There isn't a great deal more to say about the great census debate than has been said in different fora in different ways. It all comes down to whether Canadians should have the policy that affects their daily lives determined on the basis of reliable data capable of tracking long-term trends (or developments about which much fuss may be made, but that have no longevity) or not. At the Law Commission of Ontario, we can say that law reform agencies are as reliant on the rich core of data produced by the census as are many other organizations. Being able to trust in the veracity of the data is crucial to our work. So what to say about the reasons for eliminating the mandatory long-form census? And about the one question that seems to have been deleted for the purpose of the new voluntary survey?

No one is making much of removing the threat of jail, although having a fine may be just fine, as long as there is some way to make it clear that people are obliged to complete the form and it is not left to the goodness of their hearts. Without the mandatory nature, it is difficult to say that the data are reliably a portrait of Canadian society and of long-term trends.

Then comes the issue of how to address the issue of intrusiveness. The replacement for the 2011 long-form census is to be the voluntary "National Household Survey" (available on Statistics Canada's website) – with an explanation that "[i]nformation previously collected by the mandatory long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey" – including the infamous "how many bedrooms" question.

How readily, however, have those seeking a compromise jumped on the question of "unpaid work", one that encapsulates in certain respects the important developments in the relationship between women's engagement with the paid workforce and more traditional expectations about women's domestic role. This shift has been one of the major sociological shifts in Canada and elsewhere over the past quarter century or so. One might even think that once again women draw the short straw in the long census, so easily is this question dispensed with! Yet it showed in the 2006 census the extent to which women were responsible not only for housework and child care, but the increasingly significant care of seniors (for the example of just one table created by Stats Canada, see that covering Canada as a whole). Although this tracks an emerging demographic that will have a big impact on women's capacity to engage with the marketplace, and expectations about how we organize society around the increasing number of older adults, it will be the last we learn about the impact, since the voluntary survey for 2011 does not include a question about unpaid work.


[click on the author's name for more information]

up

One Comment on “The Census "Compromise"”

  1. Chantal says:

    Comment from Chantal
    Time: July 31, 2010, 8:20 pm

    The irony is, who would have thought the Liberals would put themselves in the position of being FOR anything relating to mandatory disclosure to the state of so many individual facts about your personal, unique situation in life, under threat of fine and jail? The only thing more surprising about this is that the Conservatives are against it (the state using their power over individuals to get the information they want in such an institutionalized way), and want to voluntarily give up some of the governments power in this case.
    Even Jack Layton and the NDP are uncomfortable with this, as he suggested a compromise would be to remove the threat of jail time in this situation. But isn’t that all Harper and the Conservatives were trying to do in the first place?
    So the NDP and the Conservatives are against jail time, and the Liberals are for fines and jail time and mandatory disclosure.
    It’s either very ironic, or Harper has once again manipulated things, and tricked the Liberals into defaulting themselves into this postion.

    I know the information provided by a mandatory census is valuable to all sorts of people and groups and levels of government. I’m sure there are many things that are valuable in this world that all sorts of people and groups and levels of government want, but how exactly are these groups going to obtain these things? Voluntarily? How about if that doesn’t work?

    But maybe this is different because it’s neccesary for the good of so many different groups and people. The good of the group trumps the rights of the individual.

    Well I’m sorry but if I’m in a group I know whether I feel comfortable or not, and if I don’t feel comfortable in a certain situation and the good of the group argument comes up, in retrospect I question what boudaries were broken or do I have any rights in this situation.

    I’m asking the statisticians and economists and politicians to keep their unwanted, uncomfortable questions off of me thank you.

SlawTips      

SlawTips United Nations Documents
Wednesday, May 23

Today’s Tip: Monitor UN documents with RSS Since I last looked, the United Nations Documents site has a new look and feel. For what the site is trying to deliver, … »»

Research

SlawTips Updated Version of Great Social Media Guide for Lawyers Released
Wednesday, May 23

Last spring, Meritas’ Leadership Institute released a Social Media Guide for Lawyers. This helpful resource provided lawyers with an overview of the three main social media tools — LinkedIn, Faceb. […] »»

Technology

SlawTips Cash Flow Reports – Part 1
Thursday, May 17

Following on our earlier Top 10 Financial Errors posts, this is the first in a series of 10 posts dealing with Cash Flow Reports and in particular, cash flow management.… »»

Practice

noted on Slaw    

MLB Selected Case Summaries    

These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.

  • Aliens - Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister’s certificate - Review - Evidence

    In 2002, Harkat was detained pursuant to a ministerial security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds ...

  • Contracts - Formation of contract - Signing - Electronic signature

    The plaintiff expressed an interest in purchasing the defendant’s (vendor’s) condo. The parties agreed to carry on their discussions through e-mail. Following an exchange of e-mails, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was contractually bound to ...

  • Barristers and Solicitors - Relationship with client - Confidential communications - General

    The petitioner was a Receiver appointed in March 2009 by a California court over the assets of GJB Enterprises Inc. (a “Ponzi scheme”) and its principals, the Berkes (the GJB parties). The court ordered ...

  • Practice - Costs - Funding before judgment - When interim or advance costs available

    The plaintiffs were “direct to home” satellite based subscription program providers. Rex and other defendants offered “grey market” services to Canadian residents to facilitate the unauthorized reception in Canada of the plaintiffs’ ...

TalkLaw/ParLoi    

This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.

Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.

Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.