Recommend Cuts to Statistics Canada a costly error

By Vass Bednar and Mark Stabile Tue Jul 24 2012. Published on

For many of us, it started with the census. In a controversial move, the federal government switched from a mandatory to a voluntary census in the summer of 2010. The former Statistics Canada chief, the media and the research community reacted with shock and largely opposed the change, to no avail. Recently, Statistics Canada quietly continued this trend when it published a media advisory listing programs identified for elimination or reduction to meet savings targets that were announced in the Economic Action Plan 2012 ($33.9 million by 2014-15). These reductions have been masked under the compelling veil of “efficiency.” In reality, the cuts promise considerable future costs because they compromise the tools used to understand the state. This, in turn, has a high probability of leading to decisions that are no longer based on evidence, and therefore are likely to be ineffective uses of public money.

Reductions to Statistics Canada activity are not new. Preceding the census cuts, the agency moved three of four key longitudinal surveys that were initiated in the 1990s to the “inactive list”: the National Population Health Survey; the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, and the Workplace and Employment Survey. These information-rich surveys involve repeated observations of the same people over long periods of time and began tracking Canadians in the early 1990s. We are no longer measuring outcomes for these individuals. The most recent cuts, which affect 34 surveys, brought an end to the fourth of the longitudinal surveys started in the 1990s: The Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, which provides an understanding of the economic well-being of Canadians. We have now halted the collection and analysis of our most informative longitudinal information on our labour force, on the workplace, on health and health care, and on child well-being. Add to this our universal census of the population. How might Canada expect to meet the policy challenges of the future when we no longer have the ability to understand where we are today?

Statistics Canada is the primary source of Canadian data, a federal government agency formed in 1971 to produce statistics that help us better understand Canada, its population, resources, economy, society and culture. For many decades it was considered among the top statistical agencies in the world. The surveys started in the 1990s were the envy of U.S. researchers looking to better understand how our jobs, workplaces, health and children were changing over time. As our government incrementally eliminates popular data sets, to whose hands might we toss this statistical torch? There is certainly a shifting onus as the state slowly shrugs off primary responsibility for the collection and maintenance of widely available and shareable descriptive information. Will we be able to compensate as a society before it’s too late? In some cases, it is appropriate for the public sector to turn over responsibilities that can be adequately performed in the private sector. The government need not run airlines or gas stations or even mail companies. Is statistical information on the country an appropriate addition to this list? Or does a combination of privacy concerns, the necessity for information on the entire country, the benefits of having a single entity that houses the expertise to collect, store and protect these data, and the necessity of accessible information for government researchers, and private corporations alike lead to data collection and dissemination being a public good? Does the social benefit of these data far exceed the private benefit that a private sector company might realize?

We would argue that there is a strong case to be made for a publicly funded and administered statistical agency that collects the kind of robust information required for government, business and individuals to make the best decisions they can. For without being able to accurately describe the characteristics and trends of what that “problem” is, society will simply have to make policy in the dark. Evidence-based policy-making requires just that — evidence — standard, reliable metrics whose quantification and legitimacy is widely agreed upon. In their absence, policy-making at all levels and in every sector will be as expensive as it is hopeful, while policy actors are forced to gingerly “guess and check” over time. In the absence of good data, our ability to fully comprehend complex policy issues will grow anecdotal and inconsistent. As admirable as the quest for efficiency in the public sector is, it can’t be worth the confusion that it will promise in the future. Truly realizing the kind of savings that Statistics Canada claims to strive for in this budgetary cycle means continuing to invest in the foundational information that has wisely informed our nation for decades.

Vass Bednar is an Action Canada Fellow and graduate of the University of Toronto’s school of public policy and governance. Mark Stabile is the director of the school of public policy and governance and a professor at the Rotman School of Management, the University of Toronto, and an expert adviser with (Troy Media/

StatsCan discontinues survey of full-time PSE teaching staff

News Date:  May 7, 2012

Statistics Canada released Thursday its final issue of “Salaries and Salary Scales of Full-time Teaching Staff at Canadian Universities,” as the agency has discontinued its Full-time University and College Academic Staff System. “This is very disturbing news,” writes University Affairs blogger Léo Charbonneau, as the survey tracked much more data than just professor salaries. Among the information collected, he notes, were gender, age, department, principal subject taught, salary and administrative stipends, unpaid leave, citizenship, and province or country of degrees earned. Charbonneau also points out that StatsCan’sEducation Matters publication has been discontinued as well. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has written to Industry Minister Christian Paradis urging him “to reconsider this ill-conceived decision.” CAUT states in its letter that “it is particularly ironic that this decision has been made at precisely the same time as it is widely recognized that knowledge and education are one of the key building blocks for long-term and sustainable growth.” Margin Notes (University Affairs blog) | CAUT Letter



Anyone who has been in collective bargaining knows how important these data are. This is not only a blow to PSE generally, but a direct assault on collective bargaining in the PSE sector.