agency, Statistics Canada, a unified crime report, which provides the number and types of charges laid that month in their jurisdiction, which is the basis of the calculation of the crime rate, with which the Conservatives all seem to disagree. If the Tories intend on governing on the basis of what the law enforcement agencies are telling them, how about keeping the long-gun registry, which I believe is supported by every police force in the country.
Back to statistics, though. The unreported crime story is not a new one. Around two thirds of criminal incidents are not brought to the attention of the police, according to the General Social Survey - Crime Victimization cycle, which has been held every five years since 1988. In 1999, 37% of incidents were reported, in 2004 it was 34%. Perhaps the 2009 surveys results, which will be released in September, show yet another drop and the ministers are privy to this and are setting us up. Nah, I forgot, they don't govern on the basis of statistics. No wonder the "tough on crime" agenda flies in the face of not only the declining crime rate but also of Canadians own perception of their safety from being a victim of crime. In 2004, 94% of Canadians indicated that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their safety from crime, up from 91% in 1999 and 86% in 1993. After four and half years of governance on the basis of gut and ideology rather than facts, it will be interesting to see how Canadians now feel about their personal safety from crime.
Ugh.. there's the ugly truth. We don't govern on the basis of statistics....says Minister of Justice Nicholson. Only on what we hear from the public. Where does the Minister think the statistics come from? Your own statistical agency, Statistics Canada, asks the public what it thinks and reports it back to you, sir. On crime victimization, they ask 25,000 Canadians if they have been a victim of a criminal incident in the previous 12 months, the type and whether they reported it to police. These 25,000 Canadians are part of a properly constituted random sample that will give you reliable estimates with a degree of precision that can be measured and quantified. This is an infinitely better way of getting a picture of what is going on than relying on the emails and phone calls received in the offices of MPs. As for what the law enforcement agencies tell the government, the Minister should know that every month, every police department in Canada sends the government's very own statistical agency, Statistics Canada, a unified crime report, which provides the number and types of charges laid that month in their jurisdiction, which is the basis of the calculation of the crime rate, with which the Conservatives all seem to disagree. If the Tories intend on governing on the basis of what the law enforcement agencies are telling them, how about keeping the long-gun registry, which I believe is supported by every police force in the country.
Back to statistics, though. The unreported crime story is not a new one. Around two thirds of criminal incidents are not brought to the attention of the police, according to the General Social Survey - Crime Victimization cycle, which has been held every five years since 1988. In 1999, 37% of incidents were reported, in 2004 it was 34%. Perhaps the 2009 surveys results, which will be released in September, show yet another drop and the ministers are privy to this and are setting us up. Nah, I forgot, they don't govern on the basis of statistics. No wonder the "tough on crime" agenda flies in the face of not only the declining crime rate but also of Canadians own perception of their safety from being a victim of crime. In 2004, 94% of Canadians indicated that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their safety from crime, up from 91% in 1999 and 86% in 1993. After four and half years of governance on the basis of gut and ideology rather than facts, it will be interesting to see how Canadians now feel about their personal safety from crime.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why the Census is mandatory
Even though Stockwell Day assures us that the short form will be retained for the 2011 Census, and that it will be mandatory, it has now been reported that the Conservatives initially wanted the entire Census to be made voluntary.
If that is the case, they really don't understand what the Census is about. By definition, the Census cannot be made voluntary because its purpose is to count EVERYONE in the country. Not just those who want to be counted, but every single person that can be found and contacted. Why do we need a complete count of the population? Fundamentally, it is to ensure that there is a solid basis for our form of representative government. Democracies strive for representation by population. We want everyone to have approximately the same representation in our elected assemblies. The starting point for this is a complete count of the population. The Canadian Constitution specifically requires that the number of seats in the House of Commons be adjusted to maintain appropriate representation after each decennial census. This requirement was in the British North America Act (1867) and was retained in the Constitution Acts (1867 to 1982).
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides ...,
The assumption in the Constitution Act that there will be a decennial census makes the holding of a census every ten years obligatory but it does not specify, limit or constrain its content. To support this constitutional requirement, the Statistics Act requires that a census be held every five years, and that, at a minimum, it must provide a population count for each Federal Electoral District.
19. (1) A census of population of Canada shall be taken by Statistics Canada in the month of June in the year 1971, and every fifth year thereafter in a month to be fixed by the Governor in Council.
(2) The census of population shall be taken in such a manner as to ensure that counts of the population are provided for each federal electoral district of Canada, as constituted at the time of each census of population.
To ensure a complete population count, the Statistics Act also makes responding to the Census mandatory, and unlike all the other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada, there is no discretion given to the government to make it voluntary.
8. The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis.
So, holding a census of population every ten years is required by the Constitution Act, the Statistics Act requires that one be held every five years, participation in a census is mandatory and it cannot be made voluntary by order of the Government of the day. Given the logic of the constitutional requirement, it likely cannot be made voluntary even through legislative change. But then, just what exactly is this mandatory thing called the Census? Is it just a count of persons at each address, or does it include more information than that?
The Constitution Act assumes there will be a decennial census, but is silent on its content other than it must provide a population count by province. The Statistics Act specifies that it must provide at least a population count by Federal Electoral District. Many other statutes assume that the Census will provide specific information required for their administration. For example, the Employment Equity Act assumes that data on visible minorities will be provided by the Census as it is required in the administration of this legislation. The Official Languages Act assumes that information on official language and mother tongue will be included in the Census. Many other federal and provincial statutes assume that specific data will be available from the Census, much of which is traditionally found in the long form. All of these statutes reasonably assume that the Census will provide this wide variety of information as, from the very first Census in 1666 to this day, it has covered a wider range of topics that just a population count. The first post-Confederation census in 1871 covered age, sex, religion, education, race and occupation of each person as well as ancestral origins, including Aboriginal persons, plus housing questions.
This content has remained part of the Census for over a century, plus or minus a few additional topics determined through pre-census consultation. As a result, a wide range of uses of Census data at the provincial, municipal and local levels have become institutionalized.
Given these precedents, and the deeply rooted uses of Census data throughout Canadian levels of government , business and civil society, can the government of the day legally curtail census content by simple order in council, without consultation or recourse? If so, must all the statutes that require census data for their administration be amended now that the long standing assumption that such data would be provided no longer stands?
The government's case to do as it will rests on the section the Statistics Act that requires the Census questions to be prescribed by the Governor in Council, and thus recorded in the Canada Gazette.
21. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, prescribe the questions to be asked in any census taken by Statistics Canada under section 19 or 20.
But does this section deal with the specific wording of the census questions and their official publication, or does it provide carte blanche for the government of the day to limit content to a simple population count and destroy over a century of precedent and ingrained use throughout Canadian society? The Census is a national asset, owned by multiple stakeholders and made possible by the mandatory participation of all Canadians, a duty that most accept graciously, indeed with pride. That it can be destroyed on a whim for ideological reasons seems an affront to our sense of justice and decency. Maybe a court can be convinced to see it that way and to issue an injunction on the printing of the questionnaires for the new survey that has been proposed as a fatally flawed alternative to the Census. Hopefully, the Council of the Federation will take up the cause.
If that is the case, they really don't understand what the Census is about. By definition, the Census cannot be made voluntary because its purpose is to count EVERYONE in the country. Not just those who want to be counted, but every single person that can be found and contacted. Why do we need a complete count of the population? Fundamentally, it is to ensure that there is a solid basis for our form of representative government. Democracies strive for representation by population. We want everyone to have approximately the same representation in our elected assemblies. The starting point for this is a complete count of the population. The Canadian Constitution specifically requires that the number of seats in the House of Commons be adjusted to maintain appropriate representation after each decennial census. This requirement was in the British North America Act (1867) and was retained in the Constitution Acts (1867 to 1982).
51. (1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides ...,
The assumption in the Constitution Act that there will be a decennial census makes the holding of a census every ten years obligatory but it does not specify, limit or constrain its content. To support this constitutional requirement, the Statistics Act requires that a census be held every five years, and that, at a minimum, it must provide a population count for each Federal Electoral District.
19. (1) A census of population of Canada shall be taken by Statistics Canada in the month of June in the year 1971, and every fifth year thereafter in a month to be fixed by the Governor in Council.
(2) The census of population shall be taken in such a manner as to ensure that counts of the population are provided for each federal electoral district of Canada, as constituted at the time of each census of population.
To ensure a complete population count, the Statistics Act also makes responding to the Census mandatory, and unlike all the other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada, there is no discretion given to the government to make it voluntary.
8. The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis.
So, holding a census of population every ten years is required by the Constitution Act, the Statistics Act requires that one be held every five years, participation in a census is mandatory and it cannot be made voluntary by order of the Government of the day. Given the logic of the constitutional requirement, it likely cannot be made voluntary even through legislative change. But then, just what exactly is this mandatory thing called the Census? Is it just a count of persons at each address, or does it include more information than that?
The Constitution Act assumes there will be a decennial census, but is silent on its content other than it must provide a population count by province. The Statistics Act specifies that it must provide at least a population count by Federal Electoral District. Many other statutes assume that the Census will provide specific information required for their administration. For example, the Employment Equity Act assumes that data on visible minorities will be provided by the Census as it is required in the administration of this legislation. The Official Languages Act assumes that information on official language and mother tongue will be included in the Census. Many other federal and provincial statutes assume that specific data will be available from the Census, much of which is traditionally found in the long form. All of these statutes reasonably assume that the Census will provide this wide variety of information as, from the very first Census in 1666 to this day, it has covered a wider range of topics that just a population count. The first post-Confederation census in 1871 covered age, sex, religion, education, race and occupation of each person as well as ancestral origins, including Aboriginal persons, plus housing questions.
This content has remained part of the Census for over a century, plus or minus a few additional topics determined through pre-census consultation. As a result, a wide range of uses of Census data at the provincial, municipal and local levels have become institutionalized.
Given these precedents, and the deeply rooted uses of Census data throughout Canadian levels of government , business and civil society, can the government of the day legally curtail census content by simple order in council, without consultation or recourse? If so, must all the statutes that require census data for their administration be amended now that the long standing assumption that such data would be provided no longer stands?
The government's case to do as it will rests on the section the Statistics Act that requires the Census questions to be prescribed by the Governor in Council, and thus recorded in the Canada Gazette.
21. (1) The Governor in Council shall, by order, prescribe the questions to be asked in any census taken by Statistics Canada under section 19 or 20.
But does this section deal with the specific wording of the census questions and their official publication, or does it provide carte blanche for the government of the day to limit content to a simple population count and destroy over a century of precedent and ingrained use throughout Canadian society? The Census is a national asset, owned by multiple stakeholders and made possible by the mandatory participation of all Canadians, a duty that most accept graciously, indeed with pride. That it can be destroyed on a whim for ideological reasons seems an affront to our sense of justice and decency. Maybe a court can be convinced to see it that way and to issue an injunction on the printing of the questionnaires for the new survey that has been proposed as a fatally flawed alternative to the Census. Hopefully, the Council of the Federation will take up the cause.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Census under attack
In their continuing effort to give precedence to ideological considerations over evidence based decision making, the government has decided that for the 2011 Census, the census long form will be replaced by a voluntary survey covering the same content. Why? The point men on this issue are Tony Clement, the Minister currently responsible for Statistics Canada, and Maxime Bernier, who was in a previous life the minister responsible. Let's hear what they have to say. As usual with this government, the stated reasons evolve and change over time but the narrative seems to have settled on the following:
Clement tweet: "It's important to free Cdns from this unwarranted intrusion & coercion!"
Bernier bleat: "We're not there to please all special-interest groups; we're there for the silent majority of Canadians," Bernier said. Bernier has said the decision to go from a mandatory long census to a voluntary survey was a response to the "silent majority" of Canadians who don't like the intrusive, coercive nature of the process.
Intrusiveness:
The most sensitive question in the long form is the income question. It always gets the poorest response rate. Because of this, Statistics Canada asked in the last Census if it could use the respondents' income tax data instead. A large majority of Canadians agreed to this and so the most intrusive question on the long form can be handled this way, rather than by creating a new, voluntary survey. Problem solved. The next most intrusive questions on the Census are the list of persons living at this address, the relationship between these persons, their age and marital status, including common law and same sex. These are truly personal questions and in exchange for asking them, Statistics Canada guarantees that the responses will be held in the utmost confidentiality. All of these questions are on the short form, however, and will continue to be asked. So how has this decision dealt with the issue of intrusiveness?
Coercion:
There is no difference in response rates between the short form and the long form. Regardless of the form, 80% of Canadians fill it out promptly, most considering it to be a civic duty. This is the real silent majority. There is no better or more accurate poll than this. (Minister Clement says they are speaking to the 168,000 who did not respond to the last Census - is this Bernier's silent majority?) Getting the last 20% requires more reminders, more follow up. Only the very hard core refusals are escalated, with letters from the Chief Statistician, and then lawyers. A miniscule number of refusals are taken to court. The conviction rate is infinitesimal. The short form will still be mandatory. 100% of Canadians will still need to fill it out. There will still be follow ups for the 20% that are slower to respond, just as before. Hard core refusals will continue to be escalated, with letters from the Chief Statistician, and then lawyers. A miniscule number of refusals will still be taken to court. So how has this decision dealt with the issue of coercion?
"You try to limit the amount of state coercion that you have, you try to limit the intrusiveness of government activities, and that's the balance that we've struck."
STC conducts 378 surveys and statistical programs. Most are business surveys, or statistical programs that use existing data as their source. Less than 20 are regular household surveys that require Canadians to fill out questionnaires. Of these, only 2 are mandatory: the Labour Force Survey (a monthly sample survey used to produce the unemployment rate), and the Census of Population, held once every five years. The balance is already heavily tilted towards voluntary participation, with only the most critical programs retaining the mandatory designation.
Cost/Response burden/ paperwork reduction
There is no need to repeat the cost implications of this decision. Suffice it to say that this new approach will be more expensive than the traditional Census. That is truly unbelievable! Statistics Canada has been under intense pressure to reduce the cost of each Census since 1986, ever striving to produce more for less. Now, it will produce less for more! Lost in the cost issue is the increase in response and paperwork burden that Canadians will face because of this decision. One third of households will get this new questionnaire instead of the one fifth of households that would have received the long form. That represents an increase of over 50% in the response burden and paperwork burden placed on Canadians by the Census. Yes, it will be voluntary, but it will still end up in your mailbox, there will still be an expectation that it will be completed, it will still be the subject of follow up, in person or by phone. In fact, voluntary surveys require even more follow up calls to get satisfactory response rates than mandatory surveys. So instead of one fifth of households getting those annoying supper time phone calls asking them to complete their long form census questionnaire, one third of Canadian households will be subjected to the vigorous follow up required to get an acceptable response rate for the new voluntary questionnaire.
So how is this decision getting the government off the back of Canadians?
"That if we went to a voluntary census and if we did the measures that they recommended, that we could mitigate and/or eliminate the legitimate concern [about] going from a mandatory to a voluntary census."
Legality
The Minister cannot make the census voluntary. Under the Statistics Act, responding to all Statistics Canada surveys is mandatory. Refusing to do so can entail fines or imprisonment. However, section 8 of the Act allows the Minister (although in practice, it is delegated to the Chief Statistician of Canada), to make response voluntary, except for a census of population or agriculture.
So how can this decision be legal? To achieve his aim, the only way is to split the set of questions that for a century have been considered part of the Census of Population into a part called the census (the short form questions) and a new separate survey, containing the questions of the long form. He can then exercise his discretion under the Act to prescribe this new survey as voluntary. So just by calling what was the census a survey, he can get around the obligation under the Act for mandatory response to these questions. But then, just what exactly is the Census? Has not a century of practice in Canada established a precedent regarding the broad content categories that it includes? Is there a basis for a legal challenge here?
So what will this change have achieved? It costs more, increases the response burden of Canadians, degrades the data, destroys the time series, hardly reduces intrusiveness and is still coercive. Huh? I'm not getting it.
Clement tweet: "It's important to free Cdns from this unwarranted intrusion & coercion!"
Bernier bleat: "We're not there to please all special-interest groups; we're there for the silent majority of Canadians," Bernier said. Bernier has said the decision to go from a mandatory long census to a voluntary survey was a response to the "silent majority" of Canadians who don't like the intrusive, coercive nature of the process.
Intrusiveness:
The most sensitive question in the long form is the income question. It always gets the poorest response rate. Because of this, Statistics Canada asked in the last Census if it could use the respondents' income tax data instead. A large majority of Canadians agreed to this and so the most intrusive question on the long form can be handled this way, rather than by creating a new, voluntary survey. Problem solved. The next most intrusive questions on the Census are the list of persons living at this address, the relationship between these persons, their age and marital status, including common law and same sex. These are truly personal questions and in exchange for asking them, Statistics Canada guarantees that the responses will be held in the utmost confidentiality. All of these questions are on the short form, however, and will continue to be asked. So how has this decision dealt with the issue of intrusiveness?
Coercion:
There is no difference in response rates between the short form and the long form. Regardless of the form, 80% of Canadians fill it out promptly, most considering it to be a civic duty. This is the real silent majority. There is no better or more accurate poll than this. (Minister Clement says they are speaking to the 168,000 who did not respond to the last Census - is this Bernier's silent majority?) Getting the last 20% requires more reminders, more follow up. Only the very hard core refusals are escalated, with letters from the Chief Statistician, and then lawyers. A miniscule number of refusals are taken to court. The conviction rate is infinitesimal. The short form will still be mandatory. 100% of Canadians will still need to fill it out. There will still be follow ups for the 20% that are slower to respond, just as before. Hard core refusals will continue to be escalated, with letters from the Chief Statistician, and then lawyers. A miniscule number of refusals will still be taken to court. So how has this decision dealt with the issue of coercion?
"You try to limit the amount of state coercion that you have, you try to limit the intrusiveness of government activities, and that's the balance that we've struck."
STC conducts 378 surveys and statistical programs. Most are business surveys, or statistical programs that use existing data as their source. Less than 20 are regular household surveys that require Canadians to fill out questionnaires. Of these, only 2 are mandatory: the Labour Force Survey (a monthly sample survey used to produce the unemployment rate), and the Census of Population, held once every five years. The balance is already heavily tilted towards voluntary participation, with only the most critical programs retaining the mandatory designation.
Cost/Response burden/ paperwork reduction
There is no need to repeat the cost implications of this decision. Suffice it to say that this new approach will be more expensive than the traditional Census. That is truly unbelievable! Statistics Canada has been under intense pressure to reduce the cost of each Census since 1986, ever striving to produce more for less. Now, it will produce less for more! Lost in the cost issue is the increase in response and paperwork burden that Canadians will face because of this decision. One third of households will get this new questionnaire instead of the one fifth of households that would have received the long form. That represents an increase of over 50% in the response burden and paperwork burden placed on Canadians by the Census. Yes, it will be voluntary, but it will still end up in your mailbox, there will still be an expectation that it will be completed, it will still be the subject of follow up, in person or by phone. In fact, voluntary surveys require even more follow up calls to get satisfactory response rates than mandatory surveys. So instead of one fifth of households getting those annoying supper time phone calls asking them to complete their long form census questionnaire, one third of Canadian households will be subjected to the vigorous follow up required to get an acceptable response rate for the new voluntary questionnaire.
So how is this decision getting the government off the back of Canadians?
"That if we went to a voluntary census and if we did the measures that they recommended, that we could mitigate and/or eliminate the legitimate concern [about] going from a mandatory to a voluntary census."
Legality
The Minister cannot make the census voluntary. Under the Statistics Act, responding to all Statistics Canada surveys is mandatory. Refusing to do so can entail fines or imprisonment. However, section 8 of the Act allows the Minister (although in practice, it is delegated to the Chief Statistician of Canada), to make response voluntary, except for a census of population or agriculture.
So how can this decision be legal? To achieve his aim, the only way is to split the set of questions that for a century have been considered part of the Census of Population into a part called the census (the short form questions) and a new separate survey, containing the questions of the long form. He can then exercise his discretion under the Act to prescribe this new survey as voluntary. So just by calling what was the census a survey, he can get around the obligation under the Act for mandatory response to these questions. But then, just what exactly is the Census? Has not a century of practice in Canada established a precedent regarding the broad content categories that it includes? Is there a basis for a legal challenge here?
So what will this change have achieved? It costs more, increases the response burden of Canadians, degrades the data, destroys the time series, hardly reduces intrusiveness and is still coercive. Huh? I'm not getting it.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Curiouser and curiouser
There is something odd about the reasons given by the Conservative government for refusing to hand over to the Commons Special Committee on the Afghan Mission documents it has requested. The Committee requested the documents after the testimony it heard from Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin in November 2009 concerning the tranfer of detainees to Afghan authorities. At first, the government refused, citing the Canada Evidence Act as the reason, in particular section 38, which was introduced as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2001, and which seeks to restrict the disclosure of sensitive national security information in legal proceedings before courts and tribunals. Bolstered by the written opinion of the Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who is the country's foremost expert on the legal powers of the House and its committees and the application of federal laws to the business of the House, the Committee disputed the government's right to withold this information, and reported what it considered to be a serious breach of privilege to the House so that it could address it. The Government then released a heavily redacted version, again citing section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Then it came to light that even the Department of Justice agreed with the Parliamentary Counsel that section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee . This led the House to pass a motion demanding full disclosure of the requested information on the last day of the second session of the 40th Parliament, which was then recessed until January 25. Failure to comply could lead to a motion of censure, basically finding the Prime Minister guilty of a crime against the nation. This is what faced the Government as it entered the Christmans break, seemingly boxed in on all sides. As we all know, the Conservative brain trust came up with a novel escape plan and on December 30, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, thus disbanding the special committee, leaving all its work in limbo.
However, the issue has not gone away and Parliamentarians are again asking that the Government comply and provide the requested documents. The PM's line of defense? The Department of Justice is making us do it. This was the PM's response during Question Period on March 4. But, on March 5, the government announced that it was hiring a retired justice of the Supreme Court, Frank Iacobucci, to advise it on what it can release. Didn't he say in the House the day before that they were releasing everything that was possible to release, "according to the law". So, which is it? Does the Canada Evidence Act apply to the proceedings of a House Committee or not? All legal opinion, and a simple reading of the legislative record, says not. However, if it did, as the Government seems to still be maintaining, the Act provides a very detailed procedure covering consideration of potential disclosure by the Attorney General of Canada, the serving of notices concerning his decision, the opportunity for judicial review of the decision, further opportunity for appeal, culminating in a final Supreme Court decision either ordering the disclosure, in full or in part, or confirming the Attorney General's decision to withold information. The hiring of a retired justice of the Supreme Court to advise them on what to disclose is clearly not part of the procedure. It's just a made up dodge to make it look all serious and legal. By choosing this course of action rather than the procedure specified in the Act, the government is basically conceding that the legal basis that they have been claiming in support of their refusal to submit to the will of Parliament is a sham. Justice Iacobucci should gracefully decline this job offer, lest he be found complicit in this travesty.
However, the issue has not gone away and Parliamentarians are again asking that the Government comply and provide the requested documents. The PM's line of defense? The Department of Justice is making us do it. This was the PM's response during Question Period on March 4. But, on March 5, the government announced that it was hiring a retired justice of the Supreme Court, Frank Iacobucci, to advise it on what it can release. Didn't he say in the House the day before that they were releasing everything that was possible to release, "according to the law". So, which is it? Does the Canada Evidence Act apply to the proceedings of a House Committee or not? All legal opinion, and a simple reading of the legislative record, says not. However, if it did, as the Government seems to still be maintaining, the Act provides a very detailed procedure covering consideration of potential disclosure by the Attorney General of Canada, the serving of notices concerning his decision, the opportunity for judicial review of the decision, further opportunity for appeal, culminating in a final Supreme Court decision either ordering the disclosure, in full or in part, or confirming the Attorney General's decision to withold information. The hiring of a retired justice of the Supreme Court to advise them on what to disclose is clearly not part of the procedure. It's just a made up dodge to make it look all serious and legal. By choosing this course of action rather than the procedure specified in the Act, the government is basically conceding that the legal basis that they have been claiming in support of their refusal to submit to the will of Parliament is a sham. Justice Iacobucci should gracefully decline this job offer, lest he be found complicit in this travesty.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Back to work
While the Parliamentarians were out, I took a break myself. Only participated in one demonstration at City Hall, to keep Council from reopening the debate on expanding Ottawa's urban boundary. (Thankfully, they reaffirmed their prior decision to approve only a modest expansion.) With the Olympics over, and the country aglow with national pride, PM Harper continues to roll out his master plan with a Throne Speech tomorrow and a budget Thursday. The government hopes that this will put the parliamentary narrative on a whole new trajectory, away from the death spiral they were in before and during prorogation as regards the Afghan detainee issue, war crimes, being held in contempt of Parliament, and abusing executive power to suspend the legislature. Hardly a compelling story. We will see how successful they are at "remettre les pendules à l'heure", as we say in French. Maybe this is what he meant by recalibrating.
I don't know about you, but I could not stomach one more shot of PM Harper in the stands at one of the many, many Olympic events he attended. On the other hand, I never got tired of hearing the national anthem, however often it was played or sung (although I could have done without Michael Bublé's version of The Maple Leaf Forever). Hopefully, the national pride and solidarity shown by Canadians at the Olympics, which reminded me of the spirit of CAPP in the early days, will translate into a vigourous defense of our rights and freedoms, standing on guard for Canada as it were, instead of the fawning adulation of the great leader hoped for in the Conservative playbook.
Our national anthem is a funny thing, having two distinct but somewhat complementary versions, one in English and one in French. So what are we singing to each other? Here is a little exercise for today: the French version translated literally into English, and vice-versa.
O Canada ------------ O Canada
Land of our forefathers ---------- Notre foyer et terre natale
Your brow is girt --------- L'amour vrai de la patrie
of glorious fleurons ------------- Tu inspires dans tous tes fils
As your hand can carry the sword -- Avec coeurs ardents, nous te voyons lever
So too can it bear the Cross ------ Le vrai nord, fort et libre
Your history is an epic ----------- De près et de loin, O Canada
Of the most glorious feats -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
And your valour ------------- Que Dieu maintienne notre pays
Steeled by faith ----------- Glorieux et libre
Will protect ------------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rigths ------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
Will protect ----------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rights -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
There you have it. If we marry the last lines of each version, we stand on guard for you, you protect our hearths and rights. That's what needs to happen now.
I don't know about you, but I could not stomach one more shot of PM Harper in the stands at one of the many, many Olympic events he attended. On the other hand, I never got tired of hearing the national anthem, however often it was played or sung (although I could have done without Michael Bublé's version of The Maple Leaf Forever). Hopefully, the national pride and solidarity shown by Canadians at the Olympics, which reminded me of the spirit of CAPP in the early days, will translate into a vigourous defense of our rights and freedoms, standing on guard for Canada as it were, instead of the fawning adulation of the great leader hoped for in the Conservative playbook.
Our national anthem is a funny thing, having two distinct but somewhat complementary versions, one in English and one in French. So what are we singing to each other? Here is a little exercise for today: the French version translated literally into English, and vice-versa.
O Canada ------------ O Canada
Land of our forefathers ---------- Notre foyer et terre natale
Your brow is girt --------- L'amour vrai de la patrie
of glorious fleurons ------------- Tu inspires dans tous tes fils
As your hand can carry the sword -- Avec coeurs ardents, nous te voyons lever
So too can it bear the Cross ------ Le vrai nord, fort et libre
Your history is an epic ----------- De près et de loin, O Canada
Of the most glorious feats -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
And your valour ------------- Que Dieu maintienne notre pays
Steeled by faith ----------- Glorieux et libre
Will protect ------------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rigths ------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
Will protect ----------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rights -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
There you have it. If we marry the last lines of each version, we stand on guard for you, you protect our hearths and rights. That's what needs to happen now.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Prorogation - where do we go from here?
Two weeks after my last post, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament has grown by leaps and bounds (217,000 members and counting), rallies have been held on January 23 in around 60 locations across Canada and abroad (even in Oman!), bringing together over 30,000 concerned Canadians. It's in the news every day, as unlikely as this may seem, alongside the devastation in Haiti. Clearly, the objective of bringing the issue to light and into the public consciousness has been achieved and surpassed. Fine, but, now what? Parliament will not be un-prorogued. What is it exactly that we want?
There are many negatives flowing from the prorogation of Parliament on December 30.
- Yes, the MPs are on extended holiday. But that's not the big issue. Parliament could have been adjourned for an extended Christmas recess instead and no one would have minded.
- Many bills have been killed and all the time, money and effort expended in getting them to the stage at which they were when Parliament was prorogued has been wasted. This is a serious issue, but not the fundamental one.
- All the committees of Parliament have been disbanded, including the special committee examining the issue of the Afghan detainees. This is an extremely serious issue, but still not the fundamental one.
No, at the heart of this prorogation debacle stands the most serious menace to our democratic institutions in living memory: the executive branch of government (ie the Prime Minister) has twice in one year dismissed the legislature arbitrarily, for the sole purpose of self preservation (or naked self-interest, as The Economist, from a neutral perspective, has correctly characterised it). We cannot stand idly by while the King dismisses the people's representatives. This is a battle that we thought had been settled long ago, but that we are called upon to fight once more. It is such a grievous attack on our democracy that we cannot let it stand nor can we allow it to occur again in the future.
So what can be done about it? At a minimum, we would want the perpetrator to pay such a heavy price that no future PM would ever consider using a similar stratagem. The ultimate price of course for the PM is to lose control of the government. How can that be accomplished? The PM could be found in contempt of Parliament and forced to resign; or the government could lose a vote of non-confidence, and the PM forced to resign, with the Leader of Opposition invited to form a government; or the government could be defeated in a future election, whenever it is called.
You will note that absent from these solutions are the types of legislative or House rule changes currently proposed by the NDP and Liberal parties. The proposed measures are woefully inadequate in that they do not in any way bring to justice the perpetrator of the current attacks on our democracy nor do they strike fear in the hearts of any future potential perpetrator. In addition, they introduce all kinds of opportunities for new House shenanigans. In any event, the problem is not with our institutions and conventions. We have managed very well for 143 years with the unwritten rules as they are. But, as they are unwritten, compliance depends on the goodwill and respect for Parliament of the government of the day. All, until the current government, have shown the necessary deference to our institutions. The solution then is to replace the government of the day and to make it clear that a similar fate awaits any future government that attempts to so subvert our democracy.
Of the possible outcomes of resignation, defeat in the House or defeat in a future election, which is most achievable?
Resignation seems the least likely. It could result from intense internal dissension within the ruling party (as in the case of Diefenbaker in 1962, or even Chrétien in 2004). Resignation could also be the outcome if the PM were found to be in contempt of Parliament. Contempt of Parliament is the crime of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions. It could be argued that this is exactly what the PM has been doing.
Defeat in the House is much more likely. There will be a Throne Speech and a budget tabled when Parliament reconvenes in March. The opposition has the votes to bring the government down, if not on the budget, then on a motion of non-confidence specifically addressing the abuse of the PM's prorogation powers. Maybe we can't expect the opposition to act on principle in this matter, even though it is the most fundamental principle of representative government. Whether they muster the courage to defeat the government will probably depend on their electoral prospects. This is where the Governor General might play a role. It is not an immutable law that an election must follow the defeat of the government in the House. Some would argue that convention makes it imperative that an election be called. However, there are not many precedents.
Of the 40 Parliaments elected in Canada since 1867, 11 have led to minority governments. Of these 11 minority governments, only four have fallen as the result of a non-confidene vote. The first one, in 1925-26 led to the famous King-Byng affair. In the election of 1925, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen garnered the most seats, but the Liberals under McKenzie-King remained in power thanks to an alliance with the Progressive party. However, this alliance eventually fell victim to revelations of scandals and McKenzie-King, facing a vote of non-confidence, asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament so that elections could be held. Elections had been held less than six months before, in October 2005, and the GG refused the request and instead asked Arthur Meighen to form a government. This was exactly within the GG's authority and duty to do, even though it has been contested. In the case of the other three defeats in the House, (Diefenbaker in 1962, Clark in 1979 and Martin in 2005), Parliament was dissolved and elections were held. (In all three cases, the opposition party was elected to form a government.) How would the current Governor General deal with a request for dissolution should the Government fall in March? Would elections necessarily be held or could she invite the Leader of the Opposition to form a government and try to maintain the confidence of the House? I suspect that many Canadians would prefer to give this a try rather than go to the polls for the fourth time in six years.
However, if the PM does not resign, and if the Government is not defeated in the House, then it will be up to the people to mete out the required punishment in the next elections. It will be difficult to maintain the momentum until the election call and the splintering of the electorate makes the outcome of elections very unpredictable, and so there is no guarantee that the current government will pay the price. It's a very big challenge but our democracy deserves our best efforts to make it happen.
There are many negatives flowing from the prorogation of Parliament on December 30.
- Yes, the MPs are on extended holiday. But that's not the big issue. Parliament could have been adjourned for an extended Christmas recess instead and no one would have minded.
- Many bills have been killed and all the time, money and effort expended in getting them to the stage at which they were when Parliament was prorogued has been wasted. This is a serious issue, but not the fundamental one.
- All the committees of Parliament have been disbanded, including the special committee examining the issue of the Afghan detainees. This is an extremely serious issue, but still not the fundamental one.
No, at the heart of this prorogation debacle stands the most serious menace to our democratic institutions in living memory: the executive branch of government (ie the Prime Minister) has twice in one year dismissed the legislature arbitrarily, for the sole purpose of self preservation (or naked self-interest, as The Economist, from a neutral perspective, has correctly characterised it). We cannot stand idly by while the King dismisses the people's representatives. This is a battle that we thought had been settled long ago, but that we are called upon to fight once more. It is such a grievous attack on our democracy that we cannot let it stand nor can we allow it to occur again in the future.
So what can be done about it? At a minimum, we would want the perpetrator to pay such a heavy price that no future PM would ever consider using a similar stratagem. The ultimate price of course for the PM is to lose control of the government. How can that be accomplished? The PM could be found in contempt of Parliament and forced to resign; or the government could lose a vote of non-confidence, and the PM forced to resign, with the Leader of Opposition invited to form a government; or the government could be defeated in a future election, whenever it is called.
You will note that absent from these solutions are the types of legislative or House rule changes currently proposed by the NDP and Liberal parties. The proposed measures are woefully inadequate in that they do not in any way bring to justice the perpetrator of the current attacks on our democracy nor do they strike fear in the hearts of any future potential perpetrator. In addition, they introduce all kinds of opportunities for new House shenanigans. In any event, the problem is not with our institutions and conventions. We have managed very well for 143 years with the unwritten rules as they are. But, as they are unwritten, compliance depends on the goodwill and respect for Parliament of the government of the day. All, until the current government, have shown the necessary deference to our institutions. The solution then is to replace the government of the day and to make it clear that a similar fate awaits any future government that attempts to so subvert our democracy.
Of the possible outcomes of resignation, defeat in the House or defeat in a future election, which is most achievable?
Resignation seems the least likely. It could result from intense internal dissension within the ruling party (as in the case of Diefenbaker in 1962, or even Chrétien in 2004). Resignation could also be the outcome if the PM were found to be in contempt of Parliament. Contempt of Parliament is the crime of obstructing the parliament in the carrying out of its functions. It could be argued that this is exactly what the PM has been doing.
Defeat in the House is much more likely. There will be a Throne Speech and a budget tabled when Parliament reconvenes in March. The opposition has the votes to bring the government down, if not on the budget, then on a motion of non-confidence specifically addressing the abuse of the PM's prorogation powers. Maybe we can't expect the opposition to act on principle in this matter, even though it is the most fundamental principle of representative government. Whether they muster the courage to defeat the government will probably depend on their electoral prospects. This is where the Governor General might play a role. It is not an immutable law that an election must follow the defeat of the government in the House. Some would argue that convention makes it imperative that an election be called. However, there are not many precedents.
Of the 40 Parliaments elected in Canada since 1867, 11 have led to minority governments. Of these 11 minority governments, only four have fallen as the result of a non-confidene vote. The first one, in 1925-26 led to the famous King-Byng affair. In the election of 1925, the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen garnered the most seats, but the Liberals under McKenzie-King remained in power thanks to an alliance with the Progressive party. However, this alliance eventually fell victim to revelations of scandals and McKenzie-King, facing a vote of non-confidence, asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament so that elections could be held. Elections had been held less than six months before, in October 2005, and the GG refused the request and instead asked Arthur Meighen to form a government. This was exactly within the GG's authority and duty to do, even though it has been contested. In the case of the other three defeats in the House, (Diefenbaker in 1962, Clark in 1979 and Martin in 2005), Parliament was dissolved and elections were held. (In all three cases, the opposition party was elected to form a government.) How would the current Governor General deal with a request for dissolution should the Government fall in March? Would elections necessarily be held or could she invite the Leader of the Opposition to form a government and try to maintain the confidence of the House? I suspect that many Canadians would prefer to give this a try rather than go to the polls for the fourth time in six years.
However, if the PM does not resign, and if the Government is not defeated in the House, then it will be up to the people to mete out the required punishment in the next elections. It will be difficult to maintain the momentum until the election call and the splintering of the electorate makes the outcome of elections very unpredictable, and so there is no guarantee that the current government will pay the price. It's a very big challenge but our democracy deserves our best efforts to make it happen.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Post-prorogation blues
Well, here we are one week later and a lot has happened since my last post on the prorogation of Parliament by the Conservative government on December 30. Since then, it has been blasted on just about every editorial page in the country, it has been severely criticized in The Economist, an influential magazine with a wide international readership, a Facebook group (Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament) has grown to over 160,000 members, it has been condemned in an open letter to the Prime Minister signed by over 170 Canadian professors of constitutional law and political philosophy, and even Tom Flanagan, erstwhile mentor to Stephen Harper and eminence grise of the conservative movement in Canada, has come out against his former protégé and admitted that the prorogation was an abuse of parliamentary process to stifle a parliamenry committee's investigation of the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. So, you would think I would be happy with all these developments but, actually, I am a little apprehensive.
You can never be happy when the democratic institutions of your country are under attack. Of course, it is wonderful that so many people perceive the threat and are trying to organize. In particular, the CAPP group on Facebook, which I joined, has brought out thousands of thoughtful and concerned citizens who are motivated by civic duty and inspired by national pride (along with other denizens of the Internet with wide and wacky interests, including many on-line "agents provocateurs", colorfully called "trolls"). CAPP members are planning rallies and demonstrations across the country on January 23 to register their discontent and to communicate their concern to an even wider cross-section of citizens beyond the Internet. It has become clear though this process of communication and exchange that their concern is not only over this single act of prorogation but it is over the systematic pattern of disregard and abuse of democratic process exhibited by the current government. So, what is the remedy? Beyond the demonstrations, then what? This is where my apprehension kicks in. If this issue disappears as quickly from public view as, say, the Copenhagen agreement has (the Copenhagen what?), then we will be saddled with more bad government for a long time. (Is it because the Conservatives believe that government is bad that they can't help but provide bad government?)
The path from here goes through the reconvening of Parliament on March 3. Soon thereafter, there should be many opportunities for the Opposition to bring the government down on a confidence vote. Will they take the opportunity? Can the energy and concern of the last week be sustained through to then? If, somehow, the emails, letters and public marches of thousands of concerned citizens can be sustained, then it might give the opposition members the courage to act. The next act would then play out between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. Will she acquiesce to Mr. Harper's request for the dissolution of the 40th Parliament, which would set off elections? If, somehow, the emails, letters and public marches of thousands of concerned citizens are directed at Rideau Hall, it might give her the courage to refuse and invite the Leader of the opposition to try his hand at forming a government and maintain the confidence of the House. This would be entirely within the traditions and conventions of our parliamentary democracy and, at this point, safer than holding yet another election, which given the splintering of the electorate, would likely lead to another minority.
So, a lot to worry about...
You can never be happy when the democratic institutions of your country are under attack. Of course, it is wonderful that so many people perceive the threat and are trying to organize. In particular, the CAPP group on Facebook, which I joined, has brought out thousands of thoughtful and concerned citizens who are motivated by civic duty and inspired by national pride (along with other denizens of the Internet with wide and wacky interests, including many on-line "agents provocateurs", colorfully called "trolls"). CAPP members are planning rallies and demonstrations across the country on January 23 to register their discontent and to communicate their concern to an even wider cross-section of citizens beyond the Internet. It has become clear though this process of communication and exchange that their concern is not only over this single act of prorogation but it is over the systematic pattern of disregard and abuse of democratic process exhibited by the current government. So, what is the remedy? Beyond the demonstrations, then what? This is where my apprehension kicks in. If this issue disappears as quickly from public view as, say, the Copenhagen agreement has (the Copenhagen what?), then we will be saddled with more bad government for a long time. (Is it because the Conservatives believe that government is bad that they can't help but provide bad government?)
The path from here goes through the reconvening of Parliament on March 3. Soon thereafter, there should be many opportunities for the Opposition to bring the government down on a confidence vote. Will they take the opportunity? Can the energy and concern of the last week be sustained through to then? If, somehow, the emails, letters and public marches of thousands of concerned citizens can be sustained, then it might give the opposition members the courage to act. The next act would then play out between the Prime Minister and the Governor General. Will she acquiesce to Mr. Harper's request for the dissolution of the 40th Parliament, which would set off elections? If, somehow, the emails, letters and public marches of thousands of concerned citizens are directed at Rideau Hall, it might give her the courage to refuse and invite the Leader of the opposition to try his hand at forming a government and maintain the confidence of the House. This would be entirely within the traditions and conventions of our parliamentary democracy and, at this point, safer than holding yet another election, which given the splintering of the electorate, would likely lead to another minority.
So, a lot to worry about...
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Tories suspend Parliament, again
For the second time in two years, the Tories have prorogued Parliament. They are spinning that this is a routine event, having occured 104 times before (yes, but since 1867!!). But this is far from routine. Past governments have ended a session of Parliament once their legislative programs were largely completed and a new Throne Speech was required to lay out their plans for a new session.
In the last 30 years, Parliament was prorogued 11 times, always in these circumstances, except for the last two times in the current Parliament. The Harper Tories have instead used prorogation as a sneak attack to get out of messy jams. Last year, it was to put the brakes on the coalition that threatened to vote them out as a result of their poison pill fiscal update. This was the first time ever that a government had asked the Governor General to suspend Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. Hardly routine.
This time, there is an even less legitimate reason to prorogue. Their legislative program is far from complete, with many of the goverment's own cherished "tough on crime" bills still on the order paper and therefore now back to square one. Even the repeal of the long gun registry has been killed (although this piece of government policy was presented in a private member's bill, which traditionally is given a free ride in a new session of Parliament. Wake up Oppostion!) This is more evidence of the depth of cynicism that animates this goverment. They are willing to kill the bills that they aver are most important to them for some kind of political calculus that nobody can figure out. The best anyone can come up with as the real reason for prorogation right now is that it dissolves all the Parliamentary committees, in particular the ones that are causing them grief, like the one investigating the issue of detainees in Afghanistan. (Maybe some members of the public do not care about the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. According to some, we could torture them ourselves and that would be fine. But we hope, and expect, that our government is wiser than this.)
What this really shows is that this government, like their ideological brethren, the Republicans in the United States, is willing to use any loophole, ambiguity or omission in convention or legislation to its advantage, adopting the letter over the spirit of the rules that govern our institutions, and subjugating the means to the ends in every case. This is because they are a minority, a desperate minority, trying to survive by whatever means. And the end is not about good government. As Stephen Harper has made abundantly clear in the past, his objective, and therefore that of the party he rules so completely, is to change the historical political culture of Canada permanently, from a small l liberal polity to one with a clear conservative bent. This a daunting, long term project, and capturing and controlling the apparatus of government, even on an a minority basis, is just a step along the way.
Prime Minister Harper is not a power hungry demagogue and dictator as some fear. He is a different type of politician, more insidious and arguably more dangerous. He is an ideologue, a true believer in a grand cause, and he will do whatever it takes to achieve his aims.
In the last 30 years, Parliament was prorogued 11 times, always in these circumstances, except for the last two times in the current Parliament. The Harper Tories have instead used prorogation as a sneak attack to get out of messy jams. Last year, it was to put the brakes on the coalition that threatened to vote them out as a result of their poison pill fiscal update. This was the first time ever that a government had asked the Governor General to suspend Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. Hardly routine.
This time, there is an even less legitimate reason to prorogue. Their legislative program is far from complete, with many of the goverment's own cherished "tough on crime" bills still on the order paper and therefore now back to square one. Even the repeal of the long gun registry has been killed (although this piece of government policy was presented in a private member's bill, which traditionally is given a free ride in a new session of Parliament. Wake up Oppostion!) This is more evidence of the depth of cynicism that animates this goverment. They are willing to kill the bills that they aver are most important to them for some kind of political calculus that nobody can figure out. The best anyone can come up with as the real reason for prorogation right now is that it dissolves all the Parliamentary committees, in particular the ones that are causing them grief, like the one investigating the issue of detainees in Afghanistan. (Maybe some members of the public do not care about the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. According to some, we could torture them ourselves and that would be fine. But we hope, and expect, that our government is wiser than this.)
What this really shows is that this government, like their ideological brethren, the Republicans in the United States, is willing to use any loophole, ambiguity or omission in convention or legislation to its advantage, adopting the letter over the spirit of the rules that govern our institutions, and subjugating the means to the ends in every case. This is because they are a minority, a desperate minority, trying to survive by whatever means. And the end is not about good government. As Stephen Harper has made abundantly clear in the past, his objective, and therefore that of the party he rules so completely, is to change the historical political culture of Canada permanently, from a small l liberal polity to one with a clear conservative bent. This a daunting, long term project, and capturing and controlling the apparatus of government, even on an a minority basis, is just a step along the way.
Prime Minister Harper is not a power hungry demagogue and dictator as some fear. He is a different type of politician, more insidious and arguably more dangerous. He is an ideologue, a true believer in a grand cause, and he will do whatever it takes to achieve his aims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)