Like most Canadians, I’m a pretty moderate guy when it comes to public policy. I do carry a Liberal membership card, but that doesn’t define me.  I tend to lean left of centre on lots of things, but I’m also pretty right of centre on others.  I think I’m all over the map because I approach issues with an open mind; I want to know what the data show, seek out advice of experts with a natural curiosity (with respect for their expertise, but also clear on their bias), and just generally ask lots of questions until I’m satisfied I’ve got the best solution to the issue at hand.  My final analysis on an issue may be ‘right’ or ‘left’, but it also tends to be what makes the most sense once all the facts and opinions are weighed.

That’s why I just don’t get ideologues.  I’ve had lots of experience with them during my time in the student movement, where there is a healthy disagreement regarding how best to improve access for demographics that are underrepresented in higher education - particularly low-income, aboriginal, and rural Canadians. Some approach this question with an open mind, willing to question assumptions; to be polite, others don’t - their policy prescriptions have been largely unchanged in over two decades.

I particularly remember when a rag tag group of researchers at the now defunct Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation began doing research on accessibility, and dared to suggest that the question of access was actually quite complex.  I won’t bore you with the details, but their data show policy prescriptions like targeted grants and enhanced information about educational pathways are far more likely to get a low-income young person to pursue higher education than lowering or freezing tuition.  (Don’t get me wrong - I think tuition is very high, but it is only a factor, not THE factor, that determines if a young person will pursue higher education.)  Unsuprisingly, the ideologues were apoplectic when the Foundation began releasing research that questioned long-held dogma; as such, they waged a decade long battle to end the Foundation’s mandate - which was ultimately successful after the Conservative government decided not to renew funding for the CMSF in their 2008 budget.

I really see this census flap through the same lens.  Good data is essential when governments want to create policy that works, rather than policy that fits into an ideology. Sometimes the data speak uncomfortable truths, but better to know and respond with a solution that works than respond with a policy that doesn’t. 

The intelligentsia are largely united in opposition to the census changes, but recent polling shows that many Canadians are scratching their heads about why this census issue is a big deal.  I really see it as a simple question: do you want public policy to be based on the best possible data and evidence, or do you want it to be based on a battle between ideology and wishy-washy data?  Or, said another way, do you want your tax dollars to be spent wisely on programs that work, or spent to justify slogans, gut feels, and stuff that rakes in donations from a political base…and might work, if we’re lucky?

Two items from the media today on this issue that are similar to my opinion:
Ottawa Citizen Editorial

Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail

NOTE: I’m on vacation for a few weeks and have quite a few things happening on the home front, so my blogging activity might be curtailed slightly over the next few weeks.