Census change is about smaller government
I received a call today from a reporter around noon about what he conceded was “the story that just won’t go away”. He was, of course, talking about the census. He wanted to know if I could pass on a few names of possible interviews for right-wingers that support the government’s stand to scrap the long-form census. Of course, there are the folks over at the Western Standard who are taking up their obvious position against the mandatory “burden”, but in broader view, it got me thinking about who opposes the government’s plan and why the story would not just go away.
Every day it seems that there’s a new group of people lining up to bemoan the Industry Minister’s announcement that the census would forego the long-form. Certainly, this illustrates a serious problem that Stephen Harper faces as Prime Minister. Facing an opposition that can’t get its act together is one thing, but a nation where the voices of special interests are louder than ordinary citizens is another.
Indeed in this country, there are two groups of people. In fact, some would call these groups the haves and the have-nots. This is an not inaccurate way of describing it, but those that would might have the two switched. Canadians form two groups: those that receive from the government and those pay to the government. Those who form — or are constituent to — organizations dependent on government policy (and spending) are firmly against the changes to the census. Those on the other side are largely ambivalent because they are the large, unorganized and unsubsidized net taxpaying masses.
The conservative/libertarian Fraser Institute think tank’s motto is “if it matters, measure it”. The untruth of the inverse of this statement is at the centre of why this government should follow through. “If you measure it, it matters” is the motto of those net tax receiving organizations who only matter if they can make their case. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried the ideological argument against these groups for years. But ideology is by its nature debatable; removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to victory.
If Stephen Harper succeeds in moving in this direction, he will be in the initial stages of dealing a huge blow to the welfare state. If one day we have no idea how many divorced Hindu public transit users there are in East Vancouver, government policy will not be concocted to address them specifically. Indeed if this group were organized (the DHPTUEV?) and looking for government intervention, they’d be against the census change. The trouble is that in Canada, the non-affiliated taxpayers not looking for a handout have not organized. Indeed, the only dog they have in this fight is the amount of tax they pay (aka “transfers”) to sustain the interests of others.
QMI’s David Akin exclaimed surprise that from his cell within the beehive of special interests that is Ottawa, he was shocked to find that a full half — that other half — of Canadians aren’t upset about the changes to the census when it seems that’s the only thing the other bees seem to be buzzing about. The story that “just won’t go away” is a flurry of activity “inside the beehive”, because until you go outside, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
The other recent Lockheed Martin-related news story of the past couple of weeks was the Conservative government’s huge sole-sourced $16 Billion contract with Lockheed Martin to buy F-35 fighter jets. Perhaps I was a bit naive to think that every part of that sentence should be offensive to the Ottawa media… sole-sourced… American arms dealer… flying war machines… Conservative government. No, this largest military purchase in Canadian history didn’t even make a significant blip on the Ottawa establishment radar, simply because it didn’t challenge the position of any special interest groups. There’s no bevy of community/cultural/government organizations ready to line up to criticize/laud such a move. If the government had taken $16 Billion out of HRSDC’s $80+ Billion annual budget to pay for it, however, there’d be a swarm.
I believe that this Prime Minister has a few objectives in mind as he integrates seemingly transactional initiatives into something transformative. First, he merged the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance to challenge what seemed to be entrenched Liberal electoral domination. Through initiatives such as financial starvation via election finance reform and ideological force-feeding on the policy front, Stephen Harper seeks to diminish or destroy the Liberal Party to replace them with the Conservatives as Canada’s default choice for government. His greatest challenge is to dismantle the modern welfare state. If it can’t be measured, future governments can’t pander. I imagine that Stephen Harper’s view, Canada should be a country of individual initiative, not one of collective dependence “justified” through the collection of data.
Stephen Taylor is a scientist, political analyst and a blogger. Taylor writes here regularly and is the founder of bloggingtories.ca. Taylor has contributed to Macleans, CTV, talk radio and has been a featured speaker on new media at numerous events including the Western Standard Cruise and the Forum for Public Policy. In December 2008, Taylor organized Rally for Canada, a series of rallies held coast-to-coast to protest the proposed coalition government.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I think the only thing being eliminated is the mandatory part of filling out the census and no longer being threatened with jail or fines. Regardless of how much the media and the goodales whine, that is the only thing changing. Can't wait for a campaign on the idea yes, if you don't fill it out you should go to jail. or be fined.
If one googles Privacy Commissioner and Stats Canada you will find the 1975 report where there were numerous complaints made and Stats Canada had to promise to quit asking some questions. But, they haven't done it in all these years as religion is still on the form.
The problem is trying to get an ordinary Canadian to be interviewed as we have no paper trail of the threats we got.
I would suggest Dave Rutherford, as he was also threatened with jail or a fine for not complying with all the questions.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 pm
When the United Church speaks to THEIR NEED for a mandatory (jail/fine) census,
you know it's gone too far.
A church against voluntary questionairs….
Get rid of the long form census entirely.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I agree it's about smaller Government – this explains the over the top reaction from the lefty-loons. I often troll the CBC comments to find the choice biased left perspective on these topics that only the CBC can attract. They are going crazy over this – way more than any real issue that affects the average Canadian.
Also did you know that StatsCan has it's own $500,000,000 anual budget (that's right $500 million!). I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw that.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Are we so much conservatives on this issue or perhaps the better description is libertarian. I had to fill out one of those long forms the last time and really was annoyed with the part regard ethnicity. I am a Canadian, my children are Canadian and the cultural homeland is none of your business. Cheers.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Was Canadian even an option?
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Hey Stephen
We at the National Citizens Coalition support this move- the faux histeria around this is quite something to watch. We would hope if they scrap the mandatory census they can get rid of the civil servants that monitor this as well. It truly is amazing to watch all these special interest groups crying the sky is falling. The census is such an accurate and critical piece for all of these parties to plan- so critical that they still think that way when 21,000 people in the 2001 census put “Jedi” down as their religion.
The thought that people in a developed country could go to jail for not filling out the mandatory census is not becoming a country like ours. If you want this info on the surveys- go ahead and pay for it yourself.
Peter Coleman
President and CEO
National Citizens Coalition
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 pm
From the 1975 privacy commissioners report.
Among the report's highlights is resolution of the Office's longest and most complex investigation; 27 outstanding complaints against Statistics Canada's Census. To resolve the complaints, Statistics Canada has agreed to a number of important changes, including dropping from the short form (sent to four of five households) questions about “persons living elsewhere who stayed overnight” and about the residence. It will also eliminate questions about fertility and religion from the long form.
Statistics Canada also agreed to improve its explanations of why particular information is needed and how it will be used; beef up its privacy training of census staff; offer a mail return option to avoid local enumerators seeing answers, and testing a centralized edit process which could eventually eliminate the need for enumerators.
One issue remains to be resolved between Statistics Canada and the National Archivist; keeping personal returns in perpetuity. Destruction of personalized census data is the ultimate solution to Canadians' recurring privacy worries about the Census, particularly about the highly-detailed long form.
Commissioner and staff received 1783 new complaints, handled more than 9,000 inquiries, completed 1307 investigations, 13 compliance audits and follow-ups and delivered 43 speeches during the year.
So, this proves that census takers did open forms. And if so many people said Jedi to religion, it appears that stats canada has not removed the question.
July 22, 2010
No canadian was not an option on previous years census but we always said Canadian, and when questioned hubby got a little more specific, Canadian you a@@holes.
Next time if they question race I will answer 100 yard dash.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Talk about an incremental change by Clement. And yet look at the massive pushback from the usual suspects ! Hopefully those within our Party who want PMSH to move faster and further in other areas, will remember this ridiculous kerfuffle, and cut him some slack.
Further to the effect that the change in financing rules has had … is that PMSH is not dependent on any of these special interest groups for donations. Thus he is not much compromised in his policy decisions. These groups have no financial leverage over him. Thank you Mr. Chretien, for helping PMSH in the dismantling of, not just the LPC, but the organizations that supported it. “Dumber than a bag of hammers” indeed.
July 22nd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
OT, but what caused this.
Update: Greg Weston's Sun column is dead and he and the chain have parted company
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
It's a monopoly on information, using personal intellectual property forcefully extracted from citizens. The least they can do is make it voluntary, and obtain consent for it's use. It is amazing how many groups feel threatened by this, and see the underlying message on the wall.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Maybe, like StatsCan employee, he quit because he was not in agreement with the objectives of the employer!
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Did the reporter really concede that this is “story that just won’t go away” or was it simply a description? More to the point, why not name the reporter? Did he ask that you not reveal his identity?
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 pm
And here we go,
now all the yahoos who 'attacked the change' in the census,
are worried that the 'attacks on the change' in the census will hurt the census.
Are yah following that!
there's more
Ivan Fellegi, the man who insisted the sky was falling and he too would resign in the situation.
now says
“It's very important that this not go on in an increasingly hostile and partisan manner. That would really damage the agency forever,” he said in an interview.
LOL, then maybe yah shud of thought before you attacked, eh
But he still thinks he is in control, and wants to call the shots now….huh,
Prime Minister Harper makes appointments, not an ex-civil servant
Just get rid of it.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakin...
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Good article. I especially appreciate the comment about “a nation where the voices of special interests are louder than ordinary citizens”. As an aside, Stats Can already collects information in a biased way, refusing to collate info on things like numbers and types of abortion – info not helpful to the loud voices that drown out the taxpayer.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
No, but I like them to call back!
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
CJC and the evangelical fellowship are against the changes too.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
That seems small when compared to other government largess.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Hey Peter. I know the NCC is fighting the good fight on this one.
I'm waiting for the Jedis to stage a storming of Parliament on this one.
Maybe the Toronto Star would headline it:
Census Wars: Return your form, Jedi
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:39 pm
This Fellegi dude should have stuck to calculating standard deviations.
Did he check with Goodale before going off-script ?
Anyway, he is now a welcome loose cannon onboard the coalition ship.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:46 am
Have no one in the media or lib/ndp paid any attention to what Tony Clement suggested re the long mandatory form. It was to get rid of the threat of jail and fines, and today it has finally sort of got thru some very thick heads. Rose Barton on P&P suggesting that the threats of jail/fines be dropped. And now this
Compromise calls for dropping jail time to allow mandatory census to go ahead .
Gee what a great idea, but still keep it mandatory- Wonder if the talking heads are aware of how they have been snookered by the liberals. Looks good on them.
Also a question re Will Tom Clark return to his show after his holiday.
July 23rd, 2010 at 12:46 am
Well said. As a Jedi Knight I will be ensuring our culture is fully protected against the empire. The debate on no changes in the Census, requiring coercion to maintain it's validity is an interesting point from the stakeholders.
I am curious with the databases from various government agencies already in existence if the Census could be conducted online.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 am
I want to know if these church groups and others , use the census information to canvas rich neighborhoods for donations.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:47 am
Oh looky here,
3 weeks ago Sheikh was gung ho,
but his huge oversized civil servant ego felt insulted when Tony said StatsCan was a-ok with the change, which 3 weeks early it appear he was….so he jumped ship, gawd.
Now all the 'most important people on the planet' (in their minds) are scrambling for a compromise.
Stand Firm Mr Clement,
boot the entire census if must be.
''…Sheikh had apparently been willing to implement the government’s decision after it was first announced, telling agency employees in a June 28 email that the changes to the census had been published in the Canada Gazette two days earlier. The email notes the change from a mandatory long-form questionnaire to the voluntary one, and that it will go to more households.
It concludes “I know that I can count on your ongoing support to ensure the success of these two important Statistics Canada priorities.”
But Sheikh went offside with the initiative after Clement began implying that the move to a voluntary survey was done with the backing of the agency itself, a suggestion former employees called “offensive.”…
http://www.thestar.com/article/838880–compromi...
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 am
2011 Census questionnaire
In accordance with the Statistics Act, the questions for both the Census of Population and the Census of Agriculture were prescribed by the Governor in Council through an Order in Council. The Order and the schedule questions were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on June 26, 2010.
The 2011 Census will consist of the same eight questions that appeared on the 2006 Census short-form questionnaire. It will be conducted in May 2011.
The information previously collected by the long-form census questionnaire will be collected as part of the new voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). This questionnaire will cover most of the same topics as the 2006 Census. The NHS questions will be made available by the end of July.
The National Household Survey will be conducted within four weeks of the May 2011 Census and will include approximately 4.5 million households.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:08 am
Who makes an Order in Council.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 am
Maybe goodale and other should read Canada Gazette more often. Lots of info there re the next census.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:46 am
Re the questions on the census, the same 8 used last time will be on the short form again.
It appears that there was a lot of input by lots of special interest groups, businesses, individuals, and others that were consulted for questions on the long form. No wonder these groups are upset, perhaps their questions didn't make the final cut. Regardless all decions were finalalized a while ago. Pay attention to the dates: From Canada Gazette and Stats Canada.
2011 Census Consultation
Before each census, Statistics Canada embarks on an extensive user consultation and testing program. Data users and interested parties across Canada are asked for their views on the type and extent of information they believe should be available from the census. The goal is to ensure that Statistics Canada takes account of emerging social and economic issues and, where appropriate, uses the census to shed light on them.
Statistics Canada welcomes your comments on any aspect of the census including questionnaire content, products and services, geography or census communications at any time during the census cycle.
The 2011 Census and Geography Dissemination Consultation centred on the dissemination strategy for the upcoming census and was conducted from October 2008 to March 2009.
The 2011 Census Content Consultation focussed on the questionnaire content for the next Census of Population and was held from April to November 2007.
Census discussion forum
The Census discussion forum is now closed. Statistics Canada appreciates the valuable feedback participants provided through this medium.
How do YOU use census data?
The How do YOU use census data? module is now closed. Statistics Canada would like to thank all participants for sharing their diverse uses of census data.
Could the above be what Tony was referring to when he stated that Stats Can was involved in the decision making.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 am
This is a brilliant analysis. It will take years, though, to dismantle the welfare state. Unless we can get past these succession of minority governments, it might not even happen.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:10 am
Has anyone compiled a list of all the StatsCan surveys that are voluntary?
Best I can find is that most of StatsCan data comes from voluntary sources.
Did Fellegi and Sheikh just discredit ALL StatsCan data from voluntary sources?
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:45 am
The GG on advice of the PM, iirc
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 am
“Canadians form two groups: those that receive from the government and those pay to the government.”
Name me one single person who does not receive anything from the government. Do you have health care? Do you have roads to drive on? When someone breaks into your house, do you call the police? Did the Conservative Party of Canada use tax dollars to send out 10 %'ers? Do they keep the subsidy they receive from Elections Canada?
Not to mention the fact there are many of us who both pay to the government and receive from the government. In fact, I would say that would account for the overwhelming majority of us. Some of us even pay more to the government then we receive.
I get that it benefits you conservatives to paint everything as “us v them”, but sometimes, most of the time, it just is not like that.
As for special interest groups, what on earth makes you think YOU are not a member of a special interest group. In fact, I think you even work for one. Certainly Mr. Coleman here does.
But I must credit you for being a conservative who finally openly admits this whole thing has nothing to do with privacy interests but rather Harper's plan to dismantly our social safety network. Why do you think he will not just come out and admit that? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact he knows people are not going to like it?
As for this:
“No, this largest military purchase in Canadian history didn’t even make a significant blip on the Ottawa establishment radar, simply because it didn’t challenge the position of any special interest groups.”
What a crock. See, I always thought it was you conservative types who did not like our tax dollars wasted. If a liberal government had agreed to spend this much money on an untendered contract, do you think conservatives might have been a little upset? I think it is pretty obvious they would. So the question you should be asking is not why aren't “special interest groups” concerned about this. Your question should be why aren't conservative supporters concerned about this. After all, they would be the ones you would expect to make a stink over such a large, and unneccessary, expenditure. But they aren't – because it is not about principles for them at all.
July 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
When I started working at a 'real' job when I was 16, we had to put our nationality and religion on the application form. For nationality, Canadian was not an acceptable option. I used to lie and put down 'English' because in those days, ethnics were usually the last to be hired. I annoyed me that Canadian was not an option because my parents, as well as I, were born here in Canada and had never even come close to visiting our ethnic homeland. My grandparents never even returned for a visit. I am happy that the mandatory part is now optional.
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
This story won't go away because there are no other stories. Does anyone really believe that Conrad Black getting released from jail is as big a story as CBC and CTV have made it out to be. Leading the news for 3.5 days….please come on. THe only reason this story wont go away is because they have nothing else to talk about on their pathetic little 24 hr news stations. This isn't the united states, were just not that interesting or big enough to even justify one of these stations!
July 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
This sets the tone:
If one day we have no idea how many divorced Hindu public transit users there are in East Vancouver, government policy will not be concocted to address them specifically. Indeed if this group were organized (the DHPTUEV?) and looking for government intervention, they’d be against the census change.
A new low, Stephen. This nonsensical example demeans the very real value StatsCan provides to government, and also belittles anyone who has ever organised around a social need. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Those silly women – why would they want to vote, anyway?
The move to scrap the mandatory long-form census is a self-serving, ideological pander to the right, and a deliberate attempt to dismantle the necessary mechanics of good government, regardless of your feelings about government size. This doesn't necessarily make government smaller; it sure makes it stupider. (btw it's another move copied from the CPC's Republican idols to the south of us)
There's nothing positive about the move. Anyone with a smattering of statistical analysis knows that making the long form voluntary will seriously reduce the statistical accuracy of the data. It could actually cost more to obtain statistically relevant data when it is needed.
By deliberately blinding us with unreliable data, the CPC hopes to hide the extent and successes of our multicultural, multi-religious makeup, and to bury the facts that disclose the real size and makeup of our social problems.
The privacy issue is pure hogwash. StatsCan is world-class in its care with the data, and insiders have reported on the elaborate precautions by which statistical data is kept separate from identification data. Where's the list of privacy complaints? Have any of the very few complaints ever been upheld?
The noise re possible jail-time is also a red herring. No one has ever spent one minute in jail for failing to complete the census form, and just about everyone has agreed that the jail-time clause can be dropped anyway.
This is about willful ignorance. This is about hiding facts to create more nice dark, damp pockets of uncertainty, where prejudices and fears are free to multiply, and pundits are free to argue that black is white, without fear of contradiction.
This is about divide and conquer. As Stephen says:
Stephen and his masters WANT you to think that this issue has neatly divided along the have/have-not lines. The truth is of course different. Look at some groups opposed to this move:
Canadian Association for Business Economics
Canadian Nurses Association
Caledon Institute of Social Policy
Canadian Institute of Planners
Institute for Research on Public Policy
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants
Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada
Canadian Labour Congress
Canada West Foundation
United Way of Canada
Glendon School of Public and International Affairs
National Specialty Society for Community Medicine
Environics Analytics
United Way Toronto
University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management
Nanos Research
Canadian Public Health Association
University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance
Canadian Association of University Teachers
Canadian Council on Social Development
Canadian Economic Association
Toronto Board of Trade
Heh. University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. Bleeding heart scum, eh? Always with their hand out…
Both Stephens (and a Tony) want to pump new life into the common misconception that “Canadians form two groups: those that receive from the government and those pay to the government.” To believe this, you have to ignore the fact that the “payers” are also receivers – they use roads and healthcare, are protected by the same police and fire depts, play in the same parks, draw the same CPP, are served by the same army, take the same transit. You also have to ignore that all “payers” weren't always payers; they get laid off and need EI, and have crises and go off the rails and need welfare, have kids that fell in with drugs, and have old or sick relatives that needed home-care. And so on.
The CPC likes it when you hold the illusion of a neat have/have-not divide; they stand to benefit from your ignorance.
I imagine that Stephen Harper’s view, Canada should be a country of individual initiative, not one of collective dependence “justified” through the collection of data.
BS. Harper has a liking for ideological purity, but his main goal is power. If he thought that making everyone fill out the full census on pain of death would gain the CPC votes or damage the Liberals, he'd do it.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Riight. Cos so many people have been jailed for this.
If that was really the reason, then yeah let's just drop the “jail” part. We don't have to throw out the statistical baby with the bathwater.
Jeffrey Simpson has Harper's number on this census move.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:15 pm
That's not a very useful comment.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:16 pm
So you're suggesting that we make the census long-form “voluntary”?
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm
No, just drop the jail part. Long-form should remain mandatory, with fines for non-compliance.
(has anyone ever actually been fined?)
Sorry if that was unclear.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:22 pm
You said:
“As for special interest groups, what on earth makes you think YOU are not a member of a special interest group. In fact, I think you even work for one. Certainly Mr. Coleman here does.”
I don't think that the NCC is asking for handouts from the government. If groups like his and mine are to be counted it is not so that we can justify an influx of cash from the state.
You said:
“But I must credit you for being a conservative who finally openly admits this whole thing has nothing to do with privacy interests but rather Harper's plan to dismantly our social safety network.”
I have said no such thing. There are privacy interests at stake here, I chose to focus on another facet of this discussion.
You said:
“What a crock. See, I always thought it was you conservative types who did not like our tax dollars wasted. If a liberal government had agreed to spend this much money on an untendered contract, do you think conservatives might have been a little upset?”
I am miffed about this being sole-sourced.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I think we all agree that no one has been jailed or even fined for not completing the long form census. However, I understand those that do not fill in the form have government “visitors” reminding them that the form is mandatory. Beside that then the census is already voluntary. Barton on P&P told Clement to just drop the jail and fine portion. Clement astutely said to her then that is the government's position today. No fine, no jail time. That in essence makes it voluntary.
However, if Canadians are watching and listening they can see how there lives are controlled by the special interest groups and all of those that use the government data to extract money from the government or to further their ideological interests.
There is nothing that says the government, once they try the voluntary approach, cannot change their position if the results etc are not as desired. There is nothing that is irreversible in this world.
In the meantime all the special interest groups will have to find other ways to extract funding from the taxpayers of Canada.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
“This nonsensical example demeans the very real value StatsCan provides to government, and also belittles anyone who has ever organised around a social need. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Those silly women – why would they want to vote, anyway?”
When groups organize for social change, more power to them. When governments count people in order to pander to pander to them more effectively I worry about true intentions and good public policy.
“There's nothing positive about the move. Anyone with a smattering of statistical analysis knows that making the long form voluntary will seriously reduce the statistical accuracy of the data.”
Making it voluntary removes the coercive element from collecting data. This is positive. We could have realllllly accurate data if the state moved in with every citizen. Where do you draw the line?
“By deliberately blinding us with unreliable data, the CPC hopes to hide the extent and successes of our multicultural, multi-religious makeup, and to bury the facts that disclose the real size and makeup of our social problems.”
I won't link to them but do google the BNP's position on the British census. They are against the scrapping the census because they want the government to keep counting the non-white population so that they can “justify” their own special interest of ensuring that Britain remains white. Creepy motive eh?
As for the CPC position, the party is winning over multi-cultural communities not via identity politics but by appealing to their common values. You know, by what they think (ideas) not by who they are (their ethnicity).
As for your list, people who use government-subsidized data are going to be against the move. Let businesses pay market rate for data.
July 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
So you're saying that the census should have a built-in selection bias for people who can afford to pay the census fine/tax.
It's like rich people that park wherever they want!
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
When groups organize for social change, more power to them. When governments count people in order to pander to them more effectively I worry about true intentions and good public policy.
You prefer ignorance, just in case you smell a pander?
Making it voluntary removes the coercive element from collecting data. This is positive. We could have realllllly accurate data if the state moved in with every citizen. Where do you draw the line?
Making the long form voluntary skews the data, much more than this perceived coercion you're trying to amp up. Do you not recognize ANY responsibility on the part of a citizen? Most people who complete the long form do so not out of fear of prosecution, but out of a sense of duty, grumbles aside.
Of course pretending that the long form is onerous and that we HAVE to force people to do it helps the CPC create the impression that it is some sort of pointless actuvity forced on us by Big Government. So more people will grumble or joke the census, or boycott it. Win-win for the CPC, eh?
I won't link to them but do google the BNP's position on the British census. They are against the scrapping the census because they want the government to keep counting the non-white population so that they can “justify” their own special interest of ensuring that Britain remains white. Creepy motive eh?
You know who else used data? That's right, Hitler. Same argument, equally pointless. Data is (are) data.
As for your list, people who use government-subsidized data are going to be against the move. Let businesses pay market rate for data.
Ah, the Tower of Babel approach. Businesses and groups can buy whatever statistic they want, whenever they want. OK if you own a survey company or run a “think” tank, I guess.
There's a saying in the internet grassroots – information wants to be free. In other words, any time you put a restriction on the amount, validity or dissemination of information, you choke growth. The internet owes its growth and utility because of the very few limitations on the format and usage. In a democratic country, an arms-length government supported statistics bureau is going to provide the best, most complete source of unbiased population data. Why would you throw that away?
(It's because the CPC doesn't like what it's telling them, isn't it?)
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Just had a peruse of the list of organizations who want the census unchanged. Can't see too many natural Conservative voters in that crowd. Are the members of these groups all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view? Will they all vote for the Coalition? You should hope so – the census will be changed, and when the Liberals/NDP/BLOC take over the government they can vote it back in – should only take a couple decades. Cheers.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“'If you measure it, it matters' is the motto of those net tax receiving organizations who only matter if they can make their case. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried the ideological argument against these groups for years. But ideology is by its nature debatable; removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to victory.”
Aren't you basically admitting that Canadians support government action to address social problems, but–because Conservatives can't convince Canadians to oppose such action–Stephen Harper is trying to hobble our ability prove those social problems exist in the first place?
Cause, man, that's pretty F'd up.
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
No, not Canadians… a subset of them.
“Facing an opposition that can’t get its act together is one thing, but a nation where the voices of special interests are louder than ordinary citizens is another.”
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Oh no, I hit “like” instead of “reply”!
Anyway, since when is “asking for handouts from the government” the definition of a special interest group? That's just silly.
Even if you accept your ludicrous premise that's government funding is somehow a “handout” (which is just silly), the definition of a “special interest” group is that they support a particular private interest rather than a more general political interest.
I understand that American conservatives have tried to redefine this term to make it synonymous with advocacy or pressure groups, but they are totally distinct concepts.
(I would, however, agree that the NCC and the Manning Centre are general poltiical/advocacy/pressure groups, not special interest groups–though, they may well be funded by special interest group, I don't know.)
July 23rd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Applying your logic:
Business Economists are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Nurses are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Planners are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Agencies Serving Immigrants are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Those supporting Co-operative Housing are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Union members are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Members of Canada West Foundation are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
United Way of Canada are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Glendon School of Public and International Affairs is full of mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Community Medicine proponents are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management is full of mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Nanos, Ekos, Environics Research are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
University Teachers are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
Toronto Board of Trade are all mindless voters (led by the nose types) who don't have individual points of view
… and so on.
Glad we cleared that up.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Oh dear, spirited defense of the A listers. So vote the Conservatives out – simple but elegant solution to the new census format. Cheers.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:36 pm
This is of course the fallacy of the “average”. Nobody is average or ordinary. Just about everyone is touched or influenced in some fashion by a special interest – through race, ethnicity, language, disability, poverty.
Special interest groups are made up of ordinary people sharing a common need. They're not freaks.
This have/have-not dichotomy is a fiction that the right-wing uses to block anything that smacks of social progressiveness.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:43 pm
To that I say that social progress is not parallel with government intervention.
But I guess that's what doesn't make me a “Progressive”.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Organizations don't vote,
Canadian citizens do.
168,000 Canadians refused to fill in the 2006 long for census.
21,000 Canadian citizens joined in protest in 2006, religion: jedi Knights
Now that the sleeping giant, the previously 'silenced' majority has been allowed a voice,
we shall see…
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:19 pm
As I wrote in reply to another comment, I find your definition of “special interests” laughable. As kenn alludes to–while using different nomenclature–what you're describing are not “special interest groups”, but rather just people–citizens, communities–with common goals and priorities. These are just people engaged in our political debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_G...
The idea that most people are part of the “net taxpaying masses” and paying for “handouts” to others is totally unfounded. All Canadians benefit from government spending and the great majority pay below the mean in taxes thanks to the progressive income tax. Certainly the 62% of Canadians who voted against Harper don't seem to think they're paying for some massive handouts to mythical “others”.
But all that not withstanding, the fact remains: you're admitting that it is not politically viable to convince Canadians (i.e. the voters who decide elections) to oppose government action aimed at solving social problems, so Stephen Harper is cutting off the means by which his opponents can prove these problems exist to begin with.
It would be one thing if you were arguing that these groups have some kind of special powers–like well-connected insiders with behind the scenes influence or monied interests that can affect election results in ways that have nothing to do with the substance of their issues. But your very argument implicitly admits this is not the case. As you wrote, Harper is cutting off the information these groups need to make their case which–ipso facto–means that these groups are succeeding by… making their case. If these groups–and the government action for which they advocate–didn't succeed through public support then cutting off their data–”removing the framework of debate”–would be irrelevant.
The funny thing is that you and I very much agree on about the fundamental corruption of the status quo. I too believe that our system of governance can and is being manipulated to produce policies that run counter to the best interests of the vast majority of Canadians, but–you see–I do believe it's “well-connected insiders” and “monied interests” who are using their personal power, not the political/voting power of those they represent, to manipulate the system.
That's the problem–not people advocating for government action based on facts and data.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
You said:
“you're admitting that it is not politically viable to convince Canadians (i.e. the voters who decide elections) to oppose government action aimed at solving social problems, so Stephen Harper is cutting off the means by which his opponents can prove these problems exist to begin with.”
Wrong, I'm saying that the voices of special interest groups are louder than those of ordinary citizens and that being bogged down in the news cycle by every group that lines up to take shots skews one's view of what the silent majority cares about. This silent majority (or indeed plurality) decides elections.
July 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Still the “us” vs “them”. As in “They” want entitlements and “We” resent paying for them.
RayK, it's a very useful fiction for conservatives.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
“Progressive” is probably the label I'd most likely accept for my views.
But you don't have to be a progressive to think that Harper shouldn't be trying to change the country's direction by poking its eyes out.
July 24th, 2010 at 1:01 am
Well said Stephen… a fantastic analysis of what this fight is REALLY about… average, taxpaying Canadians, vs. “special interest” and welfare state status-quo
July 24th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Well said Stephen… you've accurately defined what this fight is REALLY about… average, taxpaying Canadians, vs. the status-quo special interest welfare-state
July 24th, 2010 at 1:59 am
And everybody knows just how reliable the religious census is: do we really have that many Druids, Vulcans and Klingons here?
July 24th, 2010 at 2:40 am
Bullshit.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Most people can agree that the “jail” part can safely be scrapped. The battle is with regards to keeping the long-form mandatory, with fines for non-compliance.
Relatively speaking, very, very few people object to the census on principle. Most Canadians accept the census as a reasonable part of their bargain with government. The vast majority complete them and send them in. For the ones who don't, by far the most common reason is that they either forgot or misplaced the form. Way down at the bottom of the list of reasons for non-compliance are the few who object on principle.
Pure libertarianism, like pure socialism, is a polar extreme and doesn't exist successfully in practice. Ours is a free society, so libertarians have the luxury of indulging their fantasies in the security of their own homes, with government-backed mortgages, protected by government funded police fire and EMS.
It's beyond the capability of any private polling firm (or their client's ability to pay) to gather population statistics that approach the depth and completeness of StatsCan data. By removing the mandatory designation, and portraying the long-form census as something odious that people shouldn't be obligated to complete, Harper will seriously damage the integrity and statistical accuracy of the next census results. It's a hell of a price to pay for a fairly small ideological point.
July 24th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Nice to have so much ado about changes to the census. One would think there were hordes who love to bare their souls to a government agency.
It sort of breaks the monotony of a long hot summer while Iffy rides the bus and his handlers continue with his extreme makeover.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Next Tuesday we will all be glued to CPAC to watch the committee go crazy questioning Tony re the census change. Regardless of the outcome, and the recommendations brought back to the HofC in Sept, they can't make me or thousands of others answer every question we don't want to.
And I think the next one will have a lot more weird answers, after all this flack.
And due to the affirmative action crap, I will now look at every announcer, govt employee, guest on any tv political show and ask myself-are you there because of qualifications or race, gender, minority group. And, what qualified person of any race did you climb over to get there. Bet I am not the only one who will question that.
Re the census thing, do they realize that 2 yrs before a census is due, all organizations, special interest groups and individuals can submit proposals for questions, and in 2008 all decisions re the next one were made. And do they know that in 1975 it was recommended that questions re religion be abolished, and agreed to by Stats Can. But the head honcho at the time did not do it.
Funny what you can find in Canada Gazette re the census and Stats Can and the annual report.
So, when the guy that quit says he was not consulted, he could be telling the truth as all decisions were made before his appointment. He was supposed to implement said changes but didn't.
July 24th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Mary, I have already noticed the changing complexion on all fronts and also wonder if they got there on a broad spectrum of qualifications or because of their minority status. I'm sure those who are considered in minority due to race or ethnicity would prefer not to be given preferential treatment because of it. It's simply bad policy for all concerned.
Who will we see on that committee, some of the usuals like Wailing Jennings, Ralph Goodale, Mark Holland and chaired by Szabo?
I'd also like to know who gets access to our souls as private citizens from government information, and how much of that information leads to filling our mail boxes with junk mail and nuisance phone calls? Will there be any such thing as a “private” citizen left?
July 24th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
“I don't think that the NCC is asking for handouts from the government. If groups like his and mine are to be counted it is not so that we can justify an influx of cash from the state.”
Government funding has nothing to do with being a special interest group. A SIG is a group of individuals or organizations with interest in a shared area.
“There are privacy interests at stake here, I chose to focus on another facet of this discussion.'
But this other facet is one that the government does not want exposed. If so many people would support THAT facet they would be shouting it from the rooftops, wouldn't they? Besides, why did this suddenly become the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER. There is no evidence of a backlash against the long form prior to this announcement. You know perfectly well the conservatives are claiming it is about privacy because they are trying to hide their true motives.
“I am miffed about this being sole-sourced.”
Your point was that the media was ignoring it in favour of the census debate, and my point was the reason for that is because the people who would usually make a big stink out of it are silent. Silent because it is bad when liberals spend like that, but really really ok when conservatives do it. If conservatives were complaining, the media would cover it more than they have.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
The mindless voters are the ones who, just a couple weeks ago, did not think twice about the long form census, but now think it is the worst invasion of privacy in the world, just because Harper tells them so.
Stephen pointed out how no one seems at all concerned about the sole sourced contract for the fighter jets. Where are all you fiscal conservatives hiding out?
The answer is obvious – you are all screaming about privacy rights instead of big spending decisions by your conservative government.
You people are so easy for Harper to control.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
“When governments count people in order to pander to pander to them more effectively I worry about true intentions and good public policy.”
Only a conservative would think that the government meeting the needs of the people who elect them, and give them their taxes, is pandering.
That is just sad.
As for paying the market rate for data? I am pretty sure they already do – to Statitistics Canada.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Sigh…
Special interest groups ARE ordinary citizens.
You know, when you have to lie to prove your point, it generally means you do not have one.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Gayle – I wish Iwas on speaking terms with the PM and members of his government. I am happy to report that my marching orders are transmitted via an implant in the back of my head. Its an XFiles thing for people who have legitimate privacy concerns. I don't even ask my grown children these questions – none of my business and most certainly not yours. Cheers.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Your marching orders are transmitted every time Harper or one of his caucus gets up and says “ordinary Canadians want/don't want…”
That is when you conservatives say “oh yeah, I do want/don't want…” and you go on every blog and write letters to every newspaper to say so.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
And, of course, I will never ever ever know what you answer in the census, since the information is collated and individuals' information is KEPT PRIVATE. But you knew that I am sure. It is just that the facts make it harder for you to support your position, so you make something else up instead.
July 24th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Someone should tell Gayle that the jet contract has been studied, restudied and restudied. I don't see all the other nations that are buying this jet having fits like liberals are. Does she know that it was her love of her life, JC and liberals that signed the original contract to get this going. Other plane manufacturers submitted prototypes etc and the final choice was the one purchased. She seems to think that the DND woke up one morning and said, hey lets buy this one. Guess she wants Canada to be odd man out with the world.
One training program for all the countries, but Canada should have its own. Need maintenance anywhere in the world, ok for all countries and pilots except Canadians.
But, some lib honcho got his shorts in a knot (could have been iggy, looking at that photo) and was mad that they didn't make the call, got the lib media all hot and bothered and guess what, another faux scandal ready to roll. Just like the census and affirmative action. Anything to get the tour de farce out of the news, as the wheels are falling off the bus. Call Harper's Diesel, mayby they can put air in the tires.
And why is Justin always in the photos of Iggy, with a big smile on his face. And why is Iggy crying when JC choked him. The look on JCs face says it all-should I finish the job.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“Someone should tell Gayle that the jet contract has been studied, restudied and restudied.”
Actually, you should tell Stephen that. He is the one who said he was miffed over it.
July 24th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
People here bring up “privacy concerns” with nothing but idle speculation to back them. even to suggest that the pearsonal data is provided to telemarketers. Complete bullsh!t.
Fact is, I don't think anyone can point to ONE privacy complaint against StatsCan that has been shown to be valid. StatsCan has a very strong reputation for taking immense pains to ensure that demographic info stays separated from personal ID. VISA and the other card companies have worse track records than StatsCan for leaks of personal info and for lax security. Torn up your charge card yet?
Next Tuesday we will all be glued to CPAC to watch the committee go crazy questioning Tony re the census change. Regardless of the outcome, and the recommendations brought back to the HofC in Sept, they can't make me or thousands of others answer every question we don't want to.
And I think the next one will have a lot more weird answers, after all this flack.Next Tuesday we will all be glued to CPAC to watch the committee go crazy questioning Tony re the census change. Regardless of the outcome, and the recommendations brought back to the HofC in Sept, they can't make me or thousands of others answer every question we don't want to.
And I think the next one will have a lot more weird answers, after all this flack.
Well, no foolin'. By stirring this pot, and by falsely portraying the census as onerous and StatsCan as having privacy issues, of course all the faithful have taken up the cry, and grabbed their pitchforks.
Data Bad! Data BAAAAD!!! What's next – book-burning?
Nice to see the race card finally getting played, too. Bravo.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Nice you are so sure and confident in StatsCan. If information isn't shared of what value is it?
Even though I agree with Mary's comment, please give proper attribution to the quotes you use.
Don't go off the deep end, we're simply having a discussion here, nobody said all data was bad or “BAAAAD”.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
As a Jedi Master
I have been busy explaining to my children how the Liberals abandoned liberty, small accountable government for a nanny state.
The Empire will not have my children to use a storm troopers to push “social justice” to limit our liberty or increase our taxes.
They are critical of all political parties and promises from the snake oil salesmen behind the curtain.
July 24th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was responding to Mary. I will add better attributions in future.
Nice you are so sure and confident in StatsCan. If information isn't shared of what value is it?
1) StatsCan is well-regarded worldwide, I have heard from an insider that they go to huge lengths to keep personal identification info secret and apart from statistical info, and as far as I know they have never leaked personal information or otherwise compromised the privacy of anyone who has submitted data. That's fairly confidence inspiring. If you actually have info to the contrary, please share.
2) Re info sharing -I hope that you can appreciate the difference between statistical and personal info, but at the risk of being condescending, I will give you an example:
PERSONAL INFO: The population of Alpha is 3. Tom made $32 k, Dick made $62k, Harry made $74k
STATISTICAL INFO: The average income of the population of Alpha was $56k.
The statistical info can be shared without revealing the individual incomes. StatsCan is very good at this. I trust them, I don't understand why you wouldn't.
Don't go off the deep end, we're simply having a discussion here, nobody said all data was bad or “BAAAAD”.
I'm sorry, this at the very heart of the matter. Quoting from Stephen's post:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has tried the ideological argument against these groups for years. But ideology is by its nature debatable; removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to victory.
removing the framework of debate – could this be more obvious? Harper is setting about to compromise and reduce the statistical accuracy of StatsCan's information gathering, to limit the ability of what he calls “special interests” to demonstrate the legitimacy and scope of their cause.
When Harper hates the message, he attacks the messenger. That's been his method all along. This time it's not a person, it's an institution. For Harper, ignorance IS bliss.
July 24th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Gayle has made an astounding comment at BCL, this stupidity is what voters will remember on election day. Perhaps those liberals for life will remember, and vote liberal again, but it wont change conservative voters. And those liberal for life voters would never vote anything but liberal, if they still support the party after all the thefts of our money, adscam, choking a man, pepperspraying a crowd, keeping a candidate charged with a crime, keeping another MP in caucus who is facing drunk driving charges.
An supporting a leader that was forced on them by undemocratic actions.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:42 am
“The CPC likes it when you hold the illusion of a neat have/have not divide, they stand to benifit from your ignorance…”
Oh boy, is that ever rich. Like you, I stand against Harper, but I do not oppose him for the sake of opposing him. The sad state of our political culture has ALL main-line parties utilize fear and invoke divisions among Canadians for their own benifit, the Liberals included (and especially).
Harper's political opportunism and his sacrificing his principles the moment they threaten to damage him is well known, but would Ignattief or Layton be any different? The NDP is essentially a cult of personality around Jack, and the highly-disciplined Politiburo that is the Liberal Party always parrot the convictions of its current fearless leader. Every party in Canada is built on a lust for power where principles are secondary.
We need some better parties, or else it'll always be different pigs, same trough.
July 26th, 2010 at 3:08 am
This is a fascinating analysis. I was wondering why all the usual extreme leftists in the media were so up in arms against this.
The amazing thing is how Canadians let this go on so long given that there is no value to the census to everyday, taxpaying Canadians not affiliated with a special interest groups, except if you count having to shell out more taxes.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I think you're wrong.
The people do not bargain with the government. The government sits at the will of the people.
July 26th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Where is the public groundswell of people against the census, that the government is reacting to? Point to one violation of someone's privacy by StatsCan.
You can't convince me that the will of the people is for the government to be less informed, and to leave statistics gathering to private firms.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I think you're being disingenuous in your comments. There is no groundswell of suburban voters, because they don't care that much, this is just a minor intrusion into their lives, but it is a symbolic victory for anyone who is sick of the idea of a government willing to take from you, if you don't give.
Why does the United Church of Canada deserve data collected at the expense of the taxpayer? Why does Greenpeace? The Knight Templar? or any other 'social' organization….
I think if I'm also disingenuous we can find a reasonable compromise. I think we should allow get private firms to do the census (my side), but we could allow them to enforce it the way the government does (your side).
That way I can hire some Pinkertons to come by your neighbourhood and coerce information about your wealth and spending habits, religion or schools your children attend… otherwise I'll take your money or throw you in jail.
What a deal!
July 26th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
it is a symbolic victory for anyone who is sick of the idea of a government willing to take from you, if you don't give
It's a Pyrrhic victory if they end up damaging a well-regarded institution to make a small ideological point. Particularly when there is no demand to do so from the populace.
An arms-length publicly funded statistics organization is going to produce the best most accurate dataset, at the lowest overall cost. No private polling organization is equipped or interested in taking this on, and unless you want the government to pay MORE for data they could collect much cheaper by themselves, they have no client willing to pay for a full-up unbiased census.
Why is the right absolutely silent on the fact that Harper has done less than nothing to improve government transparancy and accountability? No other single action would give you the feedback necessary to ensure the government DOES serve the will of the people. I'd much rather they did that than to set about wrecking stuff.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Took an informal census of 8 adults who were visiting on the weekend – one 70ish, five 30ish, two 50ish. For your information the only one who knew about this “controversy” was moi. When I told them the Liberal/NDP/BLOC were going to hold hearings on this matter and perhaps use this as an excuse to defeat the government – they gave me the universal ” are you crazy” look. Therefore, my research shows that this is a non issue and will not be a winner in the fall election. Everybody was happy to answer the question and no one went to jail. Cheers.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
The bargain is thus: the people pay taxes, the government supplies certain services. The amount of taxes paid and the number (and quality) of services provided certainly varies, but if the people start feeling more screwed over than usual, they install a new government.
That's the way it works, no?
July 26th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
My experience has been the same. Everyone I've talked to about this knew nothing about it until I explained it. I never mentioned the hearings, but I suspect I would've got the same “are you crazy” look that Beauger received.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
What about municipalities that use this information? Are libraries “special interest” groups? As a planner working in local government, I rely on data derived from the census to better plan services, new facilities, upgrades to existing facilities, as well as to demonstrate to “special interest” citizens' groups that the data doesn't fit their anecdotal need for specific services. The information is invaluable for planning purposes, it's the best information we have in making projections to plan for the future and I'm concerned that tinkering with the census without adequate input about the impact on the accuracy of the data will render it less useful or even useless in future.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
while i agree with the reasons you described them doing this for… i cant help but disagree. i also come from a “have” family but that doesnt mean that people dont need help. its great that i have a good life with no debt but the stars have aligned for me and possibly for you… however there are alot of people that dont get dealt that hand… some do it to themselves but others get sucked in by circumstance.
sadly we live in a world that once your booted to the curb it can be extremely hard to pull yourself out without some level of assistance. and if you have no family to turn to what do you do. yes you work hard but sometimes you need a little extra help.
this is were the US got into trouble, instead of nurturing its populace they have let the wealthy get wealthyer and allowed the country to literally rot from within (inner cities).
if you change this social behavour you change what it is to be Canadian. and once those people that we didnt help have nothing left to loose they start breaking into our homes and stealing our cars, robbing us at knife point..
but i suppose its ok that your doing alright…. right….. oh whats that, nice car
July 28th, 2010 at 12:27 am
Nothing like constructing your OWN beehive and letting the buzz drown out any rational criticism. There was so much wrong with this post it's hard to know where to start.
1 – I love the false dichotomy you've constructed between those who pay taxes and those who receive benefits. We all receive benefits from the government. Some more than others, but everyone as a function of being a citizen.
2 – the reason many people are ambivalent is because they don't care, are uninformed, or haven't heard. As someone who pays a metric arseload of income taxes, and who opposes the change, and speaks to a number of others who are in the same boat, your conclusions are as risible as they are false.
3 – as regards special interests being louder than ordinary citizens: it's awfully nice when you can just make stuff up. The fact are that 'ordinary citizens' weren't complaining about this issue to begin with. Do a quick Google search starting in May of 2010 for issues relating to the Canada long-form census. Seems as though 'ordinary citizens' weren't talking about it until the government decided to cancel it.
4 – “removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to victory” – yes, as soon as you remove all of the facts from the table, then you can do whatever you want because you don't have to show what the consequences are. That's like saying we'd put more criminals in jail if we stopped giving people defence lawyers, and defining “criminal” as anyone who gets convicted of a crime.
5 – “I imagine that Stephen Harper’s view, Canada should be a country of individual initiative, not one of collective dependence “justified” through the collection of data.” – you say that as though it's a good thing when decisions get made with no data to support them. But hey, Conservatives aren't a big fan of facts (which, as everyone knows, have a strong liberal bias).
July 28th, 2010 at 12:27 am
Nothing like constructing your OWN beehive and letting the buzz drown out any rational criticism. There was so much wrong with this post it's hard to know where to start.
1 – I love the false dichotomy you've constructed between those who pay taxes and those who receive benefits. We all receive benefits from the government. Some more than others, but everyone as a function of being a citizen.
2 – the reason many people are ambivalent is because they don't care, are uninformed, or haven't heard. As someone who pays a metric arseload of income taxes, and who opposes the change, and speaks to a number of others who are in the same boat, your conclusions are as risible as they are false.
3 – as regards special interests being louder than ordinary citizens: it's awfully nice when you can just make stuff up. The fact are that 'ordinary citizens' weren't complaining about this issue to begin with. Do a quick Google search starting in May of 2010 for issues relating to the Canada long-form census. Seems as though 'ordinary citizens' weren't talking about it until the government decided to cancel it.
4 – “removing the framework of debate is his shortcut to victory” – yes, as soon as you remove all of the facts from the table, then you can do whatever you want because you don't have to show what the consequences are. That's like saying we'd put more criminals in jail if we stopped giving people defence lawyers, and defining “criminal” as anyone who gets convicted of a crime.
5 – “I imagine that Stephen Harper’s view, Canada should be a country of individual initiative, not one of collective dependence “justified” through the collection of data.” – you say that as though it's a good thing when decisions get made with no data to support them. But hey, Conservatives aren't a big fan of facts (which, as everyone knows, have a strong liberal bias).
July 30th, 2010 at 1:32 am
I find it hilarious that Stephen is saying the PM who has grown government at the fastest rate since Trudeau is going to end the frakking welfare state because he made the census long form voluntary. Stephen, do you really believe your own BS?
July 31st, 2010 at 4:03 am
Stephen, wasn't it you who said, “Don't talk strategy. Talk policy. DO strategy.”
July 31st, 2010 at 2:15 pm
No, that wasn't me. But that's a good point.