Cities to weigh loss of long-form census for community planning

Yet another group weighing in on the ongoing implications and costs associated with replacing the Census with the National Household Survey:

Across the country, cities are feeling the impact of the census changes, said Brad Woodside, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and mayor of Fredericton.

“We’ve heard from our members that the change to the new National Household Survey is impacting their ability to effectively plan and monitor the changing needs of their communities,” he said in an e-mailed statement to The Globe. “We support all efforts to increase the reliability of the data from the census.”

Local governments rely on this information to understand the changing needs of communities, and make a range of decisions, “from where to establish new bus routes, build affordable housing and provide programs for new Canadians, he said. “We continue to call on Statistics Canada to work with municipalities to provide communities of all sizes the most reliable information from the available data.”

Mr. Tory said he will raise the issue with the mayors of the country’s largest cities when they meet in Toronto later this week. The topic is not on the agenda for the gathering, which begins Wednesday evening, but he said he can bring it up in informal discussions.

“I believe you really should try to have the best possible evidence in front of you when you are making important decisions,” he said Tuesday. “I can ask if this is a problem they are facing.”

Cities to weigh loss of long-form census for community planning – The Globe and Mail.

Globe editorial makes the same point but equally unlikely to have much effect:

There is now incontrovertible evidence the Conservative government’s 2010 decision to scrap the mandatory census questionnaire, which quantified everything from family income to ethnicity to regional demographics, was an unalloyed catastrophe.

Opposition has come from think-tanks of every political persuasion, business leaders, charities, public administrators and basically anyone with a PhD. Thanks to a deliberately sabotaged census, we know less about Canada in 2011 than we did about Canada in 2006. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

What’s more, conducting a halfwitted census turned out to be more expensive. The 2011 voluntary household survey increased errors, reduced accuracy, chopped the response rate by 30 per cent – and cost an extra $22-million. Congratulations: The Harper government figured out how to spend more for less.

The decision to kneecap the census was transparently ideological, a rash exercise in partisan narrow-casting, and was quickly exposed as such.

Dozens of experts predicted the damage that would be wrought. It’s time for the Conservative government to finally acknowledge how right they were.

The next opportunity for the House to revisit the Census Act will come next month via another private member’s bill – this one tabled by Conservative backbencher Joe Preston.

It would remove two aspects that are problematic to some Conservatives: jail for refusal to complete the form, and automatic public disclosure after 92 years.

There is still resistance in Mr. Preston’s party to bringing back the mandatory long form. We hope that removing the central justifications for killing it represents an evolving mindset.

Some mistakes are easy to reverse. It may be too late to restore a proper census in 2016, but a return in 2021 should be inevitable.

The census: Little knowledge is a dangerous thing – The Globe and Mail

MULTI MEETS POLY: Multiculturalism and Polyculturalism Go On a First Date – Lake Forester

Another example of the plasticity of words, and how definitions can be ‘twisted’ to suit the arguments of the writer, with the introduction of  a new term, polyculturalism.

However, the play Multiculturalism and Polyculturalism Go On a First Date (34 minutes), seems like a good vehicle to explore identities and relationships:

What is multiculturalism? Multiculturalism refers to the cultural diversity of communities. As an idea, it promotes the understanding that society is comprised of distinct cultural communities that should be afforded agency, sometimes even self-determination or autonomy, typically within an institutionalized framework – the state, the corporation, the university, the organization, etc.

What is polyculturalism? Polyculturalism refers to the interchange between cultures. As an idea, it promotes the understanding that society is comprised of fluid cultural communities that continuously intersect and redefine themselves through processes of dynamic interchange. Unlike multiculturalism, polyculturalism is less adaptable to public policy and organizational rubrics, and more rooted in voluntary, often times spontaneous, engagements.

MULTI MEETS POLY: Multiculturalism and Polyculturalism Go On a First Date – Lake Forester.

Immigration rules so unclear applicant can be given high-pass or a fail on same paperwork, court says

Interesting. While the Court upheld the particular decision, does look like more clarity needed:

A financial analyst from Pakistan applying last year for permanent residence status in Canada as a federal skilled worker was given a score of five points, out of a potential 25, in the education category of her assessment.

It was argued in court that different assessments of the same credentials could have scored her 19 or even 23 points.

Federal Court Justice Cecily Strickland found all three scores could have been seen as correct or “reasonable.”

“Having reached the conclusion that the [visa] officer’s decision was reasonable, I would also note that the alternate interpretation suggested by the applicant was also a possible outcome,” Judge Strickland wrote in a recent decision released this week.

The process is “less than a model of clarity,” she wrote.

“It’s a little bit absurd,” said Matthew Jeffery, a Toronto lawyer acting for the applicant, Minaa Ijaz, in an interview.

“All of these rules are quite new and the regulations for assessing how many points are awarded for qualification have been rewritten recently by the Conservatives.

“This case was the first to challenge them and it will take some back-and-forth in the courts to assess how the rules are written and interpreted.”

Immigration rules so unclear applicant can be given high-pass or a fail on same paperwork, court says

Kenney says changes to temporary foreign worker program in Alberta not exemptions

Seems a reasonable transitional adjustment (others may disagree), responding to employer pressure:

In a letter to Conservative MPs last week, Kenney says the federal government is giving a one-time exemption to temporary foreign workers in Alberta from being counted under the cap on low-wage workers, provided they meet strict criteria.

Kenney says this will allow employers to apply for renewed Labour Market Impact Assessments while their existing temporary foreign workers pursue permanent immigration.

As well, Kenney says in the letter that Citizenship and Immigration Canada will provide a one-year bridging work permit to TFWs who are subject to the four-year limit.

The letter says this should provide some relief to employers who have TFWs that have already applied for immigration and are in the queue waiting for their applications to be assessed.

The Alberta Federation of Labour says the Conservative government has caved in to pressure from low-wage employers who want to hold on to “exploitable” temporary foreign workers for a longer period of time.

“Last June, the Harper government promised to limit the number of TFWs that low-wage employers could use. But now, they’ve quietly broken their promise and changed the rules,” AFL president Gil McGowan said in a news release Tuesday.

Kenney says changes to temporary foreign worker program in Alberta not exemptions

Anti-terrorism bill bars CSIS from committing ‘bodily harm,’ sexual violation

Sad that it has come to this that in granting additional powers, and specifying what is barred, while the intent is good, only underlines the risks of granting these powers and possible abuse, exacerbated by the lack of effective oversight:

Bill C-51 would allow CSIS to take measures within or outside Canada to reduce threats to the security of Canada, but doesn’t spell out exactly what those measures could be. The bill lists prohibited activities, barring CSIS from:

  • Intentionally or by criminal negligence cause death or bodily harm.
  • In any way trying to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
  • Violating the sexual integrity of an individual.

The bill ties “bodily harm” to its definition in the Criminal Code, which means any injury to a person that “interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.”

Observers say it’s too early to know exactly what that section means. And, given the agency’s new ability to “disrupt” and to trigger preventative detention, they say further explanation is needed.

“We don’t know what the power to disrupt means. At first reading it seems that [CSIS] can do just about anything except bodily damage or assassination or sexual abuse,” said Roch Tassé, a spokesman for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group​.

But there are other provisions that would let CSIS request a warrant to enter any place or open anything; search, copy, remove or return any record; install or remove anything; or “do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures.”

“Basically they’ll be allowed to break the law. They’ll go to a judge to get permission to break the law,” Tassé said.

Sukanya Pillay, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said the section of the bill on CSIS is confusing because “we know that you can’t get a warrant to contravene the charter.”

The prohibitions on causing bodily harm and sexual violation are also troubling. she said, because it’s not clear what they mean.

Have we learned nothing from US abuse and terror?

Anti-terrorism bill bars CSIS from committing ‘bodily harm,’ sexual violation – Politics – CBC News.

ICYMI: Moving past diversity: RBC’s journey to rid its upper ranks of ‘unconscious bias’

Good interview with outgoing RBC CEO Gord Nixon and taking diversity and inclusion to the next level and making people aware of unconscious bias. Well worth reading:

Diversity is about mix. Inclusion is really putting that mix to work for you. This unconscious-bias work, when we started last year, we had (esteemed scholar and co-author of Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People) Dr. Mahzarin Binaji come and speak with our senior leadership team and other employees. We really felt it was the next frontier of this work — trying to get to the more subtle issues and the more politically incorrect or more difficult to speak about (because bias is not an easy thing to talk about). We are working to really get people to become self-aware. And I think along with that it’s also realizing that having a bias doesn’t make you a bad person. We all have them. What’s important is recognizing them and then looking for ways to actually mitigate those biases. We’re doing this in a number of different ways. One is just for individuals — influential individuals (people who make important decision in the company). We really had a lot of our senior people go through this awareness building. I hear leaders say, “I was putting together a team to be working with this important client and as I was looking at people I was going to select, I realized that I was actually looking for somebody like me.” That’s often what your natural bias is.

I think maybe to provide a very practical example. Sometimes you find people assuming that a woman with young children won’t accept a promotion that involves travel because you heard about some woman who did it. The answer there is, don’t assume that. Ask the woman if she is interested in being a candidate for a role that involves travel. Our assumptions and our biases get us there automatically. Or, you think, “This is a new immigrant and why is it relevant to understand how they do banking in a different country?”. Actually, it’s very relevant because we have new immigrants coming to this country and understanding how they do banking allows us to serve them better. So, those are the practical aspects, practical issues that we try to address when they actually happen by having good processes.

You need somebody else to be there and stop you and say, “Hey, I think we might have a bias here” and by making this a more common language in our organization — by talking about it and by having the sessions — it gives you permission to have those conversations and it just makes it easier to go there where sometimes you’re not sure or you don’t want to offend people. This just makes it part of how we do business.

Moving past diversity: RBC’s journey to rid its upper ranks of ‘unconscious bias’ | Financial Post.

The report, by RBC and EY, also well worth reading:

Outsmarting our brains: Overcoming hidden biases to harness diversity’s true potential 

The lesson of Charlie Hebdo? We need more free speech, not less – Globe Editorial

Globe editorial nails it:

In Canada, it appears a growing list of objectionable ideas and beliefs are to be hunted down and subjected to the full weight of the state. And so it was that, on Monday, the borough council presided over by Mr. Ménard amended its definition of a community centre to specifically forbid religious teaching, effectively shutting down Mr. Chaoui’s aspirations.

More rule-tightening will presumably follow; Mr. Coderre has gone so far as to say, “I oppose radicalism in all its forms.”

Otherwise sane provincial lawmakers in Quebec have been involved in a multi-partisan argument, now in its second year, around how to legislate against religious fundamentalism. There hasn’t been much of an argument over whether that’s a good thing to do; it seems to be a given.

In Ottawa, meanwhile, the expansion of the police state continues apace, fuelled by the irrational Islamic State fears ginned up by the Conservative government.

What if the solution to all of this were as simple as more free speech?

In the marketplace of ideas, hateful, offensive and small-minded beliefs can and should be vigorously confronted. But instead of using the law to shut them down, fight back with speech that shows them up. Incitement to violence is a crime, and always has been. But some of the speech politicians are talking about shutting down falls well short of that long-standing legal line.

Opinions can be changed. Bad ideas can be shunted aside. People can stop listening to nonsense, or they can never start in the first place. That is essentially what happened to Mr. Chaoui’s reactionary spiel in Anjou.

The process was working swimmingly. And then the politicians got involved.

The lesson of Charlie Hebdo? We need more free speech, not less – The Globe and Mail.

Is Harper’s terror bill terrifying — or just redundant? – Kheiriddin

On the remarkable political cynicism of the Government with respect to security according to Tasha Kheiriddin:

So why have the Tories chosen to create new offences instead? Three words: the 2015 election. Enforcing existing legislation isn’t sexy. You can’t take ownership of Section 46 of the Criminal Code — it’s been there for years. But you can talk ad nauseum about the new tough anti-terror laws you’ve created. It’s perfect fodder for the doorstep and a great distraction from the dismal economy — and the Conservatives know it.

And public opinion polls suggest enough Canadians are on board to make this a winning issue. A recent Nanos survey found that 66 per cent of Canadians agree with the PM that we are at war with terrorists. Sixty-five per cent of respondents agreed that the “government should have the power to remove websites or posts on the Internet that it believes support the proliferation of terrorism in Canada.” Forty-eight per cent of Canadians feel the system is not up to the task at the moment, vs. 44 per cent who believe the situation is satisfactory.

Bill C-51 neatly taps into all these concerns, while leaving a major issue unadressed: Who will be watching the watchers? According to Ottawa, there’s enough oversight already. On CTV`s Question Period, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety Roxanne James said, “We are not interested in creating needless red tape.”

That’s a slap in the face to our Five Eyes allies, all of whom have more extensive oversight mechanisms in place. Creating such measures in Canada would not be a waste of money or admission of weakness. It would be a nod to common sense — especially since C-51 does not have a sunset clause, as previous anti-terror legislation did.

Bottom line: The new bill represents electioneering at its finest. While it improves intelligence-sharing and gives authorities more powers to detain suspected terrorists, it presents privacy concerns, curbs freedom of speech, and duplicates existing offences, while foregoing any increase in oversight.

Canada’s existing treason law — the one the Crown used to hang Louis Riel

Long form census: Duelling backbencher bills revive House debate

Continued triumph of ideology over reason, the Government’s refusal to reinstate the mandatory census:

The response rate for the 2006 long-form census was 93.5 per cent, compared with 68.6 per cent for the voluntary National Household Survey that replaced it in 2011.

Statistics Canada withheld information on thousands of smaller Canadian communities because the information was unreliable.

The census tract of Elgin, in Preston’s southwestern Ontario riding, had a non-response rate of 26.1 per cent for the National Household Survey.

Critics say the problems with the data are compounded by the fact that the survey results cannot be compared with the results from the mandatory censuses going back many decades.

Hsu said filling out the census forms is a civic duty, just as Canadians have a duty to pay their income taxes.

“The fight over this bill is a fight over the soul of this country,” Hsu told MPs last week.

“It is a fight over whether Canadians should collect information about ourselves so that we may have solid evidence with which to govern ourselves wisely.”

Long form census: Duelling backbencher bills revive House debate – Politics – CBC News.

New Atheists are wrong about Islam. Here’s how data proves it – Salon.com

Interesting study by Steven Fish of Berkeley on his study and book, Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence, finding less difference between Muslims and others than commonly believed:

I [Fish] found that Muslims in general are less distinctive than many of us think. In many ways there is really very little difference between Muslims and everybody else. Sometimes I use “everybody else” as the reference category, and sometimes I use Christians in particular, because Christianity and Islam are by far the world’s biggest faith traditions…

Even in some areas in which we expect … I didn’t find a great deal of difference. For example, many people think that Muslims are really intent on fusing religious and political authority, that there’s really no room in Islamic thinking for independent civic sphere that is not run by religious authorities, and in which religious authority and doctrine predominate, meaning there’s little room for an independent civil society and public sphere. Well, I found in this survey data that … Muslims and Christians don’t differ very much on this question, and that most Muslims, once one controls for everything that needs to be controlled for in these statistical analyses, actually do not want to fuse religious and political authority…

Some, of course, do. Some absolutely do. But some Christians do as well … There are many American Christians who are skeptical about dividing church and state rigorously. That’s true for many Muslims as well. But a majority of both Christians and Muslims seem to embrace at least some separation of sacred and secular in politics. That’s one finding that was perhaps surprising and also showed that Muslims are less distinctive than we might think.

Another finding that showed that Muslims were less distinctive than we might think looked at … membership in organizations, all kinds of things that we would use to actually measure social capital — interpersonal trust, for example. We find there that there really is little or no difference between those Muslims and everyone else.

There’s some questions by which I did find evidence of Muslim distinctiveness. For example, gender inequality; I find in the data that there are big problems in the Muslim world relative to other regions, and among Muslims relative to people of other faiths when it comes to gender inequality. It seems that there are lower workforce participation ratios — that is, female-to-male and earned-income ratios — among Muslims than among non-Muslims, generally speaking, which means that women tend to work less and earn less than men do in Muslim countries to a greater extent than they do elsewhere. I also find other evidence of gender discrimination …

Generally speaking, women should outlive men by several years. I found that that gap is somewhat smaller in predominantly Muslim societies, which is a red flag and shows that perhaps there are gender discrimination problems that run more deeply than in predominantly non-Muslim societies.

New Atheists are wrong about Islam. Here’s how data proves it – Salon.com.