Comments on: Census change is about smaller government

By: Stephen Taylor

Stephen Taylor — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:15:10 +0000

No, that wasn't me. But that's a good point.

By: pete e

pete e — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:03:53 +0000

Stephen, wasn't it you who said, “Don't talk strategy. Talk policy. DO strategy.”

By: Aeron

Aeron — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:32:41 +0000

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?

By: Crommunist

Crommunist — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:27:51 +0000

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).

By: Crommunist

Crommunist — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:27:51 +0000

By: cheeba 1

cheeba 1 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:02:42 +0000

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

By: Morangie

Morangie — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:52:49 +0000

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.

By: LNicholson25

LNicholson25 — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:27:04 +0000

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.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:25:13 +0000

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?

By: Beauger

Beauger — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:37:27 +0000

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.