Census 2011

[UrbanWaterloo]

From the February 3, 2010 Regional Council meeting:
Council Info is a summary of discussion and the major items presented at Council meetings. It is circulated immediately following each meeting. News organizations, community groups and citizens are encouraged to quote from and copy this information. Please refer to the minutes for an official record of the meeting.
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web...5?OpenDocument

Renaming of census area
Council endorsed the renaming of the “Kitchener Census Metropolitan Area” to the “Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo Census Metropolitan Area,” as recently permitted by Statistics Canada.

[Urbanomicon]

‘Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo’may be used in data designation
May 12, 2010 | Record staff | http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/710853

WATERLOO REGION — What’s in a name?

A lot, it seems, when it comes to the reams of Statistics Canada data collected across Waterloo Region.

The federal agency organizes its information by census metropolitan areas, usually named after the largest municipality in the district. So the “Kitchener CMA” includes information from the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, along with the townships of North Dumfries and Woolwich. (Wilmot and Woolwich aren’t in the census area, but that’s under review.)

Cambridge officials and politicians have long grumbled about being lumped in with Kitchener when statistics are released. That may soon change.

While getting ready for the 2011 national census, Statistics Canada has changed the naming rules for census areas. Now, the title may include up to three municipal names, in order of population.

The new name would be Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA, if each of the city council pass a resolution supporting the move by June 1. All three councils passed needed motions over the last two weeks.

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” said Coun. Ben Tucci. “This is a long time coming (that) Cambridge gets its recognition of being the second largest municipality in Waterloo Region.”

Coun. Karl Kiefer said he’s “upset when you see ‘K-W and area’ in certain things. The area happens to be Cambridge.”

Mayor Doug Craig said Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr attends Ontario “big city mayors” conferences even though Kitchener is smaller than other cities in the province. Kitchener gets to go because it’s in the census area name, so Craig said its time to talk about rotating the mayors of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo to attend big-city meetings.

[IEFBR14]

So why not call it Waterloo Region and stop the bickering over which names are included, what order they appear and whose mayor gets to go on junkets?

[UrbanWaterloo]

I agree the name should be Waterloo Region, and the Regional Chair should attend the conferences. That said at this time the CMA doesn't even include the entire region, so I'd like to change that first.

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Figures. This is actually common practice among many MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) in the United States.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...opolitan-areas

Considering that Waterloo Region may very well be most polycentric metropolitan area in Canada, it would make sense that we'd be the first to adopt such a naming style.

American metropolises with a similar type of urban structure that come to mind are Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater and San-Fransisco-Oakland-Fremont. In both cases, there is a traditional downtown core area that is dominant over the others, but no educated person would call Oakland a suburb of San Franscisco or St. Petersburg a suburb of Tampa, even though they share strong commuting ties and are part of a tightly woven regional economy.

Truth be told, I find the "Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo CMA" to be a mouthful, just for the sake of being inclusive. I always figured they just chose Kitchener because it is central and has the largest downtown in the region.

I wonder how long before Hazel MacCallion notices this move and decides that Mississauga should no longer be considered in Toronto's statistical area, but instead part of the Toronto-Mississauga-Brampton-Oakville-Vaughan-Richmond Hill-Markham-Aurora-Newmarket-Pickering-Ajax CMA!!

If this goes ahead, it will be interesting to see what precedent it would set for other CMAs in Canada.

As as aside, I've always wondered why Statscan hasn't created the Canadian version of a Combined Statiscal Area (CSA). I think there should at least be an equivalent standard here for Kitchener-Guelph and Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa, since these CMAs have such close ties with each other. Or all could be included into a broader 'Greater Golden Horseshoe' CSA...it just depends on what standards and methodology you're using.

[UrbanWaterloo]

2011 Census questionnaire
June 28, 2010 | http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...azette-eng.cfm

In accordance with the Statistics Act, the questions for both the Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture were prescribed by the Governor in Council through an Order in Council. The Order and the schedule questions were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on June 26, 2010.

The 2011 Census will consist of the same eight questions that appeared on the 2006 Census short-form questionnaire. It will be conducted in May 2011.

The information previously collected by the long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). This questionnaire will cover most of the same topics as the 2006 Census, but will exclude the question asking for consent to release personal census information after 92 years as this is only required by the census. The NHS questions will be made available by the end of July.

The National Household Survey will be conducted within four weeks of the May 2011 Census and will include approximately 4.5 million households.


Canada Gazette: Orders In Council
Vol. 144, No. 26 — June 26, 2010 | http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/20...ecret-eng.html

STATISTICS CANADA
2011 Census of Population
P.C. 2010-792 June 17, 2010
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to subsections 19(1) and 21(1) of the Statistics Act (see footnote b), hereby fixes May 2011 as the month in which a census of population shall be taken by Statistics Canada and prescribes the questions to be asked in the 2011 Census of Population, as set out in the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

STEP A

CONFIDENTIAL WHEN COMPLETED

1. Print your telephone number: (______) -______-______________

2. Complete this section if there is no printed address in the address space above or if the printed address does not correspond to this dwelling.

No. and street or lot and concession _________________________
Apt. no. __________
City, municipality, town, village, Indian reserve _____________________
Province/territory ____________________
Postal code _____ ______

STEP B

1. How many persons usually live at this address as of May 10, 2011, including yourself? Include all persons who have their main residence at this address, even if they are temporarily away.
See the instructions on page 3 (joint custody, students, permanent residents, secondary residence, etc.).
Number of persons _______________

2. Including yourself, list below all persons who usually live here. Begin the list with an adult followed, if applicable, by that person’s spouse or common-law partner and by their children. Continue with all other persons who usually live at this address.
FAMILY NAME | GIVEN NAME
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3
Person 4
Person 5
Person 6
Person 7
Person 8
Person 9
Person 10

1. WHOM TO INCLUDE IN STEP B
All persons who have their main residence at this address on May 10, 2011, including newborn babies, room-mates and persons who are temporarily away;
Canadian citizens, permanent residents (landed immigrants), persons asking for refugee status (refugee claimants), persons from another country with a work or study permit and family members living here with them;
Persons staying at this address temporarily on May 10, 2011 who have no main residence elsewhere.

2. WHERE TO INCLUDE PERSONS WITH MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE
CHILDREN IN JOINT CUSTODY should be included in the home of the parent where they live most of the time. Children who spend equal time with each parent should be included in the home of the parent with whom they are staying on May 10, 2011.
STUDENTS who return to live with their parents during the year should be included at their parents’ address, even if they live elsewhere while attending school or working at a summer job.
SPOUSES OR COMMON-LAW PARTNERS TEMPORARILY AWAY who stay elsewhere while working or studying should be listed at the main residence of their family, if they return periodically.
PERSONS IN AN INSTITUTION for less than six months (for example, in a home for the aged, a hospital or a prison) should be listed at their usual residence.

IF THIS ADDRESS IS:
a SECONDARY RESIDENCE (such as a cottage) for ALL PERSONS who stayed here on May 10, 2011 (all these persons have their main residence elsewhere in Canada), mark this circle. Print your name, your telephone number and your main residence address at the bottom of this page. Do not answer other questions.
a DWELLING OCCUPIED ONLY BY RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY VISITING CANADA (for example, on vacation or on a business trip), mark this circle. Print your name, your telephone number and your country of residence at the bottom of this page. Do not answer other questions.
the HOME OF A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY (for example, embassy or high commission) and family members, mark this circle. Print your name, your telephone number and the country that you represent at the bottom of this page. Do not answer other questions.
Name _______________________
Telephone number (____) - ________ - ______________
No. and street, city, province or territory/country
___________________________________
___________________________________

STEP C

Did you leave anyone out of Step B because you were not sure the person should be listed? (For example, a person living at this address who has another home, a person temporarily away, etc.)
No
Yes —> Specify the name, the relationship and the reason.
Name(s) and relationship _________________________________________
Reason _______________________________________________

STEP D

1. Is anyone listed in Step B a farm operator who produces at least one agricultural product intended for sale? (Crops, livestock, milk, poultry, eggs, greenhouse or nursery products, Christmas trees, sod, honey, bees, maple syrup products, furs, etc.)
No —> Go to Step E
Yes

2. Does this farm operator make the day-to-day management decisions related to the farm?
No
Yes

STEP E

Copy the names in Step B to Question 1, on top of page 4. Keep the same order.

1. NAME
In the spaces provided, copy the names in the same order as in Step B. Then answer the following questions for each person.
PERSON 1
Family name _______________________
Given name _______________________

2. SEX
Male
Female

3. DATE OF BIRTH AND AGE
Day
Month
Year
Age

Example:
23
02
1974
37

If exact date is not known, enter best estimate. For children under the age of 1, enter 0.
Day
Month
Year
Age

4. MARITAL STATUS
Mark one circle only.

• Never legally married
• Legally married (and not separated)
• Separated, but still legally married
• Divorced
• Widowed

5. Is this person living with a common-law partner?
Common-law refers to two people who live together as a couple but who are not legally married to each other.
Yes
No

6. RELATIONSHIP TO PERSON 1
For each person usually living here, describe his or her relationship to Person 1.
Mark or specify one response only.
Adopted children should be considered sons and daughters.
Children in joint custody should be included in the home of the parent where they live most of the time.
Children who spend equal time with each parent should be included in the home of the parent with whom they are staying on May 10, 2011.
For all children, please consider the relationship to Person 1 and Person 2.
If none of the choices apply, specify this person’s relationship to Person 1 under “Other”.
Examples of “Other” relationships to Person 1:
• brother-in-law or sister-in-law • niece or nephew • grandfather or grandmother • room-mate’s son or daughter • lodger’s husband or wife • employee • etc.

PERSON 1

PERSON 1
PERSON 2
Opposite-sex husband or wife of Person 1
Opposite-sex common-law partner of Person 1
Same-sex married spouse of Person 1
Same-sex common-law partner of Person 1
Son or daughter of Person 1 only
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1
Grandchild of Person 1
Father or mother of Person 1
Father-in-law or mother-in-law of Person 1
Brother or sister of Person 1
Foster child
Room-mate, lodger or boarder
Other — Specify ______________________________________________
__________________________________________________ __________

PERSON 3, etc.
Son or daughter of both Persons 1 and 2
Son or daughter of Person 1 only
Son or daughter of Person 2 only
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law of Person 1
Grandchild of Person 1
Father or mother of Person 1
Father-in-law or mother-in-law of Person 1
Brother or sister of Person 1
Foster child
Room-mate, lodger or boarder
Other — Specify __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

7. What is the language that this person first learned at home in childhood and still understands?
If this person no longer understands the first language learned, indicate the second language learned.
English
French
Other ______________________________________________

STEP F

If you are answering on behalf of other people, please consult each person.

F1. This question is for all persons listed on the questionnaire.

Only if you mark “YES” to this question will your census responses and family history be part of the historical record of Canada. A “YES” means your census responses will be available to family members and historical researchers, 92 years after the 2011 Census, in 2103.

If you mark “NO” or leave the answer blank, your census responses will never be made available to future generations.

Does this person agree to make his or her 2011 Census information available in 2103 (92 years after the census)?
Yes
No

EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order.)
The Order fixes May 2011 as the month in which Statistics Canada will conduct the 2011 Census of Population and prescribes the questions to be asked in the 2011 Census of Population.

[26-1-o]

Footnote b
R.S., c. S-19


National Household Survey
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/survey-enqu...s/5178-eng.htm

The 2011 Census questions were published in the Canada Gazette on June 26, 2010. The census questions cover basic demographic characteristics such as age, sex, marital and common-law status, household relationships and mother tongue. There is also a question asking for the consent of Canadians to release their personal census information to the National Archives after 92 years.

Information previously collected by the mandatory long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS).

The NHS questionnaire will include questions on:

• demography
• activity limitations
• language
• citizenship and immigration
• ethnicity and religion
• aboriginal identity
• mobility
• education
• labour market
• place of work
• income
• housing.

It will not include the question asking for consent to release personal census information to Library and Archives Canada after 92 years as this is only required by the census.

The NHS questions will be made available by the end of July.

The information collected in the NHS will provide data to support government programs directed at target populations. Information from the NHS will also support provincial/territorial and local government planning and program delivery.

We are counting on Canadians who receive this survey to recognize the importance of this information and to respond to the survey.

The NHS will be conducted within four weeks of the May 2011 Census. Approximately, 4.5 million households will receive the NHS questionnaire.

This is the first time Statistics Canada will conduct this voluntary survey. Statistics Canada will conduct and release the results of this survey applying the same methods and standards used for all of its surveys.

Following the 2006 Census release schedule, the first NHS data would be released in December 2012. Statistics Canada will try to follow this schedule. However, this is a new survey so there is some uncertainty as to the length of time required to certify the data prior to release.

[garthdanlor]

I think they should keep the mandatory long form and drop the (already extremely slim or non-existent) potential for jail sentence as punishment in favour of fines or, perhaps, withholding of tax return cheques for failure to participate. We filled out the long form for the last census and it really wasn't a big hardship.

[Spokes]

I think they should keep the mandatory long form and drop the (already extremely slim or non-existent) potential for jail sentence as punishment in favour of fines or, perhaps, withholding of tax return cheques for failure to participate. We filled out the long form for the last census and it really wasn't a big hardship.

That would be a decent idea.

[IEFBR14]

I think they should keep the mandatory long form and drop the (already extremely slim or non-existent) potential for jail sentence as punishment in favour of fines

There's no record that anyone has ever been sent to jail for noncompliance. Also the number of people who've been fined is paltry compared to the number who've refused to comply. So there's been a lot of barking but no biting.

perhaps, withholding of tax return cheques for failure to participate

That will only incent the refuseniks to submit wrong data. The "cure," as far as the objective of collecting valid data is concerned, will be worse than the current "disease."

We filled out the long form for the last census and it really wasn't a big hardship.

Perhaps it wasn't a hardship for you but it was for me. They asked a lot of questions about income, taxes, utilities, etc. that took me quite a lot of time to collect. Moreover, the likelihood that people would misunderstand those questions and/or provide erroneous information was quite high IMO(*). ISTM they could collect that sort of information by other means, e.g. from CRA and the various utility companies. (Yes I know they gave the option of authorizing CRA but not others.) Privacy concerns could be alleviated by collecting aggregate data, e.g. by postal code.

What Clement and Harper have done will only make matters worse because of self-selection bias. However the so-called "long form" needs to be shortened and simplified. If Stats Can needs information about things like taxes and expenditures, let them collect it by other means.

(*) One example: IIRC they asked how much I spent on electricity in the past year. What if I no longer have that information? What if I'd lived part of the year in accommodations where utilities are included and only had to pay directly during the other part of the year?

[garthdanlor]

Perhaps it wasn't a hardship for you but it was for me. They asked a lot of questions about income, taxes, utilities, etc. that took me quite a lot of time to collect.

Hmmm, we must have a slightly different take on the definition of "hardship". At worst this is a minor annoyance that will probably only have to be undertaken on less than a handful of occasions in one's lifetime.

Privacy concerns could be alleviated by collecting aggregate data, e.g. by postal code.

True, this would ease the minds of some people, but wouldn't this also mean the end of the mandatory census as the data could no longer be tied to an individual household? We would then still be left with the same questions that Harper's voluntary survey raises.

What Clement and Harper have done will only make matters worse because of self-selection bias. However the so-called "long form" needs to be shortened and simplified. If Stats Can needs information about things like taxes and expenditures, let them collect it by other means.

I am with you here. Stats Can could get a lot of this tax and expenses info elsewhere and undoubtedly with more accuracy. However, I'm not sure that the Conservatives would be too happy with this. I heard Clement speak numerous times of how outraged his constituents are at answering questions about their water use, for example. Giving Stats Can a direct line to their utility bill (or tax return) would have these same constituents running for the safe room.

[garthdanlor]

That will only incent the refuseniks to submit wrong data. The "cure," as far as the objective of collecting valid data is concerned, will be worse than the current "disease."

While I'm not sure that delaying tax returns until completion of the census would affect the data more than a fine or threat of jail, you could also use a carrot rather than stick and offer a minor tax credit for those that complete the extended form.

[IEFBR14]

Hmmm, we must have a slightly different take on the definition of "hardship". At worst this is a minor annoyance that will probably only have to be undertaken on less than a handful of occasions in one's lifetime.

The same can be said of jury duty yet when I've done it I was amazed at the number of people who used all manner of excuses to get off. In any case, if there are too many questions on the census, they take too much time to collect the required data and/or are too personal, then some people will take shortcuts, e.g. by making wild guesses or providing false information or simply not answering the questions they don't like. All of those will skew the data in bad ways that aren't easy to correct for.

True, this would ease the minds of some people, but wouldn't this also mean the end of the mandatory census as the data could no longer be tied to an individual household? We would then still be left with the same questions that Harper's voluntary survey raises.

Not necessarily. For instance why does Stats Can need to know your income and that of each of your neighbours individually as opposed to the average income of people who live in your neighbourhood?

However, I'm not sure that the Conservatives would be too happy with this. I heard Clement speak numerous times of how outraged his constituents are at answering questions about their water use, for example. Giving Stats Can a direct line to their utility bill (or tax return) would have these same constituents running for the safe room.

My suggestion is to use aggregate data in order to allay these sorts of concerns.

[mpd618]

Not necessarily. For instance why does Stats Can need to know your income and that of each of your neighbours individually as opposed to the average income of people who live in your neighbourhood?

For example, that allows study of the relation between how you get to work and your income. You can't do that if you average it all out.

[isUsername]

For instance why does Stats Can need to know your income and that of each of your neighbours individually as opposed to the average income of people who live in your neighbourhood?

My suggestion is to use aggregate data in order to allay these sorts of concerns.

The same reason why GDP is not a valid indicator of quality of living. I'm not a stats expert, but averages not only do not show dispersion and are hrown off by extreme values in the set, but averages also do not allow you to connect elements of the set to other elements of other sets. As mpd618 said, averages would not allow you to show a relation between how you get to work and your income.

When the statisticians (among many other groups) say that these changes result in unscientific data, they really do mean it.

[IEFBR14]

When the statisticians (among many other groups) say...

[sarcasm]
You mean like the ones labouring away at the Department of Cynical Politically-motivated Edicts in the PMO?
[/sarcasm]

The same reason why GDP is not a valid indicator of quality of living. I'm not a stats expert, but averages not only do not show dispersion and are hrown off by extreme values in the set, but averages also do not allow you to connect elements of the set to other elements of other sets.

Which is why real statisticians (as opposed to the PMO) use tools like standard deviation, means vs medians, etc. to extract more sense from raw data.

Look, I'm not suggesting that we replace all data with aggregates. The stuff on the short form should remain individual. But perhaps we can replace some of the more personal, obtrusive or difficult-to-obtain individual stuff.

Also we should examine what others are doing. For instance many European countries no longer run a census. Instead they obtain their data from government and other data bases. That's not perfect either. For instance how do you count people like the homeless who aren't in any databases? There are also privacy issues that would have to be addressed. However, their statisticians are smart too. Perhaps we could learn something from them.

My point is that rather than issue edicts that pander to segments of the conservative/libertarian voter base, the government should have consulted more widely, looked at best practices elsewhere, etc. and then acted based on objective evidence.

[isUsername]

My point is that rather than issue edicts that pander to segments of the conservative/libertarian voter base, the government should have consulted more widely, looked at best practices elsewhere, etc. and then acted based on objective evidence.

I whole-heartedly agree. I'm not surprised Harper is pandering to his base; it's what party leaders do. However, when parts of your own base (e.g. religious groups) start getting angry at what you're doing, you probably want to step back and re-think what you're doing and how you're doing it.

[mpd618]

My point is that rather than issue edicts that pander to segments of the conservative/libertarian voter base, the government should have consulted more widely, looked at best practices elsewhere, etc. and then acted based on objective evidence.

The point isn't to improve the census.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Statement by the Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, Regarding Changes to the 2011 Census of population
OTTAWA | August 11, 2010 | http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/05762.html

Today, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, issued the following statement regarding the 2011 Census of population:

“The Government is announcing today its intention to introduce legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the census and all mandatory surveys administered by the federal government.

“In addition, to support the implementation of Official Languages Act the 2011 Census will now include the following two questions:

1) ‘Can this person speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation?’; and,

2a) ‘What language does this person speak most often at home? 2b) Does this person speak any other languages on a regular basis at home?’

“The addition of questions to the 2011 Census regarding ability to speak in one of Canada’s two Official Languages and the language spoken at home will ensure the Government’s compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Official Languages Act and its Regulations. This includes providing services to and communicating with the public in both official languages, supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, and fostering the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society.

“Our government believes that this fair and reasonable approach is a better balance between collecting necessary data and protecting the privacy rights of Canadians.”

[djf863000]

I wish they would add Province of Birth, or Country of Birth if born outside Canada, in the short form.

Old Census are very useful for researching your family tree, telling you who was in the same household, their name age are where they were born. In 93 years when the 2011 will be release to public, people looking for their ancestors (which will include us), will be limited, because of not enough info on the census.