The CivicAccess list from time to time has some really good discussions.  As of late there have been a couple of great ones.  They are honest and often bring up issues that require some external expertise.

The question of race questions in the former long-form Canadian census was the latest.  It was inspired by comments associated with the NYTimes map – Mapping America: Every City, Every Block posted to the list.  The list threads on this topic can be read here.

Debra Thompson was invited to read the threads and to respond.  Debra wrote The Politics of the Census: Lessons from Abroad in the Journal of Canadian Public Policy as a response to the recent cuts to the Canadian census and won the McMenemy Prize for her paper in the Canadian Journal of Political Science: Is Race Political?

Here is Debra’s Response:

That type of argument (race is dangerous, we shouldn’t be asking a question on it anyway) is actually pretty common – and came up back in 1996 when the question was  first put on the census. Unsurprisingly, it’s more often the white majority that claims race is dangerous, rather than racial minorities who largely understand that race is socially constructed, but carries consequences nonetheless. The basic fact of the matter is that we have a range of policies that depend on accurate census data. Yes, employment equity is one of those policies. Yes, it has its problems – especially in that it can’t account for variation in discrimination within the population we call “visible minority”. Some visible minorities are clearly discriminated against in a variety of socio-economic indicators – housing, employment, services, etc. Most often, these are Aboriginal peoples, Black Canadians and some Asian population groups. Other VM groups don’t necessarily need the policy in order to ensure their labour force representation is equitable. But can you imagine a Black-only or Aboriginal-only employment equity policy? It just wouldn’t fly.

The debates over whether or not a question *should* be in the census is more often than not a debate about the efficiency and equity of affirmative action-type policies. In my opinion, these debates are very important, but should take place elsewhere. I personally think employment equity is a good idea. It means the state has a positive obligation to promote racial equality. We know that the marketplace won’t do this on its own. It also sends important signals about citizenship and social justice as important priorities for the Canadian state. I would also tell critics that our employment equity policy is actually very very weak. VERY weak. It has little by way of actual monitoring, the courts have rarely backed it up, and it doesn’t compel the private sector at all. If our policy was stronger, we would have seen more VMs in the public service by now. Yet, if you look at the data, women have almost achieved representative parity, and VMs are still very much underrepresented – not nearly as badly as persons with disabilities, but still.

No matter the pros and cons of this legislation, it’s the law of the land. And we can’t make this law work properly without accurate data. In the 1980s before there was a “race question”, StatsCan used the ethnic origin question and other proxies to determine which respondents were VMs. But it was highly problematic – think about my father’s family, for example. We came to Canada in the 1860s, via the Underground Railroad. We’ve been here for a very long time. (This is why I find it so frustrating when white Canadians ask me, “no, where are you REALLY from?” I’m from HERE.) In response to the ethnic origin question, what would Dad write? “Black” is a racial group, not an ethnic group. But to put “Canadian,” “American,” or “British,” as Dad might have done, wouldn’t capture the fact that he’s black. StatsCan also had the same types of problems with other groups – Jamaicans and Indians (from India) who put their ethnic origins as “British,” Haitians who put theirs as “French”. If you want to measure race, you need a question on race.

Canada is also not alone in this regard. Over 60% of countries in the world have a question on nationality/ethnicity/race, though they use diverse conceptualizations of what these terms mean. It’s also been proven time and time again by places like the United States and Great Britain that having a question on race in the census is actually helpful if the society’s ultimate goal is racial equality. Canada has had this question on its census since 1996. And we’re not more divided than before, race riots haven’t broken out (though there are some places in Canada where racial minorities are living so far below the poverty line that I wouldn’t be surprised if they did), and our kitten-hugging version of multiculturalism – high on rhetoric, low on actual results in terms of lessing racial disadvantage – is still intact. So, you see, having a question on race isn’t about making Canadian society more divided. It’s about making it more equal. I think that’s a pretty important goal.

Peggy and John are keeping up the good work on the Save the Census Campaign and here is their latest update:

The census in the news:

The Globe and Mail: Make a top 10 public policy list, checked it twice, ticked the boxes on naughty and nice in 2010.

The Toronto Star: Travers: Being Canadian means taking ownership of Canada. James Travers writes about why the elimination of the long-form census was short-sighted and only hurts Canadians in the long run.

The Toronto Star: The numbers game: Will 2011 census controversy count once Canada’s at the polls? A great overview on the importance of a long-form census; what to expect with a potential election on the horizon; and whether Canadians can expect the census to be returned.

Telegraphjournal.com: Census change will hurt survey. This piece outlines concerns from Saint John Community Foundation and how disregarding the long-form census jeopardizes the quality of data that is collected for important community pieces, like the Foundation’s yearly Vital Signs report.

Telegraphjournal.com: Sound decisions require good data. Another good article on why the census is crucial data for the Vital Signs report card.

Telegraphjournal.com: Survey helps to guide funding. This article articulates the necessity of reports like Vital Signs and the recommendation that come out of these reports that are crucial to policy making, and program/service funding.

Thanks for reading. Best wishes for a safe and census-filled new year!

John Campey (Social Planning Toronto) and Peggy Taillon (Canadian Council on Social Development)

‘Save the Census’ is on Facebook and Twitter @savethecensus:

Join our new Facebook page and Twitter page, where you can find the most up-to-date information from the Campaign, including media coverage and any other important correspondence.  Please circulate to friends and other supporters!

Continuing our battle takes—surprise—money! If you would like to donate to the Save the Census campaign please visit www.SavetheCensus.ca.

Find out more at www.savethecensus.ca, datalibre.ca, and www.ccsd.ca. For more information or to get actively involved with the campaign email us at info@savethecensus.ca.

via: ChanK@parl.gc.ca, Parti libérale du Canada

Pour diffusion immédiate
Le 8 décembre 2010

OTTAWA – Malgré le fait que le projet de loi libéral visant à sauver le formulaire détaillé de recensement obligatoire ait franchi l’étape de la deuxième lecture, les conservateurs de Harper ont voté contre à l’unanimité. Ces derniers continuent d’ignorer la volonté de la majorité des Canadiens qui n’ont cessé de lutter contre les attaques idéologiques portées contre le recensement, a déclaré aujourd’hui la députée libérale, Dre Carolyn Bennett.

« Aujourd’hui, chaque député conservateur devrait avoir honte de ses actes », a affirmé la Dre Bennett, dont le projet de loi d’initiative parlementaire vise à enchâsser dans la loi le formulaire détaillé sur le recensement obligatoire. Ce projet a été adopté en deuxième lecture aujourd’hui lors d’un vote à la Chambre des communes.

« La victoire d’aujourd’hui démontre clairement que la majorité des parlementaires soutiennent l’enchâssement du formulaire détaillé sur le recensement dans la loi ainsi que la préservation de l’intégrité des données nécessaires à l’élaboration efficace des politiques et à la prise de décisions reposant sur des données probantes. Seul ce gouvernement idéologique veut l’éliminer et dépenser 30 millions de dollars de plus provenant de l’argent des contribuables pour obtenir des renseignements moins fiables sur la base d’un questionnaire court non obligatoire. »

En votant contre le projet de loi d’initiative parlementaire de la Dre Bennett, les conservateurs continuent d’ignorer les appels des gouvernements provinciaux, territoriaux et municipaux, des économistes, des groupes communautaires, des associations médicales et des organisations religieuses qui utilisent les renseignements recueillis par l’entremise du recensement afin de prendre des décisions reposant sur des observations factuelles et qui aident les Canadiens dans leur vie quotidienne.

La semaine dernière, il a été confirmé que ce projet de loi ne nécessitera pas de recommandation royale pour poursuivre sa démarche parce que son adoption économisera en réalité 30 millions de dollars au gouvernement. Ceci signifie que le projet de loi n’exige pas que le gouvernement conservateur le soutienne pour qu’il devienne loi s’il celui-ci est adopté par la Chambre des communes et le Sénat.

La question est maintenant de savoir si Stephen Harper respectera la volonté de la chambre élue. Si l’on se fie aux événements passés, nous demeurons sceptiques. Mais nous n’abandonnerons pas. Ce qui est en jeu, c’est l’intégrité des statistiques officielles du Canada et l’élément essentiel de la prise de décisions d’ordre économique dans les salons et les salles de conférence de la nation.

« Ce projet de loi est important car si le recensement n’est pas rétabli, Stephen Harper pourra mettre en œuvre son ordre du jour idéologique et réduire d’importants programmes pour les Canadiens. Il ne s’intéresse pas aux renseignements précis sur des choses telles que les niveaux de chômage, le multiculturalisme ou le travail non-rémunéré, parce qu’il préfère réduire des programmes tels que l’assurance-emploi, les services d’intégration pour les immigrants et les programmes destinés aux aidants naturels. »

Grâce à l’initiative libérale pour un gouvernement ouvert, un futur gouvernement libéral demanderait à tous les ministères et organismes fédéraux afin qu’ils adoptent le principe par défaut du gouvernement ouvert quand il s’agit d’échanger les renseignements et de rendre gratuites les données statistiques canadiennes.

Renseignements :

Bureau de l’hon. Dre Carolyn Bennett, députée, 613- 995-9666