> 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>
>