Personal Information, Privacy and Social Programs

I think this is a fairly obvious point, so I am a little surprised I have not seen it anywhere else.

The raison d'être for eliminating the mandatory long-form census was privacy concerns.  As Tony Clement put it: "Do you believe the government should be asking you what time you leave for work in the morning?"

The census changes, however, are an aberration for this government, which is moving hard in the opposite direction, requiring Canadians to provide all kinds of private information to the government - specifically the Canada Revenue Agency.

Consider the Children's Fitness Amount on your Federal income tax return.   Revenue Canada gives an example:

Mary registered her daughter Julie (9 years old) in a prescribed program of physical activity and paid fees of $750 on August 30, 2010. The program started on September 15, 2010, and ended on April 21, 2011...

On her 2010 income tax return, Mary can claim... [for] Julie $500 (maximum allowable expenses per child)

And what do you need to claim such an expense:

Supporting documents -You should receive, or ask for, a receipt from organizations that provide prescribed programs of physical activity for which you paid to have your child enrolled. The organizations will determine the part of the fee that qualifies for the children's fitness amount...

If you are filing a paper return, do not include your receipts, but keep them in case we ask to see them. If you are filing electronically, keep all of your documents.

Under the Conservatives, you're no longer required, if you get a long-form census, about the length of your commute, but you're required to tell a CRA auditor that your 9 year old daughter Julie plays soccer on Thursdays at 8pm at the Oakridge Optimist centre.  As a parent, I'm a heck of a lot more comfortable providing information about my commute than I am about the schedule of my daughter.

Now, you might think, "Well, you're not actually required to divulge this information. You could always leave the field empty and not get the tax credit."  Sure, but you're out a fair bit of money if you do this.  And you could always not fill out the LFS and pay the fine.  Either way there's a significant financial cost.

The Conservative policy on privacy and the census is not just wrong - it is incoherent.  A government truly concerned about the privacy of citizens would not fund youth activities in such a way that requires sending personal information to the CRA.

Comments

[Traciatim]

I don't know what kind of receipts you get for the fitness tax credit, but we ours just had the name of the organization and the activity. Why don't you have the same argument for the child care deduction?

[Mike Moffatt]

I was just picking an example - I'm not limiting it to this particular credit.

[Jesse]

There is no cotradiction if you assume the stated resaons for the census are not the real reasons.

The Conservatives are against the long form census becasue it provides data that may hinder their implementation of policies they want for political reasons. See the fall in crime rates vs. new prisions. The census in gerneral is the biggest impediment from transitioning from a technocratic driven day to day governing to polictical driven governing.

I have yet to hear a convincing reason other than this.

[Traciatim]

"I was just picking an example - I'm not limiting it to this particular credit."

So you are arguing that all credits/deductions should not require proof? I don't really see where you are going with any of this.

[Patrick]

It's only incoherent from a technocratic, evidence based perspective. Politically it works pretty well. Ask people "Do you like being forced to fill out a long form on pain of fine and/or imprisonment?", and they'll mostly answer "no". Ask those same people "Do you like getting a tax break on your kids sports expenses? and they answer "yes". The vast majority of people don't think about it any more than that. Similarly, they can run attack add like "The Liberals want to track your movements, and they hate children".

[Mike Moffatt]

"So you are arguing that all credits/deductions should not require proof?"

Nope. See the conclusion:

"A government truly concerned about the privacy of citizens would not fund youth activities in such a way that requires sending personal information to the CRA."

You don't have to fund these activities through the tax system.

[Mike Moffatt]

... and a government that was truly concerned about privacy would *not* fund these activities through the tax system.

[Jacques René Giguère]

Typical moves for authoritarian populists.
Get the gunmint off your backs for small thing in exchange for increased control elsewhere. And no general policies. Everything must be seen as a personnal gift from the ruler. Duplessis never said he put in place a gunmint program. His slogan was "Duplessis donne à sa province." ( Duplessis give to his province).
Funding a sports center were you register locally would not be a gift from the Dear Leader,Genius of the Rockies, Light of the Tar Sands.

[Shangwen]

I disagree with those who think this is unique to the Conservatives (whom I didn't vote for). Can anyone provide evidence of a period when the federal government deliberately chose to collect less information on Canadians?

[Jesse]

A government collecting more information is not unique at all, but that is not the issue. The issue is the government claiming to be a privocy advocate, while meanwhile collecting more intrusive data.

[Frances Woolley]

Mike, interesting post. I suspect the expansion of all of these boutique tax credits is not unrelated to electronic filing - as you say, people would think twice about letting the government know the details of their children's fitness activities. But with electronic filing, they don't have to - people who aren't self employed just aren't audited that often.