Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
Locked
12
12
Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
 
|
David Eaves wrote the following article: The Civicaccess.ca list was founded on the discussion of making StatCan data free in 2005. Some on the list have been working toward that goal ever since. The number quoted by David is low, revenu generated by the sale of the Census alone is over $10 000 000. My ATIP requests Statistics Canada, 2010, ATIP Request A-2010-00067, Census Revenue Notes, June 29. Indicates that for StatCan recovered from the 2001 Census $13,642,959 The cycle for 2006 is not yet complete. The figure above includes License fees, the sale of standard products, Custom Products, CD Rom fees, and Geography products. David does rightly make the point that this does not cover the overhead cost of managing those resources and collecting them. The cost of the census for 2001 was $432,033,300 or $14.40 per person according to ATIP request A-2010-00068. The cost recovered reflects 3.16% of the actual cost of the Census. Again, we do not know the overhead. Most of StatCan's special surveys are a complete cost recovery project, often cost shared between federal departments. As we all know, many surveys on topics related to Canada's most vulnerable were discontinued, the LF Census was cancelled and we expect to see more cuts coming down the pipes. It is true, that StatCan uses the revenue generated to fund other surveys. datalibre.ca covers these issues in detail. The real problem however is not with StatCan but with the Treasury Board and Cabinet. There was a submission to Cabinet under the current government regime, offering cost savings by StatCan in order to cover the cost of making the Census Free. The Tory government accepted the cost savings and refused to allow the giving of census data back to Canadians. If the Treasury were to actually adequately fund Statistics Canada then it would be able to give the data back to us. I am still trying to dig up the paper trail on the submission, but alas, memorandum to cabinet are confidential. Bref, political pressure needs to be on the current government and also the Treasury. StatCan has little power over its budget beyond the usual mechanics, especially these days. We also need to keep in mind, that we have already lost disability surveys, and we have lost the ability to track the country's immigrant, ethno cultural visible minorities, poor, linguistic groups, people with mobility issues because the Census was just Cancelled. More cuts to StatCan will not be about helping those groups and us advocating the abolition of cost recovery and not advocating to cover the revenue lost to StatCan by the Treasury will make us complicit in further marginalization. We need to lobby for more resources to StatCan to cover the loss of cost recovered funds, and we also need to ensure that it is autonomous from political interference as recommended by National Statistical Council of Canada - http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/ I have not published my ATIP requests yet as I am still trying to validate a few pieces and do the analysis. It is also part of my PHD dissertation and at some point I need to publish officially. Cheers Tracey |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
I think we may talking about different figures. The number I am quoting (about a half million dollars) is from downloaded data. The 10,000,000 refers (I believe) to all revenue, including reports, custom reports, sales of physical copies, etc... Totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I think it is important to not lump these sums together as the reports and the raw data are quite different. I'm only talking revenue generated from the website - which is what I think is relevant in this debate. But again, I haven't seen your full ATIP request and the breakdown of their figures so interesting to see if that number is different from what appears on the Treasury Board website. Cheers, dave On 11-01-05 8:03 AM, Tracey Lauriault wrote:
|
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
I agree.
1 - I am OK if StatCan wants to charge $$ for custom reports. 2 - But they should release the (properly structured and anonymyzed) raw data free-of-charge and with an Open Data license, instead of selling it. Keeping what SC makes from each of these activities separate is useful as it means they only need to replace the revenue from #2. That said, if #2 were made free with an Open Data license, wouldn't small Canadian companies spring up to do #1? Isn't this a Good Thing(tm)? If SC could facilitate the creation of a small but vibrant data industry around its data, I am sure they could get all kinds of support. Glen Newton http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: > hi Tracey, > > I think we may talking about different figures. The number I am quoting > (about a half million dollars) is from downloaded data. The 10,000,000 > refers (I believe) to all revenue, including reports, custom reports, sales > of physical copies, etc... > > Totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I think it is important > to not lump these sums together as the reports and the raw data are quite > different. I'm only talking revenue generated from the website - which is > what I think is relevant in this debate. But again, I haven't seen your full > ATIP request and the breakdown of their figures so interesting to see if > that number is different from what appears on the Treasury Board website. > > Cheers, > dave > > On 11-01-05 8:03 AM, Tracey Lauriault wrote: > > David Eaves wrote the following article: > > Making StatsCan Data Free: Assessing the Cost > - http://eaves.ca/2011/01/05/making-statscan-data-free-assessing-the-cost/ > > > > The Civicaccess.ca list was founded on the discussion of making StatCan data > free in 2005. Some on the list have been working toward that goal ever > since. The number quoted by David is low, revenu generated by the sale of > the Census alone is over $10 000 000. My ATIP requests > > > Statistics Canada, 2010, ATIP Request A-2010-00067, Census Revenue Notes, > June 29. Indicates that for > >> >> StatCan recovered from the 2001 Census $13,642,959 > > > The cycle for 2006 is not yet complete. The figure above includes License > fees, the sale of standard products, Custom Products, CD Rom fees, and > Geography products. > > David does rightly make the point that this does not cover the overhead cost > of managing those resources and collecting them. > > The cost of the census for 2001 was $432,033,300 or $14.40 per person > according to ATIP request A-2010-00068. The cost recovered reflects 3.16% > of the actual cost of the Census. Again, we do not know the overhead. > > Most of StatCan's special surveys are a complete cost recovery project, > often cost shared between federal departments. As we all know, many surveys > on topics related to Canada's most vulnerable were discontinued, the LF > Census was cancelled and we expect to see more cuts coming down the pipes. > It is true, that StatCan uses the revenue generated to fund other surveys. > datalibre.ca covers these issues in detail. > > The real problem however is not with StatCan but with the Treasury Board and > Cabinet. There was a submission to Cabinet under the current government > regime, offering cost savings by StatCan in order to cover the cost of > making the Census Free. The Tory government accepted the cost savings and > refused to allow the giving of census data back to Canadians. If the > Treasury were to actually adequately fund Statistics Canada then it would be > able to give the data back to us. I am still trying to dig up the paper > trail on the submission, but alas, memorandum to cabinet are confidential. > > Bref, political pressure needs to be on the current government and also the > Treasury. StatCan has little power over its budget beyond the usual > mechanics, especially these days. We also need to keep in mind, that we > have already lost disability surveys, and we have lost the ability to track > the country's immigrant, ethno cultural visible minorities, poor, linguistic > groups, people with mobility issues because the Census was just Cancelled. > More cuts to StatCan will not be about helping those groups and us > advocating the abolition of cost recovery and not advocating to cover the > revenue lost to StatCan by the Treasury will make us complicit in further > marginalization. We need to lobby for more resources to StatCan to cover > the loss of cost recovered funds, and we also need to ensure that it is > autonomous from political interference as recommended by National > Statistical Council of Canada > - http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/26/canadian-census-compromise-and-new-chief/. > I have not published my ATIP requests yet as I am still trying to validate a > few pieces and do the analysis. It is also part of my PHD dissertation and > at some point I need to publish officially. > > Cheers > Tracey > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
Glen,
Completed agree and tried to make these points in my piece. I think SC actually like conflating these numbers as the old mode of thinking is that they want to be the only game in town as this helps generate revenue - but other models are out there. Hoping that SC will open up to that type of thinking and even think there are many who already get it. -- www.eaves.ca @daeaves Sent from my iPhone On 2011-01-05, at 11:00 AM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: > I agree. > > 1 - I am OK if StatCan wants to charge $$ for custom reports. > > 2 - But they should release the (properly structured and anonymyzed) > raw data free-of-charge and with an Open Data license, instead of > selling it. > > Keeping what SC makes from each of these activities separate is useful > as it means they only need to replace the revenue from #2. > > That said, if #2 were made free with an Open Data license, wouldn't > small Canadian companies spring up to do #1? > Isn't this a Good Thing(tm)? > > If SC could facilitate the creation of a small but vibrant data > industry around its data, I am sure they could get all kinds of > support. > > > Glen Newton > http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: >> hi Tracey, >> >> I think we may talking about different figures. The number I am quoting >> (about a half million dollars) is from downloaded data. The 10,000,000 >> refers (I believe) to all revenue, including reports, custom reports, sales >> of physical copies, etc... >> >> Totally open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I think it is important >> to not lump these sums together as the reports and the raw data are quite >> different. I'm only talking revenue generated from the website - which is >> what I think is relevant in this debate. But again, I haven't seen your full >> ATIP request and the breakdown of their figures so interesting to see if >> that number is different from what appears on the Treasury Board website. >> >> Cheers, >> dave >> >> On 11-01-05 8:03 AM, Tracey Lauriault wrote: >> >> David Eaves wrote the following article: >> >> Making StatsCan Data Free: Assessing the Cost >> - http://eaves.ca/2011/01/05/making-statscan-data-free-assessing-the-cost/ >> >> >> >> The Civicaccess.ca list was founded on the discussion of making StatCan data >> free in 2005. Some on the list have been working toward that goal ever >> since. The number quoted by David is low, revenu generated by the sale of >> the Census alone is over $10 000 000. My ATIP requests >> >> >> Statistics Canada, 2010, ATIP Request A-2010-00067, Census Revenue Notes, >> June 29. Indicates that for >> >>> >>> StatCan recovered from the 2001 Census $13,642,959 >> >> >> The cycle for 2006 is not yet complete. The figure above includes License >> fees, the sale of standard products, Custom Products, CD Rom fees, and >> Geography products. >> >> David does rightly make the point that this does not cover the overhead cost >> of managing those resources and collecting them. >> >> The cost of the census for 2001 was $432,033,300 or $14.40 per person >> according to ATIP request A-2010-00068. The cost recovered reflects 3.16% >> of the actual cost of the Census. Again, we do not know the overhead. >> >> Most of StatCan's special surveys are a complete cost recovery project, >> often cost shared between federal departments. As we all know, many surveys >> on topics related to Canada's most vulnerable were discontinued, the LF >> Census was cancelled and we expect to see more cuts coming down the pipes. >> It is true, that StatCan uses the revenue generated to fund other surveys. >> datalibre.ca covers these issues in detail. >> >> The real problem however is not with StatCan but with the Treasury Board and >> Cabinet. There was a submission to Cabinet under the current government >> regime, offering cost savings by StatCan in order to cover the cost of >> making the Census Free. The Tory government accepted the cost savings and >> refused to allow the giving of census data back to Canadians. If the >> Treasury were to actually adequately fund Statistics Canada then it would be >> able to give the data back to us. I am still trying to dig up the paper >> trail on the submission, but alas, memorandum to cabinet are confidential. >> >> Bref, political pressure needs to be on the current government and also the >> Treasury. StatCan has little power over its budget beyond the usual >> mechanics, especially these days. We also need to keep in mind, that we >> have already lost disability surveys, and we have lost the ability to track >> the country's immigrant, ethno cultural visible minorities, poor, linguistic >> groups, people with mobility issues because the Census was just Cancelled. >> More cuts to StatCan will not be about helping those groups and us >> advocating the abolition of cost recovery and not advocating to cover the >> revenue lost to StatCan by the Treasury will make us complicit in further >> marginalization. We need to lobby for more resources to StatCan to cover >> the loss of cost recovered funds, and we also need to ensure that it is >> autonomous from political interference as recommended by National >> Statistical Council of Canada >> - http://datalibre.ca/2010/07/26/canadian-census-compromise-and-new-chief/. >> I have not published my ATIP requests yet as I am still trying to validate a >> few pieces and do the analysis. It is also part of my PHD dissertation and >> at some point I need to publish officially. >> >> Cheers >> Tracey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
|
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
David;
The figure I provided include raw data related to the Census. Not all data Census data are downloaded from the net. There is also the raw data from census geography files included in that figure. Also, when the Community Data Consortium purchases StatCan data we are purchasing raw data at different scales, we never download them from the net but get them shipped to us either on dvds or by email. Our purchase alone is higher than your number. Sincerely Tracey On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
Jennifer;
The reports that StatCan produces at a national scale are top notch and no other agency, consulting firm or not for profit agency in Canada has the resources nor the mandate to produce these. Most StatCan reports are now available online for free and the quality is excellent. I get daily updates on releases and the analysis is great. If some of the data were made accessible for free we might see some value added orgs appear, however, for the vulnerable groups I tend to work do not have the human research resources to do the analysis. Canada is not the US, and we do not have the foundation and endownments floating around to support some of the great projects and research we see in the US non profit sector. You will know that from having worked on Visible Government. Cheers t On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by tracey lauriault
What would Carl Malammud do?
http://boingboing.net/2010/08/29/10-rules-for-radical.html http://www.opendataday.org/wiki/City_Budget_Navigator Do you have data from StatsCan? Is there a place you could put it online for wider access? No matter what paths are chosen, you will be in the wrong. The government serves the Crown, not people. That is the eternal nature of this country. Because of mass media everyone around the world likes to pretend they are Americans in their Rights. There is no such thing as We the People here. Carl can do what he does because in the US he is correct. If we act like Carl in Canada we are wrong. But being wrong is defensible with the right fortifications.? What resources are needed for people to anonymously upload StatsCan data? Any other suggestions? I know. How about we wait 10 years or more! cause time is on our side? We're getting swamped because of low numbers. The Net needs to be our amplifier. re: the cost of things, data, statscan - what David said in his post is right overall - it doesn't even matter if the revenue is 50 million. it's all peanuts and must be called out as such. - morgen |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
Break down of numbers:
2001, Actual Revenues
Statistics Canada, 2010, ATIP Request A-2010-00067, Census Revenue Notes, June 29. The Community Data Consortium purchases raw data from both Geography and Raw Data.Again, we should be targeting the Treasury to adequately fund them and the Sitting government to make these data free: President of the Treasury Board of Canada: Stockwell Day (http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=128691&Language=E) Well your local MP StatCan are not the badies! Some at StatCan do not help, but they do not set this policy, it was set by the Tories in 1986 and we have been living with it ever since.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote: Jennifer; -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Morgen Peers
Morgen;
$559,000 (revenue downloaded from databases), not sure if census or not for one year. This would not include data sold from regional offices. $13,642,959 for 2001 data over a 5 year cycle, so lets say $2,728,592 for one year! that is a 20.5 % difference. That is way more than peanuts. My numbers are only census, if we added all data, then the percentage difference would be much larger, and potentially more so if adjusted to year 2001 dollars. Glen; I will see if I can get better breadowns for the data I received! It took a really long time to get these, so can't imagine the time it will take for a follow up question! Regarding custom, it will be interesting to define what custom is. I would argue that the ability to do a cross tab should not be custom but organizing data according to some custom geographies perhaps, such as health districts, but then again, those would conceivably have already been order by Health Can and others, and so, those to should be made available. Cheers t On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Morgen Peers <[hidden email]> wrote: What would Carl Malammud do? -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
|
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
I'm not sure we should include data sold in regional offices... Maybe that revenue dries up, maybe it doesn't. Either way it feels very different then data sold on the website. -- @daeaves Sent from my iPhone
|
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
David;
The bulk of StatCan data are not purchased online. If you purchase data in Canada and you do not purchase it online, you are purchasing data from a regional office. I am based in Ottawa but I must purchase data from the Toronto Regional office even if the organization I am working with is national in scope and covers many provinces and cities. People who are big data buyers do not normally purchase the data online. I have purchased the odd 20$ table for the sake of expediency, but that is rare. The census data purchased from a regional office remain raw data in digital formats delivered via email, CDrom or DVD. Some custom and some not, some geography some not at many different scales. We also purchase non census data from other StatCan offices under a consortium license. We purchase for 17 cities and 850+/- users ranging from police forces, school boards, social planning councils, United Ways, municipalities, community heath centres etc. We would much prefer to not purchase data as it would free us to do our analytical work on important Canadian public policy issues as opposed to spending untold hours deciding on what to buy and how to do so and then ensure we all follow the license agreement. The best we can do at the moment is a group purchase where data are decided upon between the 17 consortia, build an infrastructure and a community of practice to share these and develop capacity on how to use these. The Data Liberation Initiative (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/dli-ild/dli-idd-eng.htm) has a similar license but the users and purchasers differ. The DLI was created initially to ensure students and faculty in Canada could study Canada. Formerly, they used US data as the Canadian data were too expensive and inaccessible to Canadian Students. Unfortunately, they could not get access to Free data as they would have liked and so compromised on a DLI consortium license. FYI - Some of the founders of the DLI were also involved in Advising the City of Ottawa Open Data Strategy in 2009 and were in attendance when the IT Sub-committee passed their motion. Their work was part of the reading list that informed the report submitted to the City on that day. This happened before the Hackfests. City officials did much ground work to prepare for that submission. On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Jennifer Bell
Thanks for the clarification on the reports. Do you have examples? I was not referring to Jane Jacobs place of residence, she did much great work in Toronto and am well aware of her work, but thanks for invoking her, her work in the US and in Canada was stupendous.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Jennifer Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 <input onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
1) This all smacks of enormous inefficiencies for me. Again, even if
we accept the ATIP number of $8,279,527 this is still just revenue -
not profit to the ministry. I can't believe we have bulk data buyers
buying data out of regional offices off of disks. The overhead is
frightening - all that staff in all those offices dedicated to
this...
2) I also don't believe we can so easily dismiss mine and Jennifer B.'s point. Nothing stop's statscan from continuing to produce its reports for the Canadian government (and others). As I reflect on this, the real division in this thread isn't between those who believe in open data and those who don't (we all agree it should be open). My sense is it is between those who want to preserve StatsCan's business model (or capacity or revenue - it's unclear to me) and those willing to explore new models. In this regard, to flat out state that no private company can offer the quality of reports that Statscan creates strikes me as a claim that really must be backed up - doubly so given that data analysis is a burgeoning field and that internal demand for StatsCan's analysis is not likely to erode. What we do know is that we aren't going to find out if a radically cheaper model can emerge in this country so long as statscan data is licensed. Indeed, I think on this Tracey, we are in agreement - you note that statscan does unparalleled work that cannot be replicated but, why then doesn't the consortium you work with order data? shouldn't they simply retain statscan to create all their reports for them? I'm wrestling with this, but so far I've only been able to conclude that the consortium believes that statscan either does not have the capacity, the speed or the expertise or is too expensive. Doesn't this mean a secondary market of sufficient quality exists? Finally, my post deals with the online sale of data and this thread opened up stating that this was incorrect. I'm completely open to the possibility that I've cited the Treasury Board incorrectly, but have yet to see evidence of this. The numbers we have seen refer to total sales of data (which continues to include custom requests, shipped out of local offices on DVD). This is not the same thing. Double finally, I do agree that much of the real decision making on this come from TBS and PCO, that said, StatsCan has not advocated for open data as strongly as it could (I remember keynoting a middle managers conference and talking about this and for many the concept was deeply threatening) and so do not believe they have been entirely free of holding back progress. Great discussion! cheers, dave On 11-01-05 6:58 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: David; |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
Hey David;
See inline.
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:27 AM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are most certainly great inefficiencies. As indicated in the first post we do not know the overhead cost.
I did not disagree with your points on the reports. We cannot however in good faith negate the excellent work that StatCan does, their reports, bulletins, update, papers are excellent. Good Canadians like you and me have jobs to produce those. It would be terrible if they stopped doing this analysis all together right now. I would prefer to see a gradual change, free the data, and lets nurture the growth of new research initiatives both private and non profit. This will take time to grow, and until then I would not want to see solid, reliable and important research on the nations demographics, about our nations most vulnerable, women, the environment, health, the economy etc. disappear. There are currently no national NGOs that have the money or the resources to take that role on in a consistent fashion right now. They will have to grow and hopefully they will be able to do this work in an ongoing sustainable way. We are not there yet. This government has closed our most important national research institutions, particularly those doing social policy. I do not want to have a total vacuum in knowledge. I believe we are only at the beginning of witnessing the dismantling of Canada's good and reliable institutions. Closing policy research think tanks and killing the census are just the warm up. I, like you want to see the model change, but I do not want to loose good work either. So lets keep all the babies, the bathwater, recycle the gray water and have some reserve clean clear water on hand for the next bath and to nurture the growing baby.
For sure StatCan data should be made available for free and from there we will learn more. I know for certain that no agency can conduct a Census better than StatCan does, and we just watched that get destroyed. Just like the promise of universal broadband did not materialize in rural areas and the north because suddenly the private sector could not deliver in non profitable areas, we will see the same here if we do not allow the state to continue to do the work of taking care of all its people, all over the country, and not just those who can generate a good bottom line and who live in big metropolitan cities. I would like a model where we can work together on a more even playing field, with data being shared equally between state, private sector, non profits, the media, and citizens. And I want to have an institution that can do solid research along with the rest of us. I do not want to see a repeat of what has been happening with the media and the loss of good, solid, reliable, well researched investigative journalism.
The state does macro national analysis and we do micro sub municipal analysis. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the local and does not cover the heterogeneity of the country and all of its issues. Jurisdictions create boundaries and territories between responsibilities. There are divisions of power, and the Provinces and Territories have one level, municipalities another etc. Most certainly another market should and will emerge, but I would like to see it grow before we stop StatCan from doing analysis and reporting. It would be like asking Environment Canada to stop reporting the weather, and delivering it to us in a way we understand it or asking them and NRCan to stop doing climate change research.
Yes, but online data is only part of the story. The number is incredibly small, which speaks more to how StatCan does not use the web well. Data are sold in many ways, and over the Internet is not the main business line.
It depends who you talk to at StatCan. Some at higher levels are incredibly open to the idea, others are afraid of change or do not know what it means. The Street Network NRCan distributes for free under an unrestricted user license is an example of how StatCan has been sharing and learning how to collaborate. I am not saying this is not an infuriating organization at times, and I am not saying that they are perfect, but I am saying that they are really good at what they do and I do not want to see one of the few good institutions we have left, decimated. The Census thing still hurts and has tested our trust in StatCan being able to do its work and be at arm's length from politics.
I would like to see it funded properly so that it does not have to cost recover, and I want to see it have a mandate to be open to citizens, a vision that we are working together, and a web interface that allows us to download excellent data for no fee, and I want to see all the great analysts they have continue to do their work. It can only do that if it is well funded and that comes from the PCO and the Treasury. Right now, we are experiencing the effects of cost cutting measures of the 80s, where we were told that we should be thinking of government like a business, where everyone is cost recovering and shifting one budget line item over to someone else. In the end we are all paying for this in so many ways. And now we have lost our navigation and measuring system.
StatCan is also one of our oldest agencies next to NRCan which formerly was EMR and GSC. To change those agencies we need to know them well before we go and radically change them. They have unique cultures, trajectories and momentum and like good stewards we must guide them and redirect them well. These are massive infrastructures that are sluggish and slow, and sometimes that means we need to be more patient, and cautious thats all. Our society is much the same, and it will take time and each one of us to catch up to the change and do our part by building NGOs and business to hopefully work together for our mutual health and welfare. We need to co-learn. There is a deluge of data locked in our institutions, and we are just learning how to deal with it.
G'night t
-- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
|
|
In reply to this post by tracey lauriault
Hi Everyone, I’m the guy who did the government expenses crawler / report
site and I am just finishing up a run of the engine in the next few days to get
the latest 2010 data. I just wanted to let you know that when it’s
finished, I’ll open up the search tool to the public for the day in case you
were interested to peruse it. Oh and speaking of StatsCan cost recovery,
if anyone wants to help support my project through a donation or subscription,
it wouldn’t take much to help me out and I could afford to stop couch surfing
:) I guarantee my efficiency is far superior to any government department
and probably well worth it.
Cheers,
Drew Mcpherson
Bine Consulting Corp. |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:27 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) This all smacks of enormous inefficiencies for me. Again, even if we > accept the ATIP number of $8,279,527 this is still just revenue - not profit > to the ministry. I can't believe we have bulk data buyers buying data out of > regional offices off of disks. The overhead is frightening - all that staff > in all those offices dedicated to this... > > 2) I also don't believe we can so easily dismiss mine and Jennifer B.'s > point. Nothing stop's statscan from continuing to produce its reports for > the Canadian government (and others). As I reflect on this, the real > division in this thread isn't between those who believe in open data and > those who don't (we all agree it should be open). My sense is it is between > those who want to preserve StatsCan's business model (or capacity or revenue > - it's unclear to me) and those willing to explore new models. > > In this regard, to flat out state that no private company can offer the > quality of reports that Statscan creates strikes me as a claim that really > must be backed up - doubly so given that data analysis is a burgeoning field > and that internal demand for StatsCan's analysis is not likely to erode. > What we do know is that we aren't going to find out if a radically cheaper > model can emerge in this country so long as statscan data is licensed. > Indeed, I think on this Tracey, we are in agreement - you note that statscan > does unparalleled work that cannot be replicated but, why then doesn't the > consortium you work with order data? shouldn't they simply retain statscan > to create all their reports for them? I'm wrestling with this, but so far > I've only been able to conclude that the consortium believes that statscan > either does not have the capacity, the speed or the expertise or is too > expensive. Doesn't this mean a secondary market of sufficient quality > exists? > In regards to the two comments that any charges for services (ie: cost recovery) efforts necessarily indicate a market, I think that's far from the true. The local meals-on-wheels programs charges 3 dollars a meal to deliver meals to seniors. The local library charges me $25 dollars for a membership. These examples do not indicate a market opportunity that would meet the needs of those same users / clients. Possibly a select group of them could afford to pay higher fees that would allow a company to be profitable, but that's not even necessarily true. And it wouldn't necessarily be desirable to sacrifice meetings the needs of the users with less money by eliminating the subsidized service which would be required for a business to exist. The response to this kind of argument should be evident. We have plenty of examples in Canada for successfully pooling costs and minimizing risks across society. It's not always the best solution, but it certainly works well some of the time. The more interesting discussion is - "Is this the best solution in this particular case?" Additionally there are lots of cases where government investing money in revenue-generating activities makes plenty of sense. A great example is the very successful government-supported VC model which started in Israel in the 90's and has been adopted all over. Québec has transitioned to it this decade. It's fine to suggest that government should mostly stick to governing, and that the market is better at innovation and being client-focused, but I'm not interested in a small-government, purist neo-liberal approach to arguing for open-data in Canada. I think it would be harmful in a lot of cases. Mike > Finally, my post deals with the online sale of data and this thread opened > up stating that this was incorrect. I'm completely open to the possibility > that I've cited the Treasury Board incorrectly, but have yet to see evidence > of this. The numbers we have seen refer to total sales of data (which > continues to include custom requests, shipped out of local offices on DVD). > This is not the same thing. > > Double finally, I do agree that much of the real decision making on this > come from TBS and PCO, that said, StatsCan has not advocated for open data > as strongly as it could (I remember keynoting a middle managers conference > and talking about this and for many the concept was deeply threatening) and > so do not believe they have been entirely free of holding back progress. > > Great discussion! > > cheers, > dave > > > > > > > On 11-01-05 6:58 PM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > > David; > > The bulk of StatCan data are not purchased online. > > If you purchase data in Canada and you do not purchase it online, you are > purchasing data from a regional office. I am based in Ottawa but I must > purchase data from the Toronto Regional office even if the organization I am > working with is national in scope and covers many provinces and cities. > > People who are big data buyers do not normally purchase the data online. I > have purchased the odd 20$ table for the sake of expediency, but that is > rare. > > The census data purchased from a regional office remain raw data in digital > formats delivered via email, CDrom or DVD. Some custom and some not, some > geography some not at many different scales. We also purchase non census > data from other StatCan offices under a consortium license. We purchase for > 17 cities and 850+/- users ranging from police forces, school boards, social > planning councils, United Ways, municipalities, community heath centres etc. > > We would much prefer to not purchase data as it would free us to do our > analytical work on important Canadian public policy issues as opposed to > spending untold hours deciding on what to buy and how to do so and then > ensure we all follow the license agreement. The best we can do at the moment > is a group purchase where data are decided upon between the 17 consortia, > build an infrastructure and a community of practice to share these and > develop capacity on how to use these. > > The Data Liberation Initiative > (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/dli-ild/dli-idd-eng.htm) has a similar license but > the users and purchasers differ. The DLI was created initially to ensure > students and faculty in Canada could study Canada. Formerly, they used US > data as the Canadian data were too expensive and inaccessible to Canadian > Students. Unfortunately, they could not get access to Free data as they > would have liked and so compromised on a DLI consortium license. > > FYI - Some of the founders of the DLI were also involved in Advising the > City of Ottawa Open Data Strategy in 2009 and were in attendance when the IT > Sub-committee passed their motion. Their work was part of the reading list > that informed the report submitted to the City on that day. This happened > before the Hackfests. City officials did much ground work to prepare for > that submission. > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM, David Eaves <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure we should include data sold in regional offices... Maybe that >> revenue dries up, maybe it doesn't. Either way it feels very different then >> data sold on the website. >> >> -- >> www.eaves.ca >> @daeaves >> Sent from my iPhone >> On 2011-01-05, at 3:57 PM, "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> Morgen; >> >> $559,000 (revenue downloaded from databases), not sure if census or not >> for one year. This would not include data sold from regional offices. >> >> $13,642,959 for 2001 data over a 5 year cycle, so lets say $2,728,592 for >> one year! that is a 20.5 % difference. That is way more than peanuts. >> >> My numbers are only census, if we added all data, then the percentage >> difference would be much larger, and potentially more so if adjusted to year >> 2001 dollars. >> >> Glen; >> >> I will see if I can get better breadowns for the data I received! It took >> a really long time to get these, so can't imagine the time it will take for >> a follow up question! >> >> Regarding custom, it will be interesting to define what custom is. I >> would argue that the ability to do a cross tab should not be custom but >> organizing data according to some custom geographies perhaps, such as health >> districts, but then again, those would conceivably have already been order >> by Health Can and others, and so, those to should be made available. >> >> Cheers >> t >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Morgen Peers <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> What would Carl Malammud do? >>> >>> http://boingboing.net/2010/08/29/10-rules-for-radical.html >>> >>> http://www.opendataday.org/wiki/City_Budget_Navigator >>> >>> >>> Do you have data from StatsCan? Is there a place you could put it online >>> for wider access? >>> >>> No matter what paths are chosen, you will be in the wrong. The government >>> serves the Crown, not people. That is the eternal nature of this country. >>> Because of mass media everyone around the world likes to pretend they are >>> Americans in their Rights. There is no such thing as We the People here. >>> Carl can do what he does because in the US he is correct. If we act like >>> Carl in Canada we are wrong. But being wrong is defensible with the right >>> fortifications.? >>> >>> What resources are needed for people to anonymously upload StatsCan data? >>> >>> Any other suggestions? I know. How about we wait 10 years or more! cause >>> time is on our side? We're getting swamped because of low numbers. The Net >>> needs to be our amplifier. >>> >>> re: the cost of things, data, statscan - what David said in his post is >>> right overall - it doesn't even matter if the revenue is 50 million. it's >>> all peanuts and must be called out as such. >>> >>> - morgen >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> Tracey P. Lauriault >> 613-234-2805 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > -- > Tracey P. Lauriault > 613-234-2805 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > |
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
I'd like to see 3 things: Prosperity: companies should be allowed to use free data to create value added services. Many won't even get started (or get started in the US) if the barriers to entry are too high.
Good governance: Statscan is one of the finest statistical institutions in the world. We need trusted indicators to understand how our government is doing. These also help us understand who we are as a people.
Community: as the Toronto inner-city poverty issue demonstrated, Statscan holds no monopoly on talent or good ideas. That's a very Canadian proposition: perfect ideological fence-sitting that isn't too Libertarian, Liberal or Marxist.
Seriously, can we drop some of the ideology? This cost-recovery policy for baseline data is insane and stupid, no matter which angle you take. We probably won't be able to nail the exact monetary value to their budget. Governments aren't usually set up to do full cost accounting. Even if they were, we'd need to get it through a FOI request.
We'd also have to remove the costs to other departments. As Tracey said, lots of time gets spent deciding what to buy, so we'd have to count more than just the data costs.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's 100 million dollars a year. This issue is important enough to spend that kind of money on. Finally: it's our data and we already paid for it.
d. On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Michael Lenczner <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
Re: Abolition of Cost Recovery - StatCan
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
|
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |