Census - Mandatory or Voluntary

[Smallc]

Why do you think that the government could or should intervene in many aspects of our lives?

Intervene is a very strong word. Government should be involved with the people, though. I don't believe in the idea of a completely hands off government.

Why do you turn to the government to fix the various problems in peoples lives?

I don't. Only some problems should be fixed by government.

Government has proven over time to very inefficient and wasteful, no matter who's at the helm. Yet you support ever growing bigger and bigger government, in turn our taxes will all go up. We cannot pay for everything under the sun that sounds like a good idea. The amount of money the taxpayer can pay isn't limitless.

First, I take issue with your premise, and second, I don't support ever expanding government. I realize that we can't pay for everything, and that's why I often shoot down people's grandiose military ideas.

When you're planning your household budget do you spend money on everything you want to do, every vacation and travel idea? Your wife wants to do? That your kids want to do?

I haven't proposed anything like that.

Obviously not, you'd go broke and be deeply in debt. Same thing for the government, it's no different.

Oh, but government is very different.

[nicky10013]

Just as many in the U.S.'s metro area assumed that the rest of the U.S. was a bunch of hicks. Until Reagan and GWB were elected. And now, the country being about to reduce the Democratic majority substantially.

Hicks do vote.

Yep. Look where that's gotten you.

[Mr.Canada]

Oh, but government is very different.

Every family has a certain amount of money to spend each month, if they spend more then that the family is in debt.

The government should be operating within its means and not spending, spending , spending then raise taxes when it doesn't have enough money for all its pet projects. Government simply cannot fund every single social project that politicians dreams up. It's just not sustainable. Surely you realize this smallc.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

But you see, governments don't have pet projects so much as the people have projects that they want done. The people can't always have what they want, but generally, they get it.

[capricorn]

if the only or main aim of the census was to allow data collection for non-gvoernment businesses and organizations, then the point about getting their own data would be valid.

Look, I think the census is a good thing. What gets me is the census, and the resulting reports and analyses serve a clientele that has nothing to do with the government's business.

The clientele I refer to is not involved in governmental development and/or review of public policy. Book authors and private market researchers are examples. They should pay to access and use information collected at the taxpayers' expense.

But the number one aim of the census is to provide statistical data useful to inform public policy making and tand for us, the population, to measure the effects of government decisions.

Do you really believe that the population at large regularly performs such measuremens? How many people are able of interpreting the data? It's one thing to reference the population by province, by metropolitan area, by ethnic group, etc., but it's altogether another matter to interpret the meaning behind those numbers. Granted, some people are qualified to look beyond the numbers but they are a very tiny group among the population who have some type of specialization in data analysis. And another thing, I have no doubt that over the years, special interest groups have manipulated StatsCan statistics and other instruments to push their individual agendas.

As for the suggestion that the separation f Church and state is being violated because religious orgnization has access to statistical data from the census, it is non-sense.

Government should not craft policies based on issues around religion. I maintain it is counter to the notion of separation of church and state. Therefore, why are those questions on the census? The mere fact that the government collects such data should be questioned. Why does the government need to know which god Canadians pray to or if they're atheists? What does the government do with that information? I think these are reasonable question.

Basic data from the census is available for ANYONE to see and use.

Define basic.

Use of census data by church groups is no more a violation of the separation of Chruch and State than their use of the roads.

Your analogy is unconvincing.

[Smallc]

People do pay to access detailed census information.

[capricorn]

Good. Then double the fees.

[CANADIEN]

Authors, businesses, church groups can view census data for free, the same as any of... big deal. If the data is put on a public web site that anyone can access, there is no logical reason why anyone or any group should be barred from accessing just because they may benefit (financially or otherwise) from their use of it. Anyway, how would you prevent a church group or a bank, for example, from accessing publicly available information?

Now, advanced analysis done by StatsCan is available for a fee. If a Church group wants to buy it, they should be able to do it like anyone else. This is not breaking the separation of State and church, it`s just treating Church groups like anyone else.

Also, collecting statistical data is not the same as establishing policies.

Your contention that the separation of State and church is violated because church groups uses census data is so illogical that it boggles the mind. try something else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I support the previous system to the extent that if it isn't broke don't fix it.

[capricorn]

If the data is put on a public web site that anyone can access, there is no logical reason why anyone or any group should be barred from accessing just because they may benefit (financially or otherwise) from their use of it.

I never said they should be barred. All I did was rant about special interest groups using data which is collected, collate and published at the taxpayers' expense to further their agendas.

[CANADIEN]

I never said they should be barred.All I did was rant about special interest groups using data which is collected, collate and published at the taxpayers' expense to further their agendas.

^

Indeed, it is a rant. And as if often the case with rants, it is based on non-sense. The data is collected and published by OUR government to inform public policy and to provide US with a source of information about who we are. This information belongs to each and every one of us. How some of us decide to use this information is their business, and their business alone.

As for the facts some ¨special interests groups¨use that information to further their agenda, so what? This information belongs to them to. I wonder if the real issue is not the fact that the data might prove them right.

[Keepitsimple]

It never ceases to amaze me how the media can keep the public in the dark.....or maybe they are simply ignorant. Our Short Form census is STILL MANDATORY - and subject to penalties for non-compliance. While Canada will continue on with the Short Form, other countries have scrapped theirs completely and culled data from other available sources. Germany discontinued their census in 1987, Denmark in 1970, Netherlands in 1991, Sweden in 1990....and the United Kingdom will terminate theirs after the next census in 2011. So....contrary to what the media is telling us, it seems we're scrambling to catch up with the rest of the world. Why don't our lazy journalists take the time to give us a story in its proper context? Too dull? Not sensational enough? Shame, really.

[eyeball]

While Canada will continue on with the Short Form, other countries have scrapped theirs completely and culled data from other available sources. Germany discontinued their census in 1987, Denmark in 1970, Netherlands in 1991, Sweden in 1990...

So despite your revulsion for state intrusion into our lives you support our government collecting data on us by employing the same methods as the countries you've mentioned?

Are you against registering guns by any chance? If you are you're probably going to love being registered by means of a unique identifier being attached to your name that you must use every single time you use a government service or fill out a government form. That's how the countries you mention collect data, and trust me, there's nothing voluntary about it.

It never ceases to amaze me how the media can keep the public in the dark.....or maybe they are simply ignorant.

Who is ignorant?

[Keepitsimple]

So despite your revulsion for state intrusion into our lives you support our government collecting data on us by employing the same methods as the countries you've mentioned?

Are you against registering guns by any chance? If you are you're probably going to love being registered by means of a unique identifier being attached to your name that you must use every single time you use a government service or fill out a government form. That's how the countries you mention collect data, and trust me, there's nothing voluntary about it.

Who is ignorant?

Your post is a perfect example of a "strawman" argument.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I simply showed you examples of countries who have stopped doing a formal census.....Canada is not yet among them. Of particular note are the Scandiavian countries of Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden - countries to whom the media often uses as a comparison for Liberalized social issues....all three have discontinued their Census.

[Smallc]

It never ceases to amaze me how the media can keep the public in the dark.....or maybe they are simply ignorant. Our Short Form census is STILL MANDATORY - and subject to penalties for non-compliance. While Canada will continue on with the Short Form, other countries have scrapped theirs completely and culled data from other available sources. Germany discontinued their census in 1987, Denmark in 1970, Netherlands in 1991, Sweden in 1990....and the United Kingdom will terminate theirs after the next census in 2011.

So you want the government to maintain massive databases with data on everyone, then?

[Keepitsimple]

So you want the government to maintain massive databases with data on everyone, then?

Nope. I'm just putting the voluntary census in context to what other countries are doing. I'm very satisfied with a mandatory basic census and a voluntary survey. I think it's a happy medium between "sneaky" government gathering of information and the supposed elimination of census as done by other countries. We're now at 16-14 in favour of leaving the mandatory census as it is. I've just pointed out that many other countries have moved away from that - some for cost reasons, some for privacy. In response to that reality, some have said the alternative would be for government maintain all sorts of data on everyone from other sources. Well no, it's not. The alternative is what has been proposed by the government.

[Smallc]

Nope. I'm just putting the voluntary census in context to what other countries are doing.

Yes, the other countries are doing what I said. They're creating massive databases on their populations.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, the other countries are doing what I said. They're creating massive databases on their populations.

That's a straw man argument. We're not doing that.

[Smallc]

That's a straw man argument. We're not doing that.

No, we're doing something that won't work....and that's far worse. I'm not making as straw man argument, I'm saying that the governments decision is idiotic, and comparisons to other countries that are doing different things are too.

[Oleg Bach]

RE-moving the mandatory census will be like removing boarders...may as well move to Arizona. WHAT'S with our elite - are they all globalist capitalist pigs who don't care if the people who built the nation are over run - as long as they maintain their status and riches?

[eyeball]

Your post is a perfect example of a "strawman" argument.

I simply showed you examples of countries who have stopped doing a formal census.....Canada is not yet among them. Of particular note are the Scandiavian countries of Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden - countries to whom the media often uses as a comparison for Liberalized social issues....all three have discontinued their Census.

The Conservatives cited these strawmen before I did. While the Conservatives have not said we will be among them, we will one day. You can probably count on the Liberals doing that if they ever get into power.

Such is the way our political elites together dos dee do around such issues as this and ultimately bring about a state - read Big State - of mutually assured dictatorship.

"And the band played on" comes to mind. Instead of the spread of AIDS however ignorance is on the menu, starting with the dumbing down of Statistics Canada.

[capricorn]

It never ceases to amaze me how the media can keep the public in the dark.....or maybe they are simply ignorant. Our Short Form census is STILL MANDATORY - and subject to penalties for non-compliance.

The MSM has continually harped on the changes to the mandatory aspect of the long form census. As you point out, not much was said to stress that the mandatory aspect of the short form remains intact. It would not surprise me that, as a result, a large chunk of the population has been left with the impression that filling out the short form is voluntary and the mandatory aspect has been lifted. When those Canadians receive the census form next year and read the instructions that they are still obligated to fill it out, will that provoke any reaction? I have a feeling that come census time, this matter will come back with a vengeance.

[nicky10013]

The MSM has continually harped on the changes to the mandatory aspect of the long form census. As you point out, not much was said to stress that the mandatory aspect of the short form remains intact. It would not surprise me that, as a result, a large chunk of the population has been left with the impression that filling out the short form is voluntary and the mandatory aspect has been lifted. When those Canadians receive the census form next year and read the instructions that they are still obligated to fill it out, will that provoke any reaction? I have a feeling that come census time, this matter will come back with a vengeance.

Yup. The other question I have is, shouldn't the short form in their mind be just as bad as the long form? The notion of invasion of privacy for the long form are so ridiculous that those same concerns could easily apply to the short form. Hypocritical in my opinion.

[Mr.Canada]

Yup. The other question I have is, shouldn't the short form in their mind be just as bad as the long form? The notion of invasion of privacy for the long form are so ridiculous that those same concerns could easily apply to the short form. Hypocritical in my opinion.

I'm starting to doubt that you've ever even filled out a census form at all. Short or long.

[Keepitsimple]

The CBC continues to say there is outrage over the Conservatives' "scrapping of the manadatory longform census". I mean honestly - with a statement like that, wouldn't you think that they were completely doing away with the long form? That's what many Candians think. Why wouldn't the issue be framed by the CBC as "changing the mandatory long form census from mandatory to voluntary". I know - it's a rhetorical question.....but most media are spouting the same nonsense.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Keepitsimple