Canada Reinstates Mandatory Census, To Delight of Social Scientists (sciencemag.org)

Eloking writes with news that the government of Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be reinstating the mandatory long-form census that the outgoing government had ended. Science reports: "The new Canadian government today announced it would restore the country's mandatory long-form census. 'Our plan for open and fair government starts today with restoring the long-form census,' said Navdeep Bains, minister of innovation, science and economic development, speaking in Ottawa alongside Jean-Yves Duclos, minister of families, children and social development. 'We're focused on good evidence-based policies.' Bains said that Statistics Canada would be able to meet the 2 May deadline to roll out the 2016 census, which is conducted every 5 years, and that there would be no additional costs to making it mandatory. He confirmed that residents who fail to fill out the census could face criminal prosecution, an issue that contributed to the decision by the Harper government to make the 2011 census voluntary."

Comments

The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Buckle in Canada, you're in for a wild ride with this guy.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[ameline]

Oh, yes - making policy and decisions based on evidence as opposed to ideology - wild indeed. I'm buckled in tightly with a 5 point harness; I'm ready for this ride.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[JeffOwl]

I think he is referring to the legal requirement to tell the government everything they want to know. But maybe not. I don't really know what's on the Canadian long form. If it is like the US it is mostly bunch of stuff the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get, and a bunch of stupid stuff like how many bathrooms are in your house.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Once your country has been up and running for 200 years, there shouldn't be that many policies left to make.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much.
It's also annoying as shit to fill out, being the typical longass-form government documents.
"Response rates are lower among certain groups, including immigrant populations, aboriginals, and low-income families."
The people too busy working and trying to make ends meet to spend a few hours reminding the government there's brown people with muslim names living at 2211 youfuckersalreadyknewallthis, Ottawa, appartment 404.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much this.

It's a pain in the ass to fill out, but I don't feel there's anything on there particularly intrusive. I find the questions about ancestry annoying because up until the first time I filled one out, I didn't have a clue what my distant roots were (I just don't care.. still don't).

It's mostly crap about income, employment, and yeah.. how many bathrooms/etc you have is in there for god knows what reason..

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Kinwolf]

The bathroom question is to know how many off us they can eventually piss off simultaneously

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Nailed it!

I had to fill that bastard out once.. it just goes on and on. Some of the questions at least make sense, but when it wants you to count how many closets you have in your house and indicate if you're a descendent of Genghis Khan and how much time per week you spend doing the dishes it gets old fast.

Response rates are lower among certain groups, including immigrant populations, aboriginals, and low-income families.

Also folks who tend to be a bit more paranoid about the man, with or without good reason.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Coisiche]

Well, UK is at 308 years (if you baseline on acts of union, which some might quibble about); thus demonstrating that statement to be erroneous.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[CajunArson]

I'm sure you'd be on here making the EXACT SAME argument if President Trump were forcing a mandatory long-form census on every American.

Yeah, I'm totally sure of that. No hint of hypocrisy whatsoever in your post there.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get

I consider that a feature, not a bug. They should only use income statements for its intended purpose, nothing else. I believe we really should make it the law you can only collect info for a specific purpose, not I can use it for everything. Sadly, I doubt that is even possible. i.e. We collect it only to advertise to you would be perfectly fine no matter how narrow you try and make the law.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminalizing not divulging personal information is fucking evil, and so are you for condoning it, you stupid motherfucker.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens if you don't know or have any information about some of your ancestors? Are you required to do whatever is necessary to track that information down, including hiring people to do so if necessary? Or is "I don't know" a good enough answer?

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Alwin Henseler]

Once your country has been up and running for 200 years, there shouldn't be that many policies left to make.

Riiiiight.. because once a policy has been set, or a decision has been made, everything else stays the same?

NOT... Change is the only constant. That also goes for countries, populations, governments, and the (political / economic / ...) environment they operate in. So it's good to be able to base today's decisions on today's facts & numbers (and future trends in those). Not to mention that since governments are always running behind on the facts, many rules are due for an overhaul anyway.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[trout007]

Since when has evidence mattered to socialists? If a couple hundred million dead hasn't convinced them I don't think a long form will.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[silentcoder]

Im sure the canadian form doesn't include a page signing over your power of attorney, first born, immortal soul and first option on all future offers of sexual congress to Trump Holdings however.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[CreatureComfort]

What they should do is not criminalize it, but loudly and often let everyone know that future policy will be based on the results of they survey.

That way, when all the paranoid conservatives don't fill it out because the don't want the 'gubmint to know dey bidnez'. All policy will be based around gay muslims, who did fill out the forms.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Punko]

I guess you're mixing up our previous hard right conservative government who basically ended evidence-based decision making. Its our centralist government we now have that is returning to the use of science, technical experts, and read data to make policy.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Buck Feta]

Not wanting to fill out an intrusive form like this for no good reason, divulging personal history and other sensitive information to the government, does not make you a "paranoid conservative". It is the prudent thing to do. Setting aside the fear of the government having such information on you; how much do you trust their information security? The census information would be a treasure trove for social engineers. Rather than saying "paranoid conservatives", you should say "people who aren't fucking idiots and weren't born yesterday". Political affiliation has nothing to do with desiring privacy.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true, some things are set in stone. Two examples: the ten commandments, and the US constitution. Both come from God Himself and cannot be questioned.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

>Oh, yes - making policy and decisions based on evidence as opposed to ideology - wild indeed.

Because the ideology of freedom is wrong if science doesn't get its data on what brand of toothpaste I prefer.

Ahh well, I'll just answer completely randomly like I do every one of those. Yeah, it's illegal. I also know the government has no way to prove what brand of hair conditioner I prefer or how often I use it, nor does the government give a shit apart from flexing it's bullshit anti-freedom muscles.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[therealkevinkretz]

The US long form asks about mental/emotionial issues you may have, how much money you make and how, about your commute, how old your house is and what appliances you have

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[CanadianMacFan]

The long form is just being restored. It was started in 1971 so it's not new. From http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts...

"The mandatory long-form census was implemented in 1971. Since that time, the census has been comprised of two census forms: a short form and a long form. The short-census includes 8 questions and probes basic household composition information. The long-form census includes an additional 53 questions, probing respondents on a variety of demographic, social, and economic subjects, including things like citizenship and immigration status, ethnic origin, religion, place of birth of parents, education, income and housing, child care and support payments, labour market activities, and unpaid/household work. This data is used to plan public programs and projects such as equalization payments, Employment Insurance benefits, the Old Age Security program, and the Canada Pension Plan. The data also has an impact on public transit and transportation infrastructure, health-care infrastructure, social services, and education.

The short form is sent to 100% of Canadians and is mandatory. Until 2010, the long-form was mandatory, and was sent to 1 in 5 Canadians, with the data extrapolated to the rest of the population. While it was mandatory, the response rate for the long-form census was approximately 94%, producing data from a non-biased sample of the population and serving as one of the most important planning tools in Canada. Because this data is considered representative, data from the mandatory long-form census has been used as an “anchor”, reducing the risk of bias in other StatsCan surveys.

Because of its breadth and high-response rate, the mandatory long-form census has been one of the most reliable data sources in Canada. Reliable statistical information about all parts of society also supports government decisions to fight poverty and reduce the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. Measuring equality requires good, long-term and repeated data in order to determine if we are making progress. Without it, we simply don’t know."

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, throwing people in prison for not filling out your BS questionnaire is so much better.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[grub]

the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get

In Canada that is protected information. Only the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) can access it. There are serious consequences for folks leaking that kind of info here.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true, some things are set in stone. Two examples: the ten commandments, and the US constitution. Both come from God Himself and cannot be questioned.

So those 27 amendments to the constitution are... what, exactly?

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about how Canada's left works, but if they're anything like the left in Britain, their evidence based policy strategy revolved around working out how to force the data into saying it should tax more and borrow more to spend on buying votes ( such as increasing the number of people employed by the public sector by one million over 13 years ).

Every side does evidence based policy, to an extent. Every side also finds evidence it likes in order to pursue the policies which are aligned with their political views.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it was illegal* to know that information on the last census. The wife just filled out things randomly for me.

* - In Ontario, at the time, anyone adopted was not allowed access to any birth history. The only exception is for deadly medical issues, and that is only because Ontario was so tight fisted 20 years before this that they let an adopted person die rather than hand over the info. The resulting lawsuit opened the door a crack. Things have improved slightly now, but it is still illegal if the birth parent signed forms to tell you to get fucked.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[xaxa]

The UK one is here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guid...

Broadly, it's
- who lives here, and how are they related?
- how big is the house, and is it owned or rented?
- what is your age, ethnicity, education, origin, religion?
- are you healthy, do you have a job and what kind?
- how do you travel to work?

They don't ask for income, or any identity numbers.

Knowing how many bathrooms are in the house is useful for planning water usage, and tracking poverty or overcrowding (no / shared bathroom).

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so glad you like filling out census forms. I hope you get the 20 page version.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

As a little bonus I noticed elsewhere in the comments the sample census:

http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb-bmdi/pub/instrument/3901_Q2_V3-eng.pdf

It requires someone in my situation lie on 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[fche]

"making policy and decisions based on evidence"

Imagine how much better "policy and decisions" they could make if they could put your whole life under the microscope! Please send all your passwords to the police right away.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[TheGratefulNet]

"if you can't protect it, don't collect it"

no government OR business has proven to us that they can safeguard our info. therefore, I will never willingly give info to any 'authority' that I don't have to, under pain of arrest or actual physical pain.

I could care less what 'good uses' they list. the bad overweighs the good. I safeguard my personal info as best I can and since we get an almost weekly news item about this or that company having a network or computer break-in, the industries have not proven that they can protect the info well enough.

until they can protect it, they do not deserve to collect it.

burn that into your memories, guys. IF YOU CAN'T PROTECT IT, DON'T COLLECT IT!

these days, those are really important concepts to internalize. teach that phrase to others and maybe, eventually, people will think before they hand over info 'just because'.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has evidence mattered to socialists?

You'd be surprised.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[fche]

"supports government decisions to fight poverty and reduce the marginalization of disadvantaged groups. Measuring equality requires good, long-term and repeated data in order to determine if we are making progress. Without it, we simply donâ(TM)t know"

Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

The NDP (our Socialist Party) did not win this election, which is a shame as they're the most Libertarian Canadian political party.
The Liberals are the Centrist Party. Fun fact, they balanced the budget 8 times in a row before the Conservatives ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history and finally managed to balance the budget for the election. The Liberals were also the only party this election who ran on a platform of deficit spending to fix infrastructure, much like a household will borrow money if needed to fix the roof.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of bathrooms is an indicator of affluence and can be used to weigh the information about income, which is often not answered truthfully.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're republicans acting out of fear as conservatives do (fear has seriously been proven the driving emotion of conservatism) Then it's ok to hand over all your rights to the government, except the ones you make up about being exempt from laws due to your situational religious beliefs.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Straif]

Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female? Should decisions as to who runs a department of the government be based on merit not the chromosomal lottery?

Not to say some of the ministers of either sex weren't the best person for the job but whenever you arbitrarily apply some external criteria to your hiring practices you're pretty much guaranteeing the best candidate won't always win.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Straif]

The liberals helped balance their books like most politicians balance their books, by cheating.

They made changes to employment insurance requirements which resulted in fewer eligible people. While not necessarily a bad thing based on circumstances, they failed to then adjust the EI payment rates to reflect the new number and instead kept it artificially high to collect more money than following the federal formula would normally allow.

They also made significant cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces, offloading Federal expenses to the various provincial governments. In your household anology, this would be like a slumlord putting in new flooring and an in ground pool at his house while letting all his tenant buildings going to ruins and pointing at his beautiful house to prove how great a real estate mogul he is.

The also greatly benefited by the implementation of the GST under the previous government, the abolishment of which was a major party platform that the Liberals ran on. Surprising no one with a functioning brain cell, the Liberals decided NOT to get rid of the GST once in power.

In general, neither the Conservatives or Liberals have been great at putting forward useful budgets that actually work, the liberals were just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[shugah]

What situation would require you to lie about your ethnicity and ancestry?

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah slashdot. A community that generally promotes science and progress, and to a lesser extent; data collection and statistics.

Unless of course, it involves taking up to 3 HOURS of my time once every 5 years or so. In which case, fuck that, my time is valuable!

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[shugah]

You are overlooking the obvious truth that the views of 50 or so wealthy, white, male, slave owners on how to structure and govern a democracy, as are pertinent and practical today as during the industrial revolution / romantic era when they were conceived.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is like the US it is mostly bunch of stuff the government already has access to (like income), but are too lazy to go get, and a bunch of stupid stuff like how many bathrooms are in your house.

Another perspective: it's like getting a position fix after dead-reckoning for a while.

In navigation, one would get a fix from a sextant or a landmark, but if it was cloudy for a while that is no longer possible, so you switch to taking your last fix and looking how fast you've travelled and for how long. You use the fix and the delta. But there's bound to be an error and you won't know how big/small until another fix. See also inertial navigation systems.

Yes, the government has various statistics as they record births and deaths and people moving, but that's a delta against a previously known value. There's an error to that delta and you can estimate it, but it's nice to get a new "known value" so see what your drift is and then start using deltas again.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dskoll]

Equality (in this sort of sense) is not a legitimate governmental purpose.

Maybe not in the US. But in Canada, the purpose of a government is whatever Canadians decide it should be, and if most of us think the government should help marginalized and disadvantaged groups, then that is by definition a legitimate governmental purpose.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dskoll]

Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female?

Trudeau wanted a cabinet that reflected Canadian society. Whether or not you think that's a good thing can be argued, I suppose, but it's not unreasonable to try to make your government representative of the wider society.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dskoll]

I don't know about how Canada's left works[...]

And yet you proceed to give your uninformed opinion anyway.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dskoll]

how much do you trust their information security?

Very much. I've had professional dealings with Statistics Canada in the past and their computer security is very, very impressive. I would say the census data is amongst the best-protected data in Canada, if not North America.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly all the gov't is entitled to by law is the number of persons and animals in the home. Criminal prosecution for not filling out the census is probably criminal in itself.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[fche]

To "help marginalized and disadvantaged groups" is not the same as bringing about "equality".

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[JebusIsLord]

it doesn't say "bringing about equality". It says "measuring equality".

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[fche]

"equality" is an irrelevant measure when trying to improve the situation of the poor. It would be an inappropriate and in any case unachievable goal. What matters is not how far away person X and Y are. What matters is that person X is not starving to death etc.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[JebusIsLord]

Funny how the "meritocracy" tends to disproportionately favor upper-income white males. Taller than average ones, at that. Sometimes you need what appears to be an unfair policy to counter-act unconcious bias.

Compared to the last cabinet, the minister of science is now actually a scientist. The minister of defense is actually a soldier, and the minister of transportation is a friggin' astronaut. I don't see much to complain about.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[davester666]

Not anymore. Bill C-51 helpfully included more information sharing between departments. And, unfortunately, everyone is a potential terrorist, so CSIS must individually vet every one of us and imprison everyone who fails the process.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[ClickOnThis]

Socialist != Social Democrat. The NDP is the latter.

Good post otherwise. Carry on.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Straif]

Each cabinet has had people who spent a life outside of politics working in related fields as well as people who have no relation to the department they now head (like say and astronaut and Transport - unless you think we'll start sending things cross country strapped to booster rockets). It was true of Harper's cabinets and is equally true of Trudeau's.

It is funny you mention the Science Minister since it was the last Liberal government who removed that position from cabinet and Harper who brought it back.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[david_thornley]

That's one opinion, sure. It's not the only possible one. Perhaps Canadians are more interested in helping the unfortunate through government means than US citizens.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Straif]

The electorate decides who best represents their views and while ~50% of the population are women only 26% of the MPs elected were, meaning that a significant portion of women in the country are just fine with a man representing them, at least in terms of the federal government.

For most people in established democracies, gender is simply not the primary defining condition as to how they want their government managed. They want competent representative that share at least some of their views and if that happens to be a man or a women, so be it. That's not to say that you might not relate more to a person because of shared life experiences that are gender specific (they might be the mother of small children like you) and if that's the determining factor in deciding your vote, that's fine, but once elected it's a poor reason for the person in charge to give someone the reigns of a multibillion dollar branch of government.

Women are representative enough in the all industries that simply choosing good people from your list of elected officials you should get a mix of both sexes. Artificial and unrelated criteria just guarantees you're not going to always get the best person for the job.

And yes, several countries have a higher female representative percentage than Canada but many of them had to rig their systems to force that to occur.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[x0ra]

especially when the data are being processed by... lockeed martin...

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[x0ra]

I don't see much asians, blacks, or arabs in that government ...

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[x0ra]

Do you realize there is a real Libertarian party in Canada ? The NDP is parsecs away from libertarianism...

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a white male.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tnk1]

Please don't even joke about that. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders before I voted for Trump. Both are about as useless, but Trump is actively dangerous. We'd probably survive Bernie and do all right with some good gridlock.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Kant_resistor]

"Being Jewish in 1935 Berlin"?

I was going to write a paragraph of answers to your idiotic question, but this thread needed to be Godwin'd anyway.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you have to actually get elected to make cabinet. And there aren't all that many arabs or blacks in Canada.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Citizen of Earth]

The Liberals are the Centrist Party.

That's just false. The Chrétien Liberal Party *was* a centrist party, but all the Liberal Party under all subsequent leaders has been an eco-leftist party. A particular spectacle in the recent election was that the Liberal Party was solidly to the left of the NDP.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

True, but the other 2 main parties are mega-parsecs away from libertarian.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

Well up to 2011, they branded themselves as socialist. Of course there are many types of socialist.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[ChrisMaple]

"Legitimate governmental purpose" does not change across a border, does not change with a vote, does not change with the opinions of the populace. It consists of protecting the lives and property of its citizens, no more, no less.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[ChrisMaple]

Of the 55 delegates to the convention which wrote the U.S. Constitution, a minority were slaveholders. Alexander Hamilton was born out of wedlock and the race of his parentage cannot be determined with certainty. Not all of them were wealthy.

1770 is not like today. Free libraries were almost unknown; most households had few books other than a Bible. The time and resources to study historical forms of government, their advantages and disadvantages, were available to few and utilized by even fewer. The people most qualified to design a new government were those who did it.

Consider the alternative you apparently favor: that government should be designed by the poor, ignorant, jealous, and unsuccessful. Such a government, in the unlikely event that its constitution had been ratified, would have been an ignominious failure.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[ChrisMaple]

Trudeau wanted a cabinet that reflected Canadian society.

So he selected half his cabinet to have intelligence below the median?

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[x0ra]

Just on gun control, the CPC is way closer to libertarian than the NDP... Not to mention the CPC did target a balanced budget, but ended up with *surplus*. The NDP are pro-unions, pro-nanny-state. I have no idea why you believe they are close to libertarians...

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female?

The scientific hypothesis is that splitting his cabinet along gender lines will help him get voted in again in 4 years. Politicians often have getting voted in again as their prime motivation.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

Not going to argue with you, but still consider the Liberals better then the Conservatives. Even actually considered voting for them this time around and would have if there was only 2 choices on the ballot. I still ended up voting for the independent as I'd actually talked to him and liked what I heard.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

I've had enough bullets fly by my head that I actually think that any idiot should not be allowed to own a gun though I disagree with the CPC idea of gun control where someone can go to jail for a minimum of 3 years by accidentally leaving their gun with their wife.
I also don't like the idea of having a surplus exactly equal to what was earmarked for the veterans and then not spent, but I guess the Conservatives consider the veterans to be welfare queens with their stories of post traumatic stress syndrome.
Personally liberties such as being able to not be spied on by the government and being able to use the internet without the government knowing everything I do online and not having to shave because the government decided I should show my face to be more important then whether people are allowed to organize for their collective good.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[dryeo]

http://www.politicalcompass.or.... It wont be long before Trudeau's handlers rein him in. The Liberals will get more pipelines built then the Conservatives ever did, mostly by not being confrontational.
Note also that the Liberals voted right along with the Conservatives for Bill C51 and have only promised minor tweaks to it.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tbannist]

"Legitimate governmental purpose" does not change across a border, does not change with a vote, does not change with the opinions of the populace. It consists of protecting the lives and property of its citizens, no more, no less.

That's a libertarian opinion. It might surprise you that most people don't agree with that opinion.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tbannist]

Not wanting to fill out an intrusive form like this for no good reason, divulging personal history and other sensitive information to the government, does not make you a "paranoid conservative". It is the prudent thing to do. Setting aside the fear of the government having such information on you; how much do you trust their information security? The census information would be a treasure trove for social engineers. Rather than saying "paranoid conservatives", you should say "people who aren't fucking idiots and weren't born yesterday". Political affiliation has nothing to do with desiring privacy.

Oh noez. Teh hackers will know how many bathrooms are in ma house!

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tbannist]

Was it a science based decision to force his cabinet to be 50% male and 50% female? Should decisions as to who runs a department of the government be based on merit not the chromosomal lottery?

Funny that you should care.

Not to say some of the ministers of either sex weren't the best person for the job but whenever you arbitrarily apply some external criteria to your hiring practices you're pretty much guaranteeing the best candidate won't always win.

Have you looked at previous cabinets? This may be the most merit based cabinet in decades. Harper's cabinet (the previous prime minister) was filled with cronies and yes men. Under his leadership, you were more likely to get appointed to cabinet as payback for a favour than any merit based evaluation and very few people cared (few enough that over 10 years, I never heard a single person complain about the way cabinet ministers are appointed). It was so bad that Harper was shuffling his incompetent yes men from one position to the other to try and hide how much they were bungling the job.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tbannist]

The liberals helped balance their books like most politicians balance their books, by cheating.

You misspelled conservatives in that sentence. The Liberals actually balanced the books, the conservatives balanced the budget with a one-time asset sale. They didn't care about next year, because they had an election to win this year.

They made changes to employment insurance requirements which resulted in fewer eligible people. While not necessarily a bad thing based on circumstances, they failed to then adjust the EI payment rates to reflect the new number and instead kept it artificially high to collect more money than following the federal formula would normally allow. They also made significant cuts to the transfer payments to the provinces, offloading Federal expenses to the various provincial governments. In your household anology, this would be like a slumlord putting in new flooring and an in ground pool at his house while letting all his tenant buildings going to ruins and pointing at his beautiful house to prove how great a real estate mogul he is.

So are you complaining that the Liberals made the hard choices to balance the budget into balance? Or are you complaining they didn't make the choices you wanted them to make to balance the budget?

The also greatly benefited by the implementation of the GST under the previous government, the abolishment of which was a major party platform that the Liberals ran on. Surprising no one with a functioning brain cell, the Liberals decided NOT to get rid of the GST once in power.

To be fair, the Liberal finance minister really, really wanted to cancel it. He apparently exploded and literally threw furniture at his staff when they told him that he couldn't get rid of it, if ever wanted to balance the budget. He eventually calmed down and accepted it, but sometimes reality doesn't allow us to do what we want to do.

In general, neither the Conservatives or Liberals have been great at putting forward useful budgets that actually work, the liberals were just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper.

It's a bit more than that. The Liberals paid off $110 billion of Canada's debt, the Conservatives added $150 billion to Canada's deb. If you really think that a $260 billion difference in results is "just a bit better at making theirs look good on paper" then you need to have your head examined.

Re:The farther left you go, the more you lose

[tbannist]

The Liberals are the Centrist Party.

That's just false. The Chrétien Liberal Party *was* a centrist party, but all the Liberal Party under all subsequent leaders has been an eco-leftist party. A particular spectacle in the recent election was that the Liberal Party was solidly to the left of the NDP.

Strangely enough the Liberals were to the left of the NDP on some issues and to the right of the conservatives on others.

Re: The farther left you go, the more you lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The people most qualified to design a new government were those who did it.

And yet they failed in numerous aspects, including the lack of a clear chain of succession, a problem they should have known enough to address.

Consider the alternative you apparently favor: that government should be designed by the poor, ignorant, jealous, and unsuccessful.

Consider the real argument you're ignoring as you stuff your strawman. Even leaving aside the existences of numerous negative character traits among the Founding Fathers, including lechery, avarice, jealous, ignorance and more, their decisions made at the time were flawed enough, now that the world has changed, there is a lot that is even more obviously wrong, flawed, improperly applied, or simply outmoded.

hobbyist whiners lament

[Anonymous Coward]

not much left to say... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wgp-M6oGpI ...creation all ++++++++ we invented the minus (most of us) requirement?

List fellow householders and identify relationship

[Anonymous Coward]

A. buddy

B. guy

C. fwend

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in Canada this in minor news, why is it front page on Slashdot?

Re:Why is this news?

[MacTO]

While reinstating the long form census may not be big news, the scrapping of it certainly was.

As for it showing up on Slashdot, well it does involve a government shift from being ideologically opposed to the long form census to one that demands it in order to inform policy. (I'm not going to go as far as declaring that it was a Harper government conspiracy, but their attitude certainly made it look that way to left leaning individuals.) Many people are also opposed to the long form census because of privacy or anti-government attitudes. Both of these topics are running themes on Slashdot, even if they aren't purely technological in this case.

Re:Why is this news?

[epiphani]

This is not minor news. This was a major news item when the long-form was made optional, and it's been a plank of the Liberal platform to reinstate it.

Statistics Canada is a point of pride in Canada, albeit minor. That organization has been referenced internationally as an example of how to collect and provide information for detailed governance. When the long-form was made optional, the Harper government came out and said that an optional long-form would be nearly statistically identical in results, yet provide privacy to those who wish it. The head of statscan resigned over this.

See: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

So yeah, bringing it back is pretty recognized here.

Re:Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still optional in that I can opt to fill it out with false information.

Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it mandatory or else face criminal charges, is simply ridiculous.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Midnight Thunder]

Making it mandatory or else face criminal charges, is simply ridiculous.

It may be extreme, but how else do you encourage people to fill it in. Heck, this only happens every five years?

It is a pain to fill in, but if it means understanding the needs of the general population better, then I am for it. Sure they will be bad data, such as when people just make things up, but every statistical process has some error margin.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Greystripe]

Pay for it. Seems far more fair than possibly jailing or fining someone for not filling it out.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do get paid for it, with better service and support, more finely tuned to your community.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay for it. Seems far more fair than possibly jailing or fining someone for not filling it out.

Did you think this through? You do realize that it amounts to the _same thing_ as fining people for NOT filling it out? As in the end, it is citizens paying themselves? Or where do you think the government's money comes from?

Personally I think it is perfectly fine to make this an offense with a fine. Living in a country and enjoying its benefits doesn't just come with _rights_, many people seem to forget it also comes with some duties and obligations. Obvious ones like 'don't fuck stuff up for other people'. While it is certainly up for debate how far these duties go - the majority of people in Canada just voted for this liberal government and not for the outgoing conservative government (which as the article states - made the census voluntary). Democracy might not be perfect and can't make everyone happy, but its the best system we have.

Re:Ridiculous...

[sumdumass]

Yes, because government is all about doing things for groups of people instead of the country as a whole.

Let there be no part of your life secret so the government can do for you. Just stop them before they take that next step and decide all you can do.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Alwin Henseler]

Pay for it.

Depending on height of reward, that would either achieve nothing, or skew results towards low-income households. Since those would be more likely to take the money (vs. richer people who'd say "f** that, I've got more important things to do").

Re:Ridiculous...

[Schmorgluck]

So, basically, you're against census even existing. Because the alternative is no census at all. A non-mandatory census is an absurdity.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because government is all about doing things for groups of people instead of the country as a whole.

It may surprise you, but yes, the whole is the sum of the parts, sometimes you do need to focus on a small portion in order to make everything work right.

That's why we don't build one long road across the whole country, for example.

Let there be no part of your life secret so the government can do for you. Just stop them before they take that next step and decide all you can do.

And then we have you resorting to absurdity. But let's try a reasoned approach. Can your doctor help you if they can't find out what's wrong? Can your car mechanic fix your car if they don't know what problems you are having? Can a car salesman sell you the right car if they don't know what your driving needs happen to be?

Sure, all of these people can be wrong, confused, and misled, but that doesn't mean them having any information is bad.

But no, I suspect you're stuck on your strawman rhetoric, and unable to get past that bit of hysteria. It'd be one thing if I thought you could stick to specific examples, then we might come to an agreement of some kind, but the way you jumped right to what you did say, tends to cast doubt on the chance of a reasoned discussion.

Do you want me to say that there are extremes we should avoid going to? Ok, now can you say that there is a purpose to an informed government, and that a census is not inherently and absolutely bad?

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably just an administrative fine. The "criminal charges" part is overly dramatic drama, out of place where the summers are furious and winters a silent death.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Greystripe]

So are you ok with putting someone in jail or forcing them to pay for not filling out a census form? Of course it would be abused to pay for it, however jailing or fining people for not filling it out is a far worse thing for the government to do. Personally I would prefer it not being mandatory.

Re:Ridiculous...

[MrKevvy]

A non-mandatory census is an absurdity.

It's non-cens!

Re:Ridiculous...

[Mr. Slippery]

A non-mandatory census is an absurdity.

Most human research is voluntary. You think most published psychological and sociological studies are absurd? You think psychologists should be able to make participation in their studies mandatory?

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we don't build one long road across the whole country, for example.

Who's "we", kemosabe?

Can your doctor help you if they can't find out what's wrong? Can your car mechanic fix your car if they don't know what problems you are having? Can a car salesman sell you the right car if they don't know what your driving needs happen to be?

People choose to give these entities the information they do. When government comes knocking, their "requests" are backed with guns and violence.

The only question people should be asking is: Do you trust this government and future governments with the data you are giving them. If the answer is no, then do not give it.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

That would alter the sample set. ie. the Census data may not include data from wealthier Canadians who can afford to pay the fine.
By threatening jail time, they minimize the impact to the Census data, as everyone (other than lawyers with too much time on their hands) wants to avoid jail.
That's my 2 cents, anyway. I'm not a statistician.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's "we", kemosabe?

There's more than one road in Canada, and that one also had its decision making process as part of it.

But I'm sure you realized that.

People choose to give these entities the information they do.

Not always, no, there are times where you can be forced to talk in the case of medical needs.

When government comes knocking, their "requests" are backed with guns and violence.

Yes, if you don't like that, you'll want to go to a far more fundamental level than the census.

The only question people should be asking is: Do you trust this government and future governments with the data you are giving them. If the answer is no, then do not give it.

I prefer to ask more questions like "If you don't trust your government, why do you have it around?" and "If you don't inform your government, how can it be expected to serve you?" than just one.

Maybe I'm weird that way.

Re:Ridiculous...

[SuiteSisterMary]

That's why we don't build one long road across the whole country, for example.

Ahem. Cough.

When you axe the mandatory census, and start losing track of things like the population of towns, it's impossible to allocate funding on any basis other than throwing a handful of coins onto a large map of the country, and allocating based on what landed where.

Re:Ridiculous...

[david_thornley]

Some things are civic duties. I got summoned for jury duty starting the end of the month, for example. As far as the census goes, if we pay everybody in the country $10 to fill out census forms, we're either going to have to raise taxes by an average of $10 or add $3G to the deficit.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we don't build one long road across the whole country, for example.

Ahem. Cough.

That all the roads in Canada then?

When you axe the mandatory census, and start losing track of things like the population of towns, it's impossible to allocate funding on any basis other than throwing a handful of coins onto a large map of the country, and allocating based on what landed where.

You could also keep it all for yourself.

Re:Ridiculous...

[x0ra]

if liberal MSM can draw national trend by asking a few hundreds people, then you can do the exact same by having 70% of return rate on a non-mandatory census.

Re:Ridiculous...

[x0ra]

No, there is potential jail time.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

>A non-mandatory census is an absurdity.

It isn't an absurdity because you declare it so.

Re:Ridiculous...

[ChrisMaple]

the whole is the sum of the parts

That is a very common logical fallacy.

Most people would be very unhappy if when they rented a car, they were presented with a pile of parts.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless there are properties that strongly correlate with voluntarily submitting a long-form census.

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a very common logical fallacy.

Why? In what way?

Most people would be very unhappy if when they rented a car, they were presented with a pile of parts.

And most people, when they take their car into to be fixed, would be very unhappy if they were told they had to get a new car in the entirety.

So what's your point, huh, or did you just miss mine?

Re:Ridiculous...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the choice is between a mandatory census and no census at all then I'd opt for the latter without hesitation.

As a social scientist with a shred of dignity that does not view the government as god on earth, I'm not so much delighted as furious.

If it asks about neighbours...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two powerfags living upstairs, I swear they're trying to be the first fags to get pregnant. The way they're going at each other's intestines, you'd think they were pussy.

read the teepeeleaks etchings

[Anonymous Coward]

first there was the hymen counters (md) then the highbrow church school fear (as in abuse) of god peddlers,,, & it goes downhill from there... always...

Long Form

[JBMcB]

If it's anything like the US long-form census, then most of the questions don't seem to have any bearing on policy. Who else lives in your house, where they used to live, the personal history of everyone in your house, down to everywhere they worked, exactly what type of work they did, how much land your house sits on, do you own a stove... It's all SPSS-fodder as far as I can tell.

Most of this stuff is already collected by the BLS, anyways.

Re:Long Form

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's anything like the US long-form census, then most of the questions don't seem to have any bearing on policy.

Or so you think.

Who else lives in your house,

Even the most anti-Census people would find it hard to cover this one, they do need to enumerate it.

where they used to live, the personal history of everyone in your house, down to everywhere they worked, exactly what type of work they did,

All useful in cross-checking data to be sure you're not making something up.

how much land your house sits on, do you own a stove...

You'd be surprised how much population density matters in terms of development, and stoves are part of cooking, which is part of eating, which is a major factor in human activity. Not to mention fire services.

It's all SPSS-fodder as far as I can tell.

Now did you look up the reason for those questions in the actual law?

Re:Long Form

[guises]

What? Of course that stuff has bearing on policy. How much land your house sits on, how much people move around in the country, how feasible it is for the population to cook their own meals, how many people are employed and what they do... How could that not impact policy making?

Don't answer that, I already know how and why it doesn't impact policy making. ::sigh:: I don't need to hear it again.

Re:List fellow householders and identify relations

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly wonder how many people list their pets..

Open and

[krashnburn200]

'Our plan for open and fair government starts today with restoring the long-form census,'

It's so entertaining that their plan for open government starts with requiring the citizens to provide data under threat of force.

Re:Open and

[gstoddart]

No, their plan actually calls for making evidence based policy instead of simply deciding what they want the facts to be.

You know, collect information and use it to make decisions, instead of just making decisions based on ideology which has nothing to do with reality.

But, hey, go live in your mountain cabin and continue to believe this stupid crap.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just collecting the data on behalf of the US government to help pinpoint muslim populations for closer monitoring by the CIA.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

>But, hey, go live in your mountain cabin and continue to believe this stupid crap.

If that's what it takes to get away from psychopaths who want a gun pointed at me to tick some boxes on paper that make them feel better, it might not be a bad idea.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Privacy isn't something that people desire because they just love keeping secrets. Distrust of people who try to invade your privacy is a protection against abuse of private information. It's not even necessarily the original collectors of that information who are going to abuse it, but experience shows that troves of data attract the people who can use it to their advantage instead of the common good. Limiting what the government knows about you is just good practice.

Re:Open and

[pla]

You know, collect information and use it to make decisions

Unfortunately, world history has a looong list of countries using such information "to make decisions" about how best to deal with Jews or Cossacks or Indians or Armenians or Japanese or Kurds or Sikhs or... I could go on, but you probably get the point.


But, hey, go live in your mountain cabin and continue to believe this stupid crap.

...Or just this decade (because no doubt, we don't do that anymore, amirite?), Uzbeks or Syrian Christians or Rohingya or Bodos or Burmese Muslims... Do I really need to go on?


"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" has counted as the most terrifying phrase in the English language for centuries for a damned good reason. This doesn't require a tinfoil hat or a manifesto or a cabin in the woods; it requires nothing more than opening any major newspaper, turning on the evening news, listening to the morning news during your commute to work, skimming the headlines at Google News - To know why giving the government anything more than they absolutely need to perform their core functions, counts as a bad idea.

Or put another way - If my race, income, or education level has any impact on how many roads I get in my county, the government has already fucked up so badly we need them gone ASAP.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, world history has a looong list of countries using such information "to make decisions" about how best to deal with Jews or Cossacks or Indians or Armenians or Japanese or Kurds or Sikhs or... I could go on, but you probably get the point.

I hate to have to tell you this, but if your government is going to decide to do that kind of thing, they don't need a census.

They'll do it anyway, based on whatever standards they please.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help" has counted as the most terrifying phrase in the English language for centuries for a damned good reason.

It's a nice catchphrase for the political right that plays on the fears of many people? Yeah, that is the reason. I hesitate on the damned good part.

it requires nothing more than opening any major newspaper, turning on the evening news, listening to the morning news during your commute to work, skimming the headlines at Google News -

Not really, as anybody who pays attention to the news notes how they never report anything that works fine with quite as much emphasis as the accidents and incidents that don't represent the whole.

To know why giving the government anything more than they absolutely need to perform their core functions, counts as a bad idea.

And some people would prefer the government know nothing, and if possible do nothing, but do you think that they should be trusted?

Or put another way - If my race, income, or education level has any impact on how many roads I get in my county, the government has already fucked up so badly we need them gone ASAP.

Are you sure you mean to say it this way? Because it sure looks like you are calling for anarchy.

But no, race can show many things, including how a given population may be underserved and that can reveal a racial bias. Same with income and education level. Or income and education level can reflect on your needs for roads, or the population of your local area, and what educational development might be worthwhile.

Re:Open and

[DNS-and-BIND]

You know what got China to finally ditch Leftism after 40 years of trying really really hard to make it work? "Seek truth from facts." Seriously, that's how they justified stepping down from Leftism and into a system that made sense. Now Canada's heading the opposite way, while mouthing the same slogan. Sad...maybe the huge number of Chinese in Canada will recognize the pattern and stop it from happening, but I'm not optimistic.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, to ditch Leftism, they'd have to have practiced it. They didn't. They just pretended to do so, in their fervent attempt to justify doing what they thought was the thing to do.

Which was no different than the authoritarian regimes China had had for decades, and yes, they even had a census and a bureaucracy they thought was the right way to things under the emperor.

Re:Open and

[Mr. Slippery]

No, their plan actually calls for making evidence based policy instead of simply deciding what they want the facts to be.

Evidence would be good. Compelling people by threat of force to give evidence is not.

And it degrades the quality of the evidence. "I'm from the government. How often do you use illegal drugs? If you don't answer you're going to jail. If you say yes it goes on a permanent record that the next administration might use against you. Ah, you never use them? Thanks for the valuable sociological data, citizen.

There are ways to gather sociological data that don't involve threatening people. Give me an anonymous survey, maybe a cash incentive for filling it out.

Don't know Canada's laws but the U.S. census gets nothing from me but a number; the feds are constitutionally empowered to conduct an enumeration for purposes of allocating representatives, not to forcibly pry into my life to evaluate the effectiveness of their policies.

If you don't think this is important, ask a Japanese-American who was put in a concentration camp in the 1940s. Once the state has your data, it is not private; it can always change the rules.

Re:Open and

[dave420]

If you are scared of how it can be misused, then you should call for the immediate disbanding of the armed forces, as those have been used by every single dictator in history to great effect.

You not understanding the important of a census doesn't make you look to knowledgeable of this subject.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, force that's never been applied

the threat to privacy! the only private items are included to ensure no duplicates and removed as the first step; oh the travesty!

Re:Open and

[pla]

you should call for the immediate disbanding of the armed forces

Um, okay? Twist my arm, dude!


You not understanding the important of a census doesn't make you look to knowledgeable of this subject.

Hey now, the correct term is "African American Kettle", you insensitive bastard!

You've confused "usefulness" with "propriety" - You not understanding the role of government doesn't leave much room to lob criticism.

We deny our governments a great many "important" powers - Random searches and seizures; not needing to bother with all that burdensome proof of guilt stuff; not needing to put up with that pesky press or those damned people freely expressing their opinions about corruption; putting a soldier in every house; taking away people's guns (oh, right, Canada already did that one, but not like they then turned around and started stripping a defenseless population of other rights... Heeey, waitaminute!).

The convenience and utility of a given course of action do not automatically mean that we should allow that power to our governments under the guise of serving the people.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

if your government is going to decide to do that kind of thing, they don't need a census.

Maybe, but I'm not going to be the one to make it easier for them.

It's a nice catchphrase for the political right that plays on the fears of many people?

I've noticed people like to browbeat opposing viewpoints with the "fear" label, as if it were something negative. Fear is natural and powerful. It is critical response that helps ensure one's survival. In a well functioning society, people should not have to fear their government. However, certain warning bells tend to go off when actions that previously resulted in tyranny start popping up. The fear becomes justified.

Are you sure you mean to say it this way? Because it sure looks like you are calling for anarchy.

I'm sure what he means is that they need to be replaced with a responsible government who can get things done without demanding irrelevant information from the public.

But no, race can show many things, including how a given population may be underserved and that can reveal a racial bias.

Something the government should have no involvement in because it always comes down to these central-planner types who think they can manipulate the futures of entire peoples to their liking. To enforce "diversity quotas", dietary requirements, or to regulate speech and thought.

Re:Open and

[dryeo]

Fun fact, the left (NDP) lost this election. Another fun fact, the left were the only party promising to get rid of the government spying that the right introduced (Bill C51).
Another fun fact, left vs right is a different axis then authoritarian vs libertarian.

Re:Open and

[dskoll]

If you want your statistical data to be reliable, it has to be random and that means it cannot be a self-selecting group of responders.

The actual questions on the long form (which is sent to one in five households, randomly selected) are here: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs...

And no, most Canadians don't believe the government will do anything sinister with the information. We have a long tradition of democratic traditions and strong democratic institutions and those offer far more protection than refusing to answer a bunch of questions. If a government is out to get you, it won't matter whether or not it has census data.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but I'm not going to be the one to make it easier for them.

But you're not making it harder for them to do it. It's really easy to be a brutal savage and use violence regardless of any census.

If you want to stop such things, I'd suggest other means of effecting action. Like a diverse government, for example.

I've noticed people like to browbeat opposing viewpoints with the "fear" label, as if it were something negative. Fear is natural and powerful. It is critical response that helps ensure one's survival. In a well functioning society, people should not have to fear their government. However, certain warning bells tend to go off when actions that previously resulted in tyranny start popping up. The fear becomes justified.

Fear is a dangerous tool, often used to manipulate instincts, and yes, the reason it works is because it has some validity to it. Why would you expect otherwise? People using means to induce you to do what they want are not morons, they know how to appeal to your emotions, your purported reasoning, and more. Con Artists don't practice BAD strategies with no validity, they play on what works. Much like you use the terms "browbeat" and "natural" to emphasize your points. Even "tyranny" applies. Few tyrants will own up to it, they will call themselves the defenders of freedom instead.

To use your own words, don't make it easier for them. Don't let people use your fears against you.

I'm sure what he means is that they need to be replaced with a responsible government who can get things done without demanding irrelevant information from the public.

I'm not. Nor am I sure about you for that matter.

Something the government should have no involvement in because it always comes down to these central-planner types who think they can manipulate the futures of entire peoples to their liking. To enforce "diversity quotas", dietary requirements, or to regulate speech and thought.

A bucket of should and a bucket of water, gives you a bucket of water. The fact is, the government exists, and take actions, if you want to boldly claim that they shouldn't do things to prevent racial inequity, then you're just asking for blindness to the fact that such can happen. You can proclaim your opposition to diversity quotas all you want, that doesn't cause actual lack of diversity to cease existing, or for there to be problems from that. Because that manipulation happens even without intent.

Unless, as I said above, you or the other person are calling for anarchy. Otherwise we have a horse and checking its teeth is a natural part of the process.

Because you're right, there are problems with government. Thus we need to be aware of what it is doing, and why. Blind eyes see few holes, but legs get tripped.

Re:Open and

[vux984]

The census is important.

What are the big complaints with all social science data?
They are nearly all subject to selection biases; many are self-selecting and/or opt-in, etc. And the sample sizes are usually quite small.

This is pretty much the only source of data that is taken from the population selected at random, is mandatory, and the sample size is massive. Its good data.

Its taken once every 5 years, but only affects around 20% of the population. My household has never even been selected. Growing up my parents received it only once that I know of. It is not a "huge burdern".

Very little of the data collected is qualifies as 'secret' or 'personal'. Here it is; see for yourself.

http://www12.statcan.ca/nhs-en...

Very little of it is objectionable; who lives in the house hold, how are they all related to each other, what is their level of education, where do they work/what do they do, where are they from.

The objections stem from:

Religion. Well there are no questions about religion on this one at all. None nada zero zip.

Sex: The only questions on sex are gender; and if you happen to self identify yourself as a same-sex spouse in the relationships. I suppose some transgendered individual who has decided to identify as neither male nor female might object to having to pick one. That's hardly a valid reason to argue against the census though.

Medical: There are some medical questions that some might object to. Difficulty seeing? hearing? walking? slow learning? long term health problem? These are extremely vague and generic; and are clearly useful for allocating and planning health services and very basic health trends.

Race / Language: There's some questions asking one to identify people's origin. (where they were born in canada or internationally, ethnicity, etc.) first nations status, immigration status, etc.

There are some legitimate historical cases where this last was used to persecute. But realistically, if we're going to round people up from country X for concentration camps, we'll be able manage that just fine without the census. Immigration records, and birth certificates to id them and their descendents, then tax forms and drivers licenses to find them will catch them anyway; throw in a neighborhood informant program.

Meanwhile the census data provides a good clear picture of the countries changing demographics that has a lot of legitimate uses.

Re:Open and

[ClickOnThis]

>But, hey, go live in your mountain cabin and continue to believe this stupid crap.

If that's what it takes to get away from psychopaths who want a gun pointed at me to tick some boxes on paper that make them feel better, it might not be a bad idea.

If you truly believe that census-takers are psychopaths who want to point a gun at you to fill in a form, then please, go ahead and live in a mountain cabin. For our protection.

Re:Open and

[x0ra]

They're liberals, this "evidence based policy" is bs. What are they gonna legislate on ? The number of time I jerk every week ?

Re:Open and

[ChrisMaple]

No, their plan actually calls for making evidence based policy instead of simply deciding what they want the facts to be.
You know, collect information and use it to make decisions, instead of just making decisions based on ideology which has nothing to do with reality.

Alas, their first decision is to use force to collect information. Upon what collected information is that decision based?

It's the underlying assumption that's being ignored. "We need gas chambers to solve the Jewish problem" depends on the false assumption that there's a Jewish problem.

Re:Open and

[Spinalcold]

The Liberals ran on a very evidence based policy platform, and they have so far been honoring this. Not only have they reinstituted the long form but they made a new cabinet portfolio for Science, which is in charge of repairing our fundamental science and bringing evidence to people and government.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha dave420 enjoys the fine flavor of eating his words http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Very little of it is objectionable; who lives in the house hold, how are they all related to each other, what is their level of education, where do they work/what do they do, where are they from.

The questions about ethnicity are very much objectionable.

Ethnic distinctions are largely a matter of ideology. They certainly aren't a matter of science, not in general. We don't have simple, easy, low cost. "tricorder" or other measurement device to measure the genetic aspects of someone's ethnicity. Someday DNA techniques may allow this, but they don't today. Nothing is scientific if it isn't based on reliable measurement.

Anything people self-report is extremely unreliable, plus there's lots of arbitrary distinctions, e.g. if some of my family were "Native Americans", at what arbitrary percentage of my heritage do I become considered a member of one of the "Native American" ethnic groups? I might not even have enough information to know what the percentage is!

(The term the census actually uses, in the 2006 version I have, is not "Native American", but instead is "North American Indian", which is somehow distinct from Metis and Inuit.)

If you living in Britain for much of it's history, the ideology of the day made ethnic distinctions between Scots, Irish, and English.

Go back even further, and the distinctions would have been different: Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxan, Dane, whatever. Or perhaps Northumbrian versus East Anglian, or Jew versus Catholic versus Protestant ...

If you had the wrong ethnicity, the ideology of the day would discriminate against you. If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, that could be fatal.

Many ideologies of today group all of these previously different and distinct ethic groups together as "white". Distinctions that were once a matter of life and death are ignored in the pursuit of current ideological agendas.

To make matters more complicated, ethnicity isn't just a matter of genes: the term can also refer to cultural distinctions. If somebody is accepted into a tribe, by the tribe, becoming a member of the tribe, does and should their genetic heritage matter?

Since it isn't something we can use in any rational, evidence-based, scientific fashion, ethnicity has no place in any legitimate government census, and it is gross incompetence to include it. I can't imagine any competent social scientist being happy about this.

The other questions are not too bad, if a bit cumbersome and poorly thought out. But even then I would worry about the data being hacked, and used for nefarious purposes. The age of people in a household can help criminals that prey on the elderly find victims, for example. We have to expect any government database to be vulnerable.

Re:Open and

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk always slaps down that beyotch dave420. I'm starting to think dave420 likes it.

Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has traditionally considered the loss of freedom to be news.

Re:Tradition

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

In a country where we have communist services (health, unemployment, etc), we need to have reliable data to be able to balance budgets and plan ahead.

Re:Tradition

[silentcoder]

Filling in a census form is not a loss of freedom. Yes I know king Herod held a census and then he killed babies but the two events did not have a causal relationship and census takers are not babykillers (ps. neither are abortion doctors).

Re:Tradition

[Punko]

A census can only be mandatory. If its not mandatory, its a survey. Requiring residents to complete a census of their households is hardly onerous. At no time has anyone ever faced a fine or spent time in jail for failing to complete the census. There is a penalty, because under law you cannot have an action declared mandatory without a statement of penalty for failing to comply. A sign of good things to come. A return to rational, science and evidence based decision making. Not basing policy on unsupported beliefs and ideology.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is not voluntary, than it is a loss of freedom.

If clowns with customs break down your door and drag you off for not divulging how many bathrooms are in your home, it is violence, and thuggery.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Census workers represent an entity that seizes nearly 40% of my income, in part to pay abortion doctors. For comparison. Genghis Khan demanded 10% of his subjects and was considered a tyrant.

Re:Tradition

[gmack]

Except that the long form census was never reliable data. A large number of people who were forced to fill it out retaliated by filling it out with bad info. Even the census takers knew many of the results were bogus but nothing could be done about it.

Re:Tradition

[Your.Master]

The right to refuse to fill in a census form is not an important freedom. I know there's a set of people who claim that there are no unimportant freedoms, but they are literally crazy.

You will note that it was and is also illegal in the US and other countries to refuse the census.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Recreational weed smoking is not an important freedom either. Yet for some reason, the PM is set on fixing that.

Why do we have to give up one freedom for another?

>You will note that it was and is also illegal in the US and other countries to refuse the census.

Can we have the US freedom in healthcare, and certain US state's freedom from car insurance as well?

Let me guess what you have to say about that. Those are important anti-freedoms.

Re:Tradition

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Define "a large number of people", because on the whole of the population, even if a few thousand people give bad information, you still get a pretty good picture of the whole. Unlike Harper's method of "everybody is either rich or too poor to be bothered with".

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a Canadian...

Would it be feasible to offer a $50 refundable tax credit for households participating in it?

Re:Tradition

[trout007]

In the US it is only required to state the number of people in your house for purposes of allocating representatives to the House.

Re:Tradition

[gmack]

Enough that the voting block representing them inside the Conservative party were Harper's primary motivation for the change. Many people I know (especially in Alberta) consider the long form census a violation of their right to privacy and they made a lot of noise about wanting it gone.

Re:Tradition

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

How about "you don't fill out the census, you don't get access to any of the government help programs such as health care, etc."

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

>Requiring residents to complete a census of their households is hardly onerous.

Just because it's easy to do doesn't make it right.

> At no time has anyone ever faced a fine or spent time in jail for failing to complete the census.

False.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/woman-79-who-refused-to-fill-out-census-found-guilty-of-violating-statistics-act/article16445109/

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/audrey-tobias-found-not-guilty-in-trial-for-census-refusal-over-weapons-maker-link

>A sign of good things to come.

Like more old age pensioners risking jail time. That should be great.

>Not basing policy on unsupported beliefs and ideology.

Sounds like a great idea. When will it start? The current guy has made promises not based on science or fact. Just like the previous guy. Maybe the guy after this guy? Beats me!

Re:Tradition

[danbob999]

Can we have the US freedom in healthcare

You have it. It's not illegal to pay for private health care in Canada.

and certain US state's freedom from car insurance as well?

You are free to build your own highway on your own land and drive an uninsured car on it. But on public roads you must respect the rules.

Re:Tradition

[StillAnonymous]

Does that mean I don't have to pay taxes for them either, then? Because that could be a good trade off.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

>You have it. It's not illegal to pay for private health care in Canada.

False:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care#Canada

"Six of Canada's ten provinces used to ban private insurance for publicly insured services to inhibit queue jumping in order to preserve fairness in the health care system. In a complex legal decision in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that, in some circumstances, such bans could be illegal if the waiting period was unduly long."

It's still illegal, there's just a few more excuses to get access to it, but it certainly is not the carte blanche access you advertise.

>You are free to build your own highway on your own land and drive an uninsured car on it. But on public roads you must respect the rules.

Ahhh, circular reasoning. We can apply this to the census. "If you don't like the census, you're free to move somewhere without it. But if you live here, you must respect the rules." Must be so comforting to you. "If you don't like the Queen's rules, you're free to live in the land she told you that you could live in. Just don't bring that reservation crap over to us!"

Re:Tradition

[Mr. Slippery]

.., census takers are not babykillers

No, but they are assistants to concentration camp operators. That happened in the U.S. within living memory, it's not ancient history or something that can only happen in so-called "backwards" countries. It is established historical fact that census data can be used against people.

Re:Tradition

[dryeo]

The same Conservatives who passed Bill 51 to spy on all citizens and directly gather the information? Yes they really must love their privacy to vote in the most anti-privacy government in Canadian history.

Re: Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides being largely driven by fear, the other hallmark of conservative brains is a stunning ability to compartmentalize. Totally contradictory opinions that would make many people's heads explode seem perfectly normal to them.

Re: Tradition

[silentcoder]

You cited a law about private insurance. Gp spoke of private healthcare.
Does everybody in North America struggle under the delusion that these two radically different things are the same thing ?

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

nearly 40% of my income

Fibber

in part to pay abortion doctors.

My you have a long nose pinochio.

Genghis Khan demanded 10% of his subjects and was considered a tyrant.

Yes he was considered a tyrant for his 10% tax rate and not the pillaging or murdering.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

One old person found guilty and one not guilty. Lets look at the outcome of the guilty case:

50 Hours of community service.

Janet Churnin was handed a conditional discharge — which means she will have no permanent criminal record after she completes her sentence of 50 hours of community service within a year.

Churnin will remain on probation until her community service is complete, but the former social worker said she thought she received “a fair judgement.”

She even agrees that the judgment was fair!

A third factor in her refusal was a desire to protest the federal government’s scrapping of the long-form census, which was replaced with a voluntary national household survey.

On top of it part of her reason for refusing was because they took away the long form!

You look foolish BTW.

Re:Tradition

[Mr. Slippery]

If its not mandatory, its a survey.

So gather data via surveys.

Requiring residents to complete a census of their households is hardly onerous.

Disclosing private information to the state is onerous. Especially when that data may later be misused if a later government decides to change policy. (Japanese Americans who told the feds their details in the 1940s thought their data was protected by law. Then the feds changed the law. Haw haw.)

At no time has anyone ever faced a fine or spent time in jail for failing to complete the census. There is a penalty, because under law you cannot have an action declared mandatory without a statement of penalty for failing to comply.

So it's not actually mandatory. So people who don't want to complete it can trash it with no consequences. So it's a volunatry survey. You support the state lying? Saying "we'll put you in jail if you don't fill out this paperwork!" and then not doing it?

Your position seems self-contradictory. "We have to compel people to give us their data or else we won't have accurate data![*] But if we put people in jail for not giving us their data people will get upset and overturn that law. So we can't really compel people to give us their data. Se we can't get accurate data. And that's a return to rational, science and evidence based decision making." ([*] I don'r accept that, I'm trying to summarize what I read your position to be.)

Re: Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

US Freedom from Car Insurance? What on earth are you smoking? First off how the hell would uninsured drivers on the road be a good thing? Second the US requires car insurance to be able to drive legally as well. The closest thing to being uninsured but legal is to have a large enough pool of funds to self insure.

Re:Tradition

[Stormy Dragon]

During WWII, US Census data was used to identify Japanese citizens to be rounded up an placed in camps. We also no that it's been used since 9/11 to keep tabs on "suspicious individuals".

No one knows what the government will be like in the future, and questions that seem harmless now may end up being used to hang you later.

Re:Tradition

[x0ra]

Shiny pony is not aiming for a balanced budget to begin with...

Re:Tradition

[x0ra]

So you steal from people, then have them comply by giving them back what was theirs to beginning with... [sic]

Re:Tradition

[x0ra]

wait from a few white men to violate this act... their ass will all likely end up in jail.

Re:Tradition

[Punko]

It would be ridiculous (IMO) to place someone in jail for 3 months for failing to complete the census. However, completing the census remains mandatory. If it is only a survey, then the data will be biased as many people will simple consider it too much of a bother to deal with.

If someone is so very dead set against filling in a census document with generalized information about their household, then the fine might actually be used. Given that no one has ever been fined (if the gov't comments concerning this are correct) then this speaks to rational discussions between officials and the delinquent household in question. By making it mandatory, you get better data (so say the statisticians who are the experts on this). If this means people complete the census under threat of punishment, it may decrease the number of delinquent households that officials will need to deal with to get the information completed.

Voluntary methods don't cut this kind of data collection.

Also bear in mind, we Canadians pay our taxes voluntarily at a very high level of compliance. Oh, there are penalties for not paying taxes, but you be amazed at the length the gov't will go through to have the proper amount paid without penalties. If you're a jerk about it, or have been intentionally hiding taxable income, then you get the stick. Most folks who'f delayed paying taxes (several years behind) or made honest mistakes can get the proper taxes paid up with no penalties. However, without the threat of actual, live penalties, you'd never get the level of compliance needed.

Re:Tradition

[CrashNBrn]

The Canadian government could easily just tie the GST rebate check into the Census, which tended to be at least $50 - $75 every 4 months. If you were of legal age when the census was released, and you didn't file, you can't claim your GST rebates.

Re:Tradition

[KGIII]

You keep using that word. I'm not sure that you know what it means. It's a loss of liberties or rights. It is not a loss of freedom. Failing to fill out the form and then getting arrested will result in a loss of freedom, however.

For the slow... I am free to kill you, I do not have the right to do so. I am free to rape, murder, pillage, and burn but I am not at liberty to do so.

Re: Tradition

[tnk1]

There are states where you can pay an uninsured driver fee in lieu of insurance. Sort of like how you can pay an uninsured healthcare fee if you don't have health insurance. The fee (well, according to SCOTUS it is a tax) is there to encourage you to pay, but considering the cost of auto insurance for some people, it is probably cheaper to pay the fee.

There are definitely people who don't like this. Obviously if your BMW just got trashed by someone's piece of shit and they are uninsured, it is your insurance company who has to pay, or you have to pay yourself. The POS drivers has no insurance to pay for their car, but they have a POS, so they probably could buy a new POS for the money they saved on not paying their car insurance.

Re:Tradition

[Citizen of Earth]

Bill C-51 was supported by the Trudeau Liberal Party as well. Don't expect the new government to repeal and significant part of it.

Re:Tradition

[ChrisMaple]

But on public roads you must respect the rules. Unless you're an illegal alien. In states like California and Massachusetts, drunk drivers are "catch and release" - no license or a forgery, no mechanism to enforce a fine or punishment.

Re:Tradition

[ChrisMaple]

Liberty is close in meaning to freedom, and both involve an absence of restrictions. Rights are a different concept dealing with what is proper.

Re:Tradition

[ChrisMaple]

In the United States, the top bracket is 39.6% just on income tax, doesn't include social security, medicare/medicaid, excise taxes, import duties, alcohol and tobacco taxes, etc.. Business taxes also affect individuals indirectly.

A big scandal in the US is federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which performs, promotes, and profits from abortions.

Re:Tradition

[ChrisMaple]

It takes a statist to claim that there's no fine or jailing, but there is a penalty. What modern penalties are there but fining and jailing? Beating? Public humiliation? Pillory? I think not.

Re:Tradition

[ChrisMaple]

You are laboring under the false assumption that a census has to be performed by mailing out forms for people to fill out.

Taxes are only voluntary if the government has no mechanism to force people to pay. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

Re:Tradition

[dryeo]

I don't and won't be surprised if Trudeau turns out to be Harper lite.

Re:Tradition

[tbannist]

Even if he does, it would still be pretty big improvement.

Remember, less evil is better.

Re:Tradition

[dryeo]

Almost anything would be an improvement on Harper, even the Conservatives seem to recognize this.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

A census can only be mandatory. If its not mandatory, its a survey. Requiring residents to complete a census of their households is hardly onerous. At no time has anyone ever faced a fine or spent time in jail for failing to complete the census. There is a penalty, because under law you cannot have an action declared mandatory without a statement of penalty for failing to comply. A sign of good things to come. A return to rational, science and evidence based decision making. Not basing policy on unsupported beliefs and ideology.

Anything that asks about ethnic background - which this census form does - is inseparable from ideology and inevitably leads to basing policy on ideology. It's not even good science, because "ethnic" background is not defined in terms of a generally accepted scientific measurement process, and without measurement you don't have science.

Family traditions and beliefs are often erroneous, including beliefs about heritage. People that do get DNA analysis (currently it isn't practical to do this in general -- too expensive -- but some things can be done with mitochondrial DNA, limited to the heritage on the female side) are often surprised and shocked at the results.

Perhaps someday we will have DNA based measures that everybody can get, but even then it is far from clear that any government should be able to require that information (especially since it will be stored in a database that will inevitably get hacked, just like the current census database will get hacked for purposes such as identify theft).

Huge numbers of people are going to have massively mixed genes. How do we differentiate people in this case? Should we even attempt to do so?

Even then, ethnicity isn't entirely a matter of DNA. Ethnicity is a noun that means an affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties. If somebody gets accepted as a member of an "indian" or "native american" tribe (neither term is particularly accurate, the Americas are not India, and all humans living on these continents are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants and hence not native), does that not make them ethnically a member of the tribe? Can we and should we treat these people differently from those who are born to the tribe? What about their children?

Who gets to decide who is a member of a tribe or other ethnic group: the group, or the government?

So, in summary, we have the Canadian government asking for unreliable information, in great detail, every five years, while threatening to put people in jail if they don't provide it, and the supporters are calling this "rational", "science" and "evidence based". No government census should ask about ethnicity or religion.

Re:Tradition

[Shirley Marquez]

There is a mechanism to enforce punishment. It's called jail.

Re:Tradition

[Punko]

I do not believe that filling out the form had to be mailed out. It could have a number of shapes and configurations, but the census would need to be signed as a legal document (for its veracity) which even in this day and age, requires a physical paper to be signed.

My apologies for using voluntary, in the discussion on taxes. What I meant to say, is that our taxes are paid with a very high level of compliance with a minimal amount of enforcement. It is most certainly not voluntary in the way of say charitable donations are voluntary.

Re:Tradition

[Anonymous Coward]

A few white men from Vancouver would get slapped while the white men from Quebec are quietly ignored.

name the gap

[Anonymous Coward]

And may the gap in data go down in history as the "Stephen Harper knowledge gap"

Bathroom

[Anonymous Coward]

> The bathroom question is to know how many off us they can eventually piss off simultaneously

This is highly relevant, since if you go for a piss during TV commercial time, you're stealing Intellectual Property.

Someday, too many bathrooms will be flagged as a Circumvention Device under DMCA.

What? DMCA is just an USA thing? Just wait...

Re:Bathroom

[lsatenstein]

If your home has two bathrooms, you are living above the average in prosperity. Most apartments and smaller single houses have one bathroom.

And There is a $100k difference between having 2 bathrooms and 1 in a home, and that also translates into family income differences.

Would they also ask if you are in a 0,1,2,3,or more car family. Would that indicate father,mother,and one car per kid?

a paper crime

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a criminal if you don't fill out a piece of paper.

yet this fucking asshole wants to "rehabilitate" repeat offenders of serious crimes instead of giving them longer jail terms.

trudeau is fucked in the head. so is his entire libtard party.

Re:a paper crime

[Punko]

And yet the asshole who preceded him spent years trying to "fix" a criminal court/prison system that had all forms of crime rates decreasing for years.

Most of us want the government we have to do better with the money they are given from us. This means making rational, well-thought out, science supported decisions. To do this, one needs good data. Statistics Canada were world renowned experts in this, and yet the previous government decided they were irrelevant to their decision making.

The previous government made all sort of criminal justice policy decisions with very long term repercussions WITHOUT any evidence to support this "Canada is better with tougher sentences" position.

Re:a paper crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics Canada is a joke.

Disorganized. Heavily bureaucratic. Featherbedding in the extreme. If anything can be done simply, Statistics Canada makes it complicated.

The original place where camels were designed while trying to come up with thoroughbreds....

I know what I am talking about....

Now I'm a criminal in Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for not providing the government with personal information about myself.

Re:Now I'm a criminal in Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are not NOW a criminal. The census was always mandatory. I don't know what sort of penalty or punishment is imposed, but it's probably trivial and doesn't involve jail time either, and without any fact checking, I'd bet money that there is no jail time or criminal record for failing to provide census information (or knowingly falsifying it).

A sample of the actual 61-question census

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

A sample of the actual 61-question census can be found here:
http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imd...

It's 40 pages of fill in the square with nitpicky crap like "so what DID you do at your job as a COMPUTER EN-GINEER." That's 40 pages per person. No wonder Canadians hate it.

Re: A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you illiterate? Or are you just lying, assuming no-one will click the link?

Re: A sample of the actual 61-question census

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

For those without a sense of humor, I was referring to questions like #43: "In this work, what were this person’s main activities? Please give details. For example: prepared legal documents, installed residential plumbing, guided fishing parties, made wood furniture products, taught mathematics"

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Lunatic]

It might help to think of government as something you buy.

Over the course of 5 years I’ll end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for my government services during that time.

Spending a few minutes every 5 years to ensure they know what my needs look like is a pretty small investment to ensure my “purchase” is working well.

I’m sure filling out this census once every 5 years takes less time than you’ve spent on your last major electronics purchase (which I would guess was a fraction of the cost, unless you’re buying a truckload of gold-plated uni-directional ethernet electron guide cables).

Also: nowhere do I spot the specific inane question that you posited. Care to reference a specific page?

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

It's every 5 years and 20% of the country's households get one. On average, you'd be lucky to get it two or three times in your lifetime. It's a transparent way to gain detailed information about a country that is made public to everyone.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[jiriw]

Ehmm RTFF much?... It's 40 pages to fill in per 5 persons (if more than 5 persons live on the same address, you have to call in for a supplemental form). Which would make it about 8 pages per person. Roughly half of the questions should be skipped for persons aged below 15 and most questions are either 'mark the box' or writing names or amounts. It's not like you have to write a 40 page essay.... Questions are about:

-Inquiring the number of persons residential at the dwelling (the form gives detailed information about who to include and who not).
-Some basic information about each of these persons (Name, DoB, sex, marital status and relationships).
-Ethnic background of each person and language capabilities, detailed.
-Level of education and the type and amount of labour performed by each person over 15. Includes voluntary and unpaid labour (like household chores).
-The state and ownership situation of the dwelling the form is sent to.

Oh, and there is a page for comments.

Except for that last page, everything in the form seems to me to be very relevant for government decision making. At least, and I am generalizing here, if I'm well enough informed about what 'usual Canadians' consider proper government decision making. I'm Dutch, so I do not know the details, but I do read about what's going on in other countries than my own and that includes what populations usually expect from their governments.
Then, again, I can understand why some questions on that form would be highly objectionable to 'usual U.S. Americans'. And I might be wrong but most comments I see here are not those of Canadians... The impression I usually get from the U.S. is that you don't like to let your government meddle in affairs like basic health care, integration of minorities, housing regulations, public welfare or anything that touches income (taxes, minimum wage). And that's what many questions in that census are about. So, I'm not surprised I see so many negative comments here...

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> you don't like to let your government meddle in affairs like (list)

The basic reason we don't want the government to meddle in these things is that they never do a good job. Some examples from your list:

>> basic health care

The US Veterans care system, our largest national health care provider, is a horrible mess.

>> integration of minorities

The result of bussing and other government policies triggered a massive flight to the suburbs and created today's deadly urban ghettos.

>> housing regulations

See what rent controls in NYC and SFC have done to drive out the lower and middle classes.

>> public welfare

Today the US government has a system that discourages people from getting "entry level" jobs because what they make won't even make up for the benefits they'd leave behind if they had no job.

>> anything that touches income (taxes, minimum wage)

When our money is spent as poorly as it is, yes, the focus should be on cleaning that up FIRST, rather than asking for any more taxes.

And just jacking the minimum wage is the wrong thing to do to fix the "entry level" jobs issue; concentrating on a sliding scale of benefits that didn't penalize people for working would be a better approach.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> to delight of social scientists

And social justice warriors.

88. What do you have between your legs?
89. What do you wish you had between your legs?
90. What do you wish your sex partners had between their legs?
91. Do you want sex with people with male or female faces?
92. Do you want sex with people wit male or female bodies, junk aside?
93. Are you a hot lipstick lesbian trapped in a man's body?
94. Are you a furry?
95. Dragonkin?
96. Squirrelkin?
97. Were you born physically male, but mentally a female anthropomorphic red fox?

(600 more questions deleted.)

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[MacTO]

Yeah, it's a pain. It is also fairly limited in what it's asking for:
- ancestry/language: mostly useful for immigration services and first nations
- age/gender: mostly useful for projections on the workforce and social services
- education: mostly useful for projections on the workforce and education
- employment/income: again, useful data for economic planning

While it is intrusive, it is by no means as intrusive as it can be. (If I recall correctly, StatsCan has much more in depth surveys. Anything that we do online usually results in the collection of much more personal information.) As a tool for much more effective planning, the census is probably worth the price.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid you have to spend 3 hours every 5 years to fill something out to provide the government with some useful information to make important decisions and policies. "No wonder Canadians hate it?" I'm Canadian and I don't think I've ever been part of a conversation that involved how shitty and time-consuming the census-filling is.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[citylivin]

Uh canadians want it. That's why we turfed the conservatives. Anyone with any sort of science background, as well as pretty much all educated citizens do want the gathering of more information about the populace. Judging by trudeau's selection of ministers, he is doing a great job at putting people in power who are actually knowledgeable about what they are supposed to be the ministers of. I know good government is not something americans can comprehend, so i forgive you for your ignorance.

Considering youre an american, you can stfu with what you think canadians want as you are obviously not a canadian and not informed on these issues. You are just going off half cocked with your american crap rhetoric. Save it for your own government which we can all agree is corrupt as shit. But hey you put them there, so you have only yourself to blame.

Fix your own shit before commenting on other countries choices.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[dskoll]

The basic reason we don't want the government to meddle in these things is that they never do a good job. Some examples from your list:

Maybe in the US. The Canadian health-care system, for all the complaints you hear, is actually pretty good. It was a major reason my sister moved here from the US. And all your other examples of things done badly in the US are not nearly as big a problem here in Canada.

Could it be that the US system of government is completely dysfunctional, and the Canadian one isn't?

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Could it be that the US system of government is completely dysfunctional, and the Canadian one isn't?

I could agree that is the case. (My original answer was in response to a Dutch citizen asking me about US government.)

However, it will be a cold day in hell before the US models anything it does on Canada. Our entire model right now is prefaced on giving large contracts to the well-connected, and sprinkling just enough largess on the populace to ensure they keep mindlessly voting for the incumbent D or R in the home districts both parties have gerrymandered around core demographics.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

>> you don't like to let your government meddle in affairs like (list)

The basic reason we don't want the government to meddle in these things is that they never do a good job.

Or so you believe. Some of your beliefs may not be as true as you think.

The US Veterans care system, our largest national health care provider, is a horrible mess.

How would you know, without a census of medical care and performance? Preferably compared against others. OH WAIT, those others DON'T report their fuck-ups with nearly the same rigor.

The result of bussing and other government policies triggered a massive flight to the suburbs and created today's deadly urban ghettos.

Urban ghettos existed before busing and other government policies, even the alleged "private right to contract" in restricted covenants shows that it originates long before busing, without you even having to look up the word ghetto.

See what rent controls in NYC and SFC have done to drive out the lower and middle classes.

See what a lack of proper housing policies caused?

Today the US government has a system that discourages people from getting "entry level" jobs because what they make won't even make up for the benefits they'd leave behind if they had no job.

Maybe we should change that conservative policy then.

concentrating on a sliding scale of benefits that didn't penalize people for working would be a better approach.

Good luck doing that correctly without a proper census.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they don't hate it, and the government that got rid of it was just tossed out, this being one of the election issues.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Krokus]

Not 40 pages per person. Only a small percentage of people receive the long-form version of the census. The rest of the population receives the regular, shorter version. Consider that I've lived in Canada for 50 years and have never received a long-form census. I'd happily fill it out if I got one. Canadians don't hate it.

Harper has left Canada in a position where its data-collection is seriously crippled. I'm not talking about surveillance, I'm talking about data collection for scientific research, data collection for federal and provincial budget allocations (via the census). There are small towns all over Canada where the government no longer knows how many people live there, what they do for a living, how many go to school, etc. Over nine and a half years, Harper systematically eliminated data-collection mechanisms because facts and evidence were annoying and only interfered with his ideology-based government.

Restoring the mandatory long-form census is an enormous first step in repairing the damage Harper wrought on the country.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[x0ra]

1) Why do you care ?
2) I already filled this a bazillion times, go find this information yourself, you lazy slum.
3) Why do you care ?
4) I already fill an income tax return, go find this information yourself, you lazy slum.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[x0ra]

plus a couple hour of tax return every year, plus, plus, plus.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[x0ra]

Putting a human right lawyer in charge of "climate change", instead of a scientist ? Shiny pony is just as ideological as anybody else...

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[x0ra]

Harper got tossed because he didn't aimed to have a stoned population living on welfare...

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Straif]

Election results show the Conservatives only lost about 55,000 votes from the previous election but the Liberals picked up all the new voters plus stole a lot from the NDP for a gain of 4+ million votes.

I'd have to agree with you that legalizing weed was a much larger factor than anything having to do with the census. Hell, if 20% of the weed voters knew it would lead to them having to do homework in the form of the long form census they may not have bothered to show up and we might still have a Conservative government or a minority Liberal one.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Mashiki]

My parents have gotten one in '81, '86, '91, '96, '01, '06, '11 and they're likely to get one again next year, if they don't they'll likely be surprised.. I've gotten one since '01, '06, and '11. Two or three times in your life? Yeah...I have a friend who's great-grandparents got one every 5 years since 1921 until they died in the early '90's.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal*Mart doesn't throw me in prison if I decide I don't want what they're selling.

Re: A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

Spanked bad boys...

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

It might help to think of government as something you buy.

That's how corporations have been approaching it.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[wisnoskij]

Have you ever seen a census. They sure ask a lot of questions, but none of them seem to be about your wants or needs.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

The airhead Justin Trudeau - ex part time drama teacher and now prime minister strikes again.

I take it all back America: Obama is a genius compared to the doofus Justin Trudeau.

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the government racist classifications begin

Re:A sample of the actual 61-question census

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Canadian and I didn't want it. I understand the importance of these statistics, but I value my freedom of choice far more than any survey.

Our plan for open and fair government

[Stewie241]

I don't have particular objections to the long form census, especially as I doubt they will come after you if you don't fill out all the questions, or answer erroneously (although considering the data is used for planning though this wouldn't necessarily seem to be in ones best interest).

However, it makes me worry that this is being presented as 'open and fair government'. I was really hoping Trudeau's campaign for 'real change' would include dropping the political blowing smoke up asses and not making every decision part of a heroic effort for 'open and fair government.'

Re:Our plan for open and fair government

[Anonymous Coward]

in my opinion, completing the census accurately has a better chance of real change than voting does; especially if you're the minority

Re:Our plan for open and fair government

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it makes me worry that this is being presented as 'open and fair government'. I was really hoping Trudeau's campaign for 'real change' would include dropping the political blowing smoke up asses and not making every decision part of a heroic effort for 'open and fair government.'

Dude, the guy has been in office for less than a week. Let him have his moment before the grind sets in.

Re:Our plan for open and fair government

[Dr. Evil]

I'm no fan of Trudeau, but I'll take what I can get.

Apparently scientists are allowed to talk to the media without getting the answers reviewed by Harper's people first now: http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/06/news/breaking-trudeau-government-unmuzzles-scientists

A return to sanity seems to be a heroic effort these days.

Census value

[StrangeBrew]

Take your tinfoil hats off already. I work for a civic agency where my primary role is to provide the decision makers with the right data necessary to make informed decisions. We, along with many other branches that serve the community, were severely handcuffed when Harper removed the long form and made the short form voluntary. The data is often used to help identify where focus and resources are best placed so that the taxpayers we serve get the most bang for their buck. Believe it or not, many public servants do understand who pays the bills.

Re:Census value

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

The current government has all kinds of promises made that they're going to follow up on without that data (killing income splitting for below average household income couples, for example---because, according to Trudeau, when your earnings are below average, you're "rich" and need to be eaten up by the poor). Just like the previous government. And the one before it. And so on.

Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss, but he's a little light on freedom (It's a pun, get it? Light up a doobie, lighten up on whatever freedoms you won't be getting in trade---btw, what census evidence was used to decide that ending the war on drugs would be worthwhile? Not that I don't agree with it, but that's because I base some things on *ideals*, just like the current gov't. Gasp!)

Re:Census value

[jiriw]

btw, what census evidence was used to decide that ending the war on drugs would be worthwhile?

Maybe there were so many Canadians filling 'drug dealer' as their occupation (2006 census, question 42), that the government decided the extra income tax from legalizing that profession would benefit them more than the costs to society associated with drug (ab-)use. ;)

I base some things on *ideals*

Of course you should. But it IS like religion and science. We do want to make rational decisions about things when entire populations are involved. The alternative has historically proven to be often... very unpleasant.

Re:Census value

[StrangeBrew]

Let me get this straight: You're going to call bullshit on something you know nothing about, and use campaign promise anecdotes as your support for why I'm lying about the value of a mandatory long form census. Ask me how valuable a census is when 30-35% of the local residents failed to respond?

Re:Census value

[Anonymous Coward]

You're coming from the premises that:
a) your agency needs to exist
b) the decisions that are being made are related to things appropriate for government

Re:Census value

[tlhIngan]

The current government has all kinds of promises made that they're going to follow up on without that data (killing income splitting for below average household income couples, for example---because, according to Trudeau, when your earnings are below average, you're "rich" and need to be eaten up by the poor). Just like the previous government. And the one before it. And so on.

Say what?

Income splitting for famliies was you could transfer up to $50,000 from the higher earner to the lower earner to save on taxes.

Evidence has shown that predominantly benefits the rich (the median income in Canada is around $30K per person).

So a family with two parents earning $100,000 and $0, would pay the same taxes as two parents early $50,000 each. Which is inherently unfair, because the $100,000 earner has benefits the two income family doesn't - i.e., a parent to stay home and raise kids. The two income family would have to pay for child care, which easily is $500/month/child. So the single income family saves $2000, while the dual income family has expenses of $6000/year/child. And that ignores the psychological aspects of having a parent stay at home to raise the kids instead of shuffling them off to child care.

So the rich basically benefit while the working stiffs get shafted.

You can argue about the TFSA - $10,000 this year, $5500 again next year. But then again - only 40% of Canadians were maxing it out (putting $5500 away). At the new limit, only 15% were. Even worse, the calculation went the taxes not collected would exceed the amount of Old Age Security saved by raising the age from 65 to 67. Again, those likely to need OAS get screwed, while those rich enough to save benefit.

You can argue about "responsibility" all you want, but the truth is, everyone's going to pay for it. If you're too poor to save up, you're going to end up on the street, likely to commit petty crime just to eat. And either you go to jail, and be a burden on taxpayers (to the tune of $100k/year/prisoner), or taxpayers are going to pay through increased crime. And let's not forget health care for places that don't have single-payer. When someone gets sick and visits the ER, that's the most expensive health care available - and those who can pay will have to subsidize those who don't - of the most expensive health care available, even.

In the end, there's no black and white. And no, the rich don't flee when taxes go up - if they only cared about taxes, there's plenty of other countries with very low taxes. But they don't because there's often problems with those countries.

The problem with the Conservatives was their smoke and mirrors were evaporating. They implemented a lot of plans that on paper, looked good, but when you sat down and crunched through it, really only benefited the top 20% (the six-figure income earners). At the same time, gutting the programs that benefited the most vulnerable.

Re:Census value

[StrangeBrew]

I can tell you that surveys of our citizens consistently place 'my agency' as one of their most valued. Based on your attitude, I'm not sure a world where you got to decide what was appropriate for government would be fit to live in for long.

Re:Census value

[roman_mir]

I would gladly pay money to have you disappear as a class of people from the face of this planet. Public sector should not even exist, there should be nothing at all that is 'public', everything should be private, all forms of infrastructure, every business and every service, every decision has to be made in a free market environment without little dickhead dictators. I hope most people spit on this census and throw it where it belongs - in the little piece of shit Frenchman's face.

Re:Census value

[StrangeBrew]

How deluded you are. Use your imagination and start thinking about how everything would be handled by the private sector, that would of course have your best interests at heart, especially when the whole concept of regulations and enforcement would need to be tossed. Are you going to bully your way to a great lifestyle? Think again, there's always someone bigger, badder or smarter... and I think you're especially SOL on that last one.

Re:Census value

[roman_mir]

Before Nixon passed a law to 'help' family farms in the USA there were over 2.5 Million successful family farms in existence in that country. He reduced it with his laws to less than a million only in the first 10 years of that new regulation. Whenever a piece of shit working for government tells me how much I need him, I want him to do one thing and one thing only - go fuck yourself.

Re:Census value

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not tinfoil hat thinking - it's rational risk assessment as to the governments capabilities to secure this data. Yes, there is a statement saying that nobody outside of Statistics Canada will see it, but that statement is meaningless, like a speed limit sign without the laws that enforce it. If the statement said "if this information is leaked outside of Statistics Canada, the government will cover any an all costs associated with containing the damage, including but not limited to identity theft recovery of victims chosing". I bet that if there ever is a hack or a leak, the most you're going to get is "We regret to inform you..." letter. There is also a good possibility that someone at Statistics Canada will come up with a brilliant idea to sell the data, possibly "anonymized" - even though we all know from Netflix experience how difficult, or sometimes impossible it is truly anonymize data.

Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Ngarrang]

The onerous nature of the questions lead to massive violations of privacy. NO citizen of any country should ever be compelled by force of law to reveal the private information of their lives. The government has ZERO right to know anything beyond the fact that I am alive and paying my taxes per the law. They don't need to know my skin color, my religion, what I do for a living, etc, etc.

The information they want to gather will only lead to the further degradation of the privacy of the citizens.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[jiriw]

How does it lead to the further degradation of the privacy of the citizens?

Like how Goolge Ads lead to the further degradation of the privacy of the citizens?

or

Like how mass surveillance of the NSA (as explained by E. Snowden) lead to the further degradation of the privacy of the citizens?

There is a difference, you know and I consider the former one much more benign than the latter. And a once in 5 year census, properly executed, orders of magnitudes less privacy invading than even Google Ads. I expect, from a country like Canada, they are very careful about privacy violations due to government material. In the country I live (Netherlands), we have an independent bureau for these kinds of issues (the Dutch Data Protection Authority / College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens) every part of government (and commerce, for that matter) has to give accountability to when they store privacy sensitive data.

Also, Google Ads have distinct primary and secondary benefits (personalized ads instead of junk you never would care about and 'free' services like google search and gmail) as the census should have (better government based on facts rather than fiction).
Now if we only had journalism that would actually criticize government when they fail to make decisions by using proper data and rational thinking... Where is free speech when you need it?

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Ngarrang]

The NSA spying was bad, you won't see me defending it.

Google Ads remembering that I was shopping for sexy panties for my wife and then seeing those ads while at work caused a bit of embarrassment. Yes, also a touch invasive.

And they should both be stopped.

I fail to see how pointing out other actions of evil justify a government mandating the turning over of such private information. Did I miss something in your rant?

A government forcing you declare your religion, or if you own guns, etc is an invasion.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy? They just want to know, broadly, how the population is doing, what that population is composed of, and the normal stuff a government should know about the population they're working for so they can do a better job and remove ineffective policies.

Harper said that even though they were cutting money everywhere, the poverty wasn't increasing. The problem is that they no longer HAD reliable stats on the poorest in the country, so he could say anything and no one was able to find data to prove him wrong. Oh and if anyone tried to get data on, say, the arctic, oops they removed their ressources and basically killed the research. The number of times this has happened is ridiculous, the guy was scary for democracy at the end.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Ngarrang]

One might think their tax revenue service might know what the citizens are making. No need to burden the citizens with inane questions, just go ask your government accountants.

"25% of tax payers ended up pay 0%, sir, and 50% of those saw a redistribution assistance." Cross reference said non-tax payers with the postal codes and voila. You know how many poor you have and where they live.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Dr. Evil]

"NO citizen of any country should ever be compelled by force of law to reveal the private information of their lives."

Tell that to the line of cops who insisted on searching my bags and confiscating their contents at the G20.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The onerous nature of the questions lead to massive violations of privacy

You're right, there was never any long form census EVER under any Tory government...

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The government has ZERO right to know anything beyond the fact that I am alive and paying my taxes per the law.

This is the kind of libertarian idiocy we just voted out. In order for the government to serve us, it must first know the citizenry which it serves. Not us as individuals in such great detail (and the Privacy Act of 1983 guarantees that information collected as per the long form census can only be used for its intended purpose, and may not be disclosed without the individual's consent), but the citizenry as a whole. The long form census is a tool that enables such understanding.

So yes, all three levels of Canadian government have a right to know about their constituents. I care that my taxpayer's money is spent well, and as a social scientist, I understand and appreciate that the census is one of the most important tools that allows them to do just that.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The onerous nature of the questions lead to massive violations of privacy. NO citizen of any country should ever be compelled by force of law to reveal the private information of their lives.

An acceptable compromise would be to make the responses anonymous, as is done with mail-in voting. You fill out the survey, seal it into an envelope, then put that inside a second envelope with a personalized label to show that you have completed the survey. Then put both of those into a third envelope and mail it in.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The questions aren't onerous. It takes all of 30 minutes every 5 years, and the information settles simple things like how many children you have and how old they are. If you think that sort of information is "private" then you're left with governments guessing how many schools and teachers to hire in a particular area over the next 5 years, or where to dedicate healthcare resources. While there's some things of dubious value (e.g., religion, skin colour), most of it is highly relevant to government efficiently delivering the services you pay for. Over time it is also important to see how government policies affect things or how society is responding to economic changes. If you want to know whether government policies are working (or not), you need some way to measure it.

Re:Liberal excuse to invade privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

It`s information they need to determine where to fund different services for Canadians to use. It helps improve the quality of life for everyone in this country. That is what good government does, help improve the quality of life for it`s citizens.

Re:intended

[hackwrench]

When people say data should only be used for the purpose it is collected for and seem to think that if someone wants to use it for an unintended purpose it should be collected again resulting in what I think is pointless duplication, I wonder if they're open to a law getting passed that would make a new purpose for its use part of the intended purpose.

What happened, Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada returns to evidence based decision making, and all I'm seeing is knee-jerk reactions to socialism? Where did all the nerds go?

No thanks...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian who isn't forced to vote, why the hell should i be forced to *randomly* fill out a 2 hour multiple choice list?

Don't have to vote
Do have to fill out a bullshit questionnaire?

No thanks.

that's not what Soros paid Trudeau to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trudeau is doing exactly what Soros is telling him to do. That whole thing about consulting with stakeholders instead of making unilateral decisions has already demonstrated itself to be a lie.

War on Science and Data

[kbahey]

Just a backgrounder ...

For the past 9+ years in Canada, we had a Conservative government (right wing ideologues).

They wanted to eliminate inconvenient truths that are against their ideologies, so they started a war on data and a war on science.

Here is a recent TV program explaining how despicable this is:

War on Data

War on Science

The new liberal government promised evidence based policies. One thing they promised is to reinstate the long form census which the Conservatives axed on false premises back in 2010.

So this is just undoing the damage done by right wingers ...

Re:War on Science and Data

[Anonymous Coward]

The CPC are not right wing ideologues. They are just a tad right of centre.

Re:War on Science and Data

[Dr. Evil]

The former progressive conservatives were a little right of center. The Canadian Reform Alliance a.k.a. the amalgamation of the PCs and Harper's Western Reform party were much further right of center. The Harper majority was a terribly right-of-center dictatorship which used lies and pandered to racists to secure and extend their powers.

Re:War on Science and Data

[x0ra]

which is already enough to be considered right wing extremist for the average canadian... ;-)

Re:War on Science and Data

[Straif]

You do realize, by it very structure anytime we elect a majority government we are effectively living in a dictatorship. The Canadian federal system has no effective check or balances on the power of the PM if they have a majority of the House. Even supreme court decision can be overridden with the "not withstanding" clause.

So saying Harper had to pander to anyone to extend his power is ridiculous because, as Trudeau has already shown, in Canada, what the PM says is essentially the law. House members (mostly of the PMs party) are pretty much just there to fill in the little details on the legislation the PM wants. Opposition MPs are really only there to complain to the cameras.

Without some form of major overhaul we'll just keep going from one dictator to the next with an occasional (and usually short lived) minority government thrown in for spice.

So congrats, your dictator is currently in the big seat but don't try to polish it up to anything more than that or try to make it sound like your different from your opposition.

Re:War on Science and Data

[Dr. Evil]

"anytime we elect a majority government we are effectively living in a dictatorship."

Radical reform would be lovely, just like world peace. If you have a suggestion on how to achieve it, great. Until then, at least I know my MP will have input during this parliament, because Trudeau is a puppet of the party, the party being comprised of many people collaborating and thinking through issues for their mutual political benefit.

the Conservative party under Harper was unhealthy, MPs were destroyed for speaking their mind, thrown onto the back bench and "official candidate" status was revoked from people who didn't tow the line.

Re:War on Science and Data

[Straif]

And Liberals, when Chretien was in charge, used threats of expulsion from the party to force back benchers to vote against even a symbolic Reform party proposal to give compensation to victims of the tainted blood scandal of the 80's (oddly enough, the next Liberal PM happened to be on the board of one of the companies that was shipping in tainted blood from the US prisoners to save money). Several were seen to be crying while voting against the non-binding motion.

That one incident goes down in history as possibly the worst display of pure Prime Ministerial abuse of parliament.

Without accepting the fact that they will probably lose power, there is really nothing members of the 'ruling ' party can really do if their PM decides to go on a power trip and no matter how they start, most eventually do.

A properly elected Senate would go a long way in curbing Prime Ministerial abuse. As it stands the Senate is the worlds most expensive rubber stamp, even when stacked with opposition party members. Most senators are just happy to accept their paychecks and not rock the boat because they know having unelected party hacks preventing legislation from passing would look very bad. Without some form of appointment/election system that would at least put the power to determine who represents each zone (since the seats aren't divided by strict provincial lines) into the hands of the people or provincial/territorial governments making up each zone then they really can't serve their proper purpose of giving potential legislation a proper second review.

Trudeau's promises

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

If you're Canadian or interested in Canadian politics, please have a look.

agenda 21

[Kerstyun]

and none might by or sell but he had the number iof the name or the beas't up on him.

Where's the contract that says I have do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so strange, funny and absurd that a corporation believes they feel they have the right
to make their questionnaire mandatory. I don't remember at birth, or since then, that I
agreed to this contract to fill in some form about my life. To threaten me with jail if I
don't, sounds like extortion to me.

Re:Where's the contract that says I have do this?

[x0ra]

"Do you feel the muzzle of my gun on your neck ? Good. Now, take that pen, and fill this census. You have 1h."

The long-form census was just one victim...

[Krokus]

...of Harper's government. He systematically crippled data-collection in Canada because facts and evidence don't play well with his ideological motives.

To see just how depressingly bad things got under Harper, have a read of this report done by MacClean's: http://www.macleans.ca/news/ca...

Garbage in garbage out

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news 75% of Canadians list Jedi as their religion and 65% list wookie as their ethnicity.

Re:Garbage in garbage out

[x0ra]

Jedi ? Tsss "Hail Hydra !"

Re:Garbage in garbage out

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully, there are a lot less loser star wars fags around here than you might expect.

Eat shit and die, George Lucas

Enjoy Being Slaves Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” -- Samuel Adams

Do you know who this was direct at? ... Canadians! Americans fought for freedom, Canada is what was left over of the people that enjoyed servitude.

In Canada you can't decline to answer questions at the border when returning to Canada even if you are a Canadian citizen, and you must hand over the password to your phone/computer, in both cases even if there are no grounds for suspicion. In the U.S. at the border you can decline to answer questions and not give up your password.

Censuses have a monstrous track record, yet here the sheep are applauding as the government puts a gun to people's heads and violates their privacy (while meanwhile putting on political theater about defending your privacy).

Re:intended

[tnk1]

I have sympathy with that duplication, even while being very well aware of the waste entailed.

Otherwise, what keeps the cops from getting medical related information about you? If you have government health care, there's a trove of information about you out there.

Yes, you can set up specific rules about that sort of thing, but its better that the default case be that you cannot share, than have the default case that you can share.

And the idiots running the Census are not ready...

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened in the election is that Canada went from

A people having a governement to

A governement having a people

I am

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian.

There, fixed it for you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada Reinstates Mandatory Census, To Delight of Data Miners

Re: cops accessing medical records

[hackwrench]

That's the kind of attitude that contributes to the us versus them mentality. I'm not sure how the police can use that information against you, but them having that information could potentially land you in prison when you wouldn't be otherwise or encourage them to use more force, but it could also lead to them getting a person medical treatment when they are acting strange due to a medical problem. We really need to work on getting the government to act in a trustworthy manner, and I don't have all the answers on where to begin.

This is how Hitler started

[Anonymous Coward]

his final solution. For the sake of science.
White coat IBM-ers helped.

Questions

[brunnegd]

Census form should be one question: How many people live at this address. Feds justify the too many questins by telling us the answers determine how funds are distributed back to us. We should ask: Why are the feds taking our money to begin with.

Count this

[Anonymous Coward]

I will return to the census with every question answered in a way to deliver as less government as possible, I will answer every question strategically. Social scientists are not really scientists.

So much idiocy to undo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trudeau government has so much fixing to do, it's hard to even comprehend.