Tories scrapping long form census

[ironstone]

No it doesn't. Most of the excuses seem to be coming from extreme partisans. I don't consider the former head of statistics Canada, provincial governments, city planners, and people like Don Drummond to be the leftist media. Give it a rest.

It was a terrible decision that will affect public policy creation in a completely negative way. There's almost no denying that.

Care to offer any opinion on why Sweden,Norway,Finland and Denmark have eliminated the census altogether?Britain is considering cancelling its census as well.

This from the Friday edition,page 11 of the Ottawa Sun.

Your last two sentences suggest you should use your talents in Hollywood as a writer.

I like the last part of Michael Harris column in the same paper."Nothing squeals as loudly as a gravy train screeching to a halt."

[Smallc]

I don't care what the other countries have done. None of them are as varied and diverse as this particular one. None of them are as large as this particular one. We aren't those places, and this is a terrible idea. Again, I trust the opinion of those who actually use the census over a bunch of paranoids.

[capricorn]

"millions"? really?

David K. Foot, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Toronto, is the author of the best-selling books Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift and the updated paperback, Boom Bust & Echo: Profiting from the Demographic Shift in the 21st Century. These books are based on his research on the economic impacts of demographic change and on the resulting implications for both private and public policies. His books have sold over 300,000 copies in Canada and were on the Canadian best-seller lists for over 3 years.

http://www.footwork.com/profile.asp

Chapters lists the price of his books. Most are in the $25 to #35 range, one at $45 and one at $65.00.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search?sc=David%20K.%20Foot&sf=Author&pticket=mije0ebbudztqw55dja5no45Kiu%2bxTWbkoeUFoXcLPD%2fXKFlySc%3d&page=1

So yeah, millions.

[bebe]

http://www.footwork.com/profile.asp

Chapters lists the price of his books. Most are in the $25 to #35 range, one at $45 and one at $65.00.

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search?sc=David%20K.%20Foot&sf=Author&pticket=mije0ebbudztqw55dja5no45Kiu%2bxTWbkoeUFoXcLPD%2fXKFlySc%3d&page=1

So yeah, millions.

I stand corrected.

[capricorn]

Right back at you bebe.

[CANADIEN]

Bebe, that quote is from David Foot. Mr. Foot is a prolific writer. He has made millions writing books and articles for publications by accessing StatsCan data, information that is gathered, categorized and analyzed at the expense of the taxpayer. It's very much in Mr. Foot's interest, and writers/researchers like him, that the flow of data collected by StatsCan continues unabated. His bibliography is quite impressive.

http://www.footwork.com/publications.asp#books

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.

Edited July 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Are you aware of any successful organization in the 21st century that obtains key information by mailing out long printed forms every 5 years to millions of people?

The absurdity of this system is as breath-taking as the belief that it provides accurate information.

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.

[CANADIEN]

Presented with a laptop computer, you argue that an abacus is better - because we know how to use it.

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.

Edited July 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Care to offer any opinion on why Sweden,Norway,Finland and Denmark have eliminated the census altogether?Britain is considering cancelling its census as well.

This from the Friday edition,page 11 of the Ottawa Sun.

Your last two sentences suggest you should use your talents in Hollywood as a writer.

I like the last part of Michael Harris column in the same paper."Nothing squeals as loudly as a gravy train screeching to a halt."

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.

Edited July 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

1) What's your industry/interest?

2) Inform yourself.

And here's an interesting summary:

Why you should care about the sudden demise of the mandatory long census form

David Eaves is a self-described progessive activist from Vancouver. I'm not surprised he'd be opposing anything the Tories did, nor by his overuse of dramatic language. However, like you, he has not come up with even one single example of how doing away with the mandatory long form will harm anyone or anything.

[Argus]

I don't care what the other countries have done. None of them are as varied and diverse as this particular one.

Britain is more diverse than us and larger. You simply don't have the capacity to ever question what "experts" tell you, nor look for the self-interest in their words.

You don't ever ask "why?" That's your major failing.

[Argus]

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.

People can write about Canada all they want - no doubt with the aid of government grants. But I fail to see why we should force citizens to assist those writers under pain of prison.

You are actually suggesting we put people in prison so that writers can have confidence in the research material they solicit from government in order to write books - for profit.

[ironstone]

I don't care what the other countries have done. None of them are as varied and diverse as this particular one. None of them are as large as this particular one. We aren't those places, and this is a terrible idea. Again, I trust the opinion of those who actually use the census over a bunch of paranoids.

21000 Canadians list themselves as "Jedi".How useful is that information?

This is much ado about nothing.If Harper tried to change the brand of toilet paper they use in the Parliament washrooms we would be hearing exactly the same tired,over the top rhetoric coming from the drama queens of the left.

[CANADIEN]

21000 Canadians list themselves as "Jedi".How useful is that information?

This is much ado about nothing.If Harper tried to change the brand of toilet paper they use in the Parliament washrooms we would be hearing exactly the same tired,over the top rhetoric coming from the drama queens of the left.

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?

Edited July 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Interesting exchange captured on twitter by Maclean`s magazine. Guess who looks like he knows what he is talking about, and who doesn`t?

Wrong, Tony Clement typed to an entity calling itself Harbles. Statisticians can ensure validity w larger sample size. A week into the Great Census Uprising of 2010, the industry minister had taken to Twitter, as he often otherwise does to detail both his travels and his music tastes, in hopes of making the case for changes to the national head count.

Wrong, countered Stephen Gordon, an economist at the University of Laval. Large samples cant fix sample selection biases. Clement tried again, tweeting that proper weighting would be used. Where will the weights come from? Gordon shot back. Other voluntary surveys get their weights from the census. After another exchange of tweets, the minister fell silent for the night.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/24/no-fun-with-numbers/

Edited July 25, 2010 by CANADIEN

[bebe]

David Eaves is a self-described progessive activist from Vancouver. I'm not surprised he'd be opposing anything the Tories did, nor by his overuse of dramatic language. However, like you, he has not come up with even one single example of how doing away with the mandatory long form will harm anyone or anything.

Apparently not one you can understand ... but that's not our problem.

This statement by Eaves (previous link) echoes my belief about why Harper wants to destroy the ability to make comparisons with past data and observe trends:

some governments prefer not to have information; all that data and evidence gets in the way of legislation and policies that are ineffective, costly and that reward vested interests

Harper does not want to be accountable to us.

As for StatsCan recouping some costs by selling data to private interests ... that's just a positive byproduct of what needs to be done anyway. Also, because we can access census data, often free, we can hold politicians, media and authors accountable for speculative statements and bad policies.

[CANADIEN]

As for StatsCan recouping some costs by selling data to private interests ... that's just a positive byproduct of what needs to be done anyway. Also, because we can access census data, often free, we can hold politicians, media and authors accountable for speculative statements and bad policies.

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

[bebe]

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

[Smallc]

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

Well exactly. Why would we ever have a need for actual data?

[Argus]

Apparently not one you can understand ... but that's not our problem.

Oh I dunno, I'm fairly intelligent and reasonably well-educated. You're trying to make a case and you can't come up with a single example. No one on this thread or the others has come up with a single example of how scrapping the long form could cause anything harmful.

To my mind that means you are unable to make your case.