This is sickening

[cybercoma]

If this is the start of an actual trend (we'll see), then I like it.

We get it that you don't like the Conservatives Esq, but there are many of us who do. I'm very impressed with what Harper has been able to get done in the last five years in a minority setting with a united left-wing opposition. In my book, he's the best PM we've had in the last 40 years.

He has been very effective from a minority position, but the long-form census issue is unforgivable, imo. And I used to support them.

[Saipan]

He has been very effective from a minority position, but the long-form census issue is unforgivable, imo. And I used to support them.

Why is that?

WHO needs to know all the details but peddlers?

Census is counting population, not information what I have in basement.

[William Ashley]

If this is the start of an actual trend (we'll see), then I like it.

We get it that you don't like the Conservatives Esq, but there are many of us who do. I'm very impressed with what Harper has been able to get done in the last five years in a minority setting with a united left-wing opposition. In my book, he's the best PM we've had in the last 40 years.

Ok now go into that mind and share what he has done to make the country better?

[Keepitsimple]

He has been very effective from a minority position, but the long-form census issue is unforgivable, imo. And I used to support them.

I think we need to keep an open mind on the census - as the new StatsCan Chief says:

When it comes to the 2011 census, however, Mr. Smith said he is sure about one thing: there’s no justification for critics to say that moving to a voluntary long-form survey will wreck the quality of the data.

“I’m asking Canadians to suspend judgment because there’s no scientific basis for saying this is going to be fundamentally flawed.”

Mr. Smith is adamant, however, that critics cannot know for sure that the results from the optional long form, even for smaller sub-groups of the population, will be inferior to what was collected via the mandatory approach in 2006.

“There is no scientific reason why you would say before it even starts, before I see results, that there’s going to necessarily be a significant problem with the count of Inuit or Métis or immigrants beyond the levels we’ve seen in the 2006 census.”

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chief-statistician-asked-to-rethink-census-for-2016/article1904832/

[GostHacked]

Well, EXCUSE ME!!!!! Beer reduced my IQ, thank you. Not the government.

Who regulates the beer? Right, the government.

[cybercoma]

Why is that?

WHO needs to know all the details but peddlers?

Census is counting population, not information what I have in basement.

The information is crucial for policy decisions and the research done by social scientists. Without a mandatory form, voluntary respondents introduce bias into the data. The most marginalized are the least likely to fill out the voluntary forms (ie: immigrants, the poor, the elderly, etc.), so the data gathered becomes completely unreliable for policy decisions. It's fine to say you don't want to spend on particular programs or they're unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer, but without the appropriate data we're just making guesses or worse, turning a blind eye to problems. This is going to have disastrous consequences for social welfare in Canada and that's why I find it completely unforgivable.

[Mr.Canada]

This is truely disgusting polling.

It's sickening that we have a democratically elected PM?

It's sickening that not everyone has the same mindset as you do?

So I guess polls are only good when they lean your way right Esq?

Here's a tip as I'm sure you weren't born pre 1980 and have limited exposure to the real world. Don't put too much weight in the polls. Look what happened in the Toronto mayoral race(lol)...The polls claimed that it was very close when in fact Mayor Ford crushed Smitherman by 30%.

Also learn to spell, it's embarrassing.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

I think we need to keep an open mind on the census

He's completely wrong. There is a level of bias that is introduced with voluntary respondents that is not there with random samples. This is basic stuff. And I hardly find it surprising that he's saying this considering he was handed his job by the government that dropped the mandatory form. Hopefully he will have the integrity to stand up and say there are errors when the data starts coming in, if that's the case.

[nicky10013]

If this is the start of an actual trend (we'll see), then I like it.

We get it that you don't like the Conservatives Esq, but there are many of us who do. I'm very impressed with what Harper has been able to get done in the last five years in a minority setting with a united left-wing opposition. In my book, he's the best PM we've had in the last 40 years.

He's done shockingly little even from a minority parliament. What has he really done? He cut the GST to 5% and that's about it. What else has he done that hasn't been forced on him?

[Smallc]

There's far more than that. There's corporate taxes, several free trade agreements, TSFA, DSP, Apologies for the residential school program and the Chinese Head Tax, GIS increase, senior income splitting, extending EI to the self employed, ending two for one credit, universal child care benefit, child tax credit increase...there's much more too.

[William Ashley]

He's done shockingly little even from a minority parliament. What has he really done? He cut the GST to 5% and that's about it. What else has he done that hasn't been forced on him?

Cut the GST while implementing HST that caused prices of food and gas and services to increase.

Meanwhile more taxes are being collected from the people. SO 1, lets divert the tax to a different kind of tax, and people still think taxes have gone down. and 2. lets get more from peoples income taxes while giving that money to corporations. Of course the average Canadian has a hard enough time passing advanced skill testing questions, so they won't have the slightest clue their taxes have actually gone up. While corporations taxes have gone down.

Take into account also the Canadian dollar has gone up in value - yet prices on goods have shot up - yet the only people that benefit from a higher dollar are people with the money - yet the average Canadian is in debt many 10's of thousands of dolllars, increasing their debt even more.

Edited February 14, 2011 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

There's far more than that. There's corporate taxes, several free trade agreements, TSFA, DSP, Apologies for the residential school program and the Chinese Head Tax, GIS increase, senior income splitting, extending EI to the self employed, ending two for one credit, universal child care benefit, child tax credit increase...there's much more too.

Lets address these one at the time - selective credits are a better option than across the board cuts until 1. the deficit is removed, 2 the debt is being paid down otherwise any money you give is amplified by interest on the debt. Also this is causing a lot of takeovers and buy ins that create short term wealth that ends up damaging the economy over the mid term, such as what happened with US Steel.

How are the free trade agreements helping? What is Canada exportinng to Columbia? Does Canada stand to loose money as a result. Let me geuss a few very specific business are more competitive in those markets because other FTA's exist, but I am geussing those markets are miniscule and overall it likely is a trade deficit for canada and lost profits for the government on customs regulation. I could be mistaken proove me wrong here.

funny you mention DSP because the migration is resulting in a data purge from records available.

TSFA doesn't help the average Canadian - because they are in debt regardless. They can save by paying down their debt. So in effect you are saving taxes for the wealthy while reducing tax income for the normal Canadian.

The apologies are actually pretty stupid - although I'm sure they have meaning for the few hundred people still alive that were effected by it. These types of apologies have next to no bearing on the current government or the current people of Canada. While an apology - and completely non representative payments out of court - are problematic. Also things like the head tax are so dated they are a backdrop.. he apologizes for the head tax but not the racism of government, has he apologized to women for not getting the vote, or natives that are still being deprived their lands - or people that are still systematically victimized by the government - where is the g20 apology? Take a look at today and apologize for beating your own people and removing their rights.. that is an apology worth giving. It is something he did, not people that are all dead now. Apologizing to the dead is rather redundant. Paying people who can't get remedy in the courts after 50 to 100 years and no changes to the court system shows his apologies as a little insincere since he still allows the same sorts of deprivations to be perpetuated.

Be it people loosing their land to expropriation of corporate interests, or people having their dignities violated such as with the burka ban. the bottom line here is hollow apologies and ignorance of today doesn't make him a good man. it only contrasts the political nature of his acts and total absence of him actually caring about people.

Senior income splitting- and how was this different than other spouses?

EI for self employed - what is this employ yourself for 6 months then go on break for 6 months? Sounds like parliament.

Ending 2 for 1 credit costs taxpayers. The whole sentencing provision and mandatory minimum sentences is bollocks. A large proportion of people in jail have done non serious offences. - Some are serious criminals but keeping people in jail only makes the problem worse if it ain't about public safety it is where crimnalized culture developes.

What needs to exist is compensation for people kept in jail then not convicted -- that is the real problem. People who are forced into jail and are not guilty. The interferance in sentencing is problematic but to comment on the justice system in its broken state is like commenting on world peace.

Universal Child Care Credit - was this a buyoff? Why not just give it to the poor families and give them more since they are hte ones most effected by child poverty - why give benefits to the wealthy if they already live above the poverty or low income lines? Sounds like free money to me. Free money the government doesn't have. Whynot just reduce personal income taxes so people without kids can get something too?

Small C go on ... list the other things.

The element you are ommiting is that they are paying for this with borrowed money. And that costs more down the road.

Edited February 14, 2011 by William Ashley

[Keepitsimple]

He's completely wrong. There is a level of bias that is introduced with voluntary respondents that is not there with random samples. This is basic stuff. And I hardly find it surprising that he's saying this considering he was handed his job by the government that dropped the mandatory form. Hopefully he will have the integrity to stand up and say there are errors when the data starts coming in, if that's the case.

You have no proof of that - and that's what the Chief Statistician is saying....and it's not "basic stuff". Who would fill out a census more accurately - someone selected randomly who willingly does it - or someone selected randomly who feels that they have to fill it out? I don't know the answer - and neither does anyone else at this point. I suspect there isn't much difference.

[Saipan]

The information is crucial for policy decisions and the research done by social scientists.

Last thing we need is some social engineering. Belongs to the Third Reich or Soviet Union.

[Saipan]

What will hapen if people don't fill it out. Or fill it the same ways as some gun registrations. Maker: Black & Decker, Calibre: 115 Volt, Model: Sears heatgun.....

[cybercoma]

You have no proof of that - and that's what the Chief Statistician is saying....and it's not "basic stuff". Who would fill out a census more accurately - someone selected randomly who willingly does it - or someone selected randomly who feels that they have to fill it out? I don't know the answer - and neither does anyone else at this point. I suspect there isn't much difference.

You're right. Nobody knows. All the researchers that are up in arms about the mandatory forms have no idea what they're talking about. Non-random sampling is probably just as good as random sampling. This Chief Statistician, who was given his job by the government that did away with the long form, is probably right, as opposed to the Chief Statistician that resigned his position over the issue.

[cybercoma]

Last thing we need is some social engineering. Belongs to the Third Reich or Soviet Union.

Every man, woman and child for him/herself. That's the society I want to live in.

[Saipan]

Where's that?