segnosaur

When people vote in a general election, they may base their decision on a variety of factors... Local and national Candidate's personality, dislike of the alternatives, recent history, and the party platforms/election promises. In theory, at least some people may have made their voting decision based on the election promise of "25k refugees by year end". (It may not have been a deciding factor in the election, but it was still a promise.) So, there are 2 possibilities: - The Liberals were lying in their initial promise, knowing that it would be pretty much impossible to settle that many refugees in that time, but continued making the claim because it was such a hot button issue that might get them some votes. Some people have a natural dislike of such manipulation, even if they might have disagreed with the initial promise - The Liberals are incompetent, making rash promises without actually thinking of the logistics of settling so many people so quickly

The Gripen may be a fine aircraft but if you listen to the F-35 detractors, it won't cut it because it has only one engine. It also has only 2/3 the F-35A's range on internal fuel. It also has (from what I've seen) a smaller payload than the F35, as well as a lower ceiling of operations. And, even if weapons from our CF18s can also be used on the Gripens, there appears to be additional weapons that the F35 can carry that the Gripen cannot. Now, there are several specialized aspects of the F35 that have been built in right from the start: stealth (which may or may not be relevant, depending on what we use the planes for), and the advanced avionics and sensors (which are more important, given the way we jointly run exercises with other NATO countries.) Not sure if the Gripen has those types of electronics or they would have to be add-ons. Oh, and I don't know why the earlier poster was suggesting we could get 125 Gripens for the cost of 60 F35s. According to Wikipedia, the flyaway cost of a Gripen is ~69 million. When the F35 reaches full production, the cost should be ~85 million. Yeah, the F35 would be a bit more pricey, but it will be nowhere near double the cost that was suggested.

Exactly, when people bleat and moan about the previous government, but point to the Liberals as saviors, who have clearly stated they will continue with current funding, well curtailing the F-35 program and transform the military into a "leaner" force, it's utterly laughable. I wonder what it says about the state of political discourse in this country when the best hopes for the government involve election lies and broken promises?

What makes many of us nervous is the fact that not only did the Liberals not promise additional military spending, but some of the promises they did make seemed to be an enormous shell game... things like rebuilding the navy through buying "cheaper" planes than the F35, or the promise of a "leaner" military seem like they think they can rebuild the military without spending any more.

Given the number of dangerous animals (deadly spiders, crocodiles, and the like), I rather suspect Australia needs its military to protect it from its own wildlife.

What makes you think military spending doesn't enhance the quality of life of Canadians? I (for example) feel much better knowing that we have basic air capability to handle a repeat of (for example) the Payne Stewart or Mathias Rust incidents. Or knowing that should I or someone I know get lost in a remote area, we have a military that would assist in the search and rescue. It certainly makes me feel better for Canada to spend money on that than on (for example) the CBC. You are assuming that the Americans would be willing to provide such protection to Canada free of charge, in a timely fashion, and under Canada's direction. I can think of many situations where that might not be the case: - Patrolling our northern waterways. The U.S. has, in the past, disputed some of Canada's claims regarding the Arctic ocean. If we do not maintain Canada's military and defer to the Americans, we loose some of our ability to assert our claims - Localized search and rescue. In a time when the U.S. government can become gridlocked, do you really think they will eagerly expend the resources to conduct search and rescue within Canada's territory on a regular basis?

I think one of 2 things will happen: - Trudeau will go back on his promise to buy something "cheaper" than the F35. The air force will get the planes it needs, but Trudeau's promise of using the savings to rebuild he navy will go up in smoke - Trudeau will buy something other than the F35. The expected savings won't materialize , but because we've purchased an "orphan" plane, our defense capabilities will suffer. As attrition sets in and he planes start to age, ultimately the cost will be much greater than had they bought the F35.

Actually there is a point in dwelling on it. Political parties often like to score cheap political points over military equipment purchases. Even if a particular piece of equipment is necessary or the "best deal", the opposition parties will often condemn those purchases. And because the average citizen has limited understanding of military procurement and/or the true costs of equipment, they can easily get swayed by rhetoric. (The best example was Chretien's labeling of the EH101 as a "cadillac of helicopters".) By continually pointing out the possible pitfalls of purchasing the F18 Superhornet (as compared to the F35) , we can hopefully get future politicians to recognize that sometimes, cooperation is better than partisanship. If Canada orders anything other than the F35, then we should be ordering more than just 65. The reason? Even if Boeing (or SAAB, or whomever we buy the jets from) keeps its production lines open to fill Canada's order, they probably won't keep them open passed that. However, a certain amount of attrition is expected, so we need to order extras now to replace losses in the future.On the other hand, the F35 will likely be manufactured for decades to come. Even if planes are lost in the next decade, we will be able to purchase replacements right from the manufacturer, on an as-needed basis.

What, you mean kind of like the way you continually bring up its engine malfunction, ignoring the fact that there was a redesign that addressed the issue? And that pretty much every plane has had similar problems either during development or during its life cycle?

What we should be doing is increasing our defense spending all-around. None of this "we'll cut here to spend more there". We need both a navy AND a properly equiped air force. Our military spending is falling well short of what it should be. The Conservatives originally showed some promise when they first got into power, but they really fumbled the ball. Sadly, in the last election, no party really seemed to have a handle on military matters.

Actually I think it was more about how to score cheap political points, rather than trying to buy the cheapest, or best-value plane. The conservatives were going to spend money on planes, the opposition wanted to paint them as gun-toting yahoos wanting to bankrupt us by buying expensive military toys. Worked for Chretien over the EH101, didn't it?

No, Trudeau has specifically asked for this: Work with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-services-and-procurement-mandate-letter#sthash.l8a4MGhA.dpuf Value for money is different than just money. As a taxpayer that is what I ask of any government. Actually, during the last election, the Liberal platform as that they were definitely going to "buy something cheaper" (i.e. not just get "value for money", but something that cost less) and divert the supposed savings into naval purchases. Going by that measure, "value for money" never came into it. Even if the F35 offered better "value for money" (i.e. met our needs better than an alternative, even at a higher price) they would be excluded under the Liberal plan to buy cheap and spend the supposed savings elsewhere. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-liberals-wont-buy-f-35-planes-use-savings-to-increase-navy-spending/article26446887/

Just out of curiosity... why would the long-form census be necessary for that? The short form census (one that was distributed to every household) had a question asking for the number of residents of a house and their ages. That is more than enough to determine population density and the expected number of school-age children in a particular geographic area. Not to mention the fact that there are other sources of information that would be almost as useful... zoning bylaws/building permits tell planners where the apartment buildings are, as opposed to low-density suburbs. Historic enrollment trends should give an idea if demand for school infrastructure is increasing. (And unlike a long-form census, there is no multi-year lag waiting for the data to be collected, analyzed and distributed.) How people imagine decisions are made: - A decision maker (politician/businessman/etc.) decides "We must do something" (to help the public/increase profits/etc.) - Days/Weeks are spent analyzing data to decide the best course of action - After much consultation, a plan of action is created - Everyone works hard to ensure that plan is put into effect - Nirvana ensues. Everyone becomes rich and happy How decisions are actually made: - A decision maker makes a statement "we must do something" (whether or not that "something" actually needs to be done) - Days/Weeks are spent analyzing data - Decision maker then picks up a hooker, gets drunk, does some cocaine and ends up making a decision that is self serving - Attempts are made to put a plan into effect, but because most people are incompetent or working at cross purposes the plan is executed poorly - It all becomes moot as the next major event (terrorist threat/economic meltdown/invasion of the mole people) makes whatever decision no better than had the decision been made by a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at a dart board. I can imagine some politician or civil servant, spending hours upon hours looking at statistics data, thinking they are doing the best possible job, when in reality there are so many factors and variables that impact any plans that it is completely irrelevant if the statistics data is inaccurate.

Municipalities should already have an idea of educational needs based on the short form census (which provides the number of school age children in a household), building permits issued (which indicates which areas are growing in size) and trends at other schools in the area. Again, building permits and short-form census will already give population distribution. In addition, traffic studies (which are currently done) will indicate infrastructure needs. Short-form census gives ages, which will give us an idea of the aging of the population. And looking at things like the usage of current care homes and hospitals will indicate the general direction and whether we need an expansion of services or not.

Nobody is saying that they don't need data and statistics to make better decisions. The question is whether the mandatory long-form census was the best or only way to gather that information. There are many sources of data... short form census, unemployment figures, government revenue/taxation, bankruptcy rates, building permits issued, etc. All of which give economic and demographic information that can be used for making policy decisions. Too many to note on the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Then just give one or two. One or two cases where the additional accuracy of the long form census is critical in making decisions that affect significant numbers of people, where the short form is not accurate enough, and other sources won't work. I'm not saying they don't exist. I just haven't seen any evidence for it (yet).

I have no doubt that it has reduced labor market data. But why is it considered "critical"? For training purposes? Job listings and current school enrollment listings should give an idea what jobs are needed. (Not to mention the fact that since students have free will to make their own decisions, the government wouldn't have the ability to force them into any particular field anyways.) Knowing where to invest/stimulate the economy? Unemployment rates should give an idea where the economy is most depressed. And how much of that data is just a case of asking "what happened" (as opposed to "what can we do?")

I do care about how tax money is spent. The question is whether the long-form census was critical for making the best decisions for spending that money. There are a lot of things that a government can look at when making spending decisions... demographics provided by the short form, retail sales (which provide a more immediate feed back about economic conditions than census data taken years ago), unemployment figures, etc. And many spending programs are fixed so the census is irrelevant (e.g. military spending). If you're going to suggest that the government needs data to figure out what to spend money on, then you'll have to tell me what programs you were planning that require that information.

Ok, first of all, keep in mind that your article is not available to the general public. (Only the first page or so is.) However, to be honest I don't really think its telling us anything that hasn't been mentioned before. Yes, the switch from the census to a survey is problematic. Yes, it does introduce all sorts of issues with sampling bias. Yes, it makes comparisons between census years difficult if not impossible. It may even be more expensive in the long run. The question is, how does it affect the average citizen. You know, the ones who live their lives never having to look at any sort of statistics except for the occasional census form. Does it enhance their lives in any way? (More money? More safe?) Many of the arguments that are brought up when talking about the census are things like "It helps us locate services" or "It helps businesses know where to locate". The question is, in how many of those situations is the enhanced accuracy of the long-form census critical, and in how many cases is the less accurate survey still "good enough" (or where the data can be taken from other sources). For example, one of the earlier references gave a hypothetical example of a school opening up that was largely unused because of bad census data; however, the short form census would still give basic demographics, and school boards can also look at recent trends in enrollment to do their planning.

Well, the last time I got the long term census it took (I think) half an hour to fill out (Can't remember exactly... it was over a decade ago.). That's time I could have spent doing more important tasks (like plotting world domination, watching Family Guy, etc.) So it did affect me personally. Perhaps your time isn't valuable, but if we DO value our free time, not wanting to spend that time filling out a census form is a "good reason". If you're going to force a good portion of the population to give up a significant amount of their free time, it would be nice to know that the information is actually of benefit to the responder in some way. Simply saying "other people need it" may not cut it.

I don't get why that's difficult to understand... Probably because evidence suggests he's wrong. FedEx (a private company) will supposedly ship to small remote towns in Northern Canada. So obviously there is money to be made for offering the service. Its definitely expensive (although they do suffer from lack of economy-of-scale), but claiming they "wouldn't have mail service" seems to be completely wrong.

Do you well and truly honestly believe that? Really? How exactly do you think all these remote towns get their food? Their clothing? Think those people living north of the Arctic circle still live in igloos and hunt seals for food? Those companies are getting regular deliveries, so someone must think its profitable to bring stuff up there. You know, I got curious and went to the FedEx web site... did a search on some of the smaller towns in the North West territories (towns with < 1000 people) and found that even they (a private sector company) will deliver up there. Yes, it was expensive. Quite expensive. But they think there's money to be made so they offer the service.

Says you. Meanwhile, researchers and business alike say something very different.... I think the problem is that while there may be people concerned about the loss of accuracy in the census/survey data, the effects aren't necessarily apparent to the average citizen. Yes, researchers (e.g. historian, anthropologist, etc.) may not like the data problems, but some historian writing a paper about "Number of bathrooms in Canadian households for the past century" is no longer working with valid data, but the question is how does it affect your average Canadian citizen. As for business people... they have less accurate data to plan with, but with all of the other factors in running a successful company (exchange rates, international economic conditions, etc.) many might feel that whatever additional accuracy that was provided with the long form census wasn't critical. (And it should be pointed out that at least one business group mentioned in your article said that the household survey "still delivers the information needs", so some business types weren't concerned.) Not that I'm against reestablishing the long-form census data. In fact I think its probably a good thing. Just pointing out why some might not have considered it the catastrophe that others have made it out to be.

There are so many things tying Canadians together... our shared parliamentary traditions, our love of hockey, our collective shame over the existence of Justin Bieber. I find it odd that you would insist that the ability to send letters to remote areas at low cost (a service that fewer and fewer people actually use) is somehow critical to our national existence. It should also be noted that nobody here has suggested getting rid of Canada post. The main purpose of this thread was to discuss the existence of superboxes; even if door-to-door delivery ended, Canada post would still have neighborhood delivery (even if some people would need to walk a few yards to their mail box.) The idea of requiring higher prices for remote mail delivery is at best a side issue (and even if such a system were put in place, it would not mean that Canada post would necessarily vanish, just that postal delivery would better reflect actual costs.)

It's possible for Canada Post to do them for less as well, but they are also tasked with providing service to places no private companies will. 80 cents to have a letter hand delivered anywhere in the country. What a ripoff. Actually the person its a 'ripoff' too are the people who live in the urban centers, who have to pay more for a stamp just to subsidize those people who want to live in some remote god forsaken part of the country.

I seem to remember prior to the election, political commentators pointing out that Mulcair did the best job as the opposition leader, but every time he managed to score poitical points against the conservatives, it was Trudeau who benefited.