Delete, Dump and Destroy: Canada's Government Data Severely Compromised

sandbagger writes: Stories about government data and historical records being deleted, burned — even tossed into Dumpsters — have become so common in recent years that many Canadians may feel inured to them. But such accounts are only the tip of a rapidly melting iceberg. A months-long Maclean's investigation, which includes interviews with dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, economists and librarians, has found that the federal government's 'austerity' program, which resulted in staff cuts and library closures (16 libraries since 2012) — as well as arbitrary changes to policy, when it comes to data — has led to a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result.

Comments

That's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

in 29 days we're tossing Harper and his religious doomsday-cult Luddites into the dumpster of history.

I hope.

Re:That's OK

[TheCycoONE]

It seems unlikely. Most Canadian's are not paying attention to his anti-science policies, the money being thrown away fighting equality for Muslims, or any of the rest of the nonsense. They'll vote blue because they've always voted blue and because "lower taxes = good". The left is split down the middle and I predict yet another conservative minority.

I could be wrong, Alberta noticed when their one industry economy started tanking; and the NDP wave there might be enough to turn the tides to a short lived NDP minority.

Any sort of sane or stable government doesn't stand a chance.

Re:That's OK

[SleepyHappyDoc]

A Conservative minority just means another election in a few weeks. Trudeau and Mulcair aren't going to work with Harper.

Re:That's OK

[frovingslosh]

Yup. My thought was that the government has info on me, if they toss it out then the criminals get it. Personally I would rather that the private criminals have it than the government criminals. Not that I'm a hoser, but it isn't all that unlikely that they also have info on me. After all, we have very detailed records on all Canadians. Some of it we even got from going through the trash.

Re:That's OK

[tom229]

Have you seen the polls? Everyone's pretty much tied at the moment. If this keeps up we may have the first time in history (I'm assuming, I haven't looked it up) where 3 parties all have nearly equal seats in the house.

Regardless, Harper isn't the problem. He's a problem, but he's not the problem. I'm in the middle of reading a book called "Irresponsible Government" by Brent Rathgeber, who is a long standing elected member of the house that has recently resigned from the conservative party to run independent. He explains that the real problem in Canada is the consolation of power in the executive branch, specifically in the PM office. He goes through our history, the causes, and what we can do to solve this fundamental problem which obviously points to some level of legislative reform. Highly recommended reading if you want to understand how Harper has been able to push his personal agenda so effectively for so long.

Re:That's OK

[SlithyMagister]

A Conservative minority just means another election in a few weeks. Trudeau and Mulcair aren't going to work with Harper

Or with each other, unfortunately.

Re:That's OK

[CanadianMacFan]

Unfortunately polls mean nothing and may actually hurt come election day because if people think that there's a bunch of other people that are going to vote against Harper then their vote won't really matter.

My biggest concern is that the Liberals and the NDP are going to split the vote and allow the Conservatives to capture enough seats to win the election.

Re:That's OK

[mrclevesque]

Not sure why you brought criminals into it considering

"Personally I would rather that the private criminals have it than the government criminals"

Why?

Re:That's OK

[rikkards]

Yep, the MHP project is a big example of this. I am surprised Chretien didn't get jail time for it.

Re:That's OK

[epine]

I was thinking I might read this book. Then I looked up the authors (you left out National Post columnist Andrew Coyne). I still might read this book, though a freshly Windexed critical lens.

I only had to read a few of his pieces on supply management (which I know something about) to discover that Coyne has a few things clear in his head.

Basically, he's a class act with the framing effect.

I won't bore people with the gospel according to Daniel Kahneman. Instead we'll ignore the eminent literature and just cut to the chase.

Here's how it works in practice. You start talking about "the consumer" (embedded in hot-button phrases such as "if politician X really cared about the consumer"—magic tricks always work best with a flourish of misdirection) and everyone automatically puts on their "good consumer" face, which for carnivores, is bringing home the bacon at the best possible price. Seriously, no-one wants to be left off Santa Claus's "good consumer" list. So it's immediately clear that Canadian consumers want American prices, right?

How about we start the conversation differently?

Who here kicks their dog? Who here would use an electric cattle prod to cut another $0.02 of the price of sirloin steak? This time the reaction is a little different—no-one wants to make Santa's permanent record under "cruelty to animals".

So where's the conflict? The conflict here is that these are the same fucking people.

Call them a consumer, they want a low price. Mention the dog beater down the street, then they give a shit about animal welfare, even if it hits them in the pocket book (to a degree).

The Canadian system is pretty much the worst system for achieving the lowest possible price. The American system is pretty much the worst system for achieving animal welfare and certain other controls over the quality of the food supply. (Mention listeria or ebola and you'll quickly discover that all the same people want to make yet a third Santa Claus list—just so long as we're on whatever list Santa is presently examining, it's all good).

The American system isn't even a "free" market by how the average person images any kind of "free" thing anywhere actually works.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Chickens

Before anyone dumps me on their mental list of the short moment, I found the following equally interesting:

Greg Page on Food, Agriculture, and Cargill

It's a complex world out there. Even Harper deserves a critic with two eyes.

Re:That's OK

[kbahey]

The real problem in Canada is the consolation of power in the executive branch, specifically in the PM office.

I fully agree with this.

The Canadian system has the Prime Minister being the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament. The parliament is not only a legislature, but also an oversight body over the executive branch. But in our Canadian system, parliament can't be critical of the PM with him being the boss of the majority of the seats. Moreover, he appoints people to the Senate. This means that he is an emperor for his entire term.

Harper just made it so evident how it can play out, but the system is broken with no checks and balances like they have south of the border.

Fixing it will be a long haul process of getting the constitution amended, with provinces agreeing to these changes, just like any of the proposed reforms to the senate.

Re:That's OK

[TapeCutter]

The Abbot luddites have just been rolled here in Oz. Abbot and Harper are ideological soulmates, the same anti-science tactics were used here in Oz while they were in charge, although I must say that eating a raw onion was a unique and entertaining diversion.

Re:That's OK

[kbahey]

My biggest concern is that the Liberals and the NDP are going to split the vote and allow the Conservatives to capture enough seats to win the election.

That is my fear too. Would be really disappointing to have Harper for one more term.

Re:That's OK

[Mashiki]

A Conservative minority just means another election in a few weeks. Trudeau and Mulcair aren't going to work with Harper.

Trudeau and Mulcair are welcome to do it, the last time the Liberals did it, it resulted in a conservative majority. If you really want to piss off the electorate, it's acting like a child when you lose and sending voters back to the polls.

Re:That's OK

[tlhIngan]

Have you seen the polls? Everyone's pretty much tied at the moment. If this keeps up we may have the first time in history (I'm assuming, I haven't looked it up) where 3 parties all have nearly equal seats in the house.

Regardless, Harper isn't the problem. He's a problem, but he's not the problem. I'm in the middle of reading a book called "Irresponsible Government" by Brent Rathgeber, who is a long standing elected member of the house that has recently resigned from the conservative party to run independent. He explains that the real problem in Canada is the consolation of power in the executive branch, specifically in the PM office. He goes through our history, the causes, and what we can do to solve this fundamental problem which obviously points to some level of legislative reform. Highly recommended reading if you want to understand how Harper has been able to push his personal agenda so effectively for so long.

First, polls don't mean crap. Thanks to First Past The Post voting system, even if you have a perfect 33.3% split, things like gerrymandering and others will guarantee one comes out on top.

Need more help? More people voted against Harper than for him in 2011. Harper keeps saying "the majority of Canadians" but if you look at the real numbers, he's wrong. The majority of Canadians did not agree with him.

In fact, here's a nice playlist that shows how elections are held. We love first past the post because it's conceptually simple, but like economics, there are lot of caveats that this simple system does not account for. (I recommend it because it also goes into the issues like gerrymandering and even how we attempt to fix FPTP. Heck, think about bribing the official that does the gerrymandering... and it can actually make things... better?)

Look down south to see FPTP taken to its logical conclusion - and you have to remember, when the US first started voting, there were a LOT of parties.

And while its true Harper wasn't the first to consolidate power in the PMO (it actually started with Trudeau, and yes, his son admits that), he does it most effectively.

In previous elections, the other parties will have their gaffes - some pretty big ones. But the Tories, no - because Harper runs a tight ship, and he spreads the messaging. If you wonder why Harper has a 3-question limit for reporters, or why he doesn't answer the question - it's because he's controlling the message. Back during the Duffy trial, Harper wouldn't answer any questions - he'd cut the question period short and basically deprive the journalist of any question-asking power if it related to the trial.

So while the NDP and Liberals get foot-in-mouth syndrome, the Tories pull ahead because they run a on-message campaign.

Things are more interesting this time around, because Harper decided to make it an extra-long election period (it's twice as long as average). The problem was, well, he couldn't control the message for that long - his first blindside was the Duffy trial which derailed him off his message because no one cared about what he was saying, but everyone cared about the next revelation coming from the trial.

Then there's the Syrian refugee crisis which caught him blindsided, especially since he enacted all the policies.

The goal was obvious - the NDP and Liberals, they don't have money for a long election, so the Tories would outspend outspend outspend. Except he also forgot that when he called the election, no one has candidates for all ridings (which is why the screening process failed and you have numerous people being kicked out on all parties - the ballots aren't set, and the candidates aren't all in yet).

And I'm getting really tired of Tory ads - they just say the same thing, same quotes, same points, probably same people. Just different clips. I get the "repeat it enough times and it's true" but when you're rehashing the same quotes ove

Re:That's OK

[MagickalMyst]

"Cons, Libs, what's the difference?"

Exactly.

Left wing and right wing are both wings of the same freakin' bird - the bird which is controlled by the ruling elite.

Re:That's OK

[master_kaos]

You say that like it doesn't apply to other parties.I would say 1/2 the people I know are die hard to their party and would never ever vote for another party regardless what is done. I've always voted conservative, but this is the first time I am on the fence. My problem is I am sick and tired of Harper, but at the same time I really like the conservative candidate in our riding. He did a lot for our community this past couple years. So now I have do decide do I vote for what is best locally, or what is "best" for country (best in quotes because I honestly dont think liberal is going to do much better)

Re:That's OK

[tom229]

According to Rathgeber, the problem is that the executive branch has grown too large. By his estimate, any member of a controlling political party has about a 1:2 chance of getting a cabinet appointment at some time in their career as long as they stay in their leaders good book. Cabinet positions, of course, offer more money, more prestige, and a big line item on your resume that greatly advances your career. This gives all MP's more incentive to tow party lines and suck up to their leader rather than representing their constituents. Add the fact that most people vote for their leader nowadays rather than their rep and the problem is compounded.

A couple of solutions are available. (These are mine, I haven't finished the book yet)

1) Double the size of the house by enacting a popular vote to elect the other half of the house.
2) Completely separate executive and legislative branches like in the U.S.

Each has problems and of course you still have the problem of the PM appointed Senate's ability to shoot down any bill their overlord demands (assuming he's been in power long enough to appoint enough of them). So ya I'd agree. We need some serious reform.

Re:That's OK

[tlhIngan]

It seems unlikely. Most Canadian's are not paying attention to his anti-science policies, the money being thrown away fighting equality for Muslims, or any of the rest of the nonsense. They'll vote blue because they've always voted blue and because "lower taxes = good". The left is split down the middle and I predict yet another conservative minority.

It turns out it's a Tory thing. If you vote blue, you're unlikely to vote orange or red. On the flip side, the reverse is true too - if you're orange or red, you're unlikely to vote blue.

If you ever wonder why Harper does stupid things like waste millions on court cases he cannot win (Mohammed Arar, Insite (safe injection site), gun registry (Quebec), and now face coverings), it's not to appease the general Canadian, it's to rally a call for those Tory voters. It doesn't matter that minimum sentences or other stuff violate the Constitution (Canadian), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any other founding document.

The goal is to appease their core voters.

That's it. Harper doesn't care that it violates the laws - by the time the Supreme Court gets around to it, the election is over and it doesn't matter anymore. (It's how the gun registry debacle ended - the Tories had the records destroyed, so even if Quebec won, it's irrelevant).

Hell, he'll make laws that already are covered by other laws and are completely unnecessary (even the police say they don't need those powers). Again, vote-buying.

Re:That's OK

[anyGould]

Another possible solution is to remove the perks of being a cabinet minister. You're supposed to be there serving your country; why do you need a raise? If the money is why you're there, then go back to the private sector.

To be clear, this is separate from the budget needed for the department to do it's job - obviously the PM has some travel requirements that the typical MP doesn't. But I think every MP, regardless of position - government, opposition, leader, minister, backbencher - was hired to be a Member of Parliament, and should be paid the same accordingly.

Re:That's OK

[aristotle-dude]

in 29 days we're tossing Harper and his religious doomsday-cult Luddites into the dumpster of history.

I hope.

So you are going to replace Harper with either an angry socialist or someone who sucks up to anti-semetic muslim extremists?

Why don't you go back to making lattes for your customers barrista?

The NDP is a full member socialists international along with various communist parties around the world.

Justin Trudeau cannot answer hard questions from reporters. He recently had an on air meltdown while being interviewed by CTV on the east coast.

Re:That's OK

[tom229]

Rathgeber is the single author. Coyne merely wrote the forward. I read the rest of your post but I have to admit I didn't quite follow all of it.

Sounds like a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the downside exactly?

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I, for one, certainly can't imagine why having data might be useful when attempting to make decisions about what to do....

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[JMJimmy]

It seems like a good thing on the surface, except for the reasoning behind it. It's not about collecting/not collecting data, it's about de-funding those who don't vote conservative. It's classic right wing tactics, they funnel money to their supporters by doing things like creating laws that will be struck down by the courts and hiring pro-conservative lawyers to defend them, increased military spending, etc. Those law firms, soldiers, etc. then give back to the conservative party in votes/donations. Then on the de-funding side they slash left-wing programs like libraries, sciences, etc. so those who would support a left-wing party don't have the funds to donate to them. There's also the motto of "rule as badly as you can" which makes government seem incompetent/short sighted which propels their anti-big-government agenda.

Also, unlike the US government, the Canadian government sells non-personal data it collects to businesses instead of giving it away. It's actually a fairly profitable revenue source for the government.

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[ahodgson]

Government losing data does seem more like a feature than a bug.

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[JMJimmy]

Actually, they've been cutting spending on the military and veterans as well. They closed many of the veteran service offices, and when it ended up in court, argued that they had no special obligation or "social contract" with veterans, and that it was unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago.

Veterans are too much like welfare recipients which right wingers don't like. As to the cutting spending, the F-35 $46 billion, $3.5 billion on new ships for the navy, pay increases for active duty servicemen... hardly cutting costs.

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[CanadianMacFan]

Oh, have they actually admitted how much the F-35s are going to cost now? That's a huge mistake. It's the wrong plane but they're only buying it under the assumption that we need to in order to keep our suppliers involved.

As for the ships, the haven't even started working on them yet while the costs go up and the number of ships to be delivered keep going down. All in the name to have a shipbuilding industry in Canada. We can't because we don't build enough in order to do it efficiently. We should have designed the ships, outsourced the basic construction to South Korea, and then sailed the ships to Canada to install the high value made electronics, weapons, etc. Try to have most of the high value stuff made in Canada and we could export that. Yes, it sucks for the shipbuilders but one of the primary reasons for the cost overruns is that they are having to start up everything from scratch. Once the ships are built they are going to have to shut everything down due to lack of work.

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[JMJimmy]

Why anyone, either in the armed forces or the government, ever bothered to look at a single engine plane is beyond me.

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[mrclevesque]

"The only data they aim to lose is that showing their policies don't work"

Exactly, no data means no research showing which of their social policies (judicial, economic, health, etc) are making matters worse or are simply not working

Re:Sounds like a good thing

[adonoman]

This isn't data like health or tax records - those they're keeping. It's things like fisheries data from the 1950s - what was caught where and when, which birds were living in northern Saskatchewan in 1985, etc... It's largely mundane data, but when researchers need to look for trends in trying to manage fishing quotas, being able to get that old data is invaluable.

"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[ErikTheRed]

I do no think it means what you think it means. In governmental terms, it means "give us unlimited money so that we don't have to prioritize among the thousands of special interests begging and scraping for more cash."

In any other context it means that you are seriously lacking resources and have cut things to the bone. For you or me, it means we get rid of cable TV, the gym membership, take cheaper vacations, don't buy a new car, live in a smaller place, don't eat and drink out as often, etc.

Governments have a much, much different approach: they begin by exacting revenge on the unwashed masses that dare not give them every dime their hearts desire. They find popular things (especially parks and libraries) and immediately begin the slashing there. This is, of course, utterly petulant - these items aren't even rounding errors in the budgets and no real savings are made. In the US, we call it "Washington Monument Syndrome" - popular tourist destinations like the Washington Monument are shut down during budget battles for basically no reason other than a giant political temper tantrum. There still is, of course, plenty of money (billions! trillions!) for new fighter planes that don't work and imprisoning people for owning certain plants and giving people and corporations lifetime welfare benefits, etc.,etc., etc.

There is no "governmental austerity." Anybody who brings it up is playing Orwellian word games with you, and should have filthy socks shoved in their mouths (and possibly other body orifices) until they stop.

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[JBMcB]

Oldest trick in the book.

1. Cut library funding out of the general budget
2. Close the libraries saying that they are out of money
3. Run a special millage for the libraries

So your 'library millage' is actually a general fund millage that's been shifted around.

It works for a while - it's been done so many times in the city I live in now that the libraries are completely funded by millage.

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[dryeo]

Different type of library. These are science libraries, things like all the fisheries research that us taxpayers have paid for over the last 125 years. They claim that citizens aren't using the libraries, which is true as they are targeted at fellow scientists and shut them down including dumping and burning all the years of research. The idea is to do away with the fisheries, which bring in $100s of millions of dollars as well as food in favour of selling raw bitumen. If there are no records of the salmon, it can't be argued that the bitumen spill hurt the salmon.
The local libraries are not a Federal responsibility.

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[bledri]

I do no think it means what you think it means. In governmental terms, it means "give us unlimited money so that we don't have to prioritize among the thousands of special interests begging and scraping for more cash."

In any other context it means that you are seriously lacking resources and have cut things to the bone. For you or me, it means we get rid of cable TV, the gym membership, take cheaper vacations, don't buy a new car, live in a smaller place, don't eat and drink out as often, etc.

Governments have a much, much different approach: they begin by exacting revenge on the unwashed masses that dare not give them every dime ...

There is no "governmental austerity." Anybody who brings it up is playing Orwellian word games with you, and should have filthy socks shoved in their mouths (and possibly other body orifices) until they stop.

You are right that it's Orwellian, but wrong about how. This is not a tantrum against the masses, it's a tantrum against reality. The libraries in question are scientific libraries. Specifically libraries that contain environmental records related to pollution, biodiversity and climate. This is an attempt to continue the hamstringing of any science that shows the dark side of the so called free market. Intentional environmental ignorance is financial bliss for the oligarchy.

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Restrict access to the libraries and documents.
2. Claim no one is using them.
3. Burn the data.
4. Profit??

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[CanadianMacFan]

Plus those scientists were just saying that the fisheries were being depleted. That you had to reduce the quotas in order to save them.

I mean look how big those oceans are. There's got to be lots of fish in there. You can't just fish a species so much that it's numbers collapse.

Again.

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[dryeo]

Most of it was not digitized and I've heard at least one fisheries scientist, researching something as harmless as where Cod breed, that papers that he had referenced were no more.
The anti-science and need to control goes deep with this government

Re:"Austerity." You keep using that word.

[Mashiki]

What I find interesting is what's missing in the article. In Canada, libraries are provincial responsibility not a federal one.

Quebec: Quiet Revolution. Canada: Silent Coup

[Maow]

Canada has had its reputation torn asunder and its democratic principles trampled under this Harper Regime.

How long does it take to un-break an egg? The damage runs deep and I'm not sure how we can undo the damage internally and on the international stage.

Vote ABC (Anything But Conservative). And hope that this time the election fraud is minimal.

Maybe the UN should have agents monitor the elections in Canada like they do in other stumbling democracies.

The Ministry of Truth.....

[TrimTabTim]

The Ministry of Truth says you must use your Brother issued memory hole. Remember citizens:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Why would our Brother store knowledge and data? These things are unalways good for Brother. You know the old speaking: those who never learn history are doomed to... Um. Wow, kittens! My speakwrite told me yesterday that Oceania kills kittens, I like kittens, we must destroy Oceania!

We must all be strong. Ignorance is strength. Big Brother is doubleplusgood.

Re:The Ministry of Truth.....

[locksmithsinscottsda]

Canadian Government is not fool but there are lot of corruption and they have to get some strict action about these criminal which records burned by these criminals in dumpsters, government data and historical records being deleted. Canadian government have to lock them then they can be secure very well. There is a lot of technology to secure this kind of records. So, Check this for your records and anything else security : http://www.locksmithsinscottsd...

And Then

[JimSadler]

It works like this. First the right wing cuts the funding to a program the right wing doesn't like. Then when the funds are slashed so deeply that an agency or project does a lousy job that is used as an excuse to either eliminate the program completely or slash the budget even more as a punishment. The consequences are not even considered or even admitted. For example if you restrict Medicare or Medicaid a bit you cause deaths and disabilities and a lot of public expense due to emergency room admissions. But the jerk seeking re election know that the data for the wrong doing is hard to assemble and the ignorant public will pay for the jackass who supposedly holds down taxes.

yeesh

[JohnnyCanuck2013]

Pay no attention to the anti-conservative posters. Their hateful, spittle-flecked, diatribes are simply the result of never associating with anyone who might have a different philosophy, and a political viewpoint that is informed by the editorial pages of The Toronto Star. They so abhor Steven Harper that they completely blow even the slightest policy change out of all proportion, while jabbing their fingers in his direction and shouting “See! See! He's evil! He's a dictator! He's Hitler!”. Sigh. I'm a small “c” conservative but I won't be voting conservative in this election. Not because of anything the frothing think-alikes said, but because of legislation the Conservatives passed known as Bill C-51. It's a bill that grants greater powers to police authorities to target activities that could “undermine the security of Canada” as well as activities that are detrimental to Canada’s interests. This goes too far in my opinion, so they won't get my vote. And, just to be spiteful, I'm going to screw the Liberals too.

Re:Data gathering

[dskoll]

The data in question is not personal data about citizens. It's valuable scientific and historical data that should be used to inform policies.

not quite

[Chirs]

The Prime Minister is technically the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected members of the House of Commons.

*Usually* this is the leader of the party with the most seats, but not always.

Totally agree that we need to rein in the power of the PMO, but that would require the members of the House of Commons to take back the power they've ceded to the office of the Prime Minister.

Re:Quebec: Quiet Revolution. Canada: Silent Coup

[serbianheretic]

Vote ABC. I agree with this. I'm only worried that non-Con vote will be split between Mulcair and Trudeau, and we will end up with another Harper reign. With majority deciding the vote, it can happen. With that being said, I just can't comprehend why anyone would vote for Harper for the third bloody time. Even "old-stock Canadians :)".

Re:Data gathering

[Painted]

It's undoubtedly political, and yes, it is in fact election time in Canada (October 19th, in fact). The Conservative Party of Canada has had a history of muzzling scientists and government departments whenever reality conflicts with their ultra-right wing neo-con agenda. Here's to hoping their damaging governance is at it's end... ABC, anyone but conservatives.