# Census & Statistics



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

It is rare that statistics and politics become mixed together. I'm sure that there is a diversity of opinion in this forum, as there would be within any group, but I expect that there is a level of knowledge that is different here. For one, as dedicated computer users and discussants, we know that everything done through the internet is potentially knowable or 'countable.' In a sense, there is little privacy on the net. Does this present an alternate means of gathering census data, perhaps more interesting and valuable than asking about the number of bedrooms and toilets in our homes? 

Another difference, and this is more speculative, is that forum members' knowledge of what statistics are, how they're gathered, processed and interpreted, might be more refined. How data is gathered data is the foundation of its value.

I think that any voluntary census cannot be as accurate, reliable, and thereby informative as an obligatory census process. Opinions?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

When a nation threatens their citizens with fines and jail sentences for failing to complete a census form, something is drastically wrong.

Finally someone in government has recognized citizens right to privacy in their lives. :clap:

All any government really needs to know is how many people reside in their country. How many bathrooms I have, ranks right up their with how many dumps I take. It's none of their damn business.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> ...Finally someone in government has recognized citizens right to privacy in their lives. :clap:


+1:clap: 
I have been known to bash Harpo on occasion but this time he got it right.



SINC said:


> All any government really needs to know is how many people reside in their country. How many bathrooms I have, ranks right up their with how many dumps I take. It's none of their damn business.


Of course telling them the first may allow them to interpolate the second.beejacon


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am in favor of the long form if it request relevant info. For example, the year I became a single parent with a profoundly disabled 7 year old daughter and four year old son, I received the short form and none of this info was recorded. I always felt that this info needed to be recorded. Back then, StatsCan said that only 3-5% of the Canadian single parents were men.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Have to applaud the cons on this one. I couldn't care less with the privacy arguments, but all of the opponents use statistics that government provides them to develop, rape and pillage the environment. In other words the corporations get subsidized information at a discount and I think they should pay full charge for this information. I understand that social policy groups will also suffer but we need fewer people in this country not more.

I have little doubt Harper will capitulate and call a task force and delay the decision. If he doesn't the planet is better off.

Thanks Steve! This is a first.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Kleles said:


> I think that any voluntary census cannot be as accurate, reliable, and thereby informative as an obligatory census process. Opinions?


How does the government know I am answering truthfully? If I got one of these long forms I'd tell them my religion is wiccan, I have 10 bedrooms and 20 bathrooms. I have six husbands too. 


It's none of the government's business other than my age, gender and where I live. That's ALL they need to know. No one should be forced or threatened with jail time for refusing to answer any other questions.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Kleles said:


> I think that any voluntary census cannot be as accurate, reliable, and thereby informative as an obligatory census process. Opinions?


What about the 21,000 Canadians in the obligatory 2001 census who described their religion as "Jedi Knight"?

Had a neighbor years ago who, for some reason, regularly got the long census. How many pigs? Seven. How many cows? Seven. How many horses? Seven. How many chickens? Seven. Total number of livestock on the farm? You guessed it-seven.

'Nuf said...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Why is there so much animosity about the census? The information gathered provides trend analysis for the federal government, provincial government and municipal governments to provide proper services to the various areas of Canada, cties, municipalities, etc., and probably provide historic trend data.

How many bathrooms, probably relates to sewer requirements. (Maybe it relates to construction renovation business too :lmao.

No personal information is ever released by individual, it always aggregated, so you really don't know who the specific individuals are.

And as was said, even though it's legally required to fill it out, no one ever goes to jail. As with the seat-belt and cell-phone laws, it's just a way of getting compliance and it works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I refused to fill out the long form one year and someone came to the door several times to collect it. Eventually some goon showed up to threaten my wife that they were going to take it up with the law. She became so concerned that she filled out a bunch of nonsense thinking she was saving me from their punishment. It wouldn't have worked on me.

If you want to give the government this info voluntarily, by all means do--I don't.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

How can the census takers even have any idea if you're telling the truth? You could say you have 15 bathrooms. You could say you have none because you use the great outdoors. In the information age, where most people seem to be more skeptical than ever about statisticians, this kind of information gathering would provide suspect results at the best of times. You're certainly not going to get much response from the homeless, for example. And I don't applaud the Harpos on this one because I think they're reason for not doing the census is laziness. They should be coming up with a better system. Like reading everyone's Facebook profiles, for example  just kidding.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Why is there so much animosity about the census? The information gathered provides trend analysis for the federal government, provincial government and municipal governments to provide proper services to the various areas of Canada, cties, municipalities, etc., and probably provide historic trend data.
> 
> How many bathrooms, probably relates to sewer requirements. (Maybe it relates to construction renovation business too :lmao.


So let them pay for the information, not demand it. They're in the business of selling those stats. Even if I participate, I can't just get copies of their reports for free. 

You're free to give them any info you want, of course, so they can better understand your needs.




Kosh said:


> And as was said, even though it's legally required to fill it out, no one ever goes to jail. As with the seat-belt and cell-phone laws, it's just a way of getting compliance and it works.


Legal action is the only way of "getting compliance." Many of these case have gone to court and people fined--although not yet jailed--for refusing to fill the forms out. Just because threatening Canadians with jail time in order to take information from them "works" does not justify such action.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I refused to fill out the long form one year and someone came to the door several times to collect it. Eventually some goon showed up to threaten my wife that they were going to take it up with the law. She became so concerned that she filled out a bunch of nonsense thinking she was saving me from their punishment. It wouldn't have worked on me.
> 
> If you want to give the government this info voluntarily, by all means do--I don't.


My parents took off on a long, cross Canada driving vacation when I was 17 and the long form census was sent to my family. Since I was the only one home, I had the pleasure of dealing with the census taker pounding on the door day after day, demanding to know why I couldn't fill the thing out. Eventually the census lady stopped coming back once she figured out that I wasn't going to do it and my parents really, truly weren't home at all that summer. I don't remember what happened with the census paperwork though. It must have gone in the recycling bin at some point.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Scrapping the census altogether is something I've been hounding my MP(s) for for many many years. At least making the long form part voluntary is a nice step in the right direction.

For some reason, I always seem to get the long form. I have always refused to fill it out because it always contained questions that were simply none of their business. Sure, the census takers invariably come to my door with threats. Once I level a few threats back at them, as well as insisting on a bunch of personal information about them before I'd give such info about me, they usually give up.

Even the short form is a waste of time and money anyway. They've already got that information from my income tax returns. The tax info is probably more accurate than the census info anyway.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

The census data and the long form are critical to ensure that policy makers are making correct decisions. While some may rant and rave about how it is none of the government's business, the reality is that no one gives a rat's ass if Sinc is a leftist lesbian troll or a neo-fascist skinhead. What matters is the numbers, not who that numbers are attached to. Individual liberty and privacy are not getting abused.

The census data is used for many government policies, as well as by social scientists and researchers outside of government. It is an absolutely necessary tool.

Tony is being extremely short sighted in ditching the long form.

As for penalties for not filling out the census forms, again I believe that the harm to society outweighs the harm to the individual if the census is not filled in. If there were no sanctions for tossing the thing in the garbage, I imagine that many people of this board would simply leave the form in the circular file.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Britnell said:


> The census data and the long form are critical to ensure that policy makers are making correct decisions. While some may rant and rave about how it is none of the government's business, the reality is that no one gives a rat's ass if Sinc is a leftist lesbian troll or a neo-fascist skinhead. What matters is the numbers, not who that numbers are attached to. Individual liberty and privacy are not getting abused.
> 
> The census data is used for many government policies, as well as by social scientists and researchers outside of government. It is an absolutely necessary tool.
> 
> ...


Hmm' your response seems to fly in the face of the quote in your signature.



> Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom.<br />It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave.<br /> -- William Pitt, 1763


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

^^^ 
Beat me to it.

Perhaps he was being sarcastic??? But is it the post or the signature that was the intended target.???beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> ^^^
> Beat me to it.
> 
> Perhaps he was being sarcastic??? But is it the post or the signature that was the intended target.???beejacon


The post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> The post.


This post should sit beside the phrase: "Hoist on one's own petard."

Note also that the 2006 Census number crunchers were none other than the Canadian arm of military giant Lockheed Martin. Add to that the number of forms lost, stolen or--as in the case of one census worker who was shocked by the lack of security--sold along with surplus filing cabinets,


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

The opinions seem to be more against the long form census than in favour. I think that the reason why some census questions are asked is obscure, hence the opposition. The census could be revised to gather information that is relevant to us. A sample census could be placed on-line with explanations about why specific questions are being asked.

The privacy issue is bogus, I believe. The profile of one individual or family is not important, nor is it accessible. I can't think of one situation, in the public media, that was about the abuse of census data. Has anyone heard of such a case?

There are two issues: 
1. the obligatory nature of the census long form, 
2. the questions being asked.

We have rights within our society, and we have obligations. Completing a census is one of the latter. 

As our country grows and evolves, especially technologically, and culturally, the information provided by the census is important for planning on a large scale. 

BTW, some of the census information is free and available on-line at
Census of Canada


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kleles said:


> We have rights within our society, and we have obligations. Completing a census is one of the latter.


It's no longer an obligation because the rules have changed. Please don't attempt to extend your sense of personal obligation to everyone. 



> The privacy issue is bogus, I believe. The profile of one individual or family is not important, nor is it accessible. I can't think of one situation, in the public media, that was about the abuse of census data. Has anyone heard of such a case?


Cabinet filled with census files sold at auction



> EDMONTON - Personal files of some of this year's census workers turned up in a filing cabinet at an Edmonton auction, Global TV reported Wednesday night.
> 
> The files on about 75 workers from across the Prairies included their names, social insurance numbers and earnings, according to the report.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The assumption that the information you give out cannot be accessed is based on the assumption that the government official that made that statement was telling the truth. Extremely unlikely. Given that his lips were moving when he made that statement it is much more likely that he was lying.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

When did this long form census begin?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I vaguely recall getting what I think was the long form, probably in 1976.

I definitely recall a number of NYB answers. Also they refused to accept my ethnicity as Other/North American. 

Since all of my immediate relatives from the great grandparents down had been born in North America I absolutely insisted, somehow in that clash of wills over ethnicity, all the other NYBs got overlooked and nothing came of the jail and fine threats.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I remember having a problem answering ethnicity. Since my relatives in Canada date back to the late 1600's, I consider myself Canadian/North American, nothing else. I don't recall many other questions other than age and gender so I guess I've not seen the long form.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

adagio said:


> When did this long form census begin?


Not sure when it began, but I was a census taker in 1971, and (a) the long form existed then and (b) people complained about it.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Macfury said:


> It's no longer an obligation because the rules have changed. Please don't attempt to extend your sense of personal obligation to everyone.


I am not extending my sense of obligation to everyone, just discussing the issue. Besides, even if the rules have been changed, they can (and might) be changed again. It doesn't mean that they cannot be discussed.



Macfury said:


> Cabinet filled with census files sold at auction


Thank you. I vaguely remember the story about the file cabinet. What happened to the people whose files were in the cabinet?

Aren't there more threats to our privacy and security, especially financial security, through our on-line presence?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I find it funny how some people will be soo indignant with filling some info on a government consensus yet that info and far more is careening around the interwebs at a blinding pace as well as at least 5 or 6 major corporations who is busy compiling cross referencing and selling all that data.

No I will NOT tell that idiot government what religion I am! Have a cup of self important genius tea to go with that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kleles said:


> I am not extending my sense of obligation to everyone, just discussing the issue. Besides, even if the rules have been changed, they can (and might) be changed again. It doesn't mean that they cannot be discussed.


It can be discussed, but I was taking issue with your classifying it as a responsibility or obligation.



Kleles said:


> Aren't there more threats to our privacy and security, especially financial security, through our on-line presence?


Sure, but you have to be willing to enter into those arrangements--jut as you should enter into the government information grab of your own free will.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Strange, I've never heard of anyone being bullied for their form and I would imagine they would call first with a friendly reminder. The only thing I've seen is advertisements to send it in.

As for leaks of info, well, with any department that hires humans, your always going to have a few bad apples. They'll be prosecuted under the appropriate Act (unlike Ministers who seem to get away with anything). For Stats Can it would be the Statistics Act.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Kosh said:


> Strange, I've never heard of anyone being bullied for their form and I would imagine they would call first with a friendly reminder.


They are anything but friendly. There are no calls, they just drop by and start threatening you with prison if you don't fill the form out right there in front of them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Strange, I've never heard of anyone being bullied for their form and I would imagine they would call first with a friendly reminder. The only thing I've seen is advertisements to send it in.


I've experienced it first hand and so have a lot of other people. What you imagine is not what actually happens. They become nasty and threatening.



Kosh said:


> As for leaks of info, well, with any department that hires humans, your always going to have a few bad apples. They'll be prosecuted under the appropriate Act (unlike Ministers who seem to get away with anything). For Stats Can it would be the Statistics Act.


They're not prosecuted, They were acting within the law as it stood. That's why some people have been taken to court over not filling out the forms--the creeps made good on their threats.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> All any government really needs to know is how many people reside in their country. How many bathrooms I have, ranks right up their with how many dumps I take. It's none of their damn business.


i just wanted to point out that a canadian census has NEVER asked how many bathrooms it's citizens have. 

it was a talking point put out there by the cons, and unfortunately people ran with it.

i understand points on both sides of the argument on whether we need a census, but the whole bathroom debacle is yet another example of the conservatives willingness to mislead and misinform Canadians. and sadly skews the whole debate.

IMO there should be a short form that is mandatory to fill out, accompanied by a longer form that would be voluntary. i agree that threatening people with jail time is much too extreme.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

i-rui said:


> IMO there should be a short form that is mandatory to fill out, accompanied by a longer form that would be voluntary. i agree that threatening people with jail time is much too extreme.


That is exactly what the Conservatives want to do but some folks seem to be in a tizzy about the the long form being voluntary without threats of jail time. To hear the Liberals carry on you'd think Harper wanted to scrap all the census. That is not the case at all and it was never even suggested.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

adagio said:


> That is exactly what the Conservatives want to do but some folks seem to be in a tizzy about the the long form being voluntary without threats of jail time. To hear the Liberals carry on you'd think Harper wanted to scrap all the census. That is not the case at all and it was never even suggested.


We don't seem to learn from other's mistakes:



> OTTAWA — While Canada debates the merits of a compulsory long-form census, its neighbours to the south have already decided a national voluntary survey doesn't work.
> 
> At the behest of Congress, The U.S. Census Bureau conducted an experiment in 2003 using its compulsory American Community Survey to see what would happen if some people were given the choice of filling it out.
> 
> ...


U.S. tested, then abandoned voluntary census - CTV News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I had read that previously, it isn't a one for one comparison even though it is being represented as though it were. First the US has 10x our population and second the short form of the census will remain compulsory, it is only the long form that will be voluntary so this is not a direct comparison.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> We don't seem to learn from other's mistakes:


The mistake was demanding the information in the first place. Americans also don't wish their privacy to be invaded.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The mistake was demanding the information in the first place. *Americans also don't wish their privacy to be invaded*.


enter the war on terror and that sure went up in smoke now didn't it?

pfffft.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> enter the war on terror and that sure went up in smoke now didn't it?
> 
> pfffft.


Sure. They elected Obama in hopes of having special police powers repealed... and he didn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sure. They elected Obama in hopes of having special police powers repealed... and he didn't.


nice try. But what did Obama have to do with americans giving up their 'freedoms' in the first place?

pffft x2.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> nice try. But what did Obama have to do with americans giving up their 'freedoms' in the first place?
> 
> pffft x2.


They didn't give it up. Their government took it from them. Part of Obama's platform included restoring these freedoms. He didn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Once again you have to make it about Obama. You seem to have issues there macfury.

You must have an Obama jar with a 'break glass in case of emergency" title on it.

Americans voted for bush for his both terms. They seemed pretty content with it it appears.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> They seemed pretty content with it it appears.


If it appears that way to you groove, 'nuff said.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

adagio said:


> How does the government know I am answering truthfully? If I got one of these long forms I'd tell them my religion is wiccan, I have 10 bedrooms and 20 bathrooms. I have six husbands too.


Statistical outliers. 

When the sample is large enough (and it is) the liars are easily spotted and accounted for. Many people think statistics is basically counting and percentages - it's a lot more complicated than that, and a good statistician can easily determine the outliers and be accurate to within fractions of fractions of a percentage point.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> When a nation threatens their citizens with fines and jail sentences for failing to complete a census form, something is drastically wrong.


Why? It's considered part of your civic duty - like jury duty. Try refusing that one and see what happens? Considering that some countries have mandatory military service, I'd say we're getting off quite easy.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

i-rui said:


> IMO there should be a short form that is mandatory to fill out, accompanied by a longer form that would be voluntary. i agree that threatening people with jail time is much too extreme.


The problem is, how do you make something mandatory, without an incentive or disincentive. I agree jailtime or even a fine is too extreme, but if there is no reason to fill it out , it's NOT going to get filled out.

It's like taxes, the incentive to filling it out is that most people get money back or benefits during the year, and those that pay, if they file on time, don't have to pay penalties or interest.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> I refused to fill out the long form one year and someone came to the door several times to collect it. Eventually some goon showed up to threaten my wife that they were going to take it up with the law. She became so concerned that she filled out a bunch of nonsense thinking she was saving me from their punishment. It wouldn't have worked on me.
> 
> If you want to give the government this info voluntarily, by all means do--I don't.


Voluntary participation leads to a skewed sample - which will likely be left-wing biased if this goes through. Why not just fill out the form? It's anonymous and takes far less time than it does to do your income tax, which is also legally required.

The big problem here is people's opinions are based on a complete lack of understanding of statistics, and failure to understand the anonymity of the process - i.e. ignorance - something the Conservatives want.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> The assumption that the information you give out cannot be accessed is based on the assumption that the government official that made that statement was telling the truth. Extremely unlikely. Given that his lips were moving when he made that statement it is much more likely that he was lying.


If you are accusing the census process of having a secret method of retaining the identities with the data, then I suggest you come up with some proof.

The census process is quite open and you can see just how it is anonymous - why don't you learn about it instead insinuating complete BS?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Grey power!



> Canada’s seniors, who can be counted on to vote and tend to vote Conservative, are angry over the government’s decision to scrap the mandatory census long form, according to a new poll suggesting Stephen Harper could be punished in a general election as a result.





> Ms. Eng says the poll tells her the government should be listening to retirees, which is make up a solid core of its core voters. Indeed, 77 per cent of respondents say the government should reverse its decision.
> 
> “And if the government does not reverse its position they will be largely, less likely to vote for the government,” she said.


Retirees wary of Tory census move - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If it appears that way to you groove, 'nuff said.


you're the one that said their voting intentions signalled their discontent. Now you're backtracking?

ok!

Anything, to make it about Obama!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> They're not prosecuted, They were acting within the law as it stood. That's why some people have been taken to court over not filling out the forms--the creeps made good on their threats.


I should have made it more clear in my post, that second paragraph was referring to the privacy concerns, not the bullying. Anyone leaking information will have the RCMP after them.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

hayesk said:


> It's considered part of your civic duty - like jury duty. Try refusing that one and see what happens?


It's really easy to get out of jury duty. Nothing happens.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Grey power!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not this retiree.

Way to go Conservatives! :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not this retiree.
> 
> Way to go Conservatives! :clap:


Luckily you're in the minority.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

WTF is wrong with making the *long* form voluntary?

If enough reply, the sample may still be good for whatever they want. Holding the threat of fines and jail over the citizenry if they don't complete it is pure bullsh!t.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

An interesting read:

Three cheers for a hidden agenda! - The Globe and Mail

The article he's referring to here:

Stephen Taylor: The beginning of the end of the Canadian welfare state | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> An interesting read:
> 
> Three cheers for a hidden agenda! - The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


Indeed interesting and both stories point to the need to end the long forms being mandatory and in the longer run, make them obsolete altogether. They only serve the special interest groups anyway, leaving ordinary Canadians holding the tax bag.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Indeed interesting and both stories point to the need to end the long forms being mandatory and in the longer run, make them obsolete altogether. They only serve the special interest groups anyway, leaving ordinary Canadians holding the tax bag.


That's one interpretation. 

Under the guise of Harper slowly eliminating the social programs that make our country great, I'd say a bit more sinister.

He has mucho opposition here. I'm looking forward to the backpedaling.

One of the commenters to the Globe article put it nicely:



> How can we track the social damage the neo-cons are about to unleash if there is no data?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

kps said:


> WTF is wrong with making the *long* form voluntary?
> 
> If enough reply, the sample may still be good for whatever they want. Holding the threat of fines and jail over the citizenry if they don't complete it is pure bullsh!t.


Absolutely nothing!

We have had posts suggesting that only wet behind the ears, commie, pinko, **** will fill in the long form. Then another poster then suggested that the main supporters would be old fart con-men.

Clearly at least some Canadians have no problem with this sort of intrusion, and obviously it crosses party lines, so make it voluntary and save the poor census takers a lot of brain damage.

BTW does the long form still ask if you have an outhouse? It did back in '76.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

There is little value to a voluntary form. The results would merely reflect those who did not refuse to fill it out!

The suggestion to pay us to fill in the form is interesting. I like the the idea of incentives rather than coercion. How about a $50 tax credit for the short form, and a $100 credit for the long form?

_Ad hominem_ comments do not add to the debate. What's the point?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The article he's referring to here:
> _Stephen Taylor: The beginning of the end of the Canadian welfare state_


Say it isn't so!!! 

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Grey power!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder how the polling companies can get their data with out the poll being mandatory.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bsenka said:


> I wonder how the polling companies can get their data with out the poll being mandatory.


Duh... they could pay any one who fills out the long form $200. Yep take it right out of the pockets of those that want the data.

If its mandatory, under threat of fine or jail, the results will be useless as anyone that resents the intrusion will lie wherever possible. Since confidentiality is assured there is absolutely no way the government could prosecute you for lying on the form without revealing that it was that you said on the form.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Duh... they could pay any one who fills out the long form $200. Yep take it right out of the pockets of those that want the data.


And since they sell their data privately, they have a steady source of revenue to pay something for it!


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Duh... they could pay any one who fills out the long form $200. Yep take it right out of the pockets of those that want the data.
> 
> If its mandatory, under threat of fine or jail, the results will be useless as anyone that resents the intrusion will lie wherever possible. Since confidentiality is assured there is absolutely no way the government could prosecute you for lying on the form without revealing that it was that you said on the form.


You completely missed my point.

I was commenting on this story: 

Retirees wary of Tory census move - The Globe and Mail

Which claims low support for the voluntary census. It's evidence? Voluntary polling.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sorry but voluntary polling is an entirely different issue.

Enough of the long forms would be filled in to give a statistically valid result which is all the census types claim they want.

If the forms are mandatory it is because they are a hidden form of data mining.

My original point that those forced to complete long forms against their will, will lie is entirely valid. If the data is truly anonymous there is no way the Nazis can come back on you. If they are not anonymous then my opposition is proven valid.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> An interesting read:
> 
> Three cheers for a hidden agenda! - The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


 
Thing is, he seems to concentrate on welfare or benefit programs. The census is also used for services that we ALL use, like healthcare, fire and police services, education, etc... We ALL get something out of the census being done. 

What I would like to hear is his thoughts on how to use more modern ways to gather the statistics. He mentioned this, but never went into detail.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> And since they sell their data privately, they have a steady source of revenue to pay something for it!


So they sell data? If they didn't you'd complain that they're using your tax dollars to give data to people.

Yes, they sell data when work is required to provide that data, from what I can see (part of their site seems to be down, or my proxy server is blocking it). They also provide alot of FREE data.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Thing is, he seems to concentrate on welfare or benefit programs. The census is also used for services that we ALL use, like healthcare, fire and police services, education, etc... We ALL get something out of the census being done.


I want them to reduce most of the services they offer me, so filling out the census would be counterproductive to my interests.



Kosh said:


> So they sell data? If they didn't you'd complain that they're using your tax dollars to give data to people.


If they gave it away free, I'd suggest that they don't pay people to fill out a census. If they charge for reports, I'd suggest they pay those who supply he data. 

In many cases, I have requested StasCan data that required me to buy the information.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Thing is, he seems to concentrate on welfare or benefit programs. The census is also used for services that we ALL use, like healthcare, fire and police services, education, etc... We ALL get something out of the census being done.


I agree. By excluding the services we all enjoy it creates a skewed and divisive message.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I agree. By excluding the services we all enjoy it creates a skewed and divisive message.


By excluding the services we enjoy having others pay for...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what's quite a chuckle about this is that macfury's "data" is likely in quite a few companies hands being freely sold without him even knowing about it.
:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what's quite a chuckle about this is that macfury's "data" is likely in quite a few companies hands being freely sold without him even knowing about it.
> :lmao::lmao::lmao:


I gave them the data voluntarily. The only case where I'm really stuck is when government creates a monopoly (Ontario Hydro, Enbridge) and I have limited choice about who gets my data.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

pffft. Like you had a choice.

LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> pffft. Like you had a choice.
> 
> LOL


You strike me as someone who really feels disempowered. No wonder government forms such an important component of your life, looking after the "little man" and all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

when confronted with something as laughable as this macfury, I'm not surprised at your need to strike out. It's ok, let it all out.
:baby::baby::baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> when confronted with something as laughable as this macfury, I'm not surprised at your need to strike out. It's ok, let it all out.
> :baby::baby::baby:


I would use some more emoticons to dress up your message. These are great attention-getters!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i wanna hear the storey about voluntarily giving out personal info to companies, or having the choice to give it no one at all.

popcorn's on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> By excluding the services we enjoy having others pay for...


Hmm, I do believe we all pay for them (save some on social assistance). I'm referring to things such as fire, police, healthcare etc. 

Give me Government delivery of these services any day. Not some for profit body summing me up as merely a dollar sign. You can live in that world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> i wanna hear the storey about voluntarily giving out personal info to companies, or having the choice to give it no one at all.
> 
> popcorn's on.


Making informed choices can't be taught. As an empowered individual you must learn to do this for yourself. I'm sorry I can't help you here. It would be as insulting as trying to teach you how to make popcorn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Give me Government delivery of these services any day. Not some for profit body summing me up as merely a dollar sign. You can live in that world.


Well, I can't live in that world as long as you're sucking me dry to buy the inefficient government services that give you a warm glow.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Well, I can't live in that world as long as you're sucking me dry to buy the inefficient government services that give you a warm glow.


:lmao:

Too bad for you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> :lmao:
> 
> Too bad for you.


Thanks to the efforts I've supported, it's starting to become too bad for you. The changes to the census are just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

don't tell me, let me guess.

We won't recognize Canada when you're done with it...
:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> don't tell me, let me guess.
> 
> We won't recognize Canada when you're done with it...
> :lmao:


You'll recognize it, but you won't like it. Too much independence.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You'll recognize it, but you won't like it. Too much independence.


Not in your lifetime MF. Harper's making sure of that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Harper's too busy spending money like a fiend to bring about real change.

It's all semantics for fools.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Looks like we ran out of popcorn...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ernie doesn't like giving his personal info either. I'll bet he's libertarian too.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

kps said:


> Looks like we ran out of popcorn...


Nah, just got tired of MacFury's "I'm from Mars" responses. The guy obviously doesn't "live" in Canada.

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Nah, just got tired of MacFury's "I'm from Mars" responses. The guy obviously doesn't "live" in Canada.


Canada is a malleable concept. We are not measured by the greatness of our welfare programs, though these may one day be interesting historical footnotes.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Canada is a malleable concept. We are not measured by the greatness of our welfare programs, though these may one day be interesting historical footnotes.


Doubt it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Doubt it.


Perhaps not even footnotes.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Canada is a malleable concept. We are not measured by the greatness of our welfare programs, though these may one day be interesting historical footnotes.


If we're lucky, welfare programs will be footnotes; I fear they may occupy much more space, as the cause of our decline and fall . Europe's social programs are causing it to bleed and die.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> If we're lucky, welfare programs will be footnotes; I fear they may occupy much more space, as the cause of our decline and fall . Europe's social programs are causing it to bleed and die.


Sadly, you can watch people make choices "for all the right reasons" that lead to the downfall of their own countries and cultures. The outrage people feel here about resistance to a Census program shows a shocking degree of timidity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh I don't think it's the social programs that's causing europe to "die". Perhaps to a blind conservative, it's something to believe to wash away the sins of the real greedy.

LOL.

"social programs" seem to extend pretty far up the ladder apparently. Real far.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Sadly, you can watch people make choices "for all the right reasons" that lead to the downfall of their own countries and cultures. The outrage people feel here about resistance to a Census program shows a shocking degree of timidity.


The census is hardly an issue at all. The media though, is running with it for some reason. The Globe is basically posting editorials as top stories on their home page. From a few days ago: 

Why the census matters just about everywhere - The Globe and Mail

I could ask my neighbours, co-workers their opinion on this; they wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chasMac said:


> The census is hardly an issue at all. The media though, is running with it for some reason. The Globe is basically posting editorials as top stories on their home page. From a few days ago:
> 
> Why the census matters just about everywhere - The Globe and Mail
> 
> I could ask my neighbours, co-workers their opinion on this; they wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about.


In all fairness to the G & M they also ran this article, which is an excellent counter point.

The anachronistic, coercive, unnecessary census



> Le stat, to paraphrase Louis XIV, c’est moi. Statistics have always been synonymous with the state, the more efficiently either to tax the people or to conscript them. In an editorial commentary last week, The Economist magazine traced the obligatory census to God’s instructions to Moses that he prep for war by counting his people. Fortunately, the census is no longer a strictly military exercise. Hence we have no need for a wartime draft to accomplish it. Canada’s mandatory census is mostly an institutional tradition whose purpose lurks in the forgotten past – something like Guy Fawkes Day. We compel people to fill census forms, in other words, mostly because it’s something we do, a ritual we perform.





> Yet, as The Economist noted, the census is essentially recognized as obsolete in a growing number of countries – a conclusion that arises from the intuitive fact that the world is so filled with statistical data that it would be a greater public service to lessen the quantity than to increase it. Britain will hold its last census next year, as will Germany. Denmark hasn’t had a census for decades. Sweden, Norway and Finland retain only a rudimentary census. With its constitutional requirement of a room-by-room head count, the U.S. government spends $11-billion to count its population – $36 a head. Finland spends 20 cents a head.





> The European consensus is that the census simply isn’t necessary. It seems that computers can collect data much more efficiently by conversing directly with databanks – and much more factually, too. (Britain determined from its last census, incidentally, that 0.7 per cent of all Britons are Jedi knights.) But there is a deeper mystery here, an authentic subversion: a tentative recognition that decision-making by data requires a never-ending supply of further data. (How much crawl space exists in the average Canadian home?) The fact is that we will never get enough data. With all that’s now available, economists still cannot anticipate the next recession – let alone the next depression.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

chasMac said:


> If we're lucky, welfare programs will be footnotes; I fear they may occupy much more space, as the cause of our decline and fall . Europe's social programs are causing it to bleed and die.


No. Living beyond your means is causing Greece (and maybe a few other European countries) to bleed and die. You can't keep on overspending every year and increasing your debt. You have to learn to suck it up and live without, until things get better. That and cheating on your accounting to get into the Euro, is what killed Greece - they also misrepresented their debt to get into the Euro. 

Canada is far away from falling into that trap. We've had Federal surpluses the last few years, and yes we're going into deficit the next few years, but we should get back to a balanced budget in 3-4 years time as we get out of recession. Besides, the feds could always increase taxes slightly, to get us out of deficit. The conservatives are cutting business taxes, which could be delayed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> No. Living beyond your means is causing Greece (and maybe a few other European countries) to bleed and die. You can't keep on overspending every year and increasing your debt.


But you have to keep doing it if the spending is an "entitlement." The same problem the U.S. is getting into. They no longer have much discretionary spending in the budget--it's all accounted for by law. Many municipalities in the U.S. are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy because they can't sustain the legacy costs of their overpaid civil workers in retirement--and they're bound to these payments by law.

Sure you can increase taxes to pay for it, and then individuals go bankrupt instead of the city or country.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Kosh said:


> No. Living beyond your means is causing Greece (and maybe a few other European countries) to bleed and die. You can't keep on overspending every year and increasing your debt. You have to learn to suck it up and live without, until things get better. That and cheating on your accounting to get into the Euro, is what killed Greece - they also misrepresented their debt to get into the Euro.


What you and I are saying are not mutually exclusive. An over-abundance of welfare-programs (as I am saying), and living beyond one's means (as you are saying) are, in this case, one and the same. What do you refer to when you mention overspending? Arms?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mentioning only 'welfare programs' is brainless. 

there's far more to this storey and the incessant tory whining of welfare programs is tiring. But then to a tory supporter, the idea is to yell 'shiny ball' because we sure don't want to see the whole picture do we.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> mentioning only 'welfare programs' is brainless.


What should be mentioned?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Sure you can increase taxes to pay for it, and then individuals go bankrupt instead of the city or country.


 
But they don't have to increase taxes - they just have to delay decreasing taxes. Business taxes at that, not individual taxes. In fact the conservatives also decreased individual taxes before this recession - they reduced the GST by 2%.  But the conservatives don't even have to increase taxes as long as the economy picks up, as the increase in taxes as the eceonomy picks up, will put us back into surplus.

Once they get back to a balanced budget, or better yet a surplus, they can pay down the debt again, reduce the interest they are paying on the debt, and reduce taxes. So in the end taxes will be lower anyways.

So what I am saying, is that in the long term, our social programs will not require additional taxation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> So what I am saying, is that in the long term, our social programs will not require additional taxation.


No, not as they are at present. I agree.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Time to start another thread I think gents... this exchange is a little off topic...


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> What should be mentioned?


That cities rely on the census information as well, and you will hear, as we have already heard, mayors complaining that they will not get their information to plan their city spending when there is no information from the census. We've already heard one of Alberta's city mayors complain, Toronto's mayor complained. How much more of a backlash do the Conservatives need before they give up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Time to start another thread I think gents... this exchange is a little off topic...


Not at all off topic. The argument presented early on was that the change in census requirements was Stephen Harper's first volley in dismantling the welfare state.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What should be mentioned?


bingo. The attitude summed up in 4 words.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Not at all off topic. The argument presented early on was that the change in census requirements was Stephen Harper's first volley in dismantling the welfare state.


The original post was:



> It is rare that statistics and politics become mixed together. I'm sure that there is a diversity of opinion in this forum, as there would be within any group, but I expect that there is a level of knowledge that is different here. For one, as dedicated computer users and discussants, we know that everything done through the internet is potentially knowable or 'countable.' In a sense, there is little privacy on the net. Does this present an alternate means of gathering census data, perhaps more interesting and valuable than asking about the number of bedrooms and toilets in our homes?
> 
> Another difference, and this is more speculative, is that forum members' knowledge of what statistics are, how they're gathered, processed and interpreted, might be more refined. How data is gathered data is the foundation of its value.
> 
> I think that any voluntary census cannot be as accurate, reliable, and thereby informative as an obligatory census process. Opinions?


Just because someone derailed it earlier on doesn't meant the thread hasn't been derailed... it's just been running off the rails for quite some time now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> bingo. The attitude summed up in 4 words.


Thanks for your answer. Would have been better if you tagged it with a smiley though... or LOLOL!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> That cities rely on the census information as well, and you will hear, as we have already heard, mayors complaining that they will not get their information to plan their city spending when there is no information from the census. We've already heard one of Alberta's city mayors complain, Toronto's mayor complained. How much more of a backlash do the Conservatives need before they give up.


No one is saying the census won't be conducted. The *fear* is that the voluntary aspect will yield "unreliable data". The data collected when mandatory has already been shown to be able to be skewed and falsified, so that argument is spurious. All those pro mandatory organizations have a vested interest in the census being mandatory from their perspective so their position is not in the least bit surprising. In and of itself their defence of the mandatory nature does not make their position right or correct but merely belies thier own self interest.

It boggles the mind to think that many individuals who are so willing to have have their freedom taken away by the mandatory nature of the long form are the first to scream bloody murder when it comes to having restrictions placed on their right to protest and even defend those who do so violently.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> No one is saying the census won't be conducted. The *fear* is that the voluntary aspect will yield "unreliable data". The data collected when mandatory has already been shown to be able to be skewed and falsified, so that argument is spurious.


Your ignorance of statistics is showing. It's not fear, it's that anyone who knows a little bit about statistics (which admittedly, is very few people as evidenced by this issue) knows that a voluntary survey gives you a self-selected group - therefore a huge bias in data. People lying on the census data will be shown as statistical outliers, unless everyone lies the exact same way - the odds of which are staggering. Take a few university level statistics courses (I did) and you will see why this is the case.



> It boggles the mind to think that many individuals who are so willing to have have their freedom taken away by the mandatory nature of the long form are the first to scream bloody murder when it comes to having restrictions placed on their right to protest and even defend those who do so violently.


The context here is completely different than that of protesting. You are asking for the freedom to stop the government from collecting anonymous data, when you freely gave it to your bank, who gave it to Equifax, who freely gives it to almost anyone who pays them. The freedom argument is simply invalid. The census data is anonymous. Nobody can use it to find out anything about you. Unlike the data you already gave to corporations.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Your ignorance of statistics is showing. It's not fear, it's that anyone who knows a little bit about statistics (which admittedly, is very few people as evidenced by this issue) knows that a voluntary survey gives you a self-selected group - therefore a huge bias in data. People lying on the census data will be shown as statistical outliers, unless everyone lies the exact same way - the odds of which are staggering. Take a few university level statistics courses (I did) and you will see why this is the case.


How would they be more "self selected" than those who respond to samplings conducted in polls, no one *has* to respond to pollings and yet their percentage of error fits within "accepted" statistically significant findings.

Since you are the "expert" on statistics, let's see the proof in some form other than because the text books say so.



hayesk said:


> The context here is completely different than that of protesting. You are asking for the freedom to stop the government from collecting anonymous data, when you freely gave it to your bank, who gave it to Equifax, who freely gives it to almost anyone who pays them. The freedom argument is simply invalid. The census data is anonymous. Nobody can use it to find out anything about you. Unlike the data you already gave to corporations.


It is not invalid at all, any time you are compelled to do something for fear of fine or imprisonment your freedom is limited. Period. No one compels you to take out a bank account it is your choice and are doing so because you want to. Your analogy and comparisons are quite simply flawed.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks, Screature, for re-discovering the theme of the thread. I was not intending to have a political discussion -- they exist in many forums, including the popular press.

I was intrigued by your earlier references to other ways of gathering census data. Of course there are many sources of information (data), but how would it be put together to answer some basic questions? For example:
1. How many people live in my town?
2. How are they stratified by gender, age, language preference?
3. How many private vehicles are there in my town?

And so on. Most of these are short-form type questions, but perhaps it too can be abolished.

Planning is based on data. Public transit, health services, educational institutions, infrastructure development all require reliable data to maintain and develop.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kleles said:


> Of course there are many sources of information (data), but how would it be put together to answer some basic questions? For example:
> 1. How many people live in my town?
> 2. How are they stratified by gender, age, language preference?
> 3. How many private vehicles are there in my town?
> ...


1. Tax roles, plus live births, plus school enrollment, plus immigration records filtered through voluntary census returns.
2. Voluntary census returns.
3. Vehicle registration data.

Public transit: Number of current users and trend of usage.
Health services: Current use, number of live births, immigration records, extrapolate trends
Educational institutions: Current enrollment, live births, current trend.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> How would they be more "self selected" than those who respond to samplings conducted in polls, no one *has* to respond to pollings and yet their percentage of error fits within "accepted" statistically significant findings.


Polls aren't necessarily that valid either - especially when there is a partisan aspect of it. If I polled people about Stephen Harper outside a Liberal convention, and then concluded from that poll that he had a 0% approval rate, would you believe it was valid. Likewise, if we sent a voluntary long census form out knowing that conservative-minded people believe such a form is invasive, how valid would the results be. Studies are discredited all the time based on the way they got their samples.


> Since you are the "expert" on statistics, let's see the proof in some form other than because the text books say so.


Are you asking me to teach you university-level statistics in a single forum post? Sorry, you'll have to take that up yourself. If you really want to know, that is. I'm not a teacher, nor did I claim to be.


> It is not invalid at all, any time you are compelled to do something for fear of fine or imprisonment your freedom is limited. Period. No one compels you to take out a bank account it is your choice and are doing so because you want to. Your analogy and comparisons are quite simply flawed.


As free as we are, we are never absolutely free. Jury duty, census filling are some of our civic duties that we aren't free to refuse. It's a lot worse in other countries. (Mandatory military service, anyone?)

But this freedom or invasion of privacy issue is a red herring. Nobody believes that it's an invasion of privacy - they're just toeing the Conservative party line. Before this issue came up, complaints about the long census form have been going down. If it was really an issue, there'd be more complaints not less.

Not only that, people are only complaining about the freedom to refuse the long form. They'd be complaining about being threatened to complete the short form too - if it really was about freedom. But nobody complains about penalties of fines or jail time for not completing the short form, which will still be there. If it was really about freedom, the Conservatives would be talking about abolishing the census altogether. But they're not? Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Are you asking me to teach you university-level statistics in a single forum post? Sorry, you'll have to take that up yourself. If you really want to know, that is. I'm not a teacher, nor did I claim to be.


Busted. You don't have to teach anything just back up your claim with proof.




hayesk said:


> As free as we are, we are never absolutely free. Jury duty, census filling are some of our civic duties that we aren't free to refuse. It's a lot worse in other countries. (Mandatory military service, anyone?)
> 
> But this freedom or invasion of privacy issue is a red herring. Nobody believes that it's an invasion of privacy - they're just toeing the Conservative party line. Before this issue came up, complaints about the long census form have been going down. If it was really an issue, there'd be more complaints not less.
> 
> Not only that, people are only complaining about the freedom to refuse the long form. They'd be complaining about being threatened to complete the short form too - if it really was about freedom. But nobody complains about penalties of fines or jail time for not completing the short form, which will still be there. If it was really about freedom, the *Conservatives would be talking about abolishing the census altogether. But they're not? Why do you suppose that is?*


Do you know how easy it is to get out of jury duty if you don't want to do it? Just come across as an extremist/prejudiced/sexist etc. in your interview and you will be dismissed.

We don't have mandatory military service in this country, talk about red herrings.

Wait for it. 


The anachronistic, coercive, unnecessary census




> Le stat, to paraphrase Louis XIV, c’est moi. Statistics have always been synonymous with the state, the more efficiently either to tax the people or to conscript them. In an editorial commentary last week, The Economist magazine traced the obligatory census to God’s instructions to Moses that he prep for war by counting his people. Fortunately, the census is no longer a strictly military exercise. Hence we have no need for a wartime draft to accomplish it. Canada’s mandatory census is mostly an institutional tradition whose purpose lurks in the forgotten past – something like Guy Fawkes Day. We compel people to fill census forms, in other words, mostly because it’s something we do, a ritual we perform.


 


> Yet, as The Economist noted, the census is essentially recognized as obsolete in a growing number of countries – a conclusion that arises from the intuitive fact that the world is so filled with statistical data that it would be a greater public service to lessen the quantity than to increase it. Britain will hold its last census next year, as will Germany. Denmark hasn’t had a census for decades. Sweden, Norway and Finland retain only a rudimentary census. With its constitutional requirement of a room-by-room head count, the U.S. government spends $11-billion to count its population – $36 a head. Finland spends 20 cents a head.





> The European consensus is that the census simply isn’t necessary. It seems that computers can collect data much more efficiently by conversing directly with databanks – and much more factually, too. (Britain determined from its last census, incidentally, that 0.7 per cent of all Britons are Jedi knights.) But there is a deeper mystery here, an authentic subversion: a tentative recognition that decision-making by data requires a never-ending supply of further data. (How much crawl space exists in the average Canadian home?) The fact is that we will never get enough data. With all that’s now available, economists still cannot anticipate the next recession – let alone the next depression.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Do you know how easy it is to get out of jury duty if you don't want to do it? Just come across as an extremist/prejudiced/sexist etc. in your interview and you will be dismissed.


It's way easier than that. Anyone who wants out of jury duty can do so just by showing that it's not convenient for them. I know a LOT of people who never had to go past the initial letter phase. They just sent in a letter explaining why they would not be able to make it, and that was the end of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> But this freedom or invasion of privacy issue is a red herring. Nobody believes that it's an invasion of privacy - they're just toeing the Conservative party line. Before this issue came up, complaints about the long census form have been going down. If it was really an issue, there'd be more complaints not less.


Nonsense. I and many others have seen this as an invasion of privacy for years. Some people may feel that they're comfortable with voluntarily completing the short form. I'm not.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

hayesk said:


> But this freedom or invasion of privacy issue is a red herring. Nobody believes that it's an invasion of privacy - they're just toeing the Conservative party line.


No. I have always thought of it as a gross invasion of my privacy, long before the Conservative Party of Canada even existed. I almost always end up getting the long form. I've never filled it out, and I never will.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Damn, now I have to teach first year statistics??? 

Damn, where did I put that first year university statistics book... and I have, don't make me get it out. beejacon 

Maybe I'll refresh myself on lottery statistics while I'm at it...


P.S. Hey, I just noticed we have someone from Winterpeg here, he must be talking about the temperature at Portage and Main. That wind really comes down Portage. Gotta be the coldest place in Canada.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

*Statistics*

There are various data gathering methods, each allowing for different levels of accuracy.

_Counting_ involves gathering data from each member of a population. The accuracy is very high, and descriptions, based on the count, are valid and reliable. This is what the short-form census tries to do. 

_Sampling_ is gathering data from a sub-group of a population. Information gathered from the sample is extrapolated to the entire population. The accuracy of the extrapolation is directly related to the size of the group and rigour and of the sampling method. There are many types of sampling methods: random, stratified (e.g., by age), fixed (every 5th case, for example), etc. The long-form census used the fixed (interval) method, with a very high ratio of the population, (20%), in the sample group. This resulted in reasonably accurate extrapolation.

Compare this to sampling methods used by survey companies when they ask 2000 people a question, and extrapolate that to the entire population. That's why we hear things like "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%".

Any method which allows people to opt out is hardly worth the effort. Who is being sampled? To which group can the conclusions be extrapolated? 

This is why I would not comply with a voluntary long-form census.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> There are various data gathering methods, each allowing for different levels of accuracy.
> 
> _Counting_ involves gathering data from each member of a population. The accuracy is very high, and descriptions, based on the count, are valid and reliable. This is what the short-form census tries to do.
> 
> ...


At last... Thank you Kleles!!!! :clap: Finally someone who can actually express some knowledge of statistics other than "Because the text books say so."

However I still have questions...

Why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate for the data being collected on the long form? Everyone who participates in a survey dos so willingly. This is essentially what the proposed changes would effectively create for the long form.

Why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate?


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

*Adequate Statistics*

Polls or surveys conducted for political parties or companies are not focussed as much on accuracy (precision) as they are on swaying public opinion or potential investors or purchasers. 'Adequate' is related to quality in this context. The polling/survey companies produce a product that is valuable for their customers (those who pay them for their products). The quality of their product is a function of what they can sell.

Think about this in another way. Why not elect federal governments by randomly distributing 2000 ballots to voters across the country and have them determine who will govern us? We decry the less than 100% participation in elections, because we know that too many people choose to opt out. (Some countries have obligatory voting, e.g., Australia). Most Canadians would not find this random voting plan acceptable because of the likely error in representation (extrapolation).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> Polls or surveys conducted for political parties or companies are not focussed as much on accuracy (precision) as they are on swaying public opinion or potential investors or purchasers. 'Adequate' is related to quality in this context. The polling/survey companies produce a product that is valuable for their customers (those who pay them for their products). The quality of their product is a function of what they can sell.
> 
> Think about this in another way. Why not elect federal governments by randomly distributing 2000 ballots to voters across the country and have them determine who will govern us? We decry the less than 100% participation in elections, because we know that too many people choose to opt out. (Some countries have obligatory voting, e.g., Australia). Most Canadians would not find this random voting plan acceptable because of the likely error in representation (extrapolation).


Thanks Kleles, but this represents a political answer not a statistical one, I asked "Why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate?"

Not even a census is 100% accurate. As you mentioned even the long forms sample when compulsory only represents 20% of the population. Why should coerced statistical accuracy trump individual freedom? Presumably to serve the "greater good". However is this true? Who exactly is representative of this "greater good". Certainly from the information being made available through the media the greater good would seems to be a number of special interests groups.

By way of example in an article posted in this thread earlier, Why the census matters just about everywhere - The Globe and Mail



> A Calgary-based location scout with Orange National Retail Group, Mr. Kosowan crunches census data in search of demographic sweet spots for expansion-minded clients such as Starbucks.
> 
> “We spend an enormous amount of money purchasing that information on behalf of clients so we can do research, so they know where to position themselves,” said Mr. Kosowan, director of Orange’s Prairie division. Losing the long-form data, he said, “will impact our business, I can tell you that.”





> Others are speaking out. Garth Whyte, president and CEO of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, which represents 33,000 businesses, said he has canvassed members and they are worried about the proposed changes. Restaurants use information from the long form to help determine where to locate and how to target their marketing.





> Home builders and condo developers say they increasingly turn to market research firms run by economists who pore over census long-form data so they know who potential buyers are, the distances they’re willing to travel between home and work, how many bedrooms those customers want, even the optimal location of the neighbourhood parkette.





> Municipal economic development offices from Halifax to Victoria all publish local census data to help businesses looking to invest. City planners also monitor census patterns so they can make decisions about local services.


There are other more "civic" minded interests mentioned that use the data from the long form such as the United Way but they are in the minority. So it would seem that "everywhere" and the "greater good" are by in large representative of those interests who wish to make money from the information collected from the census. This certainly serves some interests but hardly the majority. Even within the context of civic interests, they serve specific interest groups, not "the greater good". So why should the freedom of the individual be coercively limited for the good of interest groups from whom they may or may not benefit from having their liberty coercively imposed upon by the state?

Again is statistical "accuracy" worth the coercive action of the state. So again I ask why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate?" Nothing in life 
is 100% accurate why is it worth limiting citizens freedom to try and achieve that which is unattainable?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

If some one chooses not to vote in an election, they are saying as loudly and clearly as possible; "None of the Above".

As long our politicos are so visibly corrupt and represent the party rather than the taxpaying voter, a large portion of those voters will have a great deal of difficulty finding a candidate worthy of their vote. Lacking any way to pull in positive votes we can expect a continuation of the abhorrent negative campaigning that is sadly an integral part of our political system.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> If some one chooses not to vote in an election, they are saying as loudly and clearly as possible; "None of the Above".
> 
> As long our politicos are so visibly corrupt and represent the party rather than the taxpaying voter, a large portion of those voters will have a great deal of difficulty finding a candidate worthy of their vote. Lacking any way to pull in positive votes we can expect a continuation of the abhorrent negative campaigning that is sadly an integral part of our political system.


I disagree eMacMan - they are actually saying, as loudly and clearly as possible : "meh" or at their most precise - "I do not care" or "I can not be bothered to actually vote".

This is very different from "none of the above". There was a campaign in the last few US Federal elections to allow NOTA on the ballot. I don't think we'll see our politicians taking a risk by allowing THAT kind of communication to come back from the ballot box - imagine the post election speechifying changing from "We have a strong mandate" to "%35 of you think we are *all* unworthy".


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> "Why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate?"
> ...
> This certainly serves some interests but hardly the majority. Even within the context of civic interests, they serve specific interest groups, not "the greater good".


I didn't get out my calculator, because numbers never finally answer questions about quality or desire. Any calculation is valuable only within a particular context. So, ultimately you, and others, are right! Indeed, as some have mentioned, perhaps we should get rid of the census (short and long forms) entirely! Let entrepreneurs, do it and sell the information. 

Also, "coercion" and "personal-freedom," are catch words used to evoke emotional responses. We are coerced to obey laws and we are free within limits -- all the time. Personally, I highly value our _level_ of personal freedom compared to what exists in most of the countries of the world (as an aside: democratic nations comprise less than half of the members of the U.N, Straight UN Facts - UN member states - democratic?, and perhaps less than a third of humanity). But, we are not fully free, and our degree of privacy is debatable. 

"The greater good" is one of those terms, like statistics, that is meaningless out of context. If one is a capitalist, then one would say that the best interest of "special interests groups" is beneficial for all of society. If these groups buy the census data so that their members can get wealthier, then, by some measure we all get wealthier. Our government is in the business of individual wealth enhancement (grants, loans, Business Development Bank, tax deductions for business expenses, etc.) "Advancement" is driven by capitalism.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> I didn't get out my calculator, because numbers never finally answer questions about quality or desire. Any calculation is valuable only within a particular context. So, ultimately you, and others, are right! Indeed, as some have mentioned, perhaps we should get rid of the census (short and long forms) entirely! Let entrepreneurs, do it and sell the information.
> 
> Also, "coercion" and "personal-freedom," are catch words used to evoke emotional responses. We are coerced to obey laws and we are free within limits -- all the time. Personally, I highly value our _level_ of personal freedom compared to what exists in most of the countries of the world (as an aside: democratic nations comprise less than half of the members of the U.N, Straight UN Facts - UN member states - democratic?, and perhaps less than a third of humanity). But, we are not fully free, and our degree of privacy is debatable.
> 
> *"The greater good" is one of those terms, like statistics, that is meaningless out of context. If one is a capitalist, then one would say that the best interest of "special interests groups" is beneficial for all of society. If these groups buy the census data so that their members can get wealthier, then, by some measure we all get wealthier.* Our government is in the business of individual wealth enhancement (grants, loans, Business Development Bank, tax deductions for business expenses, etc.) "Advancement" is driven by capitalism.



I cannot agree that "coercion" and "personal-freedom," are catch words used to evoke emotional responses. They are principles that define our democracy and society.

Additionally I can't entirely agree that, ""The greater good" is one of those terms, like statistics, that is meaningless out of context. If one is a capitalist, then one would say that the best interest of "special interests groups" is beneficial for all of society. If these groups buy the census data so that their members can get wealthier, then, by some measure we all get wealthier."

This is a particular theory of capitalist economics (trickle down) most particularly popular in the Regan and Thatcher years, but certainly not all capitalist models adhere to or ascribe to such theories.

However, most certainly laws limit our freedom but generally in a manner such that they are for the greater good. By way of example I am not free to kill someone who does me wrong because then society as a whole could slide into an abyss of vigilantism where an eye for an eye rules the land or we all become vulnerable to whims of a given individual without any form of recourse beyond just exacting our own revenge. Our freedom to kill another is limited because presumably it makes us *all* safer.

Let's look at a less extreme example. In order to drive a car on public roads I need a license to do so legally. My freedom to drive a car without one has been limited. The reason for it is because it is assumed that if you take the necessary course and pass a drivers test to be certified as capable to drive and understand and abide by the rules of the road, in so doing *all* drivers will be safer for it. 

However, there is no coercion here. No one says you *must* drive, just that if you choose to then you must have a license. Presumably if you are driving it is because you want/choose to.

Let's look at the census and the long form. Here we are are being told that if we make up a part of the government sample we have no choice we *must* fill it out or otherwise suffer the consequences of fines or imprisonment. Our freedom to not take part is strictly prohibited. Clearly this does not fit within the example of say a driver's license where our freedom is limited only in so much that if we desire to to do something we must met a minimum standard to protect the greater public good as there is no choice involved what so ever.

It doesn't even resemble the example of murder where my freedom to kill some one is restricted, i.e. an action on my part is disallowed. With the census it is my right to refuse to act that is being denied.

The only other example that I can think of when it comes to this type of limitation on one's freedom is when it comes to paying taxes. You do not have the right to refuse. However, even here there are practical means by which you can avoid having to do so. You can simply choose not to work or work under the table for cash only and thereby avoid paying taxes.

Most people choose to work and legitimately pay their taxes presumably because they understand that it is their tax dollars that pay for public infrastructure and government programs that are to the benefit of all.

However, in the case of the census, even with the latest polls conducted 37% of Canadians presumably do not see the value as they agree with the government's position. Therefore I think it is entirely reasonable for Stats Can and the proponents of coercion to convincingly demonstrate how this coercion is *necessary* for the greater common good and the how a reduction in the accuracy of the census by it having a voluntary component to it would cause such harm to society as to warrant the continuance of such coercion.



> Again is statistical "accuracy" worth the coercive action of the state. So again I ask why is "accurate 19 times out of 20 with a margin of error of 4%" not adequate?" Nothing in lifeis 100% accurate why is it worth limiting citizens freedom to try and achieve that which is unattainable?


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> Therefore I think it is entirely reasonable for Stats Can and the proponents of coercion to convincingly demonstrate how this coercion is *necessary* for the greater common good and the how a reduction in the accuracy of the census by it having a voluntary component to it would cause such harm to society as to warrant the continuance of such coercion.


Well, we differ as to the meaning of "the greater common good." And, it is almost impossible to prove (to absolutely everyone) that anything governmental is *necessary*. 

This government might successfully abolish the long form, and a another government might reinstate it. At least we get to vote about it, and all the other issues, in the next election.

BTW, I think the long-form should be amended -- the perfect Canadian solution.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> Well, we differ as to the meaning of "the greater common good." And, it is almost impossible to prove (to absolutely everyone) that anything governmental is *necessary*.
> 
> This government might successfully abolish the long form, and a another government might reinstate it. At least we get to vote about it, and all the other issues, in the next election.
> 
> BTW, I think the long-form should be amended -- the perfect Canadian solution.


Well that is understandable as we are all different. How do you define "the greater common good." ?

At any rate this is an aside and a diversion from my statistically based question that you have yet to answer and the nature of your thread. I guess we are done.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

“The greater common good”: Why don’t you start a new thread with this topic?

“19 times out of 20”: This refers to the level of confidence or error rate that is often used in social science statistics (and is also known as the alpha level; 1/20 = 0.05). In research, this level is used to make a statement that the particular statistic that is being evaluated is not due to chance, but is likely a “true” reflection of the relationship between the variables being measured. In this way, there is a 5% chance that the conclusions are wrong, and that a random (or unknown, or not studied) process has contributed to the findings. More rigour (less likely due to chance) would be, for example a confidence level of 49 times out of 50 (alpha = 0.02) or 99 times out of 100 (alpha = 0.01). The latter alpha levels are rarely seen in polls or surveys. 

“Plus or minus 3 points” e.g., is also known as the confidence interval or range. If we say that 26% of households have 3 toilets (to continue with a theme of this thread), with a ‘3 point’ spread, it means that 23% to 29 % of households have 3 toilets.

Error rates and confidence intervals are inversely related. 

And, again, the usefulness of data gathered from a sample is determined by the quality of the sampling method. Lets say that 26% of respondents have 3 toilets in their homes. Also, lets assume that only 55% of those who were sent the voluntary form responded. What can inferred about the prevalence of 3-toilet homes in the general population?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kleles said:


> ...And, again, the usefulness of data gathered from a sample is determined by the quality of the sampling method. Lets say that 26% of respondents have 3 toilets in their homes. Also, lets assume that only 55% of those who were sent the voluntary form responded. What can inferred about the prevalence of 3-toilet homes in the general population?


Still the only ones that should or would care are the local tax assessor nazis. God forbid that someone with a three-holer shows up on the tax roles as only having a two-holer, thus costing the city $50/year.beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> “The greater common good”: Why don’t you start a new thread with this topic?
> 
> “19 times out of 20”: This refers to the level of confidence or error rate that is often used in social science statistics (and is also known as the alpha level; 1/20 = 0.05). In research, this level is used to make a statement that the particular statistic that is being evaluated is not due to chance, but is likely a “true” reflection of the relationship between the variables being measured. In this way, there is a 5% chance that the conclusions are wrong, and that a random (or unknown, or not studied) process has contributed to the findings. More rigour (less likely due to chance) would be, for example a confidence level of 49 times out of 50 (alpha = 0.02) or 99 times out of 100 (alpha = 0.01). The latter alpha levels are rarely seen in polls or surveys.
> 
> ...


Presumably we take take the time, trouble and expense to compile statistics via a census to serve a purpose. We aren't just doing it as an academic exercise.

So why do we conduct a census, one that has a coercive component that limits the freedom of its individuals to opt out? Surely if we are going to deny the freedom of our citizens in a democratic, free society there should be a reason and a purpose to do so. If we deny the freedom of one we potentially deny the freedom of all. So what is worth doing this? I can think of nothing other than to serve the greater common good and in fact I think it is the philosophical reasoning that fundamentally underpins the coercive nature of the census.

To my way of thinking, you cannot remove serving the greater good from the compulsory nature of the question should the mandatory long form be abolished. This is not the specific nature of your thread but in my opinion it cannot be separated from it as a consideration as to the value of a compulsory long form even at a purely statistical level because as I said earlier we conduct a census to serve a purpose and the only reasonable explanation that can be given for a government to go to the expense and coercively compel its citizens is to serve the greater good.

So wherein lies the veracity of the proposition that a compulsory census serves the greater good? I would think, this is where statistics could come in handy and be useful in determining whether or not such an assumption is true. I would think that a public communication of this type of information by Stats Can would be more useful and compelling than Munir A. Sheikh falling on his sword to make the point (as his action has raised the question amongst the skeptical that his action was not altruistic at all but guided by his political connections and being promised a "grape" for his resignation… it will be interesting to see where he is hired next… but this is an aside).

Yet we have seen no compelling data that indicates the census serves the greater common good. Just opinion and Statistics 101 claims that it must be compulsory for the data to have any value. But this begs the question that I asked much earlier, "Why is it that polls have any value with their margins of error?"

You have been so kind as to continue to intelligently engage in this discussion and provide explanations of a statistical nature as you did in your recent post.

The explanation you provided was at a statistical level and very easily comprehended and well elucidated. Thank you.

However, this is where statistics and public policy/philosophy collide. You have not demonstrated that the information collected from a voluntary survey (polls) is useless but merely that it is less accurate than a compulsory census. So fundamentally the question remains… Does statistical accuracy trump individual freedom in order for a census to serve the greater good and if so where is the statistical evidence (with the context being a technologically advanced Canada in the year 2010).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suspect that the biggest hue and cry is coming from groups--public or private- who were getting information cheaply because it was subsidized by taxpayers.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Do you know how easy it is to get out of jury duty if you don't want to do it? Just come across as an extremist/prejudiced/sexist etc. in your interview and you will be dismissed.
> 
> We don't have mandatory military service in this country, talk about red herrings.


And talking about how easy it is to get out of jury duty isn't a red herring? Try refusing to show up at all and see what happens. But you deflected the point that we do have things that we, as citizens, must do by law.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Nonsense. I and many others have seen this as an invasion of privacy for years. Some people may feel that they're comfortable with voluntarily completing the short form. I'm not.


How is anonymized data collection methods used in the census an invasion of privacy? Once the data is collected there is no way of linking the data back to you. On the other hand, any business could pull your credit rating and find out your financial status, who you owe money to, etc. This is information people voluntarily give to their bank, car dealership, etc. all the time.

Regardless, complaints about having to do the census forms have been going down over the years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> But you deflected the point that we do have things that we, as citizens, must do by law.


We also make the laws, and it looks like this one is changing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> And talking about how easy it is to get out of jury duty isn't a red herring? Try refusing to show up at all and see what happens. But you deflected the point that we do have things that we, as citizens, must do by law.


It was just a point of pragmatic fact.... not a red herring. Also just because a certain law exists to allow the government to have the ability to deny the freedom of its citizens does not necessarily validate another. All laws are created relative to specific contexts. I am not in support of mandatory coercive jury duty either. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. My parents taught me that from a very young age.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Also just because a certain law exists to allow the government to have the ability to deny the freedom of its citizens does not necessarily validate another. All laws are created relative to specific contexts.


Fair enough. I can understand that you can disagree on the point that in order for our society to function, it's citizens must have some responsibilities toward it (i.e. civic duty), but I've yet to see this question answered:

Given that you (by you, I mean the average citizen) voluntarily give more invasive information to your bank, car dealership, etc. where it can be pulled by so many people, how is anonymized data collection methods used in the census an invasion of privacy? Once the data is collected there is no way of linking the data back to you. So where's the privacy violation?

You can disagree that it's anonymous, but there's no evidence of census takers not following the process that guarantees anonymity.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Fair enough. I can understand that you can disagree on the point that in order for our society to function, it's citizens must have some responsibilities toward it (i.e. civic duty), but I've yet to see this question answered:
> 
> Given that you (by you, I mean the average citizen) voluntarily give more invasive information to your bank, car dealership, etc. where it can be pulled by so many people, how is anonymized data collection methods used in the census an invasion of privacy? Once the data is collected there is no way of linking the data back to you. So where's the privacy violation?
> 
> You can disagree that it's anonymous, but there's no evidence of census takers not following the process that guarantees anonymity.


My problem with it is not with the privacy aspect but with the mandatory coercive nature of the census. To your point however, as I mentioned before, when you provide information to a bank (which is certainly not as invasive as the questions on the long form) you are doing so of your own volition to obtain the use of a service you desire. The choice is yours to use a given service or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Various governments use the Census to allocate government services. If I answered the census honestly, it would imply that I'm also up for these services--but I want fewer services, not more. It is against my interest to fill out that form.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Various governments use the Census to allocate government services. If I answered the census honestly, it would imply that I'm also up for these services--but I want fewer services, not more. It is against my interest to fill out that form.


That makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have accurate census data to work with, you don't have a leg to stand on if you complain the government allocates an excess of services that you don't agree with - the government is left to guess, and I'm sure you and I can both agree that they'll overestimate funding for a pet project when they lack accurate data. If they have accurate data, they won't be able to get away with overestimating without being called on it.

Filling out the census in no way provides endorsement of allocating services - it only provides endorsement of the government having accurate data to use in decision making. So, do you support the government guessing, or having accurate data?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Filling out the census in no way provides endorsement of allocating services - it only provides endorsement of the government having accurate data to use in decision making. So, do you support the government guessing, or having accurate data?


If I register my information, then they will overestimate based on higher actual numbers of returns.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> My problem with it is not with the privacy aspect but with the mandatory coercive nature of the census. To your point however, as I mentioned before, when you provide information to a bank (which is certainly not as invasive as the questions on the long form) you are doing so of your own volition to obtain the use of a service you desire. The choice is yours to use a given service or not.


First of all, bank data is certainly more invasive than the long form, because it's tied to your identity. Census data is anonymous - I don't know how many times I can repeat that before it sinks in.

And companies query your credit rating without you knowing it. While some do know this (as do I) but when you leave your driver's license with a dealer while test driving a car, they're pulling your credit rating while you take your test drive. They never tell you this unless you ask. Often they'll say "it's for security" when they really mean "we want to know if we're wasting our time with you." Does that qualify as "your own volition?"

However, as I said in my last post, if you have a problem with the coercive nature (although nobody has ever been jailed for failing to complete their census form), fair enough. We simply disagree on the point that in order for our society to function, its citizens must have some responsibilities toward it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> First of all, bank data is certainly more invasive than the long form, because it's tied to your identity. Census data is anonymous - I don't know how many times I can repeat that before it sinks in...


It isn't a matter of sinking in, anonymity is not guaranteed as has been already pointed out and it does not change the nature of the questions. You say it is only invasive if it is tied to your identity. I disagree. What if I ask you your penis size, no one here knows who you are, wouldn't you think that is still pretty damn invasive?

As far as credit rating goes... in a modern world I think it is unrealistic to think that the data is private.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> It isn't a matter of sinking in, anonymity is not guaranteed as has been already pointed out and it does not change the nature of the questions.


No, it hasn't been pointed out - at least not in a valid way. The census data is anonymous - nobody here has explained how the data can be linked back to you.


> You say it is only invasive if it is tied to your identity. I disagree. What if I ask you your penis size, no one here knows who you are, wouldn't you think that is still pretty damn invasive?


Uhm... not really. It's only invasive if people know the data is about me. Just read about the Chatroulette site for a study on that.


> As far as credit rating goes... in a modern world I think it is unrealistic to think that the data is private.


Agreed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk;996622[B said:


> ]No, it hasn't been pointed out[/B] - at least not in a valid way. The census data is anonymous - nobody here has explained how the data can be linked back to you.
> 
> Uhm... not really. It's only invasive if people know the data is about me. Just read about the Chatroulette site for a study on that.
> 
> Agreed.


Sure it has. Macfury pointed out the case:

Post #20



Macfury said:


> It's no longer an obligation because the rules have changed. Please don't attempt to extend your sense of personal obligation to everyone.
> 
> Cabinet filled with census files sold at auction


As part of the long form you provide your telephone number and address, with this information in a modern world it can easily be determined who you are.

"Uhm... not really...." Your definition is not mine, we will have to agree to disagree... I'm not about to take a voyeuristic website as a credible defence of this particular arguement.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> "Uhm... not really...." Your definition is not mine, we will have to agree to disagree... I'm not about to take a voyeuristic website as a credible defence of this particular arguement.


Why not? It has logical relevance to the argument, and supports the fact that people don't feel an invasion of privacy when their identity is not revealed. It's perfectly credible - the fact that it's a seedy web site doesn't matter.

If you are simply going to ignore any valid point someone brings up, then why are you even debating here?

I will concede the article MacFury posted (I didn't see it early). That's a fault in procedure and steps can easily be done (if they haven't already) to fix that. The names and addresses are only to verify you completed the form, and should have been destroyed once confirmation has been done - a problem easily fixed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> ...If you are simply going to ignore any valid point someone brings up, then why are you even debating here?


Well it is a matter of what one accepts as being valid isn't it, I just don't see eye to eye with you on this point and don't agree. As I said we will just have to agree to disagree.  Peace out.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Clement misled Canadians on census: secret documents


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman said:


> Clement misled Canadians on census: secret documents


If you read it in the Star, always assume that it's false until you confirm it otherwise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am really shocked that this issue is considered important by Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beats me too. Eliminating threats of jail and fines seems like a very sensible move.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I am really shocked that this issue is considered important by Canadians.


It's not. There are just a lot of people out there who decide that they care about whatever the leftwing media tells them too.

It was the same with prorogation. No problem that Liberal governments prorogued frequently, but as soon as the lefty media told everyone that they were upset by the Conservatives doing it, suddenly they were.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I am really shocked that this issue is considered important by Canadians.





bsenka said:


> It's not. There are just a lot of people out there who decide that they care about whatever the leftwing media tells them too.
> ....


You are mistaken bsenka - statistically Canadians love statistics more then just about any other country. Just look at the infrastructure (a whole ministry) devoted to them.

It seems quite likely to me that all of this self knowledge has helped this country weather much of the past century - no matter who has been in charge. The availability of this data has shaped public policy and private business practices and that has left us better off (or at least where we are)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> You are mistaken bsenka - statistically Canadians love statistics more then just about any other country. Just look at the infrastructure (a whole ministry) devoted to them.
> 
> It seems quite likely to me that all of this self knowledge has helped this country weather much of the past century - no matter who has been in charge. The availability of this data has shaped public policy and private business practices and that has left us better off (or at least where we are)


1. Nobody suggested that we no longer have statistics--and the census represented only a tiny portion of the stats collected by Statscan..
2. Most countries have a bureau/ministry/department of statistics.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

screature said:


> Well it is a matter of what one accepts as being valid isn't it, I just don't see eye to eye with you on this point and don't agree. As I said we will just have to agree to disagree.  Peace out.


Oh I have no problem with you disagreeing with it. It's the dismissing of the article entirely just because it's a voyeuristic web site that I had a problem with. But, yes, I agree we can disagree.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> Beats me too. Eliminating threats of jail and fines seems like a very sensible move.


Doing that accomplishes one of two things:
1. Failure to enforce the law. Why make a law if you don't want to enforce it?
2. Just show up on people's doorsteps and arrest them without reminding them they have to fill out their census form. I don't know, I'd rather be reminded - I'm sure a lot of people still don't know they have to fill out the forum. Reminding (or "threatening" as the right-wingers like to phrase it) them saves them embarrassment of being arrested, or saves them money from being fined.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

bsenka said:


> It's not. There are just a lot of people out there who decide that they care about whatever the leftwing media tells them too.


Are you claiming that's a trait that's only applied to leftwingers? 


> It was the same with prorogation. No problem that Liberal governments prorogued frequently, but as soon as the lefty media told everyone that they were upset by the Conservatives doing it, suddenly they were.


They were more likely upset at the hypocrisy of the Conservatives - who were upset when the Liberal governments did it.

Hypocrisy is the problem here, not which party told you to be upset about what. And I fully agree hypocrisy applies to both left and right wingers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hayesk said:


> Doing that accomplishes one of two things:
> 1. Failure to enforce the law. Why make a law if you don't want to enforce it?
> 2. Just show up on people's doorsteps and arrest them without reminding them they have to fill out their census form. I don't know, I'd rather be reminded - I'm sure a lot of people still don't know they have to fill out the forum. Reminding (or "threatening" as the right-wingers like to phrase it) them saves them embarrassment of being arrested, or saves them money from being fined.


Governments that threaten their citizens with jail time for not filling out a simple form are usually associated with dictatorships. There is no reason for such things in a peaceful society.

Elimination of that draconian law is an excellent move. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Doing that accomplishes one of two things:
> 1. Failure to enforce the law. Why make a law if you don't want to enforce it?
> 2. Just show up on people's doorsteps and arrest them without reminding them they have to fill out their census form. I don't know, I'd rather be reminded - I'm sure a lot of people still don't know they have to fill out the forum. Reminding (or "threatening" as the right-wingers like to phrase it) them saves them embarrassment of being arrested, or saves them money from being fined.


That would be great if we applied it to all sorts of things. How about using it to control smoking in the home, which causes an increase in government health care costs, for example. We can just threaten them instead of arresting them, because arrest is too embarrassing. Your thought processes are a little too totalitarian for my comfort.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

hayesk said:


> Are you claiming that's a trait that's only applied to leftwingers?


Overwhelmingly. Not being able to think for themselves is a primary reason why people are left-wing in the first place.




hayesk said:


> They were more likely upset at the hypocrisy of the Conservatives - who were upset when the Liberal governments did it.
> 
> Hypocrisy is the problem here, not which party told you to be upset about what. And I fully agree hypocrisy applies to both left and right wingers.


Load of BS. CPC never railed against prorogation either. Nobody said anything because it wasn't news. They only reason it was news was because the left-wing media decided that whatever a Conservative does, that automatically makes it bad.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Are you claiming that's a trait that's only applied to leftwingers?
> 
> 
> They were more likely upset at the hypocrisy of the Conservatives - who were upset when the Liberal governments did it.
> ...


ha ha ha ha.

Yeah. There are those who think it's the 'other guys' dumb enough to fall for all that.

Kind of ironic isn't it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Elimination of that draconian law is an excellent move.


I agree that threats of imprisonment for failing to submit census data is absurd, especially when it is effectively impossible to verify the accuracy of much of the data submitted. Fortunately, like many of our old absurd laws, this has never been enforced (no Canadian has ever been imprisoned for failure to submit census data), so it's removal is something of a symbolic gesture.

As a symbolic gesture, I think it sends a very inappropriate message, which is that the current government does not take the collection of accurate census data seriously.

If I were governing, I would have made adjustments to the long-form census to make it somewhat less intrusive if possible, and provided positive inducements for completing it (one in 50 completed long-form respondents will win an iPod Touch or something), while quietly eliminating the antiquated and never-enforced potential for imprisonment, ideally at some other time and buried in other parliamentary business.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> Not being able to think for themselves is a primary reason why people are left-wing in the first place.


Thank you for this insightful and well-though out comment.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> Thank you for this insightful and well-though out comment.


C'mon, even Churchill was of the same mind; at least when applied to those of us long in the tooth.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...As a symbolic gesture, I think it sends a very inappropriate message, which is that the current government does not take the collection of accurate census data seriously.
> 
> If I were governing, I would have made adjustments to the long-form census to make it somewhat less intrusive if possible, and provided positive inducements for completing it (one in 50 completed long-form respondents will win an iPod Touch or something), while quietly eliminating the antiquated and never-enforced potential for imprisonment, ideally at some other time and buried in other parliamentary business.


I agree that the long forms should be less intrusive. However the message is; Threatening to send people to jail for refusing to fill in an intrusive form is inappropriate and is being dealt with accordingly. 

God I hate defending Harpo, but in this case he is right. Come to think of it Chretien was right to refuse to send troops to Iraq even if his reasons were all wrong. I defended that decision as well.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

The sad tale of Tony Clement


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> That would be great if we applied it to all sorts of things. How about using it to control smoking in the home, which causes an increase in government health care costs, for example. We can just threaten them instead of arresting them, because arrest is too embarrassing. Your thought processes are a little too totalitarian for my comfort.


Ah, that old tactic - can't attack my actual argument so pretend to misunderstand it. Well, I hope you were pretending.

I don't see anywhere in what I said where I was advocating making new laws against smoking or advocating threats for things that aren't laws. All I said was two things:
1. A law is ineffective if you don't enforce it. That's like the cops saying "speeding is illegal, but we're never going to pull you over or give you a ticket."
2. If you are going to enforce the law and people aren't aware something is a law, it's better to remind them of it rather than surprise them one day and haul them off the jail. At least give them a chance to abide by the law. Note how nobody complains that the penalty reminders on income tax forms and aren't calling them "threats."

And, sure, mean spirited threats are a bit much, if any were made, but reminding people of the penalty for not filling out a census form, if done in a civil and polite manner, is completely appropriate.

How you extrapolated what I wrote into thinking we should make false threats to control smoking (which is not against the law) is beyond me. Your interpretation processes are a little lacking for my comfort.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hayesk said:


> And, sure, mean spirited threats are a bit much, if any were made, but reminding people of the penalty for not filling out a census form, if done in a civil and polite manner, is completely appropriate.


No, it's completely totalitarian and inappropriate and many people are glad to see a bad law repealed. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Ah, that old tactic - can't attack my actual argument so pretend to misunderstand it. Well, I hope you were pretending...


You said that threats were a legitimate way to gain compliance for acts that did not harm others. So why not just threaten jail sentences for anything we want to curb?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The conservatives had their chance to remove jail time as a punishment for not completing the long form. Saying that they are removing the long form to get rid of the threat of jail time just makes them sound ridiculous.


Sums it up for me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Overwhelmingly. Not being able to think for themselves is a primary reason why people are left-wing in the first place.


:lmao:

Attack of the trolls!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> overwhelmingly. Not being able to think for themselves is a primary reason why people are right-wing in the first place.


ftfy


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Not being able to think for themselves is why people pick the centre.:lmao:

Still I am baffled as to how anyone could believe that data that has ben coerced stands a chance in #311 of being more accurate than a slightly smaller database that is given voluntarily.

Even more baffled as to why anyone believes that sort of coercion is in any way appropriate in a supposedly democratic nation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> The conservatives had their chance to remove jail time as a punishment for not completing the long form. Saying that they are removing the long form to get rid of the threat of jail time just makes them sound ridiculous.





Ottawaman said:


> Sums it up for me.



Uhhh no... if there is no threat of jail time what makes it compulsory. A fine?...... Don't we have all sorts of fines for things that we ignore on a regular basis.... speeding, J-walking, etc. once the treat of jail is removed people tend to take their chances and hope for the best.

So if you remove the threat of jail time you are essentially making the census *voluntary*... what's wrong with calling a spade a spade?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> if there is no threat of jail time what makes it compulsory. A fine?...... Don't we have all sorts of fines for things that we ignore on a regular basis.... speeding, J-walking, etc.


Are you suggesting speed limits are voluntary? Of course people break the speed limits (but I would argue that's because they're all set 10 kmh too low and everyone knows they aren't enforced strictly. I think we should raise the speed limits and then enforce them, but this is another topic).

As has already been pointed out, there were far better solutions than making the long form explicitly voluntary (e.g. make it less intrusive, provide incentives for filling it out, and change the punishment for not filling out to something more reasonable like a fine and then enforce that). To argue that the Conservative's solution is better than what was historically the case is a false dichotomy; they didn't have to choose between what they did and doing nothing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Are you suggesting speed limits are voluntary?


Yes.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Yes.


Be sure to explain that to the cops the next time you get pulled over.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

StatsCan has no need to know any more about me than I file with my income tax return and that is updated annually. That tells them I am a citizen, where I live, how many dependants I have, how much money I make, my social insurance number. How much I spent on what is deductible. Other than that, no government employee needs to know, nor should know more about me. There is no compelling reason for government to pry further into my life.

And they then have the audacity to threaten me with jail if I don't tell more to some bunch of flunkies at StatsCan?

I'll tell them all right. Screw off and mind your own business. tptptptp


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Be sure to explain that to the cops the next time you get pulled over.


What I am saying is this, being pragmatic and realistic: It is your option whether or not to observe the law. It is the same as with religion, which I know you are so against, but it is the same. You can either do that which you are told is good or do as you choose, in both instances you know there are consequences (either* real* (in your terms) or *perceived* by the religious). Just with religion even if you get away with it here, which happens a good 90% of the time (my completely unscientific stat just based on my anecdotal experience), you still have to pay for it later.

As human beings we have free will... we can choose to abide or not, whether it be religiously or by the law. Thus in the end, all our choices/decisions are all voluntary.

Both religion and the law are more "forgiving" depending on what is "at stake". Both have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of public policy and how "the powers that be" ("God" included) judge you. With some things the rule of Man is more punishing and with others the rule of God is more punishing. It all depends on where your "belief" or "alliance" lies.

Being that I am agnostic with a penchant towards the universal, and not the human, I do not place as much significant emphasis on the rule of man which tends to be generally much more limiting. The rule of "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition is much more general (i.e. the ten commandments). 

Laws and religion are meant to control us and coerce us... one is by punishment of "God" (or in the "name of God," which all manner of injustice has been inflicted upon the human race, however it is not the fault of God or the "will" of god [which I equate to a moral necessity in secular terms], but it is the fault of malevolent human beings) the other by punishment of Man... Given the track record of Man I would rather be judged by "God".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay then, basically everything that isn't determined by physics is voluntary by your definition. Which means the census was always voluntary and this hasn't changed anything.

My point is, from a pragmatic point of view, the government needs accurate data on which to base policy decisions, and they have 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater' here by over-reacting to an antiquated law that wasn't really a problem in the first place. I agree that threats of imprisonment for not filling out the census is absurd, just like a prison sentence for exceeding the speed limit would be absurd. But rather than taking reasonable corrective action, they've taken a typically knee-jerk extremist course and ruined something that wasn't seriously broken in the first place.

At any rate, I can't see this being a big issue in the long term... it's just another example of Harper's anti-intellectual pandering to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I pains me to say it but Harpo is actually right. In this case its the Libs looking for a smokescreen issue to hide Ignats inadequacies.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> *Okay then, basically everything that isn't determined by physics is voluntary by your definition. * Which means the census was always voluntary and this hasn't changed anything.
> 
> My point is, from a pragmatic point of view, the government needs accurate data on which to base policy decisions, and they have 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater' here by over-reacting to an antiquated law that wasn't really a problem in the first place. I agree that threats of imprisonment for not filling out the census is absurd, just like a prison sentence for exceeding the speed limit would be absurd. But rather than taking reasonable corrective action, they've taken a typically knee-jerk extremist course and ruined something that wasn't seriously broken in the first place.
> 
> At any rate, I can't see this being a big issue in the long term... *it's just another example of Harper's anti-intellectual pandering to the lowest common denominator.*


Well not quite... but pretty close.

I completely disagree. This is a matter of principle not of being anti-intellectual at all. Coercion is anti-intellectual, if you can't convince the public through reason the census is a good thing and it should be filled out then threaten them.  

Shouldn't a modern democracy not have to resort to such a brutish manner of threatening people to collect its data. Seems to me it is the statisticians and the "intellectual elite" who are stooping to the "lowest common denominator". Fear of punishment as a means to make people comply with your wishes, that is about as "low" as you can go.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Shouldn't a modern democracy not have to resort to such a brutish manner of threatening people to collect its data. Seems to me it is the statisticians and the "intellectual elite" who are stooping to the "lowest common denominator". Fear of punishment as a means to make people comply with your wishes, that is about as "low" as you can go.


:clap::clap:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Shouldn't a modern democracy not have to resort to such a brutish manner of threatening people to collect its data.


Absolutely. But this is not about what the world "should" be like, it's about dealing with reality. An the Harper government is clearly stating that it doesn't want to know about reality, and would rather just make up whatever data it wants to justify it's policies. Furthermore, I've never advocated keeping the threat of imprisonment for not filling out the census - that's obviously stupid as is illustrated by the fact that it has never been enforced.



> Fear of punishment as a means to make people comply with your wishes, that is about as "low" as you can go.


If everyone in the world was reasonable, educated and well-meaning, we wouldn't need laws, police, armies or lawyers. Sadly this is not the case.

So this comes down to the question "does the government need to have accurate statistical data about its constituents?" If the answer is yes, and I think most people would agree that it is, then there needs to be some mechanism to collect and maximize the accuracy of this data. This has been the function of the census, and, as far as I'm aware, no better alternative is currently available. While I agree that it would be nice if we didn't have to compel citizens to complete the census, it is demonstrably true that in some cases that is necessary. How and to what extent that compulsion should be enforced is an open question, and I clearly agree that the historical, unenforced threat of imprisonment was not acceptable. But to abandon the idea of collecting rigorous data is similarly simple-minded.

There's an obvious reasonable compromise that, as usual, the Harper government ignored.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Absolutely. But this is not about what the world "should" be like, it's about dealing with reality. An the Harper government is clearly stating that it doesn't want to know about reality, and would rather just make up whatever data it wants to justify it's policies. Furthermore, I've never advocated keeping the threat of imprisonment for not filling out the census - that's obviously stupid as is illustrated by the fact that it has never been enforced.


However, people have been tried in court for failing to fill out the long form and the jail sentence was on the table. The judge handed out a financial penalty in lieu of jail time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The judge handed out a financial penalty in lieu of jail time.


Which is more reasonable. And which was all the change that was needed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So this comes down to the question "does the government need to have accurate statistical data about its constituents?" If the answer is yes, and I think most people would agree that it is, then there needs to be some mechanism to collect and maximize the accuracy of this data.


There is.

It's called your income tax return which by law must contain the truth. That is all the information any government needs about its citizens. Period.

Anything else is an invasion of personal privacy.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> There is.
> 
> It's called your income tax return which by law must contain the truth. That is all the information any government needs about its citizens. Period.
> 
> Anything else is an invasion of personal privacy.


Income tax info is not shared between government departments - there are laws against it. It also isn't anonymous, like census data.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Income tax info is not shared between government departments - there are laws against it. It also isn't anonymous, like census data.


Nope as long as name etc. are attached, census info cannot and should not be promoted as being anonymous. Even calling it confidential is a stretch as has been clearly illustrated earlier in this thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hayesk said:


> Income tax info is not shared between government departments - there are laws against it. It also isn't anonymous, like census data.


Right. So it should be abolished other than name, address, citizenship and SIN number. No further information is required or needed by government. All other info is an invasion of privacy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Income tax info is not shared between government departments - there are laws against it. It also isn't anonymous, like census data.


That's nonsense. The info is shared.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

People need to stop saying that the census is anonymous. The entire thing is personal information, it's the polar opposite of anonymous. 

If it really was anonymous, the census workers would not be coming to my house when I didn't hand it in, because they'd have no way of knowing. You know my name, you're at my house, you're asking me to fill out a bunch of very personal information and hand it over to you, don't insult me by telling me it's anonymous.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The creep that kept threatening me census-before-last waited at the door while my wife filled it in to avoid his promises of prosecution. No way was this anonymous. This monster lived just down the street.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Census wiki-leaks: "Astonishing Ineptitude on the Census"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Census wiki-leaks: "Astonishing Ineptitude on the Census"


Uhmmm... 


> Dan Arnold is an active Liberal, best known for his blog, Calgary Grit. Dan moved east in 2008 and now calls Toronto home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Uhmmm...


Ottawaman only posts links. Context is not his forte.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The federal government is sticking to its plan to make the 2011 long-form census voluntary, despite eliminating the threat of jail time for those who refuse to fill out surveys, Industry Minister Tony Clement says.
> 
> Industry Minister Tony Clement tells the CBC he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper both 'feel strongly' about the move to scrap the mandatory long-form census, but won't say who made the decision. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)In an interview with Rosemary Barton aired Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Clement said the decision this week to add two questions on languages to the mandatory short-form census fulfils the government's legal obligations under the Official Languages Act.
> 
> *Clement said that despite the removal of the threat of jail time, the government believes Canadians should not face fines for refusing to answer intrusive personal questions.*


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


CBC News - Politics - No more census concessions, Clement vows


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Ottawaman only posts links. Context is not his forte.


Your mind is already made up. Most of these threads are about ego stroking. I have not seen anyone convince anyone here of their point of view in 6 or more years.

Everyone is firmly entrenched. But please carry on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Your mind is already made up. Most of these threads are about ego stroking. I have not seen anyone convince anyone here of their point of view in 6 or more years.
> 
> Everyone is firmly entrenched. But please carry on.


That isn't true at all. I'm not firmly entrenched. But I was referring to your habit of posting headlines without commentary--which you do often, n'est pas?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> That isn't true at all.* I'm not firmly entrenched.* But I was referring to your habit of posting headlines without commentary--which you do often, n'est pas?



So enlighten us MF - please tell us precisely when have you rethought something and changed your opinion about something based on a discussion here. What was the context, the question and which points did you find persuasive?

Just curious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> So enlighten us MF - please tell us precisely when have you rethought something and changed your opinion about something based on a discussion here. What was the context, the question and which points did you find persuasive?
> 
> Just curious.


I was worried about anthropogenic global warming for a short period of time, but MacDoc's posts convinced me that there wasn't much to it.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I was worried about anthropogenic global warming for a short period of time, but MacDoc's posts convinced me that there wasn't much to it.


Very smooth... but not an obvious change - as you had not taken a public position.

Any other examples - perhaps where you had a recognizable alteration of position?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

eggman said:


> Very smooth... but not an obvious change - as you had not taken a public position.
> 
> Any other examples - perhaps where you had a recognizable alteration of position?


...


Thanks for clearing that up MF.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> ...
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up MF.


I looked at a few areas where I had changed my mind based on ehMac posts, but in all cases I hadn't expressed my opinion publicly beforehand. In a few cases I accepted that I had made an error when someone pointed it out, but it was more an error of fact than a change of opinion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Since we are all projections of our physical selves in this space in which we routinely gather, it's not an amazing assumption to consider that some of our projections just might stress consistency of appearance and motivation more than they would other, equally valid traits.

This forum is, among other things, a theatre.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Since we are all projections of our physical selves in this space in which we routinely gather, it's not an amazing assumption to consider that some of our projections just might stress consistency of appearance and motivation more than they would other, equally valid traits.
> 
> This forum is, among other things, a theatre.


That's certainly true. I would be really unlikely to trumpet the fact that I changed my mind at the time that I did so. I would be more likely to incorporate the new idea and treat it as something that was a consistent part of my beliefs. We have always been at war with Oceania, don'tchaknow.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Thanks Max and MF,

It is all too easy to forget that like all human interactions - there is a theatrical portion here and it is not simply data communication. The theatre portion here is often significantly larger then the data portion - if there is a data portion.

It is too easy to forget that you're on a virtual stage and think only that you're actually having an exchange of information. Given the origins of the internet and the fact that it is made up of connected computers this is an easy mistake to make, after all - the purpose of the 'net has changed since DARPA first wired together machines.

<insert well known clip from "Avenue Q" musical here>

From a census and statistics point of view (to at least nod to the original thread) we are a self selected set of respondents, posting and reading for our own purposes - much of which will be simple entertainment sometimes disguised as "discussion". Whenever you have a self-selected set the results are suspect and usually useless.

The risk is that people might think that an actual discussion is taking place when it is just posturing and pot-stirring. Things get sent out, but nothing gets taken in.

xkcd: Duty Calls

If everyone knows they're just dancing then the playing field is level. We need an html tag for that. With that (and the utopian idea that it would be used properly) we could continue to watch these gyrations without the slightly guilty thought that we might be missing actual information. (I'm sure anyone who has read ehMac for a week or more could name this company's principle dancers so there is no need to list them here.)

Me - I'm going to back to being a tree frog. The view is double plus good from up there, near the village of people who always...

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Theatre is an important part of the enjoyment. If I had any one goal in posting opinion, beyond the enjoyment of posting activity, it would be merely to make people aware that there are other views outside of mainstream thinking, and that people shouldn't settle for the artificial divisions offered by the Conservative/Liberal/NDP/Green spectrum. Too often, internet debate offers a false dichotomy between opposing factions that have monstrous overlap: Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal. There are differences, but often these are pigs of the same family wearing different uniforms. They offer artifiical choices limited by their own mandates.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macfury said:


> ...people shouldn't settle for the artificial divisions offered by the conservative/liberal/ndp/green spectrum. Too often, internet debate offers a false dichotomy between opposing factions that have monstrous overlap: Republican/democrat or conservative/liberal. There are differences, but often these are pigs of the same family wearing different uniforms. They offer artificial choices limited by their own mandates.


+1


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Theatre is an important part of the enjoyment. If I had any one goal in posting opinion, beyond the enjoyment of posting activity, it would be merely to make people aware that there are other views outside of mainstream thinking, and that people shouldn't settle for the artificial divisions offered by the Conservative/Liberal/NDP/Green spectrum. Too often, internet debate offers a false dichotomy between opposing factions that have monstrous overlap: Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal. There are differences, but often these are pigs of the same family wearing different uniforms. They offer artifiical choices limited by their own mandates.


*-1* (mathematically speaking, paradoxically "zeroing the thread out" at this point because I agree with you...)

I agree with this - but it is only 1/2 of the equation. To only do this is, at its most basic, solely output, with no hope of growth or learning because nothing but the sound of your own voice comes back to you. Like the miser who solely accumulates or the prophet who seeks only to preach there is a lack of balance and growth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> I agree with this - but it is only 1/2 of the equation. To only do this is, at its most basic, solely output, with no hope of growth or learning because nothing but the sound of your own voice comes back to you. Like the miser who solely accumulates or the prophet who seeks only to preach there is a lack of balance and growth.


But you can't know the other half of the equation. I have been influenced at times by former member BEEJ, by Dr. G, and by Max in particular. Even though I state that now, I don't see advertising that fact to the public changes the equation.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> But you can't know the other half of the equation. I have been influenced at times by former member BEEJ, by Dr. G, and by Max in particular. Even though I state that now, I don't see advertising that fact to the public changes the equation.


True, I cannot know the other half of the equation.

But the duration and energy of the dance would seem to indicate that "muscles" are involved much more commonly than minds - these are reflexes, not reflection.

Interesting that a confirmation that communication has successfully occurred and that thinking has been affected seems to be something to be avoided.

I am happy to read that you, like me, have been influenced.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eggman said:


> True, I cannot know the other half of the equation.
> 
> But the duration and energy of the dance would seem to indicate that "muscles" are involved much more commonly than minds - these are reflexes, not reflection.
> 
> ...


Isn't that what a dialogue is supposed to be about? A give and take, a back and forth. At least it always has for me, only when a complete impasse of points of view is reached do you "agree to disagree" and move on.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

screature said:


> Isn't that what a dialogue is supposed to be about? A give and take, a back and forth. At least it always has for me, only when a complete impasse of points of view is reached do you "agree to disagree" and move on.


Exactly.

Which is why most of the threads are dances. Not dialogues, but paired monologues.

To be a dialogue there would have to be some possibility for change and growth, learning - we seem to have mainly a rigid routine of steps. Opinions are reinforced - never rethought (note that both MF and myself admitted "influence" - perhaps we were simply more sure that each of us was correct or that any others were more incorrect afterwards )

I am happy that in the 'net we have a place where we're never wrong, and a chorus of agreement is only a click away. (much has been written about the ossification of opinions on the 'net)

Though I admit that you're within your rights to have another point of view - I've no recollection of seeing anyone's mind or opinion changed in any of the threads I've read since I started coming to ehMac. That doesn't mean it isn't happening, but it also does not mean that it is happening.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eggman said:


> Which is why most of the threads are dances. Not dialogues, but paired monologues...
> 
> Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree...


Most? Perhaps. I have engaged in threads where my opinion has been altered by others posts and I believe vice versa. But I don't think this is unique to posting on threads on the web... even when discussing things with a person face to face "a meeting of minds" is not necessarily the majority outcome. 

I think sometimes when face to face some people "agree" to points just to be polite and avoid confrontation. On the web with it's anonymity, it is in some ways easier to be more combative/confrontational because the repercussions are less... the people we post to are more often than not, not friends, family or colleagues... we don't *have* to try and get along.

So in some ways the opinions we state and how hard we adhere/hold to them can actually be a more "honest" reflection of how we truly feel/think.

Just off of the top of my head... 

I don't think we need to "agree to disagree" quite yet... but then again I could be wrong.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

... and the census debate is coming back, yet again...

Loss of long-form census could damage economy - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> I think sometimes when face to face some people "agree" to points just to be polite and avoid confrontation. On the web with it's anonymity, it is in some ways easier to be more combative/confrontational because the repercussions are less



What are your thoughts about removing anonymity from these discussions? Do you think it would stifle comments, impoverish the debate? Being 'honest' in a vacuum has little value in a society, because we cannot link the idea to a person.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kleles said:


> What are your thoughts about removing anonymity from these discussions? Do you think it would stifle comments, impoverish the debate? Being 'honest' in a vacuum has little value in a society, because we cannot link the idea to a person.


Although I would be glad to make points as I do in person, I would hardly want everything I say linked to my actual identity publicly. In real life I choose who to talk to. Anonymity allows me to direct comments to those people on EhMac with whom I 'd like to talk, without worrying that others will take advantage of knowing who I am.

I don't mind telling people I just bought a brand new whatever anonymously, for example, but I don't want to tip off criminals searching for just that item.

Likewise, if I express a certain view on climate change, but in real life work for a boss who is a greenhouse gasser... well, you get the picture.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> What are your thoughts about removing anonymity from these discussions? Do you think it would stifle comments, impoverish the debate? Being 'honest' in a vacuum has little value in a society, because we cannot link the idea to a person.


Interesting question, that I think is worthy of a thread all it's own. Care to start one?


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> Interesting question, that I think is worthy of a thread all it's own. Care to start one?


Thanks for the prompt.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*So, any change in your opinion?*

So now that it's clear the Conservatives were making up data to support their desire to quit collecting data, has anyone changed their opinion on this issue?

As I said earlier, this is a clear example of the Harper government wanting to implement their ideological policies regardless of the facts. It's not surprising to me that among their targets are social institutions that collect actual facts, because there's nothing a tyrant fears more than the truth.

"Thousands of complaints a day about the intrusive LFC" they claim; FACT: 22 per year. Far more people complained that they *DIDN'T* get the LFC than did.
"People terrified of going to jail" they claim; FACT: no complaints about this issue at all... ever.

What bald-face liars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So now that it's clear the Conservatives were making up data to support their desire to quit collecting data, has anyone changed their opinion on this issue?
> 
> As I said earlier, this is a clear example of the Harper government wanting to implement their ideological policies regardless of the facts. It's not surprising to me that among their targets are social institutions that collect actual facts, because there's nothing a tyrant fears more than the truth.
> 
> ...


They shouldn't fib about the number of complaints they officially received. I've been threatened with possible jail time by census workers, but I did not officially complain, because the threat is a legitimate possible outcome of refusing to comply.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bu buuutt.... the wascally wiberals!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> bu buuutt.... the wascally wiberals!!!


Give that old gag back to the person you borrowed it from... you're wearing it out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you mean back to the conservatives who keep parroting it? 

naw.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you mean back to the conservatives who keep parroting it?
> 
> naw.


Since nobody invoked memories of the Liberals at all, it demonstrates a certain disconnectedness with the discussion at hand.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> So now that it's clear the Conservatives were making up data to support their desire to quit collecting data, has anyone changed their opinion on this issue?
> 
> As I said earlier, this is a clear example of the Harper government wanting to implement their ideological policies regardless of the facts. It's not surprising to me that among their targets are social institutions that collect actual facts, because there's nothing a tyrant fears more than the truth.
> 
> ...


Well yes Bernier apparently did lie and this isn't the first time he has shown himself to be an embarrassment. Even though he is out of cabinet, he is "the gift that keeps on giving".


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Given that data from the 2006 census is just now finding it's way into usable stats, one is hard pressed to argue the need for the long form data.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Clement needs to go too.



> Industry Minister Tony Clement, who will oversee the 2011 census next spring, has said the government received too many complaints from citizens who said the mandatory long-form census is intrusive and they don't want to feel forced to file.
> 
> Clement told the industry committee in July that a census-taker told him about how people "were in tears, absolutely terrified of being deported" if they didn't fill out the long-form census.
> 
> But nowhere in the documents does Statistics Canada list anyone complaining about the long-form census being mandatory, despite numerous Conservative MPs saying they've heard an earful from constituents about having to fill out the 40-page form.


Clement told the industry committee in July that a census-taker told him about how people "were in tears, absolutely terrified of being deported" if they didn't fill out the long-form census.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> They shouldn't fib about the number of complaints they officially received. I've been threatened with possible jail time by census workers, but I did not officially complain, because the threat is a legitimate possible outcome of refusing to comply.


You could still have complained about the threat. If a cop knocked on my door every day and reminded me of things that were against the law and carried a jail penalty, then I'd surely complain.

Regardless, it seems to me that people aren't upset over the long form itself, but the jail time threat. So, remove the threat, not the form - problem solved.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

hayesk said:


> Regardless, it seems to me that people aren't upset over the long form itself, but the jail time threat. So, remove the threat, not the form - problem solved.


While I agree that it's ludicrous to threaten citizens with jail if they don't fill out government forms correctly, exactly ZERO people complained about this. So the government has simply been lying about this issue.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> Given that data from the 2006 census is just now finding it's way into usable stats, one is hard pressed to argue the need for the long form data.


How does the speed (or rather, lack thereof) with which Statistics Canada processes data have any bearing on the importance of the LFC? The only thing one can argue from the fact that it takes 4 years to process the data is that Stats Can. needs more funding for staff.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> *How does the speed (or rather, lack thereof) with which Statistics Canada processes data have any bearing on the importance of the LFC?* The only thing one can argue from the fact that it takes 4 years to process the data is that Stats Can. needs more funding for staff.


Well it certainly could seem to diminish the significance of some of the data in that if is 4 years old by the time it is released how useful is that information? Are we to rely on 4 year old data for forward looking policy? I certainly would question the usefulness of 4 year old data for current/future policy and planning purposes.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> How does the speed (or rather, lack thereof) with which Statistics Canada processes data have any bearing on the importance of the LFC? *The only thing one can argue from the fact that it takes 4 years to process the data is that Stats Can. needs more funding for staff.*


Ahh no, not the only thing, it could also point to Canada's poor productivity rate which the Bank of Canada released a report on in March of this year.



> Canada's productivity ranking has dropped from third of the 20 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1960 to 15th of the current 30 members (see Appendix, Chart 1).4 After some promising signs in the late 1990s, average labour productivity growth has since slowed dramatically (Chart 2).


One could also just as easily argue that Stats Can displays appalling labour productivity, possibly systemic from high level management down through to lowly clerks. I'm not saying it is the case, but for a scientist that the only conclusion that you could come to based on, "if it takes 4 years to process the data" is that Stats Can needs more funding for staff, is somewhat surprising to say the least. 

Perhaps it wasn't a lack of analytical thought on your part that you were so quick to jump that conclusion, but merely that it belies your deeply held bias in such matters.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Perhaps it wasn't a lack of analytical thought on your part that you were so quick to jump that conclusion, but merely that it belies your deeply held bias in such matters.


Or, as is often the case when I post here, an example of sloppy writing - I shouldn't have used the the word "only".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Or, as is often the case when I post here, an example of sloppy writing - I shouldn't have used the the word "only".


Ok then...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> So now that it's clear the Conservatives were making up data to support their desire to quit collecting data...


That is not clear at all.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Rick Mercer has a rant about the census topic tonight.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> That is not clear at all.


What part of making up numbers to support the cancelation of the collection of real numbers is hard for you to understand?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> What part of making up numbers to support the cancelation of the collection of real numbers is hard for you to understand?


That part that your accusation isn't true.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> That part that your accusation isn't true.


Which part?

They claimed they were cancelling the long form census because they had received thousands of complaints about it. It is now apparent that they made that up. They had received only 22 complaints that supported their position.

They canceled the LFC for ideological reasons, and made up numbers to support it.

They lied.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> They claimed they were cancelling the long form census because they had received thousands of complaints about it.


They did.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

bsenka said:


> They did.


They claimed it, but they couldn't actually prove it, and were contradicted by Stats Canada themselves:
CBC News - Politics - Census change not about complaints: Bernier

Note that these complaints were also not about the threat of jail time.

Then Clement claimed "the public policy is justified if there is just one complaint."

Really? That's all it takes to get something scrapped? Just one complaint? How do we have any laws if Clement believes every law must have 100% support? Incredible that people actually support this guy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> They claimed it, but they couldn't actually prove it, and were contradicted by Stats Canada themselves:
> CBC News - Politics - Census change not about complaints: Bernier
> 
> Note that these complaints were also not about the threat of jail time.
> ...


One complaint. Wow. I have to ask, what happened to the old initiative by mr. day where if a certain number of signatures or something were gathered about an issue it should be considered? What was his number? I recall rick mercer getting enough to change his name to doris day.



Macfury said:


> Give that old gag back to the person you borrowed it from... you're wearing it out.


easy old boy, it was just a mockery of what I see, all the time.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

hayesk said:


> Incredible that people actually support this guy.


I believe Clement before I'll believe the CBC or some civil servants with their noses out of joint because their department is being forced to actually be accountable to the wishes of the electorate.

Nobody pulled the census changes out of thin air. They did it because their constituents --the people who voted for them -- were demanding it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bsenka said:


> I believe Clement before I'll believe the CBC or some civil servants with their noses out of joint because their department is being forced to actually be accountable to the wishes of the electorate.
> 
> Nobody pulled the census changes out of thin air. They did it because their constituents --the people who voted for them -- were demanding it.


The real relevance here is; should refusing to fill out government paperwork, that asks intrusive questions, be treated as a criminal offense. Seems to me our courts and jails are overburdened enough that such make-work efforts on their behalf are entirely superfluous.

I have no problems keeping the long census. IF the corporations that benefit from it also pay for it. AND IF filling it out is entirely voluntary. Maybe fewer people will fill it in but at least their answers may be honest.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a politician, is infinitely more truthful, than the media.

Anyway, it is interesting, to watch as the truth slowly starts washing ashore here.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> a politician, is infinitely more truthful, than the media.
> 
> Anyway, it is interesting, to watch as the truth slowly starts washing ashore here.


Depends on the politician, depends on the media. When it's the word of the CBC vs. a Conservative cabinet minister, the chances that the CBC is *not* lying are so small that it's not even worth considering.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> Depends on the politician, depends on the media. When it's the word of the CBC vs. a Conservative cabinet minister, the chances that the CBC is *not* lying are so small that it's not even worth considering.


Glad to read some others are on to the CBC as well.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

If it is the CBC versus ANY cabinet member of ANY government, the odds that either is telling the truth are pretty much zero.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> I have no problems keeping the long census. IF the corporations that benefit from it also pay for it. AND IF filling it out is entirely voluntary. Maybe fewer people will fill it in but at least their answers may be honest.


As been discussed numerous times, making it voluntary invalidates the data. Then every study that comes out based on this data will be invalid because of the self-selected participants. It's useless.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Glad to read some others are on to the CBC as well.


Right... the conservatives are caught lying as evidenced by their own documents and its a CBC conspiracy. 

If the Conservatives had a shred of evidence to support their claims, they'd be proclaiming it loudly through every media outlet in the country. They don't. Because they were lying.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

bsenka said:


> Depends on the politician, depends on the media. When it's the word of the CBC vs. a Conservative cabinet minister, the chances that the CBC is *not* lying are so small that it's not even worth considering.


Your blind partisanship is evident here. The CBC is reporting on what stats can said. Do you think CBC is lying? 

Well, what about CTV?
CTV Edmonton - Decision to scrap long-form census ignites controversy - CTV News

Are they lying too? You can't, with a straight face anyway, claim CTV is a liberal media outlet.

Do you really expect us to believe media outlets from both sides of the political spectrum are lying? Do you think the privacy commissioner is lying? It's pretty obvious - step away from the partisanship and use some logic here. Clement is hiding the true reason they want to get rid of the census, and was using grossly inflated complaint figures to try and support it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

hayesk said:


> You can't, with a straight face anyway, claim CTV is a liberal media outlet..


Come on. You are not seriously trying to claim that they are *NOT*?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> As been discussed numerous times, making it voluntary invalidates the data. Then every study that comes out based on this data will be invalid because of the self-selected participants. It's useless.


No it isn't useless just like the data that comes from polls (which are voluntary) isn't useless... It however means that there is a greater margin for error depending on the sample size and thus why the sample size has been doubled to account/make up for the voluntary method.

Again the question that has never been answered even though I have asked it numerous times, "Why does "granularity"/accuracy of data from the Census trump individual liberty/freedom from coercion in a democracy?"


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Right... the conservatives are caught lying as evidenced by their own documents and its a CBC conspiracy.
> 
> If the Conservatives had a shred of evidence to support their claims, they'd be proclaiming it loudly through every media outlet in the country. They don't. Because they were lying.


No the Conservatives weren't caught lying, Bernier, a deposed Cabinet Minister was indicated as providing information that did not jive with Stats Can e-mails... he may have received (although I doubt it) the number of e-mails he said he received. Bernier is not even a Cabinet Minister any longer... booted from cabinet because of his questionable practices and this means the entire government is lying?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Your blind partisanship is evident here. The CBC is reporting on what stats can said. Do you think CBC is lying?
> 
> Well, what about CTV?
> CTV Edmonton - Decision to scrap long-form census ignites controversy - CTV News
> ...


If there was any inflation it was Bernier and not Clement, he simply took over a portfolio and believed his predecessors claims. Not very prudent I would agree but it doesn't mean *he* inflated the numbers.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> If there was any inflation it was Bernier and not Clement, he simply took over a portfolio and believed his predecessors claims. Not very prudent I would agree but it doesn't mean *he* inflated the numbers.


Yeah, Max Bernier is a different story. He says a lot of things. There's a reason he's still not allowed back in cabinet despite the political capital they might gain in PQ.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Right... the conservatives are caught lying as evidenced by their own documents and its a CBC conspiracy.
> 
> If the Conservatives had a shred of evidence to support their claims, they'd be proclaiming it loudly through every media outlet in the country. They don't. Because they were lying.


and someone got pissey when I did the "bu buut the wiberals".

See, it wasn't long before it occurred. It's always, the default response to the conservatives lying. Because, if there's a liberal afoot, there's no way, no way in heck, a conservative is lying.

I'm interested though, in this idea the conservatives have, of taking action if so much as ONE, person complains.

That could, be quite costly no?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

screature said:


> Again the question that has never been answered even though I have asked it numerous times, "Why does "granularity"/accuracy of data from the Census trump individual liberty/freedom from coercion in a democracy?"


It's easy... You are under the false belief that this country or any other in the world is a pure democracy. This is quite evident in our laws, governmental structure, social organization, etc.

And... by its own nature... democracy does not equal freedom or liberty.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> It's easy... You are under the false belief that this country or any other in the world is a pure democracy. This is quite evident in our laws, governmental structure, social organization, etc.
> 
> And... by its own nature... democracy does not equal freedom or liberty.


Freedom from coercion, not freedom in general was the point/question.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> and someone got pissey when I did the "bu buut the wiberals".
> 
> See, it wasn't long before it occurred. It's always, the default response to the conservatives lying. Because, if there's a liberal afoot, there's no way, no way in heck, a conservative is lying.
> 
> ...


That was Clement's statement, one that I would hope he is willing to admit he wished he never made. It was just stupid quite frankly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> That was Clement's statement, one that I would hope he is willing to admit he wished he never made. It was just stupid quite frankly.


yes, and Clement, is a conservative, a cabinet minister no? Why the distinction between, "conservative", and, it was "Clement"?

The subtle partisanship is there.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> yes, and Clement, is a conservative, a cabinet minister no? Why the distinction between, "conservative", and, it was "Clement"?
> 
> The subtle partisanship is there.


Even a Minister doesn't speak for all his MPs in terms of opinion, even though that is all the media reports, part of the whipped system we are blessed with in this country...

Just to clarify, Clement's statement was not exactly as the CBC reporter stated it as she admitted herself in her blog...

Clement, for the record on the census and the Power of One



> ...Clement: "I can't quantify. Even if there's one complaint, if it's a legitimate complaint, even if there's one complaint from a Canadian about the coercive tactics used by a government agency we have to consider that complaint a valid question about public policy."
> 
> Barton: "Sure, but we don't change public policy for one person do we?"
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

right. SOrt of how when a few bureaucrats was involved in the sponsorship scandal, every liberal is considered a thief.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> right. SOrt of how when a few bureaucrats was involved in the sponsorship scandal, every liberal is considered a thief.


Yep, that is how it works. It is indeed a double edged sword. It is all a matter of who can convince the electorate which side is sharper.  (All the while fighting/flirting with the media.)


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

screature said:


> Just to clarify, Clement's statement was not exactly as the CBC reporter stated it as she admitted herself in her blog...]


Standard operating procedure for CBC. Lies of omission, misrepresenting the facts.

Max Bernier says they misrepresented what he said as well:

Some clarifications on the census Maxime Bernier's blog



> What I told the CBC journalist however is that I cannot say for sure today, four years later, what proportion of those emails were complaints against the questions or the compulsory character of the census. Another campaign was going on at the same time by groups opposed to a contract that Statistics Canada had awarded to the American firm Lockheed Martin to manage some data. All these emails were identical but sent by different people.





> I had clearly indicated when I made this declaration back in July that these emails had been received at my MP office on the Hill and not at my minister’s office.


Which makes more sense. The email I use to contact my MP is her MP office email (and/or her constituency office), never her Minister of State/Parliamentary Secretary email.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Bernier praised long-form census in 2006 letter



Maxime Bernier in 2006: The long-form census questions are “essential for providing the information needed by governments, businesses, researchers and individual Canadians to shed light on issues of concern to all of us."


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Ottawaman, if you read the link I posted, Bernier discusses that 2006 letter as well:



> Again, there is not much new in this “revelation”. I continue to believe the same thing. However, I also believe that the coercive nature of the census is unwarranted. I had been named Industry minister a few months earlier when I signed that letter and most of the decisions regarding the census had been taken by my predecessor. Since then, I have had time to reflect upon it and yes, I have changed my mind when it comes to the threat of a fine or jail time for those who refuse to fill it. This is why I am convinced that my government is doing the right thing.
> 
> This position is entirely consistent with everything I have been saying or writing for many years on the importance of individual freedom, a principle which motivates my whole involvement in politics..


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> While I agree that it's ludicrous to threaten citizens with jail if they don't fill out government forms correctly, *exactly ZERO people complained* about this. So the government has simply been lying about this issue.





hayesk said:


> However, as I said in my last post, if you have a problem with the coercive nature (although *nobody has ever been jailed for failing to complete their census form*), fair enough. We simply disagree on the point that in order for our society to function, its citizens must have some responsibilities toward it.





Kosh said:


> Strange,* I've never heard of anyone being bullied for their form* and I would imagine they would call first with a friendly reminder. The only thing I've seen is advertisements to send it in.


Perhaps those comments above are not exactly true:


*Sask. woman could face jail time for refusing to fill out census*



> SASKATOON — Following a bitter debate this past summer in which the federal government said it didn't want people threatened with jail time for refusing to answer the long-form census, a Saskatoon woman was found guilty Thursday of doing just that.
> "I'm stunned," Sandra Finley said outside Saskatoon provincial court immediately after the verdict.
> 
> Finley, who is facing a penalty that could range from a $500 fine to three months in jail, said she will study the written decision as soon as she can and discuss with her lawyer whether to file an appeal.
> ...


Sask. woman could face jail time for refusing to fill out census


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*StatsCan Asks For Social Insurance Numbers In Test Runs For 2016 Census*

_Statistics Canada is asking people to provide their social insurance numbers during test runs for the 2016 census, part of an effort to make the survey data more reliable.

The agency is trying to find out if people will reveal a key identifier they've been so often warned to protect.

The Conservative government eliminated the mandatory long-form census in 2011, saying it was too intrusive. It was replaced with the controversial voluntary National Household Survey.

*When the data from the survey was released last year, information on thousands of smaller communities was withheld because of low response rates. And because some people didn't want to fill out the voluntary form or parts of it, collected data on income levels has been criticized as flawed.*

The agency is now asking a broad sample of those who fill out the tests of the mandatory, short-form census to include their SIN. The number will help tap into specific information from tax returns held by the Canada Revenue Agency, the type of solid data that could backstop the census.

"At the time that people do their income tax, they're fairly precise, they have all of the papers that they need to provide to the revenue agency," said Marc Hamel, census manager at Statistics Canada.

"The information tends to be of higher quality than it would be on the census or NHS."​_
(HuffPo)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If asked, I will gladly tell them. To go to hell that is. beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As if. And I will continue to provide skewed answers if forced to respond.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This 



SINC said:


> If asked, I will gladly tell them. To go to hell that is. beejacon


and this...



Macfury said:


> As if. And I will continue to provide skewed answers if forced to respond.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> The agency is now asking a broad sample of those who fill out the tests of the mandatory, short-form census to include their SIN. The number will help tap into specific information from tax returns held by the Canada Revenue Agency, the type of solid data that could backstop the census.
> 
> "At the time that people do their income tax, they're fairly precise, they have all of the papers that they need to provide to the revenue agency," said Marc Hamel, census manager at Statistics Canada.


It's nice of Stats Can to finally admit to a couple of the things they've been lying about regarding the census. That is, the census is NOT anonymous, and they really CAN access to Canadian's tax information.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

StatsCan is the single biggest breach of Canadians privacy of any federal department. Besides, do we really care how many frogs ride in canoes and other riveting BS they waste money on collecting?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> StatsCan is the single biggest breach of Canadians privacy of any federal department. Besides, do we really care how many frogs ride in canoes and other riveting BS they waste money on collecting?


I must agree. Maybe if they paid a person enough to do the census it would be worth selling out one's privacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Policy making suffering in Canada without the long-form census*

The heated debate over skills shortages and temporary foreign workers reminds us how much Canadians have lost as a result of the government’s move four years ago to scrap the mandatory long-form census. Without the granular data on jobs and wages across the country that was among the survey’s most valuable components, it has become all but impossible to draw intelligent – or even accurate – conclusions about these and other critical aspects of economic policy.

Fortunately, not all is lost. The member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, Ted Hsu, will see his private member’s bill debated for the first time in the House of Commons on Thursday. It would require the government to restore the mandatory long-form census. 

* * * *​
We predicted from the start that the demise of the mandatory long-form census would create serious problems. Experience has taught that most organizations, whether businesses, governments or charities, do much of their work at the local level, and thus rely heavily on detailed geographical statistics for planning, selling, employing, building, donating and many of their other economic activities.

Our concerns have turned out to be fully justified.

Many Canadians have chosen not to respond to the voluntary household survey at all, or to complete only part of the survey form.

* * * *​
Comparisons between towns, counties and regions have become impossible in too many cases, even in heavily populated urban areas. Comparisons between neighbourhoods – once a staple of census analysis – are now of questionable feasibility.

* * * *​
Perhaps the biggest casualty of the switch to the new survey is the ability to analyze trends over time – among the most critical components of any research tool. The household survey and the long-form census are so different that we are no longer able to compare different periods in a statistically rigorous way.

We see nothing wrong in requiring Canadians by law to complete a survey as important as this one. Even in the U.S., where trust in government is not exactly high, the American Community Survey is mandatory. The authorities have reasoned – and few citizens have objected – that a mandatory response is the only way to ensure adequate data quality.

* * * *​
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said recently that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” His comments were made in the context of child and maternal health, but they apply equally to other areas of policy making, and drive better performance in business planning and economic analysis.

(Globe & Mail)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see _everything_ wrong in requiring Canadians by law to complete a survey as important as this one. I will render worthless any survey I am compelled to fill out by law. Glad to see Hsu is retiring next year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I will never submit ever again to any compulsory survey by any government. It is flat out wrong and it was abolished as an infringement on our rights. Good riddance to the practice.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

I am getting so sick of people on the left wing media lying. The people claiming the long form was cancelled are lying. It still exists, it still was handed out last time the census came around. The difference is, the threat of prison was removed if you didn't answer it. We live in a free society, people DIED for our freedom. We absolutely have the right to decide if we want to answer questions being posed by the government. How the data is used is irrelevant, it's an absolute affront to basic liberty that it was ever mandatory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am completely opposed to the programs that the data is used to prop up. Not filling out such a form is a matter of conscience.

Hsu should call his bill: "Restoring prison sentences for the Long Form Census."



heavyall said:


> I am getting so sick of people on the left wing media lying. The people claiming the long form was cancelled are lying. It still exists, it still was handed out last time the census came around. The difference is, the threat of prison was removed if you didn't answer it. We live in a fee society, people DIED for our freedom. We absolutely have the right to decide if we want to answer questions being posed by the government. How the data is used is irrelevant, it's an absolute affront to basic liberty that it was ever mandatory.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> I am completely opposed to the programs that the data is used to prop up.


That's certainly another good reason not to fill it out. Anything that gives governments ideas about how to take and spend more of my money is a bad thing.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Previous 5 posts pretty much cover it for me...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> That's certainly another good reason not to fill it out. Anything that gives governments ideas about how to take and spend more of my money is a bad thing.


The other big babies are businesses that want free demographic information from StatsCan. Let them pay for it themselves.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

heavyall said:


> Anything that gives governments ideas about how to take and spend more of my money is a bad thing.


This is terribly hypocritical. You guys bitch and complain about government wastefulness, and yet you are actively opposed to the government collecting data that it needs to more efficiently design and deliver programming.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The other big babies are businesses that want free demographic information from StatsCan. Let them pay for it themselves.


Absolutely. For-profit corporations should pay for access to that data. Sadly, I can't conceive of a way where such a restriction could be established without also harming public access.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Government assumes by my answers that I want them to provide some service or another, when I really want them to reduce services across the board. There is no way to make that clear to them by responding accurately to the census.



CubaMark said:


> This is terribly hypocritical. You guys bitch and complain about government wastefulness, and yet you are actively opposed to the government collecting data that it needs to more efficiently design and deliver programming.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> This is terribly hypocritical. You guys bitch and complain about government wastefulness, and yet you are actively opposed to the government collecting data that it needs to more efficiently design and deliver programming.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


I don't want it both ways, I want less, period. Less spending, less programs. The last thing I want is the government to have data that might make them hesitate to cut funding, or worse, increase it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Okay - so we now have it on record.

You guys want the government to make decisions based on no evidence whatsoever.

So... faith? Are you taking a U.S. southern evangelical Republican stance on this? Consult the holy book for guidance on policy?

Sheeeeeesh!

:yikes:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since when is the short form census and a voluntary long form census "no information whatsoever"? Since when is StatsCan the only source of information on which governments can make decisions? Talk about hyperbole!




CubaMark said:


> Okay - so we now have it on record.
> 
> You guys want the government to make decisions based on no evidence whatsoever.
> 
> ...


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> You guys want the government to make decisions based on no evidence whatsoever.


Right, because there is no data on the planet outside of the census? Nobody has any knowledge of anything outside of it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Right, because there is no data on the planet outside of the census? Nobody has any knowledge of anything outside of it?


As I will remind people, I was harassed endlessly by a guy on my block about collecting the long form, who threatened my wife with all sorts of potential punishments. She was so intimidated, she just filled it out with nonsense so he would leave.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Opting out.

Perhaps there could be an opting out procedure for those who don't want to pay taxes or provide information to the government. They would still be permitted to use services, but they would pay for the use directly. Thus, on the municipal level, using roads, water, refuse collection, police services, fire protection, snow clearing, repairs and maintenance, etc. would all be charged on a per-use or per-capita basis. Provincially, health care, schooling, college, university, provincial courts (civil law) and prisons, highway use, etc. would be billed directly and fully. Federally, there are fewer direct services to individuals, but any use of a service that is funded fully or partially (e.g., criminal justice system) would be assessed on a per-capita basis.

My point is that using services incurs responsibility for paying for the use. Citizens can be charged collectively through taxation, or individually by direct billing (via transponders, some kind of monitoring) which even in this technological age, still seems cumbersome. Gathering information is necessary for any scheme to work. How the information is gathered is the topic at hand.

I think it is best to have as much information as is needed to make effective decisions about budgetary issues. Less is not better because the absence of data results in inefficient decision making.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would be there in a second.



Kleles said:


> Opting out.
> 
> Perhaps there could be an opting out procedure for those who don't want to pay taxes or provide information to the government. They would still be permitted to use services, but they would pay for the use directly. Thus, on the municipal level, using roads, water, refuse collection, police services, fire protection, snow clearing, repairs and maintenance, etc. would all be charged on a per-use or per-capita basis. Provincially, health care, schooling, college, university, provincial courts (civil law) and prisons, highway use, etc. would be billed directly and fully. Federally, there are fewer direct services to individuals, but any use of a service that is funded fully or partially (e.g., criminal justice system) would be assessed on a per-capita basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> As I will remind people, I was harassed endlessly by a guy on my block about collecting the long form, who threatened my wife with all sorts of potential punishments. She was so intimidated, she just filled it out with nonsense so he would leave.



This is true. Just because someone fills out a survey is no guarantee they are telling the truth, especially since disclosure may actually violate FOIPP law. I'm today's world, people tend to be cagey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Key income data goes missing*



> Understanding what has been happening in recent years with income inequality in Canada is vitally important.
> 
> What do we know, for example, about the incidence of low income and poverty, or the impact of taxes and income transfers on the level and distribution of family income? What are the differences in income across provinces, or between different kinds of families, such as seniors and lone-parent families? More pressingly from a public policy perspective, what difference has government policy made to the economic well-being of Canadian families and to the fairness and equity of Canadian society?
> 
> Answering these questions relies on having sound data that are reliable and comparable over time.





> With the release today of Statistics Canada’s Canadian Income Survey, there is now a major gap in these important statistics that make it very difficult to know if there have been important changes to the Canadian social and economic fabric.
> 
> Worrisomely, we will not be able to know of any such changes before the coming federal election.





> The new survey was introduced because it is much cheaper to administer. Many researchers have lamented the loss of SLID because it was able to follow individuals and families over several years, for example, as they transitioned between jobs and between different kinds of families. We knew from SLID not just how many families lived in poverty, but for how long they lived in poverty. We knew to what extent incomes of families fluctuated from year to year.
> 
> The new income data for 2012 cannot be compared to 2011 and previous years. Statistics Canada tells us not to use the new data to look at trends over time. That leaves a huge gap.


(The Broadbent Institute)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Aggregate their income tax info. This is a non-issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Claiming that census information gathered under duress due to mandatory rules punishable by prison is far from reliable and cannot be construed as accurate anyway. People will make any claim they think of at the time to hide real facts they do not want known. 

It is not unlike the US using torture to extract information they want to hear, but has been proven useless, just like the StatsCan's claim about former info being more accurate than current info.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Claiming that census information gathered under duress due to mandatory rules punishable by prison is far from reliable and cannot be construed as accurate anyway. People will make any claim they think of at the time to hide real facts they do not want known.
> 
> It is not unlike the US using torture to extract information they want to hear, but has been proven useless, just like the StatsCan's claim about former info being more accurate than current info.


Yet somehow the conmen believe that information obtained via months and years of incarceration and torture is accurate. They got the cycle cranked to super spin on that pair!

For me accuracy is not the issue. Privacy is, but despite the census diversion, the conmen are doing everything they can do destroy every aspect of our personal privacy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *Yet somehow the conmen believe that information obtained via months and years of incarceration and torture is accurate. *They got the cycle cranked to super spin on that pair!
> 
> For me accuracy is not the issue. Privacy is, but despite the census diversion, *the conmen are doing everything they can do destroy every aspect of our personal privacy.*


You don't know what you are talking about. More FUD from you as per usual.

The *ONLY* time when information brought to CSIS via another country's use of torture could be used is when that information could prevent and protect harm and possible death coming to Canadians exposed to a potential threat derived from that intelligence.

What load of rubbish! In fact they changed the census to protect Canadian's privacy.

Do some homework for once and stop talking about things that you do not understand and on which you are not fully informed/knowledgeable.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Munir Sheikh: Bad Info From NHS Will Lead To Bad Planning*



> Important statistical information has become so unreliable that the government would be better off making policy decisions based on no information at all, says the former head of Statistics Canada.
> 
> Munir Sheikh, who quit his job as the chief statistician of StatCan in 2010, said Friday that the current National Household Survey (NHS) will lead to bad planning — on everything from where to put more bus shelters to the types of social programs that best serve Canadians.





> Sheikh, now an executive fellow at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, lambasted the quality of information produced by the NHS, saying it paints an incorrect picture of Canadian society.
> 
> He added that *no other country in the world collects part of its national census data on a voluntary basis.*
> 
> ...





> His critique came on the same day Canada's latest jobs report was released, showing the economy lost some 19,000 jobs last month. Many experts have called the reliability of such data into question following a series of major revisions. It also came to light that *the government partially relies on Kijiji job search information for its analysis on the state of the job market.*
> 
> Speaking to the audience, Sheikh clarified his reasoning for stepping down as chief statistician in 2010. He said he did not quit simply because the census was axed but because *then-Industry Minister Tony Clement lied* and said Sheikh supported the NHS. In reality, Sheikh said, he had advised against it, saying the quality of data would suffer too greatly.
> 
> *After hearing Clement repeatedly tell reporters that the NHS had Sheikh's support, the statistician said he decided "enough is enough" and that he could no longer work with the Conservative government.*


(HuffPo)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is simply what makes Canada a better and freer nation!

Fewer social programs? Say it ain't so!

Goodbye Sheikh--don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.



> He added that no other country in the world collects part of its national census data on a voluntary basis.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> ...no other country in the world collects part of its national census data on a voluntary basis...


Good on us, we are trail blazers and not lemmings.

But actually the short form is still mandatory and that seems reasonable to me. 

So what punishment do you think is appropriate for those who refuse to comply to fill out the long form?

Personally I do not want to be coerced/forced by fear of a Government imposed penalty to fill out a long form Census and I don't want to *have* to vote by Government edict either.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

They simply need to find/use other means to collect the data. I have an absolute right not to answer questions -- ANY questions. It's simply too f-ing bad for anyone whose job is affected by that. Get a different job.

It's not like previous governments were making good use of the data anyway. Too much spending and too little to show for it. Maybe if they weren't so confident in the data, they'll actually make better decisions because they'd actually have to think about what they're doing instead of hiding behind statistics that you know damn well they cherry-picked to show their point of view anyway.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

heavyall said:


> It's not like previous governments were making good use of the data anyway. .


Ding, ding, ding! And we have a winnah!

Case in point? The survey that the Alberta PC's completely ignored prior to the election. To their peril...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

heavyall said:


> They simply need to find/use other means to collect the data.* I have an absolute right not to answer questions -- ANY questions*. It's simply too f-ing bad for anyone whose job is affected by that. Get a different job.
> 
> It's not like previous governments were making good use of the data anyway. Too much spending and too little to show for it. Maybe if they weren't so confident in the data, they'll actually make better decisions because they'd actually have to think about what they're doing instead of hiding behind statistics that you know damn well they cherry-picked to show their point of view anyway.


Even if you are the suspect of a crime. 

If you are an accused criminal you have the right to say nothing at all but if you are free citizen you don't have the same rights.

That is SERIOUSLY f**ked up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> So what punishment do you think is appropriate for those who refuse to comply to fill out the long form?


As I have said before, in the 1990s I had a neighbourhood thug threatening me with all sorts of punishments if I did not allow him to collect the long form. I intended to let them take me to court over it. However, he scared my wife so badly that she filled it out with nonsense and gave it to him.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Couldn't they just extract all the data they need from Google?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Y'all have probably never read, end-to-end, the Terms & Conditions of a piece of software you use and the legal implications it represents for you, but OMG!!!! a Census form? HOLY FRIGGIN' WAR!!!!!

What a ridiculous bunch of paranoiacs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Y'all have probably never read, end-to-end, the Terms & Conditions of a piece of software you use and the legal implications it represents for you*, but OMG!!!! a Census form? HOLY FRIGGIN' WAR!!!!!
> 
> What a ridiculous bunch of *paranoiacs.*


What possible bearing does that have on the conversation at hand.

Had too much tequila today CM?

Actually I think you need more...

You are really WAAAYYY of topic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can live abiding by the laws of the land or pay my fine if I choose not to. You see, even there you have choice. Hell, I don't even mind getting a driver's license or having insurance on my vehicles.

What I cannot live with is being forced by penalty of jail time, without choice to fill out some bureaucrat's silly form that wants to know more about me than I am willing to divulge. 

I had to fill out the long form on more occasions than I recall over my time on this planet and I never once gave them any more information than they already had on my tax return. I always figured that was all they were entitled to. My favourite answer was N/A as most of it was not applicable to me in terms of telling them. I also used 123456 a lot. That is all they ever got and I am glad that no one is now threatened to fill out a meaningless form. The data they had was flawed anyway, as I suspect more Canadians than not, did the same thing.

And any government employee who read my form would immediately see that it was useless. Funny thing is that never once did anyone question my responses, which goes to show you how easily they accepted bulls hit as fact.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> I can live abiding by the laws of the land or pay my fine if I choose not to. You see, even there you have choice. Hell, I don't even mind getting a driver's license or having insurance on my vehicles.
> 
> What I cannot live with is being forced by penalty of jail time, without choice to fill out some bureaucrat's silly form that wants to know more about me than I am willing to divulge.
> 
> ...


I can recall in my extreme youth claiming that I lived in a 100+ unit apartment building that had only outdoor toilets.

Nowadays given the, let's treat Muslims as If they were Jews in prewar Germany, attitude of the Harper Government, there is no way on earth I would answer any questions about religious affiliation. Who knows who the feds will go after next.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> Y'all have probably never read, end-to-end, the Terms & Conditions of a piece of software you use and the legal implications it represents for you, but OMG!!!! a Census form? HOLY FRIGGIN' WAR!!!!!
> 
> What a ridiculous bunch of paranoiacs.



Leave it to Mark to inject something that has no relevance to anything. 

I don't answer any questions on the EULAs, and just dismiss it. And, because most people DO just dismiss it, many court cases have ruled that nothing contained in them can be considered binding, including the notion that the software is merely licensed rather than purchased and owned by the end user.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Claiming that census information gathered under duress due to mandatory rules punishable by prison is far from reliable and cannot be construed as accurate anyway. People will make any claim they think of at the time to hide real facts they do not want known.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not unlike the US using torture to extract information they want to hear, but has been proven useless, just like the StatsCan's claim about former info being more accurate than current info.



Exactly. Kind of like the torture they use at Guantanamo Bay for that exact purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I find particularly insulting about the LF Census is the notion that I need the government to supply something, based on my answers. There is no way that I can construe an answer that indicates that I want them to cut services normally available to me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. Kind of like the torture they use at Guantanamo Bay for that exact purpose.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wrong again, nothing to do with Gitmo at all, but nice try.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Wrong again, nothing to do with Gitmo at all, but nice try.



Well, I was focusing on the "torture" part, which I've heard has been in vogue at Gitmo for some time, but I can certainly understand your reluctance to avoid walking into that trap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Being compelled/coerced to fill out the long form census is akin to being compelled/coerced to vote...

Just because some jurisdictions compel it is IMO not a good reason for us to adopt such policy.

Some jurisdictions want to/do compel heterosexuality if you don't want to have to fear reprisal from the government. Should we adopt that as well just because someone else is doing it? No.

I find it passing strange that the so called "progressives" think that *compelling *their citizenry to this or that is somehow "progressive". IMO it is regressive and harkens back to the times of oligarchies/monarchies/dictatorships and tyranny of the ruling class over their citizens.

Not in the least bit "progressive", quite the contrary. Regressive IMO.

To quote Macfury, "My life is my own."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I would be completely in favour of scrapping the long form altogether. Most of the additional questions are intended to gather data to pander to the corporate cronies of whomever was in power when the census was being laid out.

Any resemblance to a data set that would benefit the taxpayer is entirely unintended and totally accidental.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> …
> 
> To quote Macfury, "My life is my own."



has as much valence as “Live Free or Die”, the motto on New Hampshire license plates.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kleles said:


> has as much valence as “Live Free or Die”, the motto on New Hampshire license plates.


I like that license plate and New Hampshire in general! Living a life of liberty and personal responsibility isn't for everybody and it's good that you recognize that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> has as much valence as “Live Free or Die”, the motto on New Hampshire license plates.


I think you may have meant validity and not valance:

valence 1 |ˈvāləns|
nounChemistry
the combining power of an element, esp. as measured by the number of hydrogen atoms it can displace or combine with: carbon always has a valence of 4.
• [ as modifier ] relating to or denoting electrons involved in or available for chemical bond formation: molecules with unpaired valence electrons.
• Linguistics the number of grammatical elements with which a particular word, esp. a verb, combines in a sentence.

The statements "Live free or die" and "My life is my own" can be construed/conflated as being related to each other, but they are not logically or philosophically connected in any intrinsic way relative to the original proposition of either statements.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Valence in a psychological sense means the attractiveness of an idea.



screature said:


> I think you may have meant validity and not valance:
> 
> valence 1 |ˈvāləns|
> nounChemistry
> ...


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Valence in a psychological sense means the attractiveness of an idea.


Quite correct, Macfury. I did not mean validity.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> ...
> 
> The statements "Live free or die" and "My life is my own" can be construed/conflated as being related to each other, but they are not logically or philosophically connected in any intrinsic way relative to the original proposition of either statements.


I disagree. “Live free or die” implores choosing to not obey any rules or laws. Of course in the U.S. context it refers to the ‘freedoms’ outlined in their constitution and amendments. The Libertarian Party in the U.S. best reflects these ideals, but only briefly had an official presence in New Hampshire.

“My life is my own” also asserts that one lives in a manner of one’s choice, not being controlled, manipulated, or regulated by anyone or anything else. Although, as a motto there is no reference to alternatives (“or die"), it certainly is philosophically related to “live free or die.”


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I disagree on both interpretations. “Live free or die” does no mean to obey no rules, but to create as few rules as are necessary to maintain a civil society--and that maintaining such a freedom is worth risking one's life for.

"My life is my own" is simply an assertion that one belongs to one's self. No state or government can change this fundamental truth, even though they may attempt to. I try to live in a manner I choose and like to co-operate freely with like-minded individuals. However, it's a constant battle with societal forces who believe they own a piece of the individual.



Kleles said:


> I disagree. “Live free or die” implores choosing to not obey any rules or laws. Of course in the U.S. context it refers to the ‘freedoms’ outlined in their constitution and amendments. The Libertarian Party in the U.S. best reflects these ideals, but only briefly had an official presence in New Hampshire.
> 
> “My life is my own” also asserts that one lives in a manner of one’s choice, not being controlled, manipulated, or regulated by anyone or anything else. Although, as a motto there is no reference to alternatives (“or die"), it certainly is philosophically related to “live free or die.”


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Valence in a psychological sense means the attractiveness of an idea.





Kleles said:


> Quite correct, Macfury. I did not mean validity.


I stand corrected, maybe you should inform the creators of all the non-psychology dictionaries so they will include that definition as it not offered as a definition in any non-psychology dictionary.

Leave it to the pseudo-science of psychology to appropriate a hard science term to try and sound like hard science.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I disagree on both interpretations. “Live free or die” does no mean to obey no rules, but to create as few rules as are necessary to maintain a civil society--and that maintaining such a freedom is worth risking one's life for.
> 
> "My life is my own" is simply an assertion that one belongs to one's self. No state or government can change this fundamental truth, even though they may attempt to. I try to live in a manner I choose and like to co-operate freely with like-minded individuals. However, it's a constant battle with societal forces who believe they own a piece of the individual.


Exactly.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> I stand corrected, maybe you should inform the creators of all the non-psychology dictionaries so they will include that definition as it not offered as a definition in any non-psychology dictionary.
> 
> Leave it to the pseudo-science of psychology to appropriate a hard science term to try and sound like hard science.
> 
> View attachment 56682


As a non-psychology dictionary, check out Merriam Webster. And, of course, that most non-scientific sphere of interest — home decorating — has also usurped valence. Oh the shame!!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> As a non-psychology dictionary, check out Merriam Webster. And, of course, that most non-scientific sphere of interest — home decorating — has also usurped valence. Oh the shame!!!


Just saying the use of the term is generally understood as a term of chemistry which came along time before psychology adopted/stole it and changed it's very specific meaning.

I know, I know, language changes, blah, blah, blah...

No shame, just stupid and lazy. If you come up with an idea outside of the science that the word is applied to, create a different word for it and don't just borrow/steal from another already established understanding of the word.

Linguistically it appears the "science" of psychology is historically as lazy as the practitioners of "Modern Psychology" are today in their practices.

Anyway I now know where you are coming from and I disagree with your statement:



> has as much valence as “Live Free or Die”, the motto on New Hampshire license plates.


"My life is my own" has much more "valence "for me than "Live free or die".

In the former there is just an expression of individual independence, in the later it is a political rally cry. Whole different kettle of fish.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

screature said:


> ...
> 
> Linguistically it appears the "science" of psychology is historically as lazy as the practitioners of "Modern Psychology" are today in their practices.
> 
> ....


Hard science has certainly provided understanding, manipulation, and predictability of phenomena of our physical world including biology (thereby medicine - from which we all benefit). However, one of the greatest enigmas extant is consciousness and human behaviour. Despite the most arduous application of any science, no absolutely certain prediction (at least as much certainty afforded by hard science) can determine what I, you, or anyone else is going to do tomorrow or any other future time. Hence the ‘pseudo”-science of psychology. The use of hard science’s methods, measurements, and sometimes terminology, to study human behaviour has the same goal as hard science: to explain, understand, manipulate and predict what a person will do in the future. So far, determinism and reductionism have failed in the realms of human thought and behaviour, individually and collectively.

BTW, once hard science has grasped the subject matter of psychology, the human psyche, all human behaviour will be predictable and controllable. Let’s enjoy our freedom while we have it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Getting that many people to buy tickets to _Frozen _was a good start...



Kleles said:


> BTW, once hard science has grasped the subject matter of psychology, the human psyche, all human behaviour will be predictable and controllable.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kleles said:


> Hard science has certainly provided understanding, manipulation, and predictability of phenomena of our physical world including biology (thereby medicine - from which we all benefit). However, one of the greatest enigmas extant is consciousness and human behaviour. Despite the most arduous application of any science, no absolutely certain prediction (at least as much certainty afforded by hard science) can determine what I, you, or anyone else is going to do tomorrow or any other future time. Hence the ‘pseudo”-science of psychology. The use of hard science’s methods, measurements, and sometimes terminology, to study human behaviour has the same goal as hard science: to explain, understand, manipulate and predict what a person will do in the future. So far, determinism and reductionism have failed in the realms of human thought and behaviour, individually and collectively.
> 
> *BTW, once hard science has grasped the subject matter of psychology, the human psyche, all human behaviour will be predictable and controllable.* Let’s enjoy our freedom while we have it.


Well that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.

We have a much better chance to "explain, understand, manipulate and predict" what a given *thing* will do in the future than we do any human being.

Human beings are all too often irrational and their behavior is often based on emotion. Physics and chemistry, for example, do not suffer from that limitation (irrationality or emotion) in studying them.

That being said, our irrationality and emotions are what make us unique in the universe (as far as we know).

Psychology has its place in academia and even as an applied "science", but the science is very soft, more like an art than a science.

In general we have a much better chance to explain, understand, manipulate and predict the behaviour of "normal"/"healthy" human beings that we do of those who are mentally "ill", have genetic abnormalities of the brain, etc.

But that is where the much harder science of psychiatry steps in and takes over.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Just a little heads-up so some of you can start working on your moral indignation.... *:lmao:

*Long-form census could be reinstated for 2016*

Restoring the mandatory long-form census in time for the 2016 survey is doable, say two former chief statisticians of Statistics Canada, but the incoming Liberal government will have to move swiftly to make it happen.

The return of the long form, promised by Justin Trudeau during the election campaign, would yield vastly more reliable data and cost less than running another national household survey, the former heads of the agency say.

“It should be possible. I am certainly very hopeful. But [the decision] needs to be done very soon. It’s an enormous logistical operation,” said Ivan Fellegi, chief statistician from 1985 to 2008.

It’s “no problem” to reintroduce the long form in time for the 2016 census, said Munir Sheikh, head of the agency from 2008 to 2010. The questions needn’t change, he said – just the instructions at the top. “All they need to do is put on the front page that this is mandatory.”

The other step is for “cabinet to approve it as a census, which they can do at any time – it would take a matter of seconds.”​
(Globe&Mail)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We'll see if authoritarianism is back in style--wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

Instead of being morally indignant, I’ll express my excitement. Removing the Long Form in the census was an excellent example of the contra-scientific thinking of the Harper conservatives. I hope that this is one of many restorative acts that will expunge the anti-intellectual/scientific trends of the (about to be) previous government.

And for those who are concerned about the invasion of their privacy, etc., if you use the internet, or a cellphone, your privacy is already greatly compromised.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If I use any of those pieces of equipment, it is with my understanding.

If it's reinstated, I'll just fake the data again. Nobody's business.



Kleles said:


> Instead of being morally indignant, I’ll express my excitement. Removing the Long Form in the census was an excellent example of the contra-scientific thinking of the Harper conservatives. I hope that this is one of many restorative acts that will expunge the anti-intellectual/scientific trends of the (about to be) previous government.
> 
> And for those who are concerned about the invasion of their privacy, etc., if you use the internet, or a cellphone, your privacy is already greatly compromised.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, me too, last time I was forced to fill out a long form, I used seven or 7 for every question. Might use ate or 8 if it comes back. Nobody's business is right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

An enforced census is a perfect activation of "progressivism"--give us your personal information or we will threaten your liberty.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The end of the mandatory long census was one of the very few Harper actions which I whole-heartedly supported. It is not and should not be the job of the Government to gather data for corporate buds.

Trudeaus efforts would be much better directed towards scrapping Bill C-51 entirely. The pretense that this can be modified to be anything but repressive abuse of power, is absolutely absurd. 

OTOH Hitler and Stalin would have been proud of Harper for that one!


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

Macfury said:


> An enforced census is a perfect activation of "progressivism"--give us your personal information or we will threaten your liberty.


Right. Because census-taking became widespread in that age of "progressivism"--pre-1850! </sheesh>

Craig


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

WCraig said:


> Right. Because census-taking became widespread in that age of "progressivism"--pre-1850! </sheesh>


Census taking goes back much further:

"In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world."

What's "progressive" about Canada's non-voluntary census is having "block captains" coming to your home and threatening you with legal action for not divulging personal information on the grounds that the information is valuable to the collective.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What's "progressive" about Canada's non-voluntary census is having "block captains" coming to your home and threatening you with legal action for not divulging personal information on the grounds that the information is valuable to the collective.


Oh, I _do_ hope one of those shows up on my doorstep... beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Oh, I _do_ hope one of those shows up on my doorstep... beejacon


One of them showed up on my doorstep in the 1990s while I was out. He intimidated my wife to the point that she just wrote a bunch of nonsense on the form and handed it back to him while he waited, spouting threats.


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Census taking goes back much further:
> 
> "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world."
> 
> What's "progressive" about Canada's non-voluntary census is having "block captains" coming to your home and threatening you with legal action for not divulging personal information on the grounds that the information is valuable to the collective.


I'm not talking ancient history (Doomsday book, etc). Genealogy is my hobby. The 1840-1900 census returns that are such an amazing source of family history were filled out by a census taker. He sat with the family, asked the questions and recorded their answers. So the concept was widespread 150 years ago--the big "we" need information to make informed decisions. 

Craig
BTW, the information that was gathered back then was exceedingly detailed, particularly the agricultural info. Acres allocated for each crop, yields, animals raised, even honey collected! Amazing that they collected such detailed information when everything was tabulated by hand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I understand what you're saying--I've looked at census information myself and find it fascinating. Even the city directories of 75 years ago listed occupations. 

Some differences now: 
1) StatsCan sells my aggregated info to private business, although some of it is given way for free. It is a business subsidy.
2) Today I am assumed, by giving that information, to be a client for government services which are expanded based on my answers. It is not possible for me to tell them that I want fewer services. The "informed decision" made using the information would work against my interests.
3) The information is kept in such a way that it is not secure. The census takers "oath of secrecy" is meaningless. Giving even temporary access to my census documents to a "block captain" from my own neighbourhood violates my privacy to the extreme. 
4) Threatening me with jail time if I do not agree to fill out the census brings out the civil disobedience in me.

If I believed that my census information was simply being kept for historical purposes and that it was secure, I would be less inclined to spoil my form. 



WCraig said:


> I'm not talking ancient history (Doomsday book, etc). Genealogy is my hobby. The 1840-1900 census returns that are such an amazing source of family history were filled out by a census taker. He sat with the family, asked the questions and recorded their answers. So the concept was widespread 150 years ago--the big "we" need information to make informed decisions.
> 
> Craig
> BTW, the information that was gathered back then was exceedingly detailed, particularly the agricultural info. Acres allocated for each crop, yields, animals raised, even honey collected! Amazing that they collected such detailed information when everything was tabulated by hand.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Liberals to restore mandatory long-form census*

OTTAWA—Restoring the long-form census will be among the first acts of the new Liberal government, which takes office Wednesday.

Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau and his cabinet are expected to move quickly on the formal decision to reinstate the mandatory questionnaire that was axed by the Conservatives in 2010, the Star has learned.

The move, seen as vital by those who rely on the census data, is an important symbolic one, too, for the Liberals, demonstrating a commitment to science-based policy while taking the first steps of undoing the legacy of almost a decade of Conservative rule.

“It will be fairly easy because it doesn’t take legislation. All it requires is cabinet saying so,” said Ivan Fellegi, who served as Canada’s chief statistician for 23 years and retired in 2008.

“It’s definitely an excellent step,” he told the Star Monday.​
(TorontoStar)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Perfect. I have many of my responses from the last one still memorized. Two of them include:

Religion? Jedi warrior.
# of livestock? 7 cows, 7 chickens, 7 pigs, 7 horses, 7 turkeys, 7 rabbits, for a total of 7 livestock.

I love filling out these things... 

Oh, & I hope one of the Block Captains delivers it... beejacon


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Perfect. I have many of my responses from the last one still memorized. Two of them include:
> 
> Religion? Jedi warrior.
> # of livestock? 7 cows, 7 chickens, 7 pigs, 7 horses, 7 turkeys, 7 rabbits, for a total of 7 livestock.
> ...


Want absolute proof that the census is not completely anonymous, try listing your ethnic background as Canadian. Guaranteed to have a census Stasi pounding on your door stating that you cannot possibly be Canadian! 

Is it still possible to claim that your apartment does not have indoor plumbing??


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*EDITORIAL: Reversing the foolish census mistake*

...the Liberals reversed one of the former Conservative government’s most regressive and perplexing moves — the 2010 axing of the long-form census and its replacement with a more expensive (by $22 million) and far less reliable National Household Survey.

The Tories doggedly stuck to their bizarre decision despite a chorus of opposition from across society and the political spectrum, including health-care professionals, provincial and municipal government officials, economists, lawyers, teachers, social scientists and both left- and right-leaning think tanks.

All warned the loss or degradation of reliable data would impact everything from government budgets and jobless benefits to health and education services.

As critics predicted, results from the 2011 NHS were so compromised that they were unavailable for planning purposes in many smaller communities across Canada.

* * *​
The ministers tried to deflect questions about penalties for not complying — one of the Tories’ main talking points when they killed the census — although Mr. Bains did indicate the law, which under the Statistics Act includes fines and short jail terms, has not changed.

As we’ve said before, we think the threat of jail time isn’t necessary, since historically no one charged has ever been jailed for refusing to complete the census.

But it’s also understandable the ministers wanted to focus on the long-form census’s past historic, and robust, participation rate of about 94 per cent.

The Liberals’ move to bring back the long-form census is welcome. Canadians should now watch for the new government to fulfil the second part of their campaign pledge regarding this issue — making Statistics Canada an independent agency of Parliament, rather than part of a department that must report to a minister.

Doing so would reinforce that Canada’s national data gathering agency should be free to do its job without the risk of becoming entangled in partisan battles between different political parties.​
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see this as nothing but an invasion of my privacy and when I was given an order to fill one out I filled it with false data. That data was never questioned by StatsCan, so one has to assume they included my totally false information in their data. So much for accuracy.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Fines and jail-time for non-compliance are still totally unacceptable. A refusal to fill out the long form can be tabulated as an individual who values his personal privacy above the governments need to feed data to its corporate buddies.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

SINC said:


> I see this as nothing but an invasion of my privacy and when I was given an order to fill one out I filled it with false data. That data was never questioned by StatsCan, so one has to assume they included my totally false information in their data. So much for accuracy.


I would assume, as in any mass data accumulation exercise, that ‘outliers,’ proximal inconsistencies, and internal inconsistencies negate an individual dataset. I don’t assume that your totally false data is included. Or, if it was, it had minimal effect, as one or a few data sets among thousands does not have a significant impact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> As we’ve said before, we think the threat of jail time isn’t necessary, since historically no one charged has ever been jailed for refusing to complete the census.


This makes no sense. People should not be threatened with jail, because nobody has ever been sent to jail for refusing to fill it out? How about that the threat is morally repugnant?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Agreed. Only if the Fibs lift the jail or fine threat for refusal to fill it out will it be acceptable to many Canadians. In other words, make it voluntary.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*May 2016 Census: General information*


What is the census?
Who will be included in the census?
Why is the census important?
How are the census questions determined?
Am I required to participate in the census?
What happened to the National Household Survey?
How does Statistics Canada protect my confidentiality, security and privacy?

(Government of Canada)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

May 2016 Census: General information



> What is the census?


A method of providing information to businesses for free, when they should be paying for it. 



> Who will be included in the census?


Not me.



> Why is the census important?


It provides big government advocates with a justification for increased spending.



> Am I required to participate in the census?


Not in any meaningful way.



> How does Statistics Canada protect my confidentiality, security and privacy?


It does not and now, or ever did.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

> Statistics Canada is bound by law to protect the confidentiality of the information respondents provide in the census.


There is no confidentiality whatsoever. If there was, they wouldn't be able to know if I filled mine out or not.



> Only Statistics Canada employees who have taken the oath of secrecy have access to census questionnaires.


You mean the otherwise unemployable part-timers who come door to door? The ones who carry a list of who has and has not filled out their census? The ones who insist on READING the census you've handed them to make sure you filled out correctly?




Macfury said:


> Not me.


Me neither. I keep getting the long form every time. I will not be filling it out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Count me in as well for not providing any accurate information to any government other than name, rank and serial number. If I get the long form again, my number of choice for this go round will be four. I will live at 44, be born in 44, have 44 children, spend 44 a week on groceries, etc.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> Count me in as well for not providing any accurate information to any government other than name, rank and serial number. If I get the long form again, my number of choice for this go round will be four. I will live at 44, be born in 44, have 44 children, spend 44 a week on groceries, etc.


I'm contemplating giving answers that are true, but that don't answer the question:

Q - Number of persons at this address?

A - Less than 1000.

Q - When was this dwelling built?

A- Prior to 2024.

Q - Where were your parents born?

A - in the hospital.

...etc...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> You mean the otherwise unemployable part-timers who come door to door? The ones who carry a list of who has and has not filled out their census? The ones who insist on READING the census you've handed them to make sure you filled out correctly?


Yep. Like that thug from down the street who began harassing my wife about my decision not to fill out the form. I love sharing private personal information with the neighbourhood mouth breather, who is likely to use it for identity fraud.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

heavyall said:


> I'm contemplating giving answers that are true, but that don't answer the question:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


That "Where were your parents born" query should scare the crap out of many Canadians. If it happens to be the USofA, a truthful answer could prove to be a direct one way pipeline, from your financial accounts to the IRS Financial Criminal Extortion Network. They are on the hunt for accidental Americans. The previous government gave its blessing to the IRS extortion scheme known as FATCA and the current crooks have refused to do anything about it!

If the answer happens to be any middle eastern country, it could have the Mounties, CSIS, CSEC doing the 24/7 surveillance bit on your very existence.

I will answer most questions on the long form NoYFB. Obviously if the form is truly 100% confidential, there is absolutely no way they can come back on me. If not, that in itself should stand in court as proof the answers are not confidential.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The city of St. Albert is undergoing a census right now to be completed next month. They offered it online first by mailing an individual code to each homeowner to use to open and complete the survey and 50% of those offered the code completed the census online, including me. The balance of homes and apartments will now be done by specially hired staff who will conduct it door to door. The census is then sent to both federal and provincial governments and is used when applying for grant money for local projects which is based on population so it helps reduce taxes. This is done every second year.

The reason I filled out the census is because I did not feel they invaded my privacy in any way and I answered the questions honestly. Since they already know my name and address from the tax role they used to send out the notices and it is also in the local phone book, I consider that public information re name, address and phone number.

The other questions asked were:

How many people live in your household?

What are the gender and ages of the people in your household?

What is the employment status of the people in your household? Employed. Unemployed. Retired. Other.

If employed, do you work in St. Albert? Yes. No.

And that was it, the entire census which again contained nothing I thought to be 'none of their business' to complete their stated objective.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those are fair questions, SINC. I would have no trouble with that.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *May 2016 Census: General information*
> 
> 
> What is the census?
> ...


In the modern world an oath of secrecy enforced with a $1000 fine is not even close to adequate security/privacy protection. Good to see they are claiming the data is stored on an internal data base. An improvement over the Con approach of hiring an American firm to handle the data. Of course we have seen in recent years how easily government databases can be hacked.

I would consider the data unprotected when answering the questions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Got my short form census today and filled it out online.

Answered every question but the first one.

They wanted my phone number. I don't give my cell number out to anyone I do not know, so I gave them their example number 123-123-1234.

That was accepted and I got a confirmation number to say I had filled out the form.

Done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will give them the same number.



SINC said:


> Got my short form census today and filled it out online.
> 
> Answered every question but the first one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just received my long form of the census, in both official languages, placed on my front door. I thought it was a phone book it was so thick. Still, the questions are interesting, and I see the purpose of each section and each question. One has to wait until after May 7th to fill in out since some of the questions pertain to the week of May 1st to May 7th. It will so much easier for my wife to fill in her sections, since she was born in Canada and I was not. C'est la vie.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I get the purposes of the questions. However, just because I live where I live does not mean I want extra government services--I want fewer and will not answer questions that lead to increased government spending.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Just received my long form of the census, in both official languages, placed on my front door. I thought it was a phone book it was so thick. Still, the questions are interesting, and I see the purpose of each section and each question. One has to wait until after May 7th to fill in out since some of the questions pertain to the week of May 1st to May 7th. It will so much easier for my wife to fill in her sections, since she was born in Canada and I was not. C'est la vie.


Remember that Lockheed Martin designed the software and is still in charge of compiling the stats. Something tells me if finCEN, the NSA, the CIA .... asked for certain peoples information LM would have little choice but to oblige. Bet the farm LM has built in the backdoors required to do so. 

If I did nothing else I would refuse to answer any questions about country of birth, country of parents birth, other citizenships and any question which might pin down your religious beliefs. The FATCA-IGA and bills C-24 and C-51 are sufficient evidence that information in the hands of Ottawa or the US could be very detrimental to ones well-being. Either now or the in not too distant future.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Remember that Lockheed Martin designed the software and is still in charge of compiling the stats. Something tells me if finCEN, the NSA, the CIA .... asked for certain peoples information LM would have little choice but to oblige. Bet the farm LM has built in the backdoors required to do so.
> 
> If I did nothing else I would refuse to answer any questions about country of birth, country of parents birth, other citizenships and any question which might pin down your religious beliefs. The FATCA-IGA and bills C-24 and C-51 are sufficient evidence that information in the hands of Ottawa or the US could be very detrimental to ones well-being. Either now or the in not too distant future.


I already have a thick FBI file from when I applied to be a conscientious objector during the war in Vietnam.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

For those who are really ticked about filling in a long or short census form which has a bar code identifier attached, and goes directly into an American defense contractor managed data base, here are some things you can do to legally express your displeasure. Top of the list: Don't make it easy for Lockheed Martin.
Count Me Out . . .of the 2011 Canada Census


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Just finished the long form by hand. Took me all of 15 minutes to complete. Getting online is next to impossible, so pen and paper it was for me. Canada's 'enthusiasm' for census brings down StatsCan website - Trending - CBC News

I did not find the questions too intrusive. Luckily, there are only two of us in the house. A large family of 5 or 6 would take over an hour to complete.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Canada's 'enthusiasm' for census brings down StatsCan website - Trending - CBC News[/url]


First time I have received a census that invokes "the law" on the front of the envelope. Canadian enthusiasm is fear. The census never disappeared--are people excited about being told they will be prosecuted for not completing it?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Just a thought. 

Last time around it was voluntary, one of the few things for which I can applaud the Harper Cons. This time it is compulsory.

The excuse is that the 1:6.6 ratio long form survey sample was inadequate. That is of course entirely the opposite of everything statisticians have ever led us to believe, even so now it is compulsory. 

To my way of thinking those who did not find the long form intrusive and filled it in without threat of government reprisal, probably gave straight answers. 

This time around the 25% of us who find the long form intrusive will either do a delay dance until the government stops harassing us or we will provide a long form that is entirely useless. Trying to represent that outcome as being more precise or accurate is of course entirely absurd/obscene.

Any one who believes the data collected will see to it that government money will be spent where it is needed most should ask themselves: "If that's true why do so many Native Canadians lack for safe drinking water?" Is there even a question on the long form regarding the safety of community water supplies, or frequency of boil water notices?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Explosion of Canadian “census babies” to be born February 2017, experts predict - Punchline on CBC

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Editorial Cartoon | The Chronicle Herald

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Let me get this straight. The online census form (short or long) goes directly to an American defense contractor, which uses the combination of your phone number and the 16 digit identification code to pull your income data from the CRA. And somehow I am supposed to suppress basic logic skills and believe the data is in any way confidential?

What idiot decided that handing over confidential CRA data of every Canadian to Lockheed Martin was anything but incredibly stupid.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As I mentioned, I did not submit my phone number. The government has no right to my cell phone number.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> What idiot decided that handing over confidential CRA data of every Canadian to Lockheed Martin was anything but incredibly stupid.


All I know is that it's fine with Justin Trudeau.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> As I mentioned, I did not submit my phone number. The government has no right to my cell phone number.


I am with you on this one. Wonder what the jail time is?

Interestingly I believe the CRA does not have our physical address as our municipality is PO Boxes all the way. Our forms were hand delivered to the street address. Actually dropped on the porch in an area noted for wind speeds which sometimes exceed 100 KPH.

OTOH For most Canadians the 16 digit code and therefore the barcode does tie to the street address so that is probably all LM needs to extract your personal income data from the CRA.

BTW did check into the long form. Seems the government has zero interest in the safety of your water supply. Probably the reason so much of Canada's Native population still has to boil their water.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Let me get this straight. The online census form (short or long) goes directly to an American defense contractor...


I've read it two ways, the other being the software to complete the census was purchased from Lockheed Martin (Canada) with no mention of where it was hosted. I'd be slightly more at ease if that's the case.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

polywog said:


> I've read it two ways, *the other being the software to complete the census was purchased from Lockheed Martin (Canada) with no mention of where it was hosted.* I'd be slightly more at ease if that's the case.


The no mention of the host is a dead giveaway, but even if that is accurate I would be extremely surprised if the software does not contain a direct back door designed to funnel information to various US insecurity agencies.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> The no mention of the host is a dead giveaway...........


It's easy enough to look up the host and where it is located.

And.....

where does all this hogwash come from that has been posted?

That the info is fed to the US, linked to our income tax accounts etc.
None of that makes any sense


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Almost 4,000 individuals had their Census date breached in 2015:

Feds made 5,670 privacy breaches last year; CRA worst offender | CTV News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I didn't fill out my census form fast enough to suit the overlords, so they were already threatening to send my name to the federal prosecutor's office. They received information commensurate with their urgency.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I didn't fill out my census form fast enough to suit the overlords, so they were already threatening to send my name to the federal prosecutor's office. They received information commensurate with their urgency.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jUvL-7F18[/ame]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTE6VT_2SKI[/ame]

Let's all say a prayer for our good friend, Macfury.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I didn't fill out my census form fast enough to suit the overlords, so they were already threatening to send my name to the federal prosecutor's office. They received information commensurate with their urgency.


SWAT team to follow. Before Bill C-51 that would have been a joke. However having failed to file the census as much as 10 days prior to the actual due date, can probably be (mis)construed as intent to commit act of terrorism. Clearly the dark forces of the Super Elite must act quickly to stomp out such nefarious resistance.XX)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> SWAT team to follow. Before Bill C-51 that would have been a joke. However having failed to file the census as much as 10 days prior to the actual due date, can probably be (mis)construed as intent to commit act of terrorism. Clearly the dark forces of the Super Elite must act quickly to stomp out such nefarious resistance.XX)


And what about the forces of "truth, justice and the American way" ........ the IRS????? They will be coming to get you first.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I didn't fill out my census form fast enough to suit the overlords, so they were already threatening to send my name to the federal prosecutor's office. They received information commensurate with their urgency.


Alas, poor Macfury, I knew him, Horatio. :-(

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCDWYgVyps[/ame]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't even own a tin cup to smash against the bars!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I don't even own a tin cup to smash against the bars!


No need for that, Macfury. You "shuffle off this mortal coil" at sunset. Bon voyage, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> I didn't fill out my census form fast enough to suit the overlords, so they were already threatening to send my name to the federal prosecutor's office. They received information commensurate with their urgency.


The last couple of times, I've employed a new trick that seems to get them to go away without confrontation. When they show up at my house to "enforce" the census, instead of telling them that I refuse like I usually did, I now just lie and tell them that I sent it in yesterday. Never heard from them again.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

heavyall said:


> The last couple of times, I've employed a new trick that seems to get them to go away without confrontation. When they show up at my house to "enforce" the census, instead of telling them that I refuse like I usually did, I now just lie and tell them that I sent it in yesterday. Never heard from them again.


A good idea, Heavyall. Sadly, we shall never hear from Macfury anymore either. :-( RIP, mon ami. "Death before dishonor" was always your motto.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I didn't even know we had a census form. Apparently my wife filled it out. She's a good woman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I really don't understand why there is such an issue to fill out that on line census form.

Took me all of five minutes and there wasn't any highly secret info they were after.

But now when I read what the population of Canada was in May 2016, I suppose I need to add another million or two to get closer to the right number.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

krs said:


> I really don't understand why there is such an issue to fill out that on line census form.
> 
> Took me all of five minutes and there wasn't any highly secret info they were after.
> 
> But now when I read what the population of Canada was in May 2016, I suppose I need to add another million or two to get closer to the right number.


They already know the population of Canada. They don't need my cell phone number or my e-mail address. They don't need to threaten me with fines and jail terms.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> They don't need my cell phone number or my e-mail address.


Well, yes... I agree. I don't give out my cell phone number either except to very close relatives and friends, for e-mail I have a couple of "throw-away" email addresses I use.

But I still think one can't get a rasonably accurate count of the population unless there is a census like that.
Where else would one get that information?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

krs said:


> But I still think one can't get a rasonably accurate count of the population unless there is a census like that.
> Where else would one get that information?


Between birth records, death certificates, passport applications, Social Insurance cards, health cards, tax records, immigration records, drivers licenses, and voting registries, the government already has a far more accurate count of how many people are here (and virtually every other question on the census) than any self-reported survey will ever give them.

They already have all of the data they need and more. They just need to efficiently and securely compile it instead of asking the citizens to do it for them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly. Count up the birth certificates and the death certificates and add the number of immigrants accepted. It's all there. But no--Liberals need to make it a crime not to tell them what they already know.


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Count up the birth certificates and the death certificates and add the number of immigrants accepted. It's all there. But no--Liberals need to make it a crime not to tell them what they already know.


How does this tell you _where_ people live?

Craig


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

WCraig said:


> How does this tell you _where_ people live?
> 
> Craig


True ...... and the number of rooms in their homes, and the number of cats and dogs in the house, and your ethnic background, and your occupation, and your hopes and dreams????? All are vital stats for someone.

Good point, WCraig. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

WCraig said:


> How does this tell you _where_ people live?
> 
> Craig


Sending the census form to my mailing address should give you a clue.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Dr.G. said:


> True ...... and the number of rooms in their homes, and the number of cats and dogs in the house, and your ethnic background, and your occupation, and your hopes and dreams????? All are vital stats for someone.
> 
> Good point, WCraig. :clap:


NOT a good point. Those are all things that are none of the government's business.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> True ...... and the number of rooms in their homes, and the number of cats and dogs in the house, and your ethnic background, and your occupation, and your hopes and dreams????? All are vital stats for someone.


None of their business. This is just a way to sell demographic information to businesses at bargain basement prices.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

krs said:


> I really don't understand why there is such an issue to fill out that on line census form.
> 
> Took me all of five minutes and there wasn't any highly secret info they were after.
> .


That's the short form. The long one has a LOT of invasive questions, and is 40 pages long.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> None of their business. This is just a way to sell demographic information to businesses at bargain basement prices.


Well, it got Lunenburg, NS with the distinction of having more dogs per capita than any other town or city in Canada, with just over 1000 dogs for just over 2300 people. :clap:


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Sending the census form to my mailing address should give you a clue.


There is no name on it - all the government knows is that the address exists.

As to the other comments about birth certificates, death certificates and immigration records - you guys can't be serious.
That doesn't cover everyone by a long shot, as an example, there is no record of anyone leaving Canada to live elsewhere.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

krs said:


> There is no name on it - all the government knows is that the address exists.
> 
> As to the other comments about birth certificates, death certificates and immigration records - you guys can't be serious.
> That doesn't cover everyone by a long shot, as an example, there is no record of anyone leaving Canada to live elsewhere.


A valid point, krs. I found it interesting what I had to fill out because my mom was born in Canada but my dad was born in the US. My wife's section was easy ....... nothing but Canadians going back 4 generations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

krs said:


> There is no name on it - all the government knows is that the address exists.


I received a letter telling me they were going to telephone me and then send my name to the public prosecutor if I did not comply with their information request.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> True ...... and the number of rooms in their homes, and the number of cats and dogs in the house, and your ethnic background, and your occupation, and your hopes and dreams????? All are vital stats for someone.
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, WCraig. :clap:



They should just request this information from Google. It's likely a much more detailed database anyway.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

krs said:


> There is no name on it - all the government knows is that the address exists.


Then how do they know that I personally did or did not fill it out? How is it that they phone me and ask for me by name?


/QUOTE]As to the other comments about birth certificates, death certificates and immigration records - you guys can't be serious.
That doesn't cover everyone by a long shot, as an example, there is no record of anyone leaving Canada to live elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Of course there is a record. Every time you leave and enter the country it is logged. That's a big part of what passports are used for.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> They should just request this information from Google. It's likely a much more detailed database anyway.


Google does not know about my "hopes and dreams", or the names of our doxies, just my wife, me, and the Canadian government.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Google does not know about my "hopes and dreams", or the names of our doxies, just my wife, me, and the Canadian government.



And every search you perform using a Google search engine. That's how they know what advertising to target toward you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> And every search you perform using a Google search engine. That's how they know what advertising to target toward you.


Is that why I keep getting ads sent to me about badgers????????? Of course, since dachshund in German means "badger dog" it makes sense. Still, the badger slippers from Saks 5th Avenue were nice ............ until my doxies saw them.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Is that why I keep getting ads sent to me about badgers????????? Of course, since dachshund in German means "badger dog" it makes sense. Still, the badger slippers from Saks 5th Avenue were nice ............ until my doxies saw them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Google does not know about my "hopes and dreams", or the names of our doxies, just my wife, me, and the Canadian government.


And the 6,000 people who breached the security of the StatsCan system last year.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


>


Pound for pound, the honey badger is considered to be the most ferocious animal on earth, which is why when a doxie brings one in it is such a triumph. Usually, the honey badger runs at the sight of a doxie, unless it is a puppy. This is why the doxie has the motto of "Death before Dishonor". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> And the 6,000 people who breached the security of the StatsCan system last year.


Well, they are welcome to knowing my hopes and dreams, but as for the name of my doxies ................ good luck. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Pound for pound, the honey badger is considered to be the most ferocious animal on earth, which is why when a doxie brings one in it is such a triumph. Usually, the honey badger runs at the sight of a doxie, unless it is a puppy. This is why the doxie has the motto of "Death before Dishonor". Paix, mon ami.



That's some tough doxies you have!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Born to kill ...............


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Born to kill ...............




They sorta look like sausage rolls.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> They sorta look like sausage rolls.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Who you calling a "sausage roll"????


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

SINC said:


> When a nation threatens their citizens with fines and jail sentences for failing to complete a census form, something is drastically wrong.
> 
> Finally someone in government has recognized citizens right to privacy in their lives. :clap:
> 
> All any government really needs to know is how many people reside in their country. How many bathrooms I have, ranks right up their with how many dumps I take. It's none of their damn business.


completely agree.. this census was the worst waste of tax payers money I have seen.
is it really important to the government my sexual orientation ? 
whether I am married or not? how in God's name will that help with building hospitals that they claim? 
or if I speak english or french - they repeat that question 8 times.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> completely agree.. this census was the worst waste of tax payers money I have seen.
> is it really important to the government my sexual orientation ?
> whether I am married or not? how in God's name will that help with building hospitals that they claim?
> or if I speak english or french - they repeat that question 8 times.


The language I first spoke is the same one I fist spoke the other times I filled out the census. Rather than a tool for policy decisions, the Trudeau Census appears more of an act of public obeisance.


----------

