On rash decisions

David McKie's work to test the Cons' census claims is worth a read in general. But let's highlight what looks to be the most striking element of his efforts to figure out exactly what happened before the execution order was issued for the long form census:

Presumably, if the Tories were acting on principle, and if there was a genuine concern about the long-form census as far back as 2006, there would be evidence of some sort of discussion. Perhaps meetings with senior statisticians. Perhaps an examination of how other countries were balancing the desire for privacy and the need to collect essential data. Perhaps the commissioning of studies, examining the pros and cons.

That was my thinking when I filed a request asking for studies that the government commissioned within Stats Canada examining various aspects of the census. Surely, a government would need evidence before making such a major decision.

The response to my request for such studies was disappointing: "Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request."

It could have been that the wording of my request was skewed. Or maybe the time period was incorrect. Or perhaps, as the response suggests, there were no studies. And that seems to make sense in light of a story that came from The Canadian Press earlier this week in which we learned that Statistics Canada ran a "$1-million test and had extensive consultations" a mere months before the government's decision.

So instead of working on studies that examined the pros and cons of the long-form census based on anxiety that was expressed as far back as 2006, Statistics Canada was operating on the assumption that everything was fine.