Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L I T E R A RY R E V I E W O F C A N A D A
MAGAZINE EVENTS SUBSCRIBE D O N AT E SEARCH
(http://twitter.com/intent
/tweet?url=http%3A%2F
%2Freviewcanada.ca%2Fmagazine%2F2
promised effects will be to infuse light into the
we-dont-know%2F&
data dark age of the Harper government’s text=What+We+Don%E2%80
suppression of data and information. While the %99t+Know&via=LRCmag)
***
Some complain that criticism of the Harper government’s treatment
of data is overcooked, and that it was merely tidying things up and
eliminating intrusions on the privacy of Canadians. They claim that
the criticism was just so much partisan hacking.
This was not the view of the international statistics community,
which, unconcerned with the ins and outs of Canadian politics,
wondered how a modern nation could handicap itself in this way. In
Canada, objections came not just from the wonkery starved of their
oxygen, but from many commercial and economic organizations
needing the data to understand markets, from institutions needing
to understand trends influencing their clients, and from
governments at all levels faced with constructing effective policy and
programs.
The 2010 termination of the long-form census was the biggest
stroke, which created an uproar in the media and in the research
community. Long-form data fed other crucial studies such as the
Labour Force Survey and the Survey of Household Spending on
which the Consumer Price Index is based.
Other than the long-form census, a big area of loss between
2010 and 2012 was in social data:
The Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, known in the
research community as PALS, was interrupted and replaced with an
inferior data set. This was the major source of information on people
with disabilities and the supports they need.
Social Security Statistics: Canada and the Provinces, which
monitored federal/provincial/territorial/municipal programs,
disappeared.
3 de 15 The Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (known as SLID) 16-12-17 02:39
was terminated in 2012, losing a key tracking
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada of individual
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
***
Another key objective of the new federal government is to begin to
close the gap on our infrastructure maintenance and provision.
Across the country we have crumbling and deteriorating roads,
bridges, tunnels, energy distribution systems, schools, hospitals and
4 de 15 social housing. We also need to build new infrastructure to meet the
16-12-17 02:39
needs of a growing population and economy.
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada We need new
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
***
In two critical areas, then, social policy and infrastructure provision,
we are hearing voices calling for a much stronger data capability. On
one hand, it is a response to the ebbing of StatsCan and the
6 de 15 withdrawal of key elements on which policy makers and analysts 16-12-17 02:39
relied. On the other, it is a call for newhttp://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada capacity, collecting and
analyzing data we have not had in the past.
One solution put forward is a simple reinvestment in StatsCan.
After all, the new government has restored the long-form census.
Surely it can restore the interrupted data series, or patriate those
such as Welfare Incomes that are now housed elsewhere. This
presumes that all we lack is the will of the government in power to
be committed to evidence as the basis of decision making.
There is no doubt that StatsCan is a formidable and able
enterprise. Formed in 1918 as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics,
renamed and reconstituted in 1971, it has been regarded as one of
the very best national statistical organizations by observers such as
The Economist. Over the decades, it has built up a strong body of
data, much of it the result of contribution agreements with data
generators across the country, principally provinces and territories. It
issues many regular and useful reports across a broad range of topics.
And yet it is not the most accessible of organizations. Many
researchers have stories of visiting the StatsCan facility in search of
data only to be subjected to a Soviet-style process of surrendering
cellphones and computers, being denied copying of documents, and
other minor privations only to find out some time later that much of
the information in question was already in the public domain. They
would not characterize StatsCan as being customer friendly. Some
have unflatteringly compared the approach to that of the Toronto
Transit Commission: TTC officials think their customers are buses
and trains, not riders; StatsCan thinks its customer is the data, not
the user of the data.
StatsCan and the TTC are not alone in this orientation. In fact,
it is at the base of a great discussion in the data world. On one side
of the discussion, there are traditionalists who believe that data is
7 de 15 proprietary, and that there are deep privacy and security issues at 16-12-17 02:39
stake in its distribution. They believe that
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada data falling into the
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
wrong hands can be used against the interest of the state, or whoever
owns the data. They believe that they have the ability to pose the
right questions to the data set to produce answers that will serve
society. Or at least they have the motivation to find out the right
questions. In the case of an agency like StatsCan, they have earned
enough respect that they may well be right.
On the other side are those who advocate for open data, making
available as much data as possible to the public, recognizing, of
course, that proper attention be paid to anonymity and security.
Advocates say data should be provided in its most raw form with as
little intermediation between it and the user as possible. The
benefits in transparency and accountability would be significant,
they say. Of more interest to many are potential benefits in
innovation and engagement by people who would pose new queries
to the data in order to develop new answers to old questions, new
solutions, and new tools for governments and citizens.
This tussle over data is going on everywhere. Some governments
have adopted open data protocols: municipal governments in San
Francisco, New York, Edmonton; 40 U.S. states and four Canadian
provinces; and many national governments, including Canada. For
the most part these are partial commitments, with only selected data
sets made available, but in most cases there is a commitment for
more to come. It should be said that having an open data policy does
not necessarily mean that a government has become more client- or
citizen-focused in its approach. The government can still be very
selective about what it makes available.
How then should the government go about achieving a more
effective data strategy? Is there a better model than StatsCan? Some
point to the Canadian Institute of Health Information. CIHI was
8 de 15 formed in 1994 with the mission of disseminating quality healthcare 16-12-17 02:39
information. A private non-profit organization,
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada it is governed by a
http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
***
If a CISI and a CIII are good ideas, what should be some of the
basic design elements?
12 de 15 They should operate on an open data technology platform. 16-12-17 02:39
Technology has brought us a long wayhttp://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada from handwritten lists or
even from the construction of PDFs. The world has moved to open
data, where raw data is made available so that users can formulate
their own questions that generate answers that meet their needs.
Open data should be the default, and withholding data from the
open regime should only be done after a reasonable argument has
been made. In effect, this reverses the traditional situation, where
the reasonable argument has to be made why the data should be
placed in an open platform. Care has to be taken with data, of
course. It must be anonymized so that the identity of individuals is
protected. It must not reveal information that would place either the
state or individuals at risk, as long as that perception of risk is real.
But it must realize that sometimes we do not even know the
questions that need to be asked, and allowing data to have a wide
range of questions posed to it may provide valuable answers to
questions ranging from freeing up traffic flows to how we should
treat people with autism.
They should pick up on the CIHI model of being a non-profit
independent agency. CIHI has a board representing the key
stakeholders and other important viewpoints, but, as in all
governance, board members’ first allegiance must be to the well-
being of CIHI, not the stakeholder (the province or territory, or
professional group such as doctors or nurses) they come from. Such
independence is vital both for broad ownership of the enterprise and
for the authenticity and legitimacy of the data.
Collaboration should drive much of the data collection. All levels
of government collect data: municipalities know about water, waste,
transit and immigration settlement; provinces know about their big
files such as health care and education, and also about land use and
energy systems; and the federal government knows about income
13 de 15 supports, airports and harbours. The First Nations know about their 16-12-17 02:39
people and their needs, about the land,http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada and about justice.
Corporations know about the jobs, markets and consumers. Our
wide range of institutions such as hospitals, schools, police services
and the military know their issues and how people respond to them.
All can contribute data, and can benefit from having that data made
available, analyzed and turned into useful information.
These institutes should operate along the spectrum of data
leading to information leading to knowledge. They need to have
data available on open platforms, but also need to apply the analysis
that can produce reports to show trends and comparisons. And from
time to time they need to say what it all means, to describe to
Canadians the evolving story of the country.
And the institutes should be clients of StatsCan, not competitors
with it. StatsCan will continue to be the world-respected leader it is.
But these particular institutes will allow for deeper, more flexible,
and more accessible engagement.
Is this a costly enterprise? The annual budget of CIHI just
exceeds $100 million. Given the importance of health care to
Canadians and the benefits CIHI produces, that is probably a good
bargain. Siemiatycki estimates his version of a CIII would come in
at $20 million or less. Given the broader range of data in a CISI, it
might cost $40–50 million a year. For less than $200 million, we
would have three major areas of importance to Canadians supplied
with the data they need on a modern technology platform. Against
an annual federal budget of about $300 billion, that is an affordable
amount. In fact, it may be an investment we can’t afford not to make
because it will contribute to policy and programs that are more
effective and of better value.
It seems that for Justin Trudeau’s government’s sunny ways,
evidence, data and information will be a strong platform. After at
14 de 15 least a decade during which Canadians got used to governments 16-12-17 02:39
happy to operate in the dark, the light http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2017/03/what-w...
What We Don’t Know | Literary Review of Canada is coming back on. The
creation of a set of vital information institutes would create a legacy
for the current government that would be hard to undo. Based as it
is on a broad collaboration, and having independent status, an
organization like CIHI would be hard to kill. With care in their
construction and conduct, so would a CISI, CIII and beyond.
15 de 15 16-12-17 02:39