april1987

You are clearly very quick to equate any sort of centralism with communism and thus with gulags, cold cucumber soup and vodka. Unfortunately the world is not as black and white as you suggest. In fact, Canada is quite unique in the very decentralized way it doles out its social services-almost democratic you might say! I would not want to live under a communist regime. I've taken my fair share of soviet history and what a depressing subject it is to study! However to refute anything on principle is logic failed from the get-go. For this reason I am not a vegetarian. I know too much meat is bad for the body. I know how unsustainable raising livestock is as opposed to vegetal crops. It is also extremely expensive. However I find it closed-minded to reject meat altogether because of these reasons. Instead I approach every meal as a new situation, and put a suitable amount of meat in my meals if any at all. The same should be said for political systems. You might learn something not by accepting everything you disagree with, but by not outright rejecting everything you dont. Sure there is "always time for anti-communist rhetoric and fearmongering", but by making that time all the time, you risk making yourself come across as someone unable to critically evaluate individual situations. I know the first part of your post was only partially serious, but we are talking about a standard government data collection that has been happening for 145 years. Lets keep our heads on straight folks. Maybe. On the other hand, it may(just may) be that a majority of Canadians agree with and benefit from certain socialist elements in Canadian domestic policy. I dont understand. So do you value the information being collected in the long form or not?

You seem to have missed the point completely. Congrats on having the airmiles card. I dont see what this has to do with anything I wrote. And I prefer days when the sun is shining and its about 30 degrees celsius in the summer, but that does not change the reality of the fact that I'm currently living in the U.K. If it was something I cared deeply enough about, I would move to a place where that is the norm. Me rallying support for everyone to get together and burn their raincoats won't change the reality of where we live. Like it or not, you currently live in a country that provides many things for its citizens through social programs. Like it or not, certain data are relevant to the government that you pay taxes to. Like it or not, that goes beyond financial data. Once again you miss the point. Information is not the problem, how its collected is. Credit card and bank payments may provide some information, but they fail to give a complete impression of the country as a whole. I dont agree with you, but I understand your ideology. I get it. The issue here however is the OPTIONAL long form. An optional long form is lose lose. Those who see value in the effective surveying of the entire populace of a massive and varied country lose because the information is completely useless. Those like you lose because all the same if not more government resources are still being spent to gather the same data. Only this time its useless. The historical tidbit you opened with seems to suggest the census predated the soviet union. I dont see what precedented collection of data every five years has to do with the soviet union mr mccarthy. With your anti-communist fearmongering you demonstrate that it is you, not the beaurocrats who is living in the past.

And such is the issue that all this partisan bickering has completely obscured! There are several aspects of this debate. Census content for example; how much content is really needed? Then there's the relevance; is the information collected bloated to the point that its unnecessary? Then some people's coveted privacy; is the longer form intrusive into your private life? However, ALL these debates become irrelevant with an optional survey simply because its renders the results completely USELESS! I've never filled one of these out, and have no idea what sorts of questions are being asked. However, the content is a moot point if the method is flawed, and thats exactly the situation with an optional census. I'd rather the see the long form scrapped altogether than to have it optional. In school we are taught to analyze statistical exercises to find flaws, and remove those flaws from future data collection. Why on earth would we amend the way we collect data in such a way that we know will produce skewed results? I think this is a major reason for dissension within the conservative party on the issue, not just for the content. I see what you are saying, in fact Im a person who did not on the whole have a problem with the police situation at the G20. I think given what happens at these events it was to a degree justified. The sheer idiocy was having it in toronto in the first place. But if you are actually trying to put the addtional police presence, special powers for police and altered detainment laws in the same boat as the topics of information collected in an annual census, you live in a scary black and white world that I hope to never visit. You cant just add another point demanding your previous point be addressed to make it look like you have more points.

Good for her, and good for him too I suppose. But I still dont understand why you start your post with these sentences: So stephen harper is a champion of women's rights because his wife appears to be a lady of strong character? I also fail to see how this affects his church of choice.