[theman23]

Lets try this out again...

http://www.metronews.ca/Ottawa/Canada/article/583836--head-of-statscan-munir-sheikh-resigns
OTTAWA - Canada's chief statistician resigned Wednesday over the Conservative government's decision to axe the long-census form, part of a spiralling political crisis that has pitted Stephen Harper's cabinet against the provinces, dozens of national organizations and now its own public service.

Basically, this means that the average Canadians will have a much bigger house and a much higher income next year.

[Aylmer]

Basically, this means that the average Canadians will have a much bigger house and a much higher income next year.

:haha:
___________

The long census form won't eat your children and steal your money. You spend a half-hour filling out information that Planners, Stores and Services (just to name a few) NEED to be more efficient. Without the long-census form, no one can get an accurate view of our social and economic situation (kinda like North Corea) and we'll end up having a Shepherds of Good Hope in Westmount and jewellers in East Vancouver.

The only reason I see this making sense in anyone's head is a purely ideological reason: The less the government knows, the less it can control me.

Of course, this kind of thinking just totally missed the rationality train and our government seems to be following suite.

:)

[MTLskyline]

Should you be thrown in jail if you don't want to fill out the long-form census?

[Aylmer]

Should you be thrown in jail if you don't want to fill out the long-form census?

No, of course not. But you can refuse it, but it can't be as easy as saying no just because you want to finish Family Guy in peace. You've got to have a good reason and be ready to contest it.

Giving people an easy option will give skewed statistics: there might be no one in one neighbourhood who will fill it out and everyone in another. There will then be no relevant information about that neighbourhood for businesses to determine a market or for services to determine whether or not there is a need for anything.

:)

[b31den]

Should you be thrown in jail if you don't want to fill out the long-form census?

Yes, because certain demographics will be more (or less) likely to fill out a voluntary census, leading to skewed results.

Edit: Ok, jail is a bit extreme, but perhaps a substantial fine would work to encourage everyone to fill it out.

[niwell]

You should be fined for sure. The data from the long form is invaluable not only to government but many private organizations.

The 1984 big brother argument falls flat since the government would have plenty of other ways to get that information if it came to it. It's not like the census would be exploitative and all other privacy laws would remain intact.

[Aylmer]

The Conservative's new policy strategy:

Gut.

Did you know that there are more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain? My gut tells me so.

[someone123]

A fine is likely to skew results - if you are rich you don't care about fines. They're also harder on the poor.

The best penalty would be some kind of public service which must be paid in terms of personal time roughly proportional to but somewhat greater than the amount of time that would have been spent on the census forms.

As for the question of whether or not people ought to have to fill in the forms, everybody benefits from the availability of census data and it is anonymous.

[1ajs]

Clement won't back down on census

Last Updated: Thursday, July 22, 2010 | 5:26 PM ET Comments1252 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/22/statscan-census-tories-.html#socialcomments)Recommend442 (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/22/statscan-census-tories-.html#)

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)


Industry Minister Tony Clement has dismissed growing calls for him to reverse his decision to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are on the same page on the issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/03/16/tp-tony-clement.jpg.jpgIndustry Minister Tony Clement acknowledges he would fill out a long-form census if he received one. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)"There's not a micron of difference of opinion between myself and the prime minister on this," Clement told the CBC's Rosemary Barton in an interview on Power & Politics with Evan Solomon.
During the interview from London, Clement said the government has taken a "compromise position" between privacy concerns and ensuring usable data from the next census in May 2011.
Clement's comments came a day after Munir Sheikh, the head of Statistics Canada, the national statistical agency, resigned in protest over the move to scrap the mandatory survey.
P.O.V.:

Should the census be mandatory? Take our poll. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/07/census-is-it-an-invasion-of-privacy.html)

Meanwhile on Thursday, the Liberals and NDP slammed Clement's "ideological" decision, saying it has thrown Statistics Canada into "chaos" and will leave policy-makers and organizations across the country flying blind.
The Conservatives have been on the defensive since Clement announced at the end of June that the long-form part of the 2011 census would no longer be mandatory because of privacy concerns. Canadians who receive the long form would be able to refuse to fill it out.
The furor escalated after Sheikh cancelled a planned town hall meeting with Statistics Canada staff, then announced Wednesday evening on the agency's website he was resigning over the issue.
In his statement, Sheikh insisted a voluntary survey cannot be a substitute for the mandatory form.
Clement says he'd fill out long form

Clement, who is in England on ministerial business, acknowledged he doesn't consider long-form questions — such as how many bedrooms one's house has — as intrusive.
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/07/21/tp-statscan-cp-9081473.jpgThe opposition Liberals say the reputation of Statistics Canada is 'hanging by a thread.' (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)"I don't, but I've heard from Canadians who do," he said. "I've heard from Canadians who are concerned about other questions, like whether someone in the household has a mental or physical incapacity, they're concerned about questions about the characteristics of their commute to work."
The embattled minister also said he would fill out the long-form census if he were to receive it, but has to be "respectful" of those Canadians who are concerned about the "very private nature of those questions and give them a chance to opt out if they so choose."
Earlier Thursday, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale told reporters in Ottawa that the reputation of the internationally renowned agency is "hanging by a thread at the hand of a bumbling minister and a Conservative government that simply doesn't believe in fact-based decision-making."
"'Don't bother us with facts,' they say," Goodale said. "The result is a general dumbing down of government."
The change, he said, will threaten basic services Canadians rely on, including hospitals, transit systems, jobless benefits and schools.
Goodale said he plans to call Clement before a parliamentary committee to determine what information Statistics Canada provided him before he made his decision.
He also ridiculed the claims of former industry minister Maxime Bernier that his office had received thousands of emails from people who were opposed to filling out the mandatory form.
In a separate news conference held shortly after Goodale spoke, the NDP's Charlie Angus called on Harper to overrule his minister.
Tories using Tea Party language: NDP

Angus said Clement questioned Statistics Canada's integrity and left Sheikh no choice but to resign after suggesting earlier this week that the agency was on board with his decision to scrub the mandatory survey.
"Tony Clement says that he wants to abandon the long-form census, and he said that Statistics Canada supported him. Now we see that is clearly not the fact," Angus said.
The Conservatives, he said, are importing the anti-census language of the "fringe" of the U.S. Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to attack an "extremely credible" organization.
"This is a manufactured crisis to play to a partisan base," Angus said.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/22/statscan-census-tories-.html#ixzz0uSq5u2TG

[artvandelay]

I'm generally a supporter of the current government, but this is just a stupid decision. Everyone from business owners to economists to charities has spoken out against the change, but the government is too stubborn to reverse their mistake.

[kool maudit]

wow -- we really are kind of boring.

[niwell]

wow -- we really are kind of boring.

As mundane a news item it may seem, this is actually kind of a big deal. Heads of Planning in municipal government across the country are freaking out more than a bit. It was a very long topic in recent staff meeting of mine... though this was a few weeks before it hit the media.

[someone123]

wow -- we really are kind of boring.

Ottawa's kind of the wrong place to look for entertainment.

Or maybe I should say that it shouldn't be a source of entertainment, or something.

[ToxiK]

Lets try this out again...

http://www.metronews.ca/Ottawa/Canada/article/583836--head-of-statscan-munir-sheikh-resigns


Basically, this means that the average Canadians will have a much bigger house and a much higher income next year.

So the Conservatives will say that thanks to them, Canadians now have higher incomes and bigger houses...

[Aylmer]

:haha: That's funny because it's true.

:( Oh wait, that's sad because it's true.

[vid]

In addition to richer people being more likely to fill it out, I think lot of white people will think "well there are lots of other white people to fill this out, so I'll leave the long form to them", and they'll end up under-represented, while visible minorities will press their members to all fill out the long term, leading them to be over represented. (Especially likely in religious immigrant communities, or on corrupt reserves where band leaders basically control everyone by withholding social assistance cheques.)

Aside from the potential for groups of people to abuse or neglect the long form like that, the government can get similar information from other sources which means they can pick and chose sources that agree with them and make their twisted agendas look more credible. If anything, this is putting more power into the hands of governments. It opens the door for them to "prove" anything, and takes away a valuable tool for businesses, charities and other organizations to make their own decisions with comprehensive, well-regulated data compiled by a single agency.

BTW, I have one bathroom, am unemployed, but if I was employed I'd commute by walking, biking or taking the bus, and my apartment, the rent for which is $685/month plus hydro (which is about $80/month) is in moderate need of repair. One member of my four member household (which includes one under 18) has a disability that prevents them from working. Three of us are atheist, one "Buddhist" (loosely) though that is an atheistic religion anyway; Our ethnicities are predominantly Swedish and Métis; None of us identify as Aboriginal; our net income from all sources is approximately $40,000. Lastly, Stephen Harper and Tony Clement can suck my ass (but only if they've got clean mouths).

Thank you, good night!

[HomeInMyShoes]

It just means we'll have less data to do research and to effectively govern. It's a tragedy for research in Canada.

How do you govern what you know little about? Oh wait...

[Aylmer]

Not just for research: Schools in poor neighbourhoods that rely on government funding will no longer be able to prove their need when the 'median' income of that area increases twofold.

So, basically everyone is unhappy, this will be more expensive, less accurate and a management nightmare.

HOW does this make sense?

I'm a Student of mixed race (Afro-Canadian and French Canadian), commute by bus 2 hours every day, live in a 3-storey house with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms with 4 other members of my family, two of which are working and two of which are in school. We are all Catholic and my net income is $520/year.
And I wouldn't want Stephen Harper or Tony Clement to touch me.

:)

[freeweed]

The 1984 big brother argument falls flat since the government would have plenty of other ways to get that information if it came to it. It's not like the census would be exploitative and all other privacy laws would remain intact.

Then why can't the government just use these other ways?

/devil's advocate

Well, also /privacy advocate. Not having seen what exactly is asked on this form, I'm not sure just how comfortable or uncomfortable I'd be with the info. But hey, all geniuses of the world will rejoinder with the usual "if you have nothing to hide..." argument, so no further discussion required, right?

[niwell]

Then why can't the government just use these other ways?

/devil's advocate

Well, also /privacy advocate. Not having seen what exactly is asked on this form, I'm not sure just how comfortable or uncomfortable I'd be with the info. But hey, all geniuses of the world will rejoinder with the usual "if you have nothing to hide..." argument, so no further discussion required, right?

It's a lot easier said than done. And believe me, I've gotten the question a lot during municipal work I've done. Fact of the matter is, even if the various sets of data were accessible (they aren't) it would be incredibly difficult to parse together and the end result would be less than perfect. The data would simply not relate in the same way.

The point I was trying to make is not that they could replicate what the long form does in a totalitarian society, but that the individual indicators (income etc.) could probably be found on an independent basis. In any event, this has absolutely nothing the do with the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument. The data collected is simply not of that nature.

[freeweed]

In any event, this has absolutely nothing the do with the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument. The data collected is simply not of that nature.

ALL personal data is of that nature.

Like I said, I have little idea what the government is specifically asking for in this particular survey, but I've seen some and they're far too sweeping in what they ask. As far as I'm concerned, just about any piece of personal information requires privacy protection, and most people don't look too far beyond that particular chestnut when justifying why the government is collecting it. Thankfully we have some of the strongest privacy protection laws in the world, but even then I've seen some pretty disgusting violations that no one seems to care about. The majority of people will come back with "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?" as if that justifies it.

The fact that the feds need to ask for (first example you mentioned) my income a second time baffles me. We spend how many tens of millions funding an entire department that deals with that one thing only. Why spend millions more finding it out again?

Nevermind the fact that the government providing this info to private corporations really steams me. We shouldn't be spending our tax dollars helping marketers be even more annoying. Although I've already seen several posts in this thread arguing for that very use.

This information should be collected and used solely for the functions of government. Infrastructure planning. Social services. The government has no business funding/directing religion, nor should it be assisting corporate nonsense. If a company doesn't know how to do a market survey to know where it should set up shop, perhaps said company shouldn't be in business.

Anyway, it's a little more complicated than people here are making it out to be. Not that I necessarily agree with the motivations of the Harper government here...

[jeremy_haak]

I can't fathom this sort of decision. Why put something so valuable like the census on the line for a few political points? It would be like the NDP coming into government and scrapping the military to replace it with volunteer militia. Every time my feelings soften just a bit toward the Harper government, they pull a stunt like this and I despise them even more.

Is Harper Canada's Harris?

[niwell]

The fact that the feds need to ask for (first example you mentioned) my income a second time baffles me. We spend how many tens of millions funding an entire department that deals with that one thing only. Why spend millions more finding it out again?


As I said, it's extremely (can't stress this enough) difficult to parse through multiple data sets that were collected for completely different purposes. And the end result will always be less reliable and applicable than something purposely created. And it probably would cost millions just to get this incomplete data set. I'm not sure if you've actually worked with the census or similar government projects, but these departments simply do not (and should not) have access to the sorts of data many assume they do.



Nevermind the fact that the government providing this info to private corporations really steams me. We shouldn't be spending our tax dollars helping marketers be even more annoying. Although I've already seen several posts in this thread arguing for that very use.

This information should be collected and used solely for the functions of government. Infrastructure planning. Social services. The government has no business funding/directing religion, nor should it be assisting corporate nonsense. If a company doesn't know how to do a market survey to know where it should set up shop, perhaps said company shouldn't be in business.



It's only provided in aggregate form. Absolutely no personal data can be linked back to an individual. Anything at a greater level of detail is kept in-house and used for functions of the government. But you can keep that tinfoil hat on.

[freeweed]

It's only provided in aggregate form. Absolutely no personal data can be linked back to an individual. Anything at a greater level of detail is kept in-house and used for functions of the government. But you can keep that tinfoil hat on.

Good if so, but plenty of similar government information is most certainly not kept aggregated only. If you really think you need a tinfoil hat to have seen examples of this, well, either you're a very poor student of history or you're not paying much attention. Likely both.

Like I said several times, I'm not privy to exactly what we're talking about here, so I can only speak in generalities. But I have seen and continue to see government departments misuse our personal information, so pardon me for at least wanting to question what they're doing with it instead of just assuming everyone knows what they're doing. Maybe all census data has always been handled 100% properly, but based on my experience with other "helpful" government programs, I'll err on the side of caution, thanks.

[Tony]

But I have seen and continue to see government departments misuse our personal information, so pardon me for at least wanting to question what they're doing with it instead of just assuming everyone knows what they're doing.

Yeah? Like what?

[freeweed]

Yeah? Like what?

Well, it behooves one to watch the news (really? you guys have never ever heard of this sort of thing?), but fine, I'll give an example that I have personal experience with:

A few years back, a very young couple I know had an unplanned pregnancy. After much thinking, they made the decision no one should have to make: they decided to give the baby up for adoption. After the delivery and a few days in the hospital (and dealing with CFS etc), they returned home to their apartment. A week or so later, their mail was suddenly inundated with disposable diaper samples. Coupons for baby formula. That sort of thing. This went on for several weeks; it was almost daily that they received something.

Now, how is it that all of these baby product companies managed to discover that this couple recently delivered a baby? The only people aware of it were the hospital and CFS (outside of friends and family, and I have a seriously hard time believing Mom and Uncle Charlie signed them up for mailing lists - and yes, they asked).

Is this 1984? Of course not. But it's a clear case where the government is using personal information in a completely inappropriate manner. Even if they'd kept the child I was sickened when I heard this - but in this case, you can imagine what it was like to have daily reminders of the difficult decision they made.

Again, you guys honestly must never watch the news. This is small potatoes compared to things that happen on a frequent enough basis that I will *always* question just what our government is doing with our information. It's just one that happened to resonate with me personally, because it was really distressing for the folks involved - and to this day, a lot of people don't see any wrongdoing. I guess they were bad people for not keeping their baby, or the government is being "helpful" to new parents, or some other rationale. :rolleyes:

But hey, if you're comfortable with the principle of government selling your personal information to marketing firms, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Note: no, I have no specific case of CENSUS data being used in this fashion. However I bet most people here would also assume that birth data is kept "in aggregate" and never misused, until they hear this story.

[drew]

^ Yeah, well I know a guy who walked out his front door and was punched in the face. So therefore, no one should ever venture outside their house.

There is a potential bad side to anything, and I think for the vast majority of people, the only problem they will have have filling out a census form is never getting that half hour of their lives back.

I filled out a census a couple years ago, nothing changed for me. I still don't answer long distance numbers I don't recognize, and I still throw out junk mail without opening it.

[freeweed]

Wow, you could try to be more specious. :rolleyes:

[Mister F]

The privacy concern is a non-issue. StatsCan is widely considered one of the best statistical agencies in the world. They don't go telling telemarketers that you just had a baby. :rolleyes:

As mundane a news item it may seem, this is actually kind of a big deal. Heads of Planning in municipal government across the country are freaking out more than a bit. It was a very long topic in recent staff meeting of mine... though this was a few weeks before it hit the media.
Yep, and the Canadian Institute of Planners is taking a very strong position on this. There are all kinds of fields that are going to be affected by a sudden lack of information. I'm writing my MP about this and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[jeremy_haak]

Well, it behooves one to watch the news (really? you guys have never ever heard of this sort of thing?), but fine, I'll give an example that I have personal experience with:

A few years back, a very young couple I know had an unplanned pregnancy. After much thinking, they made the decision no one should have to make: they decided to give the baby up for adoption. After the delivery and a few days in the hospital (and dealing with CFS etc), they returned home to their apartment. A week or so later, their mail was suddenly inundated with disposable diaper samples. Coupons for baby formula. That sort of thing. This went on for several weeks; it was almost daily that they received something.

Now, how is it that all of these baby product companies managed to discover that this couple recently delivered a baby? The only people aware of it were the hospital and CFS (outside of friends and family, and I have a seriously hard time believing Mom and Uncle Charlie signed them up for mailing lists - and yes, they asked).

Is this 1984? Of course not. But it's a clear case where the government is using personal information in a completely inappropriate manner. Even if they'd kept the child I was sickened when I heard this - but in this case, you can imagine what it was like to have daily reminders of the difficult decision they made.

Again, you guys honestly must never watch the news. This is small potatoes compared to things that happen on a frequent enough basis that I will *always* question just what our government is doing with our information. It's just one that happened to resonate with me personally, because it was really distressing for the folks involved - and to this day, a lot of people don't see any wrongdoing. I guess they were bad people for not keeping their baby, or the government is being "helpful" to new parents, or some other rationale. :rolleyes:

But hey, if you're comfortable with the principle of government selling your personal information to marketing firms, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Note: no, I have no specific case of CENSUS data being used in this fashion. However I bet most people here would also assume that birth data is kept "in aggregate" and never misused, until they hear this story.

Do they use loyalty cards at all when shopping? It's pretty remarkable what they can do with those things.

[The Chemist]

The only organization publicly supporting this decision is the Fraser Institute, and that alone is reason enough for me to oppose it.

Isn't there something the opposition can do to stop this unilateral, non-consulted move by the libertarians in the Conservative Party?

[cranium]

I'm failing to see what the fuss is about. If you get a long form; fill it out!
They have not eliminated the form, just compliance.

[WhipperSnapper]

Well, it behooves one to watch the news (really? you guys have never ever heard of this sort of thing?), but fine, I'll give an example that I have personal experience with:

A few years back, a very young couple I know had an unplanned pregnancy. After much thinking, they made the decision no one should have to make: they decided to give the baby up for adoption. After the delivery and a few days in the hospital (and dealing with CFS etc), they returned home to their apartment. A week or so later, their mail was suddenly inundated with disposable diaper samples. Coupons for baby formula. That sort of thing. This went on for several weeks; it was almost daily that they received something.

Now, how is it that all of these baby product companies managed to discover that this couple recently delivered a baby? The only people aware of it were the hospital and CFS (outside of friends and family, and I have a seriously hard time believing Mom and Uncle Charlie signed them up for mailing lists - and yes, they asked).



No offense but you're being a little naive if you believe the only way these companies can find out that you recently gave birth is through a mailing list or that what you watch is more than one person/agency's perspective. Surely if it was the government these companies would of been aware of the pending adoption and not to waste their time.

[Halifax Hillbilly]

I can't fathom this sort of decision. Why put something so valuable like the census on the line for a few political points? It would be like the NDP coming into government and scrapping the military to replace it with volunteer militia. Every time my feelings soften just a bit toward the Harper government, they pull a stunt like this and I despise them even more.

Is Harper Canada's Harris?

My thoughts exactly, poor or rushed policy decision are routinely made to keep the conservative base happy. Legitimate concerns or protest are ignored, ridiculed or the dissenters are attacked with blistering fury and labeled anything from socialists, liberal dupes, separatists, terrorist sympathizers, the chattering class, or just plain un-Canadian.

[Doady]

So certain government agencies will no longer have information to manipulate the populace? What is this, North Korea? That is like 1984 or something. I believe the less the government knows about our personal lives the better. We don't need this communist Big Brother bullshit in Canada. I prefer freedom and democracy. I prefer low taxes. I'm only disappointed that the Conservatives are not getting rid of the Stats Canada altogether. But that's the problem with minority government, the Conservatives always have to compromise and ignore the people that voted for them. The Lieberals/NDP ruin democracy.

[jmt18325]

Yes, statistics and information are the enemy....

[kirjtc2]

The only organization publicly supporting this decision is the Fraser Institute, and that alone is reason enough for me to oppose it.

Isn't there something the opposition can do to stop this unilateral, non-consulted move by the libertarians in the Conservative Party?

I can assure you, as a Conservative supporter and a libertarian, that I find this decision ridiculous.

There may be a couple of questions in the census that seem intrusive...but that's just an argument to get rid of those questions....not the whole damned thing.

[freeweed]

No offense but you're being a little naive if you believe the only way these companies can find out that you recently gave birth is through a mailing list or that what you watch is more than one person/agency's perspective. Surely if it was the government these companies would of been aware of the pending adoption and not to waste their time.

Naive? Pray tell, how would these companies find out exactly? If you're not planning on having, let alone keeping a baby, you don't exactly rush out to buy baby supplies. Really, I'd like to hear some ideas about how psychic companies could have figured this one out when literally the only people who knew were immediate family and the medical system. Someone else mentioned loyalty cards but I wonder if any of you have bothered to actually read what I posted, instead of jumping all over my story and intentionally ignoring what I said. It's almost as if many of you are incapable of actual discussion on this point, your minds are made up and you won't listen to a shred of evidence otherwise.

Then again, I shouldn't expect any different from the Facebook generation. Everyone's in such a rush to share their personal information without even considering if there could be any consequences. Nope, my neighbour never had a problem within 5 minutes of setting up his Facebook account, so clearly nothing bad could never ever possibly go wrong. I guess some of us actually do enjoy living in the Panopticon.

The fact that the government still managed to release this info in light of the fact that it was adopted was just the icing on the cake. Whatever department sells out this info obviously doesn't talk to the other that could have put a stop to it. Clearly bureaucracy at its most efficient. :rolleyes: It's what made the whole thing that much more disturbing.

[freeweed]

I can assure you, as a Conservative supporter and a libertarian, that I find this decision ridiculous.

There may be a couple of questions in the census that seem intrusive...but that's just an argument to get rid of those questions....not the whole damned thing.

Agreed 100%, except I'm not much of a supporter of Harper and his cronies. However as illustrated here, you can't even bring up removing some of the questions around a lot of people. "What have you got to hide?" "I can't imagine how something bad could happen" and "Nothing bad has happened yet, so nothing bad could ever happen" have so far been quoted nearly verbatim. I don't think this forum is that out of touch with society in general, either.

I think most people are basing their opinion on this decision on WHO made the decision, not what the actual decision was. And once their feet are planted, there's just no way they'll be swayed.

[gammell]

I can assure you, as a Conservative supporter and a libertarian, that I find this decision ridiculous.

There may be a couple of questions in the census that seem intrusive...but that's just an argument to get rid of those questions....not the whole damned thing.
The libertarian perspective would be to get rid of the mandatory aspect of the census, not any specific question. Individuals should decide for themselves what is too intrusive; not public opinion, not politicians, and not bureaucrats.

I personally figure that personal liberty is more foundational to a healthy society than technocratic expansion, so I approve of this move.

[vid]

So certain government agencies will no longer have information to manipulate the populace?

They'll still have the information. It'll just be less accurate, or they'll make it up. No matter who forms government, they're going to obtain information of some sort and use it to manipulate the populace. If anything, this action could be cover for doing just that.

"You no longer have to answer prying questions!" says the government as it misleads you.

[freeweed]

They'll still have the information. It'll just be less accurate, or they'll make it up. No matter who forms government, they're going to obtain information of some sort and use it to manipulate the populace. If anything, this action could be cover for doing just that.

"You no longer have to answer prying questions!" says the government as it misleads you.

This is pretty much what disturbs me about this whole decision. I've never in my life witnessed or read of a government that does ANYTHING to reduce its power. All politicians and bureaucrats do is try to increase it. It's just the natural course of things.

Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise - short of an armed revolution by the populace (or a huge controversy, or a referendum, or a major major election issue) I've never seen anything like this. This just came completely out of the blue in some respects. It's not like Canadians were demanding this action or anything like that.

So I have to wonder what they're really up to.

[vid]

They'll probably do what the Liberals in Ontario have done.

The Government in March: "Horrible programme is now gone forever!"
The people's response: "HOORAY!!!"
The Government in June: "FANTASTIC ANNOUNCEMENT!! btwwe'vecreatedanewprogrammetoreplacetheoneweaxedinmarch"
The people's response: "HOORAY!!! ... what?"

Harper and McGuinty seem to be on a weird roller coaster ride, countering everything good they've done with something absolutely horrible.

[freeweed]

Have they ever gotten around to scrapping that pointless hunting rifle registry (speaking of information the government has no need to know)?

If so, maybe they can bring it back as the "not-quite-short-gun registry" and look like heroes for being "tough on crime". It's what the Conservatives do best - try to look tough on crime without actually doing anything about it.

[vid]

They made some backbencher from southern Manitoba table the bill as a private members bill, and it hasn't progressed much. The NDP has actually expressed more support for that bill than the Conservatives, at least in this region. Lots of NDP MPs right now represent rural areas with lots of hunters so the party has no official policy on the gun registry (or does but is ignoring it) and are allowing their members a free vote.

I don't think they'll ever pass it. Too many law enforcement agencies and organizations representing them oppose scrapping it, and that looks bad for the Conservatives. It's much better to just have the bill there but not moving very fast, so that they can say they're working on it without removing it, and when it fails (if parliament lasts long enough for it to fail), they will blame the opposition.

[Aylmer]

So certain government agencies will no longer have information to manipulate the populace? What is this, North Korea? That is like 1984 or something. I believe the less the government knows about our personal lives the better. We don't need this communist Big Brother bullshit in Canada. I prefer freedom and democracy. I prefer low taxes. I'm only disappointed that the Conservatives are not getting rid of the Stats Canada altogether. But that's the problem with minority government, the Conservatives always have to compromise and ignore the people that voted for them. The Lieberals/NDP ruin democracy.

Ummm... Just in case this isn't sarcastic;

North Corea doesn't have any stats. I don't know where you got the idea that they have 1000- question surveys, but they don't.

As for getting rid of StatCan, that would be more like North Corea ;) . I really don't know if anyone can really imagine the consequences that would have.

Lastly,

'Democracy would be better without any other parties.'


50 cents if you find 1 thing wrong with that.

:)

[HomeInMyShoes]

This is pretty much what disturbs me about this whole decision. I've never in my life witnessed or read of a government that does ANYTHING to reduce its power. All politicians and bureaucrats do is try to increase it. It's just the natural course of things.

Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise - short of an armed revolution by the populace (or a huge controversy, or a referendum, or a major major election issue) I've never seen anything like this. This just came completely out of the blue in some respects. It's not like Canadians were demanding this action or anything like that.

So I have to wonder what they're really up to.

It would ease policy making (or rationalizing it) if you could use the excuse that because Canadians didn't fill out the census forms there's no real way to know what is going on in Canada, so you'll just have to believe what we say because we know better than you.

[Boris2k7]

This one's pretty much a textbook case of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

Data from the long-form census is necessarily important for targeted policy solutions. The validity, timeliness, and cost of retrieving the information is of major concern. Frankly, there was already some error built-in to the census (yes, they have a generally good idea of how many people are lying on their forms) which is accounted for, but making it completely voluntary just opens up the door to greater amounts of error and makes the whole exercise almost pointless. What's the point of a census if it's only made up of self-selecting individuals?

Now, the problem is that every single government and non-government organization is going to still need statistics as a basis for sound policy. That means they either have to run more of their own data-gathering expeditions or borrow from others. Either way, the results are going to be a higher budget for research (or less research), less valid results (due to inconsistent methodologies and variations in both time and space), little ability for cross-sectional or longitudinal analysis, and less reliability in the data sources themselves.

And what do we get out of it? Many Canadians get to save 30 minutes to 1 hour out of every 43,829 hours simply because they don't feel like filling out the census. Privacy and Small Government types get to cheer over a false victory.

Of course, if you are the Harper Government your best policy is usually no policy at all.

[someone123]

A frequent problem with self-proclaimed libertarians is that they underestimate the complexity of modern society and the amount of intervention necessary to keep everything going.

We just went through a major recession. Politicians of all stripes have spent the last two years rattling off quarterly GDP numbers and employment-related statistics. They've been the focus of attention because they are the primary way to track the health of the economy and it's not a mystery where they come from.

The benefit of Statistics Canada should be obvious when it comes to grounded decision making and the evaluation of public policy. A huge part of the reason why society has moved forward is that we've measured past progress to see what works and what doesn't. Conjecture isn't good enough.

[jeremy_haak]

Naive? Pray tell, how would these companies find out exactly?

I dunno, perhaps she bought a pregnancy test kit from Shoppers Drug Mart and used her Optimum card - 9 months later - presto!

[niwell]

Being critical of the government is something that is absolutely necessary. BUT... automatic assumption of a sinister agenda is just silly.

Just sayin'

[vid]

Being critical of the government is something that is absolutely necessary. BUT... automatic assumption of a sinister agenda is just silly.

Just sayin'

Come on! The right wingers get to do it all the time. Let us have our fun! :(

[freeweed]

I dunno, perhaps she bought a pregnancy test kit from Shoppers Drug Mart and used her Optimum card - 9 months later - presto!

Thanks, I'm not a complete idiot. Fortunately I have a grade 3 education and I had enough brains to ask that very question. And a million more like it.

I didn't want to give every single boring detail of everything that happened, but rest assured: by unplanned and unwanted, this was a total "we didn't buy a single baby-related item" type pregnancy. No pre-pregnancy, no during-pregnancy, no post-pregnancy. A very late term discovery in fact.

Wait a second - are you honestly claiming that everyone who's bought a single pregnancy test kit at Shoppers goes on to receive baby supplies for weeks on end, months later? Hint: a lot of those kits end up reading negative, and a lot of women miscarry. And we don't hear stories of millions of Canadian women receiving nonsensical product samples in the mail. I've actually asked over the years just to make sure I'm not crazy, and not a single female friend has ever received diaper samples in the mail directly addressed to her, unless she's actually had a child. Oh and also, women don't generally buy home pregnancy tests within a couple of days of conceiving, nor does everyone gestate for 9 months on the nose.

Have you ever talked to an actual woman? ;) :P

The stuff started arriving at their place within a week of the delivery, and in fact the doctors later determined that the baby was 3 or so weeks premature. There's just no possible way someone could have predicted the delivery date that accurately. About the only thing they didn't do was confront the hospital about it, and try to find out 100%. At the time it was the last place they wanted to deal with, understandably.

Anyway, if you're convinced it's impossible that the government would ever misuse personal info, you'll just try to poke non-existent holes in my story instead of accepting something contrary to your worldview. Not much point in explaining this further.

[freeweed]

Being critical of the government is something that is absolutely necessary. BUT... automatic assumption of a sinister agenda is just silly.

Just sayin'

Or in other words: never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

[niwell]

Freeweed, you have a weird thing about this and for the life of me I don't understand why. I have and am currently working with confidential data regarding businesses at the municipal/regional level and confidentiality is kept absolutely. It's not even a question really, everything we do will only be published in aggregate and no personal data will be released.

[vid]

Anyway, if you're convinced it's impossible that the government would ever misuse personal info, you'll just try to poke non-existent holes in my story instead of accepting something contrary to your worldview. Not much point in explaining this further.

Evil family members? Encouraging someone to put their kid up for adoption then signing them up to receive free baby stuff sounds like something my relatives would do to each other.

Honestly, why would the government do what you claim it has done?

[jeremy_haak]

Thanks, I'm not a complete idiot. Fortunately I have a grade 3 education and I had enough brains to ask that very question. And a million more like it.

I didn't want to give every single boring detail of everything that happened, but rest assured: by unplanned and unwanted, this was a total "we didn't buy a single baby-related item" type pregnancy. No pre-pregnancy, no during-pregnancy, no post-pregnancy. A very late term discovery in fact.

Wait a second - are you honestly claiming that everyone who's bought a single pregnancy test kit at Shoppers goes on to receive baby supplies for weeks on end, months later? Hint: a lot of those kits end up reading negative, and a lot of women miscarry. And we don't hear stories of millions of Canadian women receiving nonsensical product samples in the mail. I've actually asked over the years just to make sure I'm not crazy, and not a single female friend has ever received diaper samples in the mail directly addressed to her, unless she's actually had a child. Oh and also, women don't generally buy home pregnancy tests within a couple of days of conceiving, nor does everyone gestate for 9 months on the nose.

Have you ever talked to an actual woman? ;) :P

The stuff started arriving at their place within a week of the delivery, and in fact the doctors later determined that the baby was 3 or so weeks premature. There's just no possible way someone could have predicted the delivery date that accurately. About the only thing they didn't do was confront the hospital about it, and try to find out 100%. At the time it was the last place they wanted to deal with, understandably.

Anyway, if you're convinced it's impossible that the government would ever misuse personal info, you'll just try to poke non-existent holes in my story instead of accepting something contrary to your worldview. Not much point in explaining this further.

For what it's worth, I wasn't suggesting you were a complete idiot - the loyalty card idea is simply one possibility that came to mind. As you noted above, you don't hear about millions of women receiving unsolicited product samples in the mail. (My sister certainly didn't) I would be surprised if the government conspiracy you seem to be describing only applied to your friend. Why is she special?

[freeweed]

Freeweed, you have a weird thing about this and for the life of me I don't understand why. I have and am currently working with confidential data regarding businesses at the municipal/regional level and confidentiality is kept absolutely. It's not even a question really, everything we do will only be published in aggregate and no personal data will be released.

Why is it weird? You guys challenged me to demonstrate a case of the government using our personal information in an inappropriate manner, and I gave an example. I didn't start this, it was several of you who insisted that at no time every could the government misuse data.

*Your* particular department might handle things properly but not everyone does, and I've seen it in action. There are countless news stories of this sort of thing happening too, but as I can't just pull some random article out of my rear, I thought I'd pass on a personal anecdote. Without that y'all seemed incredulous that it could ever possibly happen, so here we are.

I for the life of me don't understand how any of you honestly can claim that at no time has any government in this country ever misused personal data.

[freeweed]

Evil family members? Encouraging someone to put their kid up for adoption then signing them up to receive free baby stuff sounds like something my relatives would do to each other.

Honestly, why would the government do what you claim it has done?

To be "helpful" to the new parents, I suppose. *I* didn't share the information so I can only speculate as to the motivation - I just know it happens. It's like when you buy a new home, and start receiving Welcome Wagon ish things in the mail. Marketers have access to real estate sales and city property tax listings, etc, and they can use information collected by the government to target consumers. This is much more passive, it's not like the government is actively selling this - it's just on a website somewhere - but the baby thing definitely is not, or sure as hell should not be.

Guys, you're missing the point entirely here. I'm not on some Quixotic crusade to try to prevent young mothers from being traumatized from receiving a free diaper. In the grand scheme of things this isn't a really big deal (although it was for them at the time), but I only mentioned it because seemingly none of you can admit that it's even possible for the government to misbehave here. Or that there can be unintended consequences from seemingly innocuous behaviour.

Instead of discussing that, y'all start up with these really bizarre ways to pick apart a story that I obviously can't share every last detail of. It's like you're so focused on "government is perfect" that you just can't see the bigger picture.

It's no wonder privacy advocates have such a hard time in today's world. Everyone is so unimaginative that they can't even conceive of something negative happening period, let alone the details. Christ, you'd think with the amount of this crap we see from corporations (ran, incidentally, by people no different than those that work for the government) that you folks would at least acknowledge that it *could* easily happen.

Hell, I was privy to a massive information leak from one of our Provincial departments a few years back that would scare the shit out of each and every one of you. Unfortunately I cannot share any details about that; suffice it to say that every last one of us working there (plus every single victim we talked to) said the same thing: "What the hell business does the government have collecting this information, when the consequences of a leak are so dire?".

[freeweed]

Finally, some sanity. (http://www.calgaryherald.com/Council+Compromise+census+battle/3323368/story.html)

Can't say that I disagree with anything the Council has recommended here. Choice bits:

Looking ahead to 2016, the council recommends the Statistics Act be re-written to remove the threat of jail time for not filling out census forms, noting that other countries conduct successful census counts without that potential punishment. However, they recommend that jail be used as a punishment for "those who wilfully break confidentiality provisions" for census data.

As part of the planning process for the 2016 census, each question on the census questionnaires should be reviewed to ensure it meets a strict set of criteria, the council says. Questions should only ask information that is required by legislation or cabinet direction, and necessary for users of small-area neighbourhood data for which there is no other source of information. Each question should contribute to establishing benchmarks for difficult-to-reach groups, providing data on important national issues such as the economic integration of new immigrants and creating a base for other surveys of small or dispersed groups such as urban aboriginals or people with health conditions that limit their activity.