National Housing Survey: News From The Senate

In yesterday's QP, Leader of the Government Marjory  LeBreton admits that the voluntary NHS with replaced Stats Canad's mandatory long form census survey requires improvement, and suggests a possible way forward:

This was the first time, honourable senators, that there has been a voluntary long-form census. Clearly, there are some areas that require improvement and, obviously, by the time it is necessary to conduct the next census, the areas of concern will have been addressed.

And:

We have the mandatory short form as well. There have been suggestions by experts that a few more questions could be added to the short form.

This idea, that in future iterations some questions on the voluntary NHS might be transferred to the mandatory short-form, is developed a little more fully later on:

I did indicate that this was the first time there has been a voluntary long-form census. Some groups have indicated that they would like to see the data be more conclusive. These considerations will be taken into account when Statistics Canada and the government prepare the questions for the next long-form census. People will then be more used to the long form. Whatever questions they put on the mandatory form will address the concerns of the groups that feel this does not produce the data they require.

I don't know how much insider knowledge LeBreton has with respect to the thinking within the government's HOC caucus, but shuffling questions to the short form is an interesting option.  However, it is counterproductive according to the reasoning that has been employed on this issue to date.  Move a question to the short form and you are now invading the privacy of 100% of the population rather than the 25% required for the old long form. Which is to say that, in so far as the government wants accurate data it can't protect privacy, and vice versa.

The Census And Your Privacy: The Courts Speak

When Sandra Finely received her long-form census papers in 2006, she refused to fill it out because she felt that the requirement violated her right to privacy, and was therefore unconstitutional   She was taken to court for violating the Statistics Act, lost, and requested an appeal.

Her arguments were heard by the Saskatchewan Court of appeals and last week they issued their ruling.  She lost again.  To get a flavor of the court's decision, a fairly representative passage:

[39]   Thus, the question is not whether Ms. Finley had an expectation of privacy or even a reasonable expectation of privacy in dictionary terms.   The question must be linked to the overall context of the case.   In this case, the question must be cast in these terms:  whether a reasonable person would expect to have privacy in the information requested by the 2006 Long Form Census, which the government wishes to collect exclusively for statistical purposes to aid it in implementing sound and effective public policy, with no criminal or quasi-criminal repercussions flowing from the disclosure of such information, and with the specific information collected being ultimately generalized and “delinked” from the individuals being required to so disclose.  The trial judge answered this critical question negatively and the summary conviction appeal court judge found no error of law, mixed fact and law or fact in her conclusion.

Sandra Finley was the poster girl for that tiny minority of Canadians who support the federal government's elimination of the long-form census.  I think the court ruling makes clear why their concerns, where not driven by simple paranoia, are off-track.  We are supposed to be living in a knowledge-based economy, and it is essential that the government gather accurately and disseminate widely/cheaply such data as is necessary for that economy to function.  Period.  End of story.  If it takes an hour of Ms. Finley's day every few years...well, that's the price we pay for living in the modern world.