The Canadian Policy Changes Thread

[PepsiFree]

There is a new government in place that ran on the promise of big changes. It might be worth having a place for all of them to fall into (for the sake of discussing them).

Here's the first:
The mandatory long-form census returns.
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/8478692

[Locke]

So he wants to gather information on the populace! Why dont we all just journey back to the towns of our birth for registration!

[dsavillian]

Not to steal your thunder, but https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/ looks like it's doing a pretty good job of that already.


Unless you meant this as an ongoing "discuss the outcomes" thread... in which case carry on

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by dsavillian

Unless you meant this as an ongoing "discuss the outcomes" thread... in which case carry on

Edited the first post for clarity

[PepsiFree]

Personally it made sense for Harper to do away with it as if you're not going to use it, why have it? The cost associated was somewhat ridiculous though.

I will be interested to see the cost of going back to the former system.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Personally it made sense for Harper to do away with it as if you're not going to use it, why have it? The cost associated was somewhat ridiculous though.

I will be interested to see the cost of going back to the former system.

It cost the government 27 million dollars to switch AWAY from the long form census I believe.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Personally it made sense for Harper to do away with it as if you're not going to use it, why have it? The cost associated was somewhat ridiculous though.

I will be interested to see the cost of going back to the former system.

I assume you are referring to the long form census, so I just wanted to give my opinion from a health policy and working in a data driven organization.

I can say (and it's my opinion as I'm not allowed to represent my organization) that the elimination of the long form was a significant set back in collecting statistics and information for policy purposes.
The purpose of the long form census was to gather a wide set of data on all aspects in a standardized manner, and make it available to a large assortment of government and NGO policy organizations to inform decision making.

The census was unique and important in a few aspects. For one, it was highly disseminated and reached most of the population. It also lead to very high level of accurate survey responses, which is a quality that's very difficult to do when collecting information. Secondly, you can link postal code to the the questions to create population data, which is really useful as it allows comparability between one geographic region to another.
The questions may seem absolutely random to the average citizen, but when Statistics Canada breaks it down and provides it to other organizations, the data is incredibly useful for a large number of purposes.
For example, in another thread a poster mentioned why the government cared about whether someone had difficulty moving around in their own home. Well that data can inform whether a renovation tax credit would be effective or to inform the development of PSAs, and provide evidence on whether there is a need to improve home care.
There are other questions that looked at migration patterns, sociological information such as the division of labour at home for instance.
Before the elimination of the long form census, government organizations could also apply to include specific questions which would help generate policy decisions.

Since the elimination of the census, the biggest gap in information is in regional comparisons. My specialty is in Health, and I know that provinces had tried to make their own surveys to gather the information they need that they use to get from the census, but there was no standard between provinces to allow for comparisons. It is also a very resource heavy task to design and develop the questions, create a database and storage of the information collected, go through the regulatory and privacy requirements, and ultimately disseminate and collect the information and ensure a healthy response rate. At least with health, we have other sources of information we can use (hospital administrative data, patient feedback forms, drug data..etc) and the resources to gather the information we need. But for other areas of public policy, the census was their main source of population data.

TL;DR
Very happy the census is coming back and that it can only lead to better standardized data, which can lead to good decision making, and ultimately that benefits all Canadians

LChoy

[Puppet Guy]

Article from MacLeans back in September which touches on issues caused by the loss of the long-term census (and other gov't data-shredding activities).

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/v...s-war-on-data/

[llwhiteoutll]

Before they spend a ton of time and money on it, it would be nice to see a justification on the plan to launch an inquiry into the missing/murdered aboriginal women. Especially since it has already been done, the results published and the results being exactly what was expected. A second kick at the can won't change the findings.

[Armchair Quarterback]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Before they spend a ton of time and money on it, it would be nice to see a justification on the plan to launch an inquiry into the missing/murdered aboriginal women. Especially since it has already been done, the results published and the results being exactly what was expected. A second kick at the can won't change the findings.

When was it already done?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Armchair Quarterback

When was it already done?

The RCMP authors a report specifically looking at female Aboriginal homicides and missing persons cases.

The basic gist of it is

- Solve rates for Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal homicides is virtually identical (81% vs. 83%.)
- Aboriginal women represented 174 of the 1,750 active female missing persons cases in CPIC across all police jurisdictions as of April 2015. Of those 174, 63 were non-suspicious circumstances
- In 100% of cases where the homicide of an Aboriginal female was solved, the offender was known to the victim. This compares to 93% for non-Aboriginals. 73% of female Aboriginal victims of homicide were murdered by a spouse, ex-spouse or family member, this compares to 77% for non-Aboriginals

The solve rates are not unknown, the authorities are not ignoring Aboriginal victims and it is clearly known who is responsible for these crimes. Instead of looking to run an inquiry to get an outcome that is favorable to a certain agenda, any efforts would be better spend figuring out how to resolve the root issues. And not just dumping more money at the problem.

[Finger Cookin]

Is there a handy website that tracks all of the promises and whether they're met, in progress, stalled, or failed? I remember one for the US that tracked stuff when Obama first came into office.

[Armchair Quarterback]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The RCMP authors a report specifically looking at female Aboriginal homicides and missing persons cases.

The basic gist of it is

- Solve rates for Aboriginal vs. non-Aboriginal homicides is virtually identical (81% vs. 83%.)
- Aboriginal women represented 174 of the 1,750 active female missing persons cases in CPIC across all police jurisdictions as of April 2015. Of those 174, 63 were non-suspicious circumstances
- In 100% of cases where the homicide of an Aboriginal female was solved, the offender was known to the victim. This compares to 93% for non-Aboriginals. 73% of female Aboriginal victims of homicide were murdered by a spouse, ex-spouse or family member, this compares to 77% for non-Aboriginals

The solve rates are not unknown, the authorities are not ignoring Aboriginal victims and it is clearly known who is responsible for these crimes. Instead of looking to run an inquiry to get an outcome that is favorable to a certain agenda, any efforts would be better spend figuring out how to resolve the root issues. And not just dumping more money at the problem.

I'm just wondering, not arguing with you. If there is a link to it or if you could direct me towards where I could read it, I'd appreciate it.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Is there a handy website that tracks all of the promises and whether they're met, in progress, stalled, or failed? I remember one for the US that tracked stuff when Obama first came into office.

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

[Hemi-Cuda]

Trudeau's most positive impact so far is lifting the gag order on the Canadian scientific community

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...deau-1.3307679

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Trudeau's most positive impact so far is lifting the gag order on the Canadian scientific community

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...deau-1.3307679

This stuff under Harper was indefensible.

After almost a decade of decreasing access to government ministers and those who work for their departments, it's a remarkable thing for journalists to contemplate once again getting comments from people who make important decisions.

I covered the national health beat for almost 14 years. In the last six or eight years of that assignment, I was never able to interview the federal minister of health. The only time the minister or a government health spokesperson appeared in my stories was following a staged media or public event with prepared statements.

Requests for comments or interviews were invariably rebuffed, and often not until days or sometimes weeks after my deadline had passed.

This is not just whining from the media. It's difficult to tell you — our audiences — how your tax dollars are being spent, or report on the policies or priorities of your elected representatives, if they won't talk to you. The news media stand in for citizens with the privilege and responsibility of asking questions and demanding accountability.

It seems that job is about to get a whole lot easier, which means you should be getting more information about what your government is up to.

[FlamesAddiction]

Not really a policy change, but the Liberals have removed the painting of the Queen at the foreign affairs office and reinstated the paintings that had been there from 1973 to 2011. The Conservatives had removed the paintings by Quebec artist Alfred Pellan when Prince William visited.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ueen-1.3310633

I personally think this is a great thing.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This stuff under Harper was indefensible.

This was the primary reason i moved away from the Conservatives this election... well tied with having Kent Hehr in my riding.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Hesla

This was the primary reason i moved away from the Conservatives this election... well tied with having Kent Hehr in my riding.

Agreed. I consider myself a fiscal conservative but the archaic social policy of the Cons was getting too far. Way too far. It forced a large portion of their base, particularly the younger portion, to vote for another party. Really it was just complacent and short sighted by them.

I'm happy to see lots of what Trudeau is doing, but still am nervous as to how he's going to handle our national economic policy and in particular how it will affect Alberta.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by heep223

Agreed. I consider myself a fiscal conservative but the archaic social policy of the Cons was getting too far. Way too far. It forced a large portion of their base, particularly the younger portion, to vote for another party. Really it was just complacent and short sighted by them.

I'm happy to see lots of what Trudeau is doing, but still am nervous as to how he's going to handle our national economic policy and in particular how it will affect Alberta.

You will likely switch your view at some point in the 3-4 years.

Fringe social policies will take a MAJOR back seat to the economic turmoil that will likely result in Alberta from the Liberal feds, when the provincial regime is so weak and mis-guided.

The Liberals are going to use their mandate to force a few things: a carbon tax of some sort (one that is likely punitive to Alberta), they will facilitate a pipeline deal which is designed to "share" Alberta resource revenue with Quebec, Ontario and BC.

It will be, in effect, a slightly more insidious version of the NEP all over again.