How could something as boring as statistics interest Canadians?

Daniel Dale, Staff Reporter, Toronto Star

DAN GARDNER, Ottawa Citizen: “To turn statistical methodology into a political controversy, a government has to really screw up. But to make statisticians shriek and flap their arms like wounded albatrosses, to cause policy wonks to turn purple with rage, to compel retired civil servants to dispense with a lifetime of discretion and denounce the government’s gobsmacking jackassery to reporters . . . Well, that’s something special.”

BRIAN LILLEY, Toronto Sun: “The Hill has been so fixated on this one issue that Stephen Harper could very well install himself as prime minister for life and most newsrooms wouldn’t notice. If ever there was an issue that divided Main Street, Canada from the chattering classes this is it.”

STEPHEN PATE, NJNNetwork.com: “So Harper will weaken StatsCan. Make the numbers less reliable and then he can point to that as an excuse for ignoring them.” 

NANAIMO DAILY NEWS: “They argue that the long form is too intrusive and violates their privacy. But there is a much greater invasion of privacy when we walk down the street in many Canadian municipalities. Every time Canadians use their credit cards or automated teller bank cards the information is recorded and identifies the user.”

BILL BEAN, The Record: “It is truly puzzling that the federal Conservatives, led by the pragmatic and results-driven Stephen Harper, is dropping something that is essential to measuring the success of programs.”

CHARLES LAMMAM AND NIELS VELDHUIS, Fraser Institute: “The census has simply become a cheap way for academics, economists, and social scientists to get information that should be acquired using market surveys of the kind that are routinely collected on a voluntary basis. Suppose for a moment that no long-form census existed. On what merit would the academics argue that the government should force Canadians to disclose how much time each of us spends ‘bathing or playing with young children, driving children to sports activities, or helping them with homework?’ ”

JOHN GEDDES, Maclean’s: “We all know why inquiring about the hour Canadians begin their commute is offensive — that was the first bit of information the Stasi always collected on their quarry. But why is the matter of bedrooms so sensitive? Does it have something to do with the state meddling in, you know, the boudoir?”

THE COMMENTATOR , FriendlyMisanthropist.Blogspot.com: “I don’t know why people are freaking out that the government is abolishing mandatory long-form census. They’re not getting rid of it; all they’re getting rid of is the coercion characteristic.”

FLUXOR, FlyingFlux.blogspot.com: “When politicians try to play scientist, you can bet your statistical dollar that partisan politics is trumping evidence-based research.”

PUBLIUS, Western Standard: “We are not so terribly sorry that the end of the long-form, however disingenuous were the Minister’s motives in ending it, has made the life of government statisticians that much harder. That’s the breaks. Demanding that police officers obtain warrants before entering private dwellings, without permission, is a hardship for police officers. Expecting the Prime Minister of Canada to answer, or at least evade with some skill, embarrassing questions in the House of Commons is a hardship, for the Prime Minister . . . The government works for us, not the other way around. Its sole legitimate function is to defend our rights. If in protecting those rights it must encounter some bother, well, tough.”

KEITH LITTLE, TheCorch.com: “How can the government proceed with their plan to end the long-form census when there are so many critics lining up against them? . . . I imagine that the Conservative caucus is hauled up on a little room somewhere in Ottawa deciding who’s going to man the life rafts, and who’s going to go down with the ship.”

CHERENKOV, Anybody-Want-A-Peanut.blogspot.com: “If some of the questions on the long form are too personal and have outlived their usefulness, then change those. Shorten the form a little bit. Have a little chat with Stats Can and say, look, is this particular question really necessary? But you’ve lost this battle, and anything you say at this point will just make you look more foolish. Not only that, but Michael Ignatieff could run over a baby on his bus tour and nobody would notice because of this stupid census squabble.”