CANADIEN

Stockwell to the rescue (part 3)< This time stockwell, I am not laughing. Let`s deal first with the misrepresentation of facts. Individual responses are NOT communicated to the public, so how would I know anything about another person that way? The long form does NOT ask if a person has mental health issues. The question is actually whether a physical or mental condition or health reduces a person mobility or prevents them from doing certain activities. Poorly termed question, imo, and one can debate if a question about disabilities belongs in the census (I think it does). But the question is NOT what you claim it is, Stockwell. But this is just misrepresenting (or being unable to understand) facts. The piece of resistence is the odious and callous stirring up of the ghost of the Holocaust.. Questions about ethnicity are tricky to define and the usefuleness of that kind of question in the census is highly debatable (ironic that some people who want the collection of data linking ethnicity with crime rates are amongst those whosupport the government move on the census, but I digress). But nothing, NOTHING in the past or present history of census in Canada is ground for the kind of fear Stockwell is trying to evoke here. This kind of fear-mongering tactic is bad enough when someone talks about tanks on the streets; it becomes just plain despicable when it plays on memories of atrocities some are still alive to remember. Don`t worry, Stockwell, I don`t expect you to be ashamed of yourself. I feel ashamed that you are a member of MY government. :angry: :angry: :angry:

Stockwell to the rescue (parts 1 and 2) Now, I think we can all agree that the number of bedrooms in a house is a silly question to ask. But the comparison with prisoners of war... frankly Stockwell. Once again, I think most of us would agree that the threat (never enforced,btw) of jail time is out of proportion with the action (not filing a census form). But guess what, Stockwell, where do you think the information the 12-year old can access comes from? Thanks btw for pointing one of the reasons for the importance of the census - it provides statistical information that Canadians can access to study and understand our country, or to measure the actions of our government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-try-hogans-heroes-defence-in-census-feud/article1650083/

This coming from the guy who, when the mindless "government has no business asking these questions" line won`t work, has nothing better to come with than "read a book that includes information on how the nazis were using and tabulating census data" because "we can never be sure that there will never be a government like that again". This is an idiotic argument. Might as well say that computers are dangerous because the Nazis used tabulation machines and another government like might pop up a day. As for the book you suggest, its thesis was also in a movie about 4-5 years ago (darn me, the title escapes me right now). Guess what, knowledge that the nazis used the census and early tabulation techniques did not convince me that the census is a bad thing then, and it won`t now. Unlike you, I understand history enough to understand that the problem was not the census, but the people using it.

The nazis also used roads, railroads, the radio, telephone, typewriters, cinema, the media in planning, promoting and carrying their policy. No doubt they would have used iphones, DVD players, laptops and the Internet had these tools existed then. Let`s ban all of them.

Indeed, those polls, like any statistical survey conducting (even by StatsCan) outside the census is voluntary. Now, I am sure that you will argue that if these surveys can be reliable, why wouldn`t be a voluntary census? And one the face of it, you would seem to have a point. A response to this argument was provided by Charles Gordon, economics professor at Laval University, ironically enough in a Twitter argument with... Tony Clements. Survey and polls carry their own statistical bias... no matter the side of the sample, some groups of people will be over or under representated. To minimize this, statisticians wieght the sample and the data, adjusting the sample on the basis of other statistical information available. As Professor Gordon put it, "Other voluntary surveys get their weights from the census". Without a form of non-voluntary form of data gathering (census or other), polls and survey lacks a weighting mechanism essential to ensure a certain reliability. That, in and by itself, is not a justification for or against a mandatory census or other form of data gathering, but it make more sense that "ìf poll are voluntary, why not the census"

Let`s see... the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Canadian Evangelical Fellowship, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Greater Toronto United Way, the Toronto Board of Trade, TD Bank...

Sound recommendation indeed. Which makes the government decision even more senseless.

obviously, you don;t understand anything about basic statistics. A sample based on people volunteering to respond is the LEAST accurate method of gathering the type of data gathered through a census. The results it produces are not worth the time and energy and MONEY spent in gathering it, such is the bias and distortion that creep into the results. Unless, as an experiment conducted in the U.S. a few years ago demonstrate, you end up with a sample so high and spend so much money that the exercise becomes economically non-viable. I have received the long form in the past. I filled it, despite my relun ctance at providing personal information to the government Because I knew the data gathering being done was useful. Next year, I will not fill the long form if I get it, because I will not volunteer information that will be gathered in such a phenomenally dumb fashion as the way conceived by the onservative government.

Mind you, I am not personnally convinced that, statistically speaking, a mandatory census will give more accurate results than, let`s say, a centralized set of databanks. But it;s still far better than the poor excuse of a census that the government is coming weith.

But you see, why the so-called need for fairly accurate and reliable data when ignorance and prejudice will do just fine?

Religious law have no place in the resolution of civil law disputes in our society. That being said, teaching a course on the economic side of a religion-based law system is hardly endorsing it or implementing it. Fact is, Sharia law is the basis for the economic system in many countries. From that perspective alone, teaching it makes as much sense as teaching courses on the Chinese economic and business law systems - or is that promoting communism? As for the "risk" of people conducting their economic activites on the basis of the Sharia - as long as no Canadian law is being violated, so what? One fundamental tenet of Sharia law 9and of Jewish law, btw0 is the prohibition on interest. So, we have seen in the past few years the creation of some financial institutions that operates on these principles. Is anyone here arguing that we should force them to charge interests?

Anyone`s seen MR. Canada`s Gay Pride Parade movie yet?

Sounds nice in principle. In fact, the type of simpling method used in the census only works if it is random. That is if, every time the sample is conducted, everyone runs the risk of having to do it. The long form dates back to the 1960`s or 1970`s. at the time, the proportion of non-Caucasians in Canada was lower than today. So was the proportion of people born outside of the country, people living in the larger urban centres, people with a post-secondary education. If these people only had to fill the long form only once, it is very possible that, as years passed, the proportion of Caucasians, people born in the country, etc. that respond to the long form in any given year would decrease even in comparison to actual numbers and percentage, with results biased other groups.

The comparison between the gathering of statistical data and voting is a wrong one. In the case of voting, citizens are asked to make a choice, that belongs to them, of who will represent them in parliament, Provincial legislatures, municipal councils, school boards, etc. This is NOT the same as data gathering. Besides, refusal to vote in itself is a form of judgement on the process and/or the candidates. As for your comment about the census policy... please can you find a way of being even more assinine. Nobody can or would claim that methods of data gathering, be it census or large databanks, are or could be fully accurate. This is not a reason for any argument against gathering data. Besides, how can you be sure that central databases would be accurate, and that nobody would be providing false information, a databank police?

let me see... Elsewhere on this site, you argue about the number of Canadians whose first language is other than English or French and cannot speak either of these two languages. You call for action by the Government oabout this. Shouldn`t such action be based on factual information? Like data collected through... the census. Yes, the census, and no, it`s not asked on your income tax form. The chair of the C.D. Howe Institute, hardly an advocate for the nanny-state, has put together a compelling case for the data gathering done through the census, while at the same time blasting (properly, mind you), the Liberals for their inept response to the Government`s decision. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/GM_WRobson_July13-10.pdf His is a compelling argument, from a right-wing, anti big-government, libertarian point of view.

Until there are other methods in place to collect data useful for policy-making is in place, responding to the census should remain mandatory. No jail term, though... frankly. Better to devise a way to identifying throught the following year`s income tax form who did not fill it, and get the money ($100 or so seems to be quite sufficient) Is the census intrusive? Yes. Are some questions not necessary? Yes. But for the other questions, the benefits, in terms of data being available to inform public decision-making, far, far outweight this ihe inconvenience.

Interesting exchange captured on twitter by Maclean`s magazine. Guess who looks like he knows what he is talking about, and who doesn`t? http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/24/no-fun-with-numbers/

21000 Canadians stating that their religion is Jedi is, stistictically speaking, a glitch. Any PRIVATE sector statistician worth his/her job description would tell you such a number is meaningless, and that any good data collection and analysis method takes it into account. So, a more sensical question would be - does our governments need statistical data on Canadians`relgions? On one hand, the answer is no - economic, fiscal, social, health policies should not, in our society, be based on religions and therefore our governments would not need such data. On the other hand, various groups are arguing that we are admitting too many members of certain religioous groups, and this should curtailled, if not stopped altogether; how could governments respond to that without actual data? Like it or not, the issue of what data the government should be collecting about our country and how it should be collected does matter. To quote Charles Robson, president of the C.D. Howe Institute, For those who want governments to do less but do it better, good information is indispensable. Do you think the C.D. Howe Institute, the Toronto Board of Trade, major banks, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the editors of the Canadian Medical Association Journal or the Canadian Evangelical Fellowship have expressed concerns about the Government decision because they are, to quote you, left-wing drama queens?

Car to offer any opinion as to what the countries you mention have donne exactly. They have adopted other methods to gather data about the popukation (methods that are actually far more intrusive than the census form, such as centralized population and housing databases, but that`s besides the point). None, NONE of these governments have compromised the quality of the data being collected through knee-jerk decisions like the one taken by the Conservative government. None have argued, like some on this and other forums, that goernment should not be collecting data useful to inform decision-making and facilitate research on this country and its population. feel free to raise the example of these foreign countries. If anything, it makes the decision by the harper government to make the census meaningless instead of looking if there may be better ways to do things even dumber.

Dumb and Dumber (aka as Harper and Co.) cut half the wires on the abacus, then say it makes it a better abacus and that`s the one they will be using, and YOU applaud them because, hey, a laptop is better. Frankly, that`s ridiculous, how about DEMANDING that the government starts using a laptop instead.

The reel absurdity here is to argue that the Government is to be commended for - to borrow the analogy - remove one wheel of the buggy and claim it will make it more efficient. Those who believe that a car will be better should demand that the government starts using a car, not support them when they sabotage the buggy then keep using it.

In casr you did not knoe, StasCan SELLS a vasr array of statistics and analysis taken from the census and it other data gathering activities. Besides, mr. Forst too pays taxes. You don`t want people being able to research aand write about who we are as a country based on meaningful data available to all of us, your problem.

there is a few not too flattering things I think about our current federal government. Inredibly dumb was not one of them. I stand corrected. No person, no company, no organization with even minimal common sense would ever argue that key information is not needed when making important decisions. Yet the Harper government has made a decision that will make important information on this country and its population so unreliable that that it might as well not be collected. Information that is needed when making important public policy decisions. Similarly, an important source of info about our country and its population will not be available to researchers, today and tomorrow, who study us as a country and a society. And all that based on a handful of complaints and paranoia from people who think that their freedom is threatened because a bunch of statisticians may see for a few seconds their name on the same page as data about how many rooms they have in their houme. An intelligent government would have said "there are some issues with the long form census and they need to be addressed" and it would have consulted stakerholders - the public being asked to fill the census, the people and organizations who use the data, and its own statisticians. It would have considered what information is being asked and which one is actually needed. It would have considred what should be the appropriate penalty for those who don`t fill the form (jail? frankly). it woould have considered whetther or not there are better ways to collect the date (such as centralized databases0 and what would be the impact of implementing them. They did not do any of this, and they will not do any of it. And on top of everything, the waste of paper and time that the long form census will become is gonna cost us more.

A racist? Nah... Only someone who has seemingly no problem with discrimination.

No, destruction in terms of sending members of the country's intellectual elite to death camps, closure of educational facilities, forced Germanization of a part of the population, extermination, deportation or enslavement of the rest. All things the Nazis started to do or intended to do. A lot more than outsting a government or tutelage, isn't it? Considering that Hitler goals included Poland's destruction, the Poles should have simply not attempt to form alliances to defend themselves, right? says the pot to the kettle. The world misunderstood how much of a monster he was until he was too late.