Lies and damn statistics*

 Something in Munir Sheikh's testimony before the Commons industry committee this morning made me think of the coalition crisis. I know, maybe a stretch, but bear with me.

It was when Sheikh was talking about his decision to resign -- prompted, incredibly, by what he was reading in the paper.

Here's a bit of what he said:

"I think if you go back to the day that I resigned, there were stories in the media, particularly in The Globe and Mail, which had a headline on page four, which said that the chief statistician supports what the government is planning to do."

"I don't really know what the minister said. What I'm going on is the stories that emerged in the media, regardless of what the minister said... In the media, and in the public, there was this perception that Statistics Canada is supporting this decision that no statistician would, it really cast doubt on the integrity of that agency and I, as the head of the agency, cannot survive in that job."

"The point is that Wednesday morning, when I read the stories in the media, they started to cast doubt on StatsCan's integrity. It is what I read in the Globe and Mail... It doesn't matter what the minister said. It is what the perception is out there and what Canadians believe in, that will have an impact on whether or not I can do my job." 

This made me shudder. In essence, one of Canada's top public servants believed that he had only one option for fighting back against the media perception -- resignation. You want to talk about feeling threatened by misuse of information? Someone, spreading this interpretation of StatsCan's stand, was deliberately taking advantage of the fact that Mr. Sheikh wouldn't speak publicly -- neither to confirm nor deny the alleged support of the government's census decision.

So what does this have to do with the coalition crisis? In that case, the battle was also over perception versus reality. By the time the matter landed in the Governor-General's lap, the public had been whipped up into a frenzy about separatists running the Canadian government. There was no public debate or education campaign about the realities of the coalition and minority parliaments. The Governor-General was spun into a corner and again, unable to speak directly to the public, because of ancient codes of silence and discretion. From what I understand, the GG was also worried about public perception, fearing that any decision to deny prorogation would unleash a PR campaign against the institution of governor-general itself.

Dutiful silence is an honoured tradition in Canadian public service, but if it becomes a weapon in someone else's hands, that should make us all worried. And it  might  make public servants reconsider whether discretion is always the better part of valour. If Mr. Sheikh had another option -- specifically, refuting things said about him publicly -- maybe he didn't need to resign.

And we in the media, yes that means me too, should be careful about allowing mischievous spin to fill a duty-bound silence. Sheikh essentially said this morning that StatsCan was outgunned by a whisper campaign against it, much in the way that the GG was,  and that cannot be right. In a larger sense, I think this tension between perception and reality is the biggest problem facing political journalism and politics in general. Perception shouldn't be a trump card against facts. 

*Sorry for the inevitable headline.

Comments

[Jakethesnake]

Your spin is just so unbelievable Susan but spin away. I have an idea why doesn't the media just report all of the facts without spin or bias, then the public will decide what to make of it. I know that the coalition is a dream idea of the left as it is their only hope for power but I do not think that english speaking Canada will approve the BLOC calling the shots for them, but SPIN AWAY SUSAN,SPIN AWAY

[EM]

How true ... the 'barely possibly credible' thrown at us daily in my local Canwest newspaper in Cornwall, Ontario,makes me cringe. And it comes straight from the PMO and supporters. And gets few rebuttals in letters to the editor. Damn lies.

I think my con MP mailouts (with their 'surveys: How are PM Harper and I doing?) have given our PM ,Tony Clement et al, the idea to downgrade the census long form . Just who does anyone think responds to that junk mail? Loyal supporters, I can only suppose.After the kids once drew mustaches and pox on the photos, I sent it back. with 'No' ticks,. Just the once. Honest.

I wouldn't spend time filling out forms supporting bad policy by this government.

[jenna]

"By the time the matter landed in the Governor-General's lap, the public had been whipped up into a frenzy about separatists running the Canadian government. There was no public debate or education campaign about the realities of the coalition and minority parliaments."

What the Liberals and their apologists like Ms Delacourt would prefer you don't notice is that the "coalition" of Liberals and New Democrats would still have been a minority, and therefore every Bill, including Budgets, would have required the consent and approval of the Bloc, giving them an effective veto over all legislation proposed by the coalition.

" From what I understand, the GG was also worried about public perception, fearing that any decision to deny prorogation would unleash a PR campaign against the institution of governor-general itself."

Classic example of the sort of "whisper" campaign Ms. Delacourt is inveighing against here. No source, no substantiation, simply "from what I understand".

[David Gagnon]

We saw the tactics of painting opposition parties with particular labels today as well.

The government has all the power it needs to sign-off on census questions and modify the penalties for non-compliance. The very questions *they* approved months ago are the ones the minister has been quoting as "intrusive".

However, instead of making decisions, dealing with the issue as they see fit, and taking responsibility for their decisions ... they say "Liberals [et al] want you to go to *jail* for not answering intrusive questions".

"Bob Roberts" is a valuable movie because years ago it portrayed how all these tactics are used. Mr Flanagan's "incrementalism" in the movie is 'the frog in the pan of water on the stove'.

If the government is surprised by the public outcry on this issue, perhaps "dull" Canadians are more serious about "their government" than their government is.

[Frank Docherty]

Is it lies and damn statistics, or, simple Freakonomics? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics ) For some it takes a poke in the eye with a hot cigar, and for others it takes a lottery win or missing a flight that happens to crash on route. Statististics prove nothing but one thing, that you can prove anything with statistics, even the impossable, despite the fact that that is impossable. The tension between perception and reality arises in language, as does the premiditated anticipation of those whose reality rely on the media's ( perception of reality ) does not exist until the messenger, the media, delivers it. It's not much different than the waiter who brings your meal - if it looks good you will eat it. My favourite used to be hot dogs. Ketchup, mustard, cheese and hot peppers. Now that I know how hotdogs are made, I would rather eat dog food. If you love hot dogs, trust me, just keep eating them and do not google how they are made - I wish I hadn't. I am not an expert in any way shape or form, however, I have been around long enough to know this... Stephen Harper is not a "Hot Dog." Food for thought.

[Chris Baker]

Susan -

You have provided some very thoughtful commentary on an important but not well-known topic - the requirement that public servants be "nameless and faceless" on important public topics. Maintaining a professional, non-partisan public service is a difficult thing when our political culture places undue emphasis on the ability to name, blame and shame.

Keep up the good work,

Chris Baker
Fredericton, NB

[Gabby in QC]

Mr. Sheikh is apparently an unusually sensitive soul, very unlike the stereotypical statistician. He apparently based his decision on possibly incorrect data culled from a very small sample … a couple of Globe & Mail articles. Well, I’m sure his parachute will afford him a gentle landing.

“I think this tension between perception and reality is the biggest problem facing political journalism and politics in general. Perception shouldn't be a trump card against facts.”
To his credit, former PM Jean Chretien pointed out during one of his latest interviews that years ago, journalists contacted politicians to verify the facts of a story before it went to press. Nowadays, because of the 24/7 news cycle, journalists no longer fact-check in their race to fill some space, be it print or other media.

That may explain why Mr. Sheikh felt “when I read the stories in the media, they started to cast doubt on StatsCan's integrity.” Personally, when I read some of those same stories, I did not question Mr. Sheikh’s nor StatsCan’s integrity. What I did question was the inaccurate reference, repeated in print and in electronic media, that the government wants to “scrap” or “eliminate” the long-form census, which is not true.

But I prefer to concentrate on providing some experts’ views on the coalition, in case some have forgotten their arguments. I’ll post them separately lest they overpower the filter.

[Margaret]

I couldn't agree more.

The civil servants Canada who know what's going on, and who maintain a professional silence, are the people who are going to have to get outraged enough at the thuggery in this "government", to speak out and expose the butchery of Canada to the public.

Harper hates public servants. He'll gut the civil service, and replace it with his own version. He has enough idiots on hand to do his bidding.

[Darwin O'Connor]

Gabby, while Mr. Sheikh danced around it, the article in question (linked in the main blog post), contains direct quotes from an interview with Industry Minister Tony Clement. There is no one higher to fact check it with.

"What I did question was the inaccurate reference, repeated in print and in electronic media, that the government wants to “scrap” or “eliminate” the long-form census, which is not true."

Someone mentioned in the committee meeting that a voluntary survey is not a census.

[Gabby in QC]

Darwin O'Connor at 12:45 pm: "Someone mentioned in the committee meeting that a voluntary survey is not a census."

In other words, Canadians lie unless they're threatened with jail or some other penalty if they don't comply, otherwise it's 'do not pass go, go directly to jail? Is that what you're suggesting?

A fine opinion you and that committee member have of your fellow Canadians.

And that reminds me of a caller to a talk show yesterday, who strongly advocated for the necessity of keeping the long-form mandatory, otherwise the results would not be reliable ... and then the same person went on to cite the results of some survey supposedly proving a majority of Canadians are in favour of keeping the census as is.

An example of cognitive dissonance.

[Gabby in QC]

As promised earlier, here are some of those experts’ opinions re: the coalition, countering your argument, Ms. Delacourt, that the GG was “spun into a corner” and that “By the time the matter landed in the Governor-General's lap, the public had been whipped up into a frenzy about separatists running the Canadian government.”

Ned Franks, professor emeritus at Queen's University Department of Political Science and School of Physical and Health Education, in a March 2009 Globe & Mail article entitled “What If She’d said No?”

“… Canada would have been governed by a coalition built through a marriage of convenience headed by a prime minister who was supported by far fewer Canadians than the prime minister who had been deposed. The coalition would almost certainly, as its demise shows, have proven to be a weak, unpopular and not very durable government.
The Governor-General made the right decision.”


Then there’s Richard Van Loon, former president of Carleton University and professor emeritus at Carleton's Graduate School of Public Policy, who in January 2009 wrote an Ottawa Citizen op-ed entitled “Our Coalition Doesn’t Stack Up”
“So what really makes a coalition legitimate?
International precedents suggest three conditions. One is that the country faces a compelling national emergency, usually a major war. A second, broadly applicable in less troubled times, is that voters must know in advance that they are voting for potential members of a coalition, one which will govern if its members can claim a majority of seats in the legislature immediately after the election. A third is that a party with a plurality, already in government or immediately after an election, forms the coalition and immediately seeks support of the legislature. But as the New Zealand experience in the late 1990s suggests the latter is not always a successful strategy. Stable coalitions in peacetime are virtually always underpinned by the results of an election in which voters were aware of the possibility of their formation.
The current coalition agreement in Canada does not meet any of these tests…”

And there's more ...

[Darwin O'Connor]

Gabby, that poll may well be accurate thanks to using data from the long form census to correct for underrepresented groups. Without the long form census many, if not most, of the thousands of polls and voluntary surveys in Canada will be shooting in the dark when it comes to correcting for underrepresented groups.

[Gabby in QC]

Darwin O'Connor at 2:47 PM, I'm not quite clear what poll you're referring to, so I don't know how to reply.
The fact there is a plan afoot to change the census long-form from compulsory to voluntary does not all of a sudden invalidate whatever census data is gathered voluntarily. The people chosen to receive the long-form will still be chosen at random, the number of recipients has been increased from one in five to one in three, so I don't think this change needs to become the kind of "crisis" the opponents to this change make it out to be.
However, I tend to lend less weight to internet surveys on political issues, as we all know that social media has facilitated "gathering up the troops" to skew results.

[Gabby in QC]

More experts speak ... (I do not provide links because the filter seems to dislike them)
Michael Bliss, University Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto.
“Michael Bliss: Unstable coalition is a powderkeg under Canada
Posted: December 01, 2008
… The constitutional “experts” who point out that Governor-General Michaëlle Jean could legitimately ask Stéphane Dion to try to form a government are correct but superficial. …
[if] a Liberal-NDP coalition, commanding 117 seats in the House, took office, the day-to-day power of the separatist party in the Canadian Parliament would be hugely enhanced, whether or not it had made a back-room deal with the leaders of the coalition. …”

And then, there’s Peter Hogg, Canada's leading scholar in constitutional law, and the person who gave the GG the advice on which she based her reply to PM Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament.
“Adviser says 2008 prorogation was right move
Published Monday January 18th, 2010
By GLENNA HANLEY
For the Daily Gleaner
… Hogg said Jean had the option to refuse Harper's request, name Dion prime minister and allow him to form a new government. But in hindsight she made the right decision since the coalition fell apart soon after, said the professor.
Hogg, from New Zealand, came to Canada in 1970 and taught law at Osgoode Law School for 28 years.
He served as dean from 1998 to 2003 and is now professor emeritus. He's the author of Constitutional Law of Canada, has been a counsel for 13 Supreme Court constitutional law cases and is the most frequently cited authority in such cases. …”

Having read those experts’ opinions, would you still argue, Ms. Delacourt, that “the public had been whipped up into a frenzy about separatists running the Canadian government”, suggesting that the coalition met with undeserved opposition?

[jenna]

"From what I understand, the GG was also worried about public perception, fearing that any decision to deny prorogation would unleash a PR campaign against the institution of governor-general itself. "

If the GG had denied prorogation, then we would have had PM Dion and deputy PM Layton. I doubt the GG would have had to worry about her job in that circumstance.

[geo]

For all those who validate the mandated long census form with the jail and or fine because it is for the good of the country,I hope you will be the same folks who will mandate the requirement that everyone should be required to vote in a federal election because it too is for the good of the country.And for those who don't vote jail and or fines should be their punishment.

It is for the good of the country is it not?

[Darwin O'Connor]

"I'm not quite clear what poll you're referring to"

I'm referring to the survey you mentioned "July 28, 2010 at 01:51 PM".

"The fact there is a plan afoot to change the census long-form from compulsory to voluntary does not all of a sudden invalidate whatever census data is gathered voluntarily."

It is not invalidated, but it is significantly less valid because those who choose not the respond are not random, but tend to be the poor and immigrants. Without the mandatory census, we won't even know what type of people choose not to respond any more.

Gabby, I'm not sure why you think the duly elected representatives of many of the people from Quebec are illegitimate or how exactly the Bloc Quebecois would undermine the country. We seemed to do okay for the time when the Conservatives where solely support by the Bloc.

My Canada includes Quebec Separatists.

[jenna]

"It is not invalidated, but it is significantly less valid because those who choose not the respond are not random, but tend to be the poor and immigrants"

Am I the only one who finds it extremely insulting that the only way to get the information required from "the poor and immigrants" is to threaten them with jail terms for non-compliance ? If this data is truly so valuable, which I doubt, surely the great minds in StatsCan could have invented a better mousetrap. Or do they just like flexing their muscles ?

[Gabby in QC]

Darwin O'Connor at 09:24 AM, show me where I said "the duly elected representatives of many of the people from Quebec are illegitimate."
That, I'm sorry to say, is a figment of your imagination.
If you bother to reply to my comments, then as much "bother" should be dedicated to understanding what you’ve read there. Please address the REAL content of my comments.

I quoted several constitutional experts, one of whom, Michael Bliss, did point to the absurdity of a would-be government (the coalition) depending for its survival on the party that wants to break up the country. He said “… the day-to-day power of the separatist party in the Canadian Parliament would be hugely enhanced …”
How you arrive at me saying “… the people from Quebec are illegitimate” is truly astounding. That’s point one.

Point two: the number of poor & immigrants’ supposed non-compliance with filling in the census.
You said “It [the census] is not invalidated, but it is significantly less valid because those who choose not the respond are not random, but tend to be the poor and immigrants.”
Being an immigrant myself, I know how my parents, who did not speak either official language sufficiently well to fill in such detailed forms, would have called upon me or my siblings to fill in the form. Maybe I shouldn’t assume all immigrants would do the same. Also forgive me if I assume that the majority of Canadians -- be they native-born or immigrant -- are civic-minded and do not necessarily see the government as their enemy. A pain in the butt, at times, maybe … but not the enemy. The same goes for the poor.
You’re assuming those two demographic groups wouldn’t comply; I’m assuming they would. Trying it out would tell us who’s right.
Third point, I think we need to differentiate between polls/surveys and a census. The former gather opinions whereas the latter gather factual information, including the name, address, and telephone number of the recipients.
The survey I mentioned in my 1:51 PM comment in no way relies on the data gathered by any census, since it was a survey or poll on whether people want to keep the long-form as is (mandatory) or change it to voluntary.
The person I cited was using a survey answered voluntarily as valid evidence of how Canadians view the changes, yet argued a census answered voluntarily would not be valid. The method used in both is voluntary -- yet that person believed one but doubted the other. That is why I called it cognitive dissonance, as in “holding contradictory ideas simultaneously.” [Wiki]
And finally your statement “My Canada includes Quebec Separatists.” Admirable.
Does your Canada include conservatives too? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion there isn’t much room in that big heart of yours for little ol’ conservative me?
Not that I’m lookin’ for love.

[myna lee johnstone]

There were 2 dirty words the Cons used against the Coalition Accord: "socialists" and "separatists".They shouted these out in the House and to the public. Hence, the rallies.Which category the Libs fit into, I am not sure.

[Darwin O'Connor]

Why would you use that quote if having "the day-to-day power of the separatist party in the Canadian Parliament would be hugely enhanced" didn't concern you? The fact that you disagree with them doesn't make them a less of a legitimate partner in a coalition government.

Even if 90% of immigrants reply to the survey, if 95% of native Canadians reply, that creates a bias in the data. Without a mandatory census, we won't even know who isn't replying.

"The survey I mentioned in my 1:51 PM comment in no way relies on the data gathered by any census"

Have you reviewed the pollster's methodology? Even after the survey has been conducted pollsters refine their data in a variety of ways, which, I believe, include using census data.

"Does your Canada include conservatives too?"

Of course! Otherwise there would be no one to have enjoyable debates with.

[Karen Krisfalusi]

I would like to remind readers of this article published in the Star May 26th: "How Harper Controls the Spin"
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/News/Canada/article/429906
That is only two months ago. This article describes how Susan Delacourt's collegues in the media are increasingly denied access to information so that they can serve the public and fulfill the duties of their profession with any semblance of integrity. "The screws are being tightened bit by bit. It's gotten very extreme in the last six months. Just more and more delays, more and more control over things, less and less things getting approved." That came out at the prorogue. Now with the census issue as Parliament brings things out in the open it would seem that the media is content to play the spin, after being out of sorts only two months ago. On At Issue the other night Susan Delacourt said that the 'Air War' (how the media tells the election story) is all about 'spin'. NO IT'S NOT!!! I'd like to remind the Ottawa Bureau Chief that unless the media does it's job and puts forward *all* the talking points, all the information, we are in big trouble. We need the media to do their jobs. The media needs some privacy to talk together and shape the view (ie they need to stop blabbing the whole mess on twitter). I 'shuddered' when I watched Susan Delacourt on At Issue, knowing that she was riding Ignatieff's bus daily and all she could do was spin. No mention of the opposition talking points on the census issue. Spin. Spin. Spin. It's an excuse.

[Gabby in QC]

Darwin O'Connor at 11:51 am, please don't think I'm ignoring your rebuttal. I wrote one up late Friday night, but our host has decided not to publish it.