There are plenty of other people who have written about the stupidity of this move, in terms of sampling bias and the degradation of the data collected, as well as the impact of the absence of useful data on policy decisions, business development, and academic research. I don't have anything to add on those fronts, other than I agree. Ultimately, government policy will end up being based not on facts, but on limited, personal perception and ideology.
I'm really curious as to exactly where Clement is getting his data on this. Was that the consensus amongst people who entered comments on the back of the form? (Oh, the irony, if that's the case.) When I was an enumerator on the last census, the main complaint I got from people about the long form was its length -- it took too long and they were just too busy to sit around filling out forms. Most of the 'invasion of privacy' complaints came from people filling out the short form, which was weird because all that form asked for was really basic information (name/age/gender/marital status) and people put way more than that about themselves on social networking sites (with much less stringent privacy controls than Statistics Canada). I admit that my sample was small, being limited to the lists I was assigned, and may not be representative of the country as a whole. That being said, I still want to know how the Minister collected the data that lead him to his conclusion.
One excuse that people tried to use to avoid filling out the forms, both long and short, was that the government already had all that information somewhere, so they didn't see why they should spend time filling out paperwork. I would tell them that, yes, technically the government had the information, but it was all stored at various levels (federal, provincial, municipal) and amongst different departments, and compiling all that information, in order to create an accurate picture of the population of the country, would require sharing data sharing amongst all those levels and departments without a resident's knowledge or consent. Filling out a form themselves meant they knew exactly what kind of data was being collected, and most people realised that was a better option.
My most memorable experiences were with immigrants. Some were reluctant, having come from former and current dictatorships, but were persuaded by my assurances of privacy protection and invitation to call Statistic Canada directly if they had further questions about the census. Some were flat out belligerent and rude about the whole thing, but filled out the forms anyway. Some were almost enthusiastically compliant, claiming that government surveys were a common and frequent occurrence in their country of origin, so the census was an almost familiar experience. The one who stood out for me came from a former Soviet bloc country: after spending almost forty-five minutes filling out a long form, their first comment was "That's it? That's all you want to know?" Apparently, in their country of origin, it was not uncommon for the government to demand information about political affiliation and religious belief, among other things. So, questions about languages spoken, level of education, and employment were no big deal to them. That particular encounter left me with quite a bit to think about.
The long form may seem like a pain-in-the-ass to fill out, but, ultimately, the data gathered benefits the country as a whole. Not only does it provide a fairly accurate picture of population, it helps guide decision-making in a variety of sectors in order for the country to grow and improve. The ramifications of doing away with such and important source of information could end up being quite a bit more painful for everyone in the long run.
(There is a petition. Please, go sign it. )
