George Jonas column

[aph809]

George Jonas has published a column in
today's Ottawa Citizen (June 1, p. A14) in which he
condemns the Census of Canada on a variety of grounds.
His columns are syndicated, so it will appear in other
CanWest papers, although the publication date might
vary.

He wrote much the same, relative to the 1996 and 2001
censuses.  In fact, in 2001 he advised readers to falsify
their returns.

I think it would be a good if some of us in the user
communities respond with letters to the editor or with
full-length opinion pieces, highlighting
the value of the Census.  I did this in 2001, and the
opinion piece, which I submitted to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix,
was picked up by a few other papers.  I know
it was appreciated by Statistics Canada.  Maybe it is
somebody else's turn this time.

A defence of the Census from a citizen has more value in
the eyes of the public than a defence from Statistics Canada,
who might be viewed as acting in self-interest.  There is
plenty of grounds for challenging Statistics Canada on some
of their policies, esp. cost-recovery, as many of us have done.
But there is some value as well in bridge-building.

If you want to respond, you should do it quickly, certainly
within 48 or 72 hours max, if you write a full-length opinion
piece, sooner if it is a letter.  I wouldn't worry about
putting the name of an organization on it, but it might have
a bit more clout with several signatures, rather than just one.

That is my opinion on the matter.  I append a copy of my
article from 2001.

Yours,

Andrew Hubbertz


Andrew Hubbertz
Librarian Emeritus
University of Saskatchewan Library

[hidden email]



====================================================================

Following is the personal viewpoint of the writer, head of government
publications at the U of S main library.

George Jonas (Census tantamount to informational rape, SP May 17) claims that
information provided to the census by Canadian citizens is not secure. He goes
on to encourage readers to falsify their census returns.

Jonas has reason to be concerned about personal privacy, but his attack upon the
census is ill-informed and his advice pernicious.

Section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly known as the British North
America Act, 1867) calls for a census. The reason is simple: you cannot have
representative government without knowing how many people live in the country,
where they live, how old they are and a few other basic bits of information.
The census is a fundamental part of our democratic system of government.

Over the years, as Canadians have looked to their governments to support
universal health-care systems, education, social insurance, employment
insurance and other social benefits, more questions have been added to the
census so that these vital and expensive programs can be managed as efficiently
and as cost-effectively as possible.

In 1999-2000, Health Canada had a budget of more than $3.2 billion. If the
census improves efficiency in delivering health services by even one per cent,
that is worth $32 million at the federal level alone. Add to that federal
spending for education, social insurance and other programs, as well as
provincial and municipal spending, and you are talking real money.

So, Jonas can go ahead and falsify his return, but he shouldn't complain when
his tax dollars are not spent where they will do the most good.

Jonas claims that "Confidentiality promises have proven to be lies repeatedly."

As with any human enterprise, mistakes are made and crimes committed. However, I
challenge Jonas to tell us how many returns from the 1996 census were
deliberately or inadvertently disclosed. The penalty under the Statistics Act
for such disclosure is a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison.

Jonas also claims that the purpose of the census could be achieved with a survey
based upon a sample of the population. (Never mind the flawed logic: An
invasion of privacy is still an invasion of privacy if it affects one per cent
instead of all of us.) Such a sample would be valid only for relatively large
geographic areas, e.g. the nation, the province. There are many towns,
villages, Indian reserves and the like that are so small that a sample would
provide no useful information whatsoever. The information needed to plan for
schools, health services and the like in these communities simply would not
exist.

Jonas should be concerned, as many of us are, about the security of his personal
information, but he is barking up the wrong tree when he attacks the census.

Statistics Canada might want to know his age, his sex, his occupation and
income. Big deal. His bank has the same information, as well as a lot of other
information about his personal finances. If that information is inadequately
protected, a criminal obtaining access might strip him of his life savings.

Concerned about privacy then? How about credit card companies, who know the
hotels and restaurants he prefers, the books he buys, the airline tickets he
books?

And then there is the Internet. Many companies starting operations on the Web
have flouted even basic concern for privacy and routinely trade and sell
customer lists. Personal e-mail is about as private as conversation in an
airport.

If you use the Web, check your computer for a file called "cookies.txt." This
file records where you go on the Web. When you visit a site, it will download
your cookie file, examine what kinds of things you have been reading on the
Web, add their own URL, and return their edited version of the file to your
computer. Now that is getting personal.

So, Jonas has good reason to worry about personal privacy, but in his attack on
the census, he has got it seriously wrong. The census of Canada is fundamental
to democratic government and it is a vital component in the delivery of
services that are highly valued by Canadians.

The controls on personal information given to the census once in five years are
about as strong as they possibly can be. They are far stronger than the
controls on information collected from you day to day by individuals and firms
of which you may never have heard and who certainly feel no obligation to tell
you what they will do with the information.

[Tracey P. Lauriault-2]

good idea andrew!  who is this rascal George Jonas anyway! Shesh!

[hidden email] wrote:

> George Jonas has published a column in
> today's Ottawa Citizen (June 1, p. A14) in which he
> condemns the Census of Canada on a variety of grounds.
> His columns are syndicated, so it will appear in other
> CanWest papers, although the publication date might
> vary.
>
> He wrote much the same, relative to the 1996 and 2001
> censuses.  In fact, in 2001 he advised readers to falsify
> their returns.
>
> I think it would be a good if some of us in the user
> communities respond with letters to the editor or with
> full-length opinion pieces, highlighting
> the value of the Census.  I did this in 2001, and the
> opinion piece, which I submitted to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix,
> was picked up by a few other papers.  I know
> it was appreciated by Statistics Canada.  Maybe it is
> somebody else's turn this time.
>
> A defence of the Census from a citizen has more value in
> the eyes of the public than a defence from Statistics Canada,
> who might be viewed as acting in self-interest.  There is
> plenty of grounds for challenging Statistics Canada on some
> of their policies, esp. cost-recovery, as many of us have done.
> But there is some value as well in bridge-building.
>
> If you want to respond, you should do it quickly, certainly
> within 48 or 72 hours max, if you write a full-length opinion
> piece, sooner if it is a letter.  I wouldn't worry about
> putting the name of an organization on it, but it might have
> a bit more clout with several signatures, rather than just one.
>
> That is my opinion on the matter.  I append a copy of my
> article from 2001.
>
> Yours,
>
> Andrew Hubbertz
>
>
> Andrew Hubbertz
> Librarian Emeritus
> University of Saskatchewan Library
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> ====================================================================
>
> Following is the personal viewpoint of the writer, head of government
> publications at the U of S main library.
>
> George Jonas (Census tantamount to informational rape, SP May 17) claims that
> information provided to the census by Canadian citizens is not secure. He goes
> on to encourage readers to falsify their census returns.
>
> Jonas has reason to be concerned about personal privacy, but his attack upon the
> census is ill-informed and his advice pernicious.
>
> Section 8 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly known as the British North
> America Act, 1867) calls for a census. The reason is simple: you cannot have
> representative government without knowing how many people live in the country,
> where they live, how old they are and a few other basic bits of information.
> The census is a fundamental part of our democratic system of government.
>
> Over the years, as Canadians have looked to their governments to support
> universal health-care systems, education, social insurance, employment
> insurance and other social benefits, more questions have been added to the
> census so that these vital and expensive programs can be managed as efficiently
> and as cost-effectively as possible.
>
> In 1999-2000, Health Canada had a budget of more than $3.2 billion. If the
> census improves efficiency in delivering health services by even one per cent,
> that is worth $32 million at the federal level alone. Add to that federal
> spending for education, social insurance and other programs, as well as
> provincial and municipal spending, and you are talking real money.
>
> So, Jonas can go ahead and falsify his return, but he shouldn't complain when
> his tax dollars are not spent where they will do the most good.
>
> Jonas claims that "Confidentiality promises have proven to be lies repeatedly."
>
> As with any human enterprise, mistakes are made and crimes committed. However, I
> challenge Jonas to tell us how many returns from the 1996 census were
> deliberately or inadvertently disclosed. The penalty under the Statistics Act
> for such disclosure is a fine of up to $5,000 and up to five years in prison.
>
> Jonas also claims that the purpose of the census could be achieved with a survey
> based upon a sample of the population. (Never mind the flawed logic: An
> invasion of privacy is still an invasion of privacy if it affects one per cent
> instead of all of us.) Such a sample would be valid only for relatively large
> geographic areas, e.g. the nation, the province. There are many towns,
> villages, Indian reserves and the like that are so small that a sample would
> provide no useful information whatsoever. The information needed to plan for
> schools, health services and the like in these communities simply would not
> exist.
>
> Jonas should be concerned, as many of us are, about the security of his personal
> information, but he is barking up the wrong tree when he attacks the census.
>
> Statistics Canada might want to know his age, his sex, his occupation and
> income. Big deal. His bank has the same information, as well as a lot of other
> information about his personal finances. If that information is inadequately
> protected, a criminal obtaining access might strip him of his life savings.
>
> Concerned about privacy then? How about credit card companies, who know the
> hotels and restaurants he prefers, the books he buys, the airline tickets he
> books?
>
> And then there is the Internet. Many companies starting operations on the Web
> have flouted even basic concern for privacy and routinely trade and sell
> customer lists. Personal e-mail is about as private as conversation in an
> airport.
>
> If you use the Web, check your computer for a file called "cookies.txt." This
> file records where you go on the Web. When you visit a site, it will download
> your cookie file, examine what kinds of things you have been reading on the
> Web, add their own URL, and return their edited version of the file to your
> computer. Now that is getting personal.
>
> So, Jonas has good reason to worry about personal privacy, but in his attack on
> the census, he has got it seriously wrong. The census of Canada is fundamental
> to democratic government and it is a vital component in the delivery of
> services that are highly valued by Canadians.
>
> The controls on personal information given to the census once in five years are
> about as strong as they possibly can be. They are far stronger than the
> controls on information collected from you day to day by individuals and firms
> of which you may never have heard and who certainly feel no obligation to tell
> you what they will do with the information.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>
>  

[Judyth Mermelstein]

Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:
>good idea andrew!

I agree completely and I really liked Andrew's response to the Jonas column.

>who is this rascal George Jonas anyway!

A longtime right-wing newspaper columnist and commentator; a Hungarian-born Canadian I believe, and very popular with the kinds of people who like the National Fishwrap view of Canadian politics and despise every aspect of government except subsidies to business and keeping the lower classes in their "place."

Andrew's point about the need for accurate census data for purposes like drawing constituency boundaries fairly and allocating public funds to social services is right on the mark. Some hope that such things can be made to cease entirely so that Canada can return to the "good old days" way of life represented by the 1920s ... but without the big stock market crash that was their inevitable result.

>Shesh!

I'd be tempted to use much stronger language myself.

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein   "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC         <[hidden email]>
Canada H4C 2P9       <[hidden email]>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."