Liberals introduce bill to reinstate mandatory long form census

[Bunk]

I don't think people realize how widely census data collected in the long form is utilized by academic disciplines, local governments, businesses (including my professional practice), etc. The real problem with making a switch now to a voluntary form is that the last 50+ years of census data becomes essentially useless for comparison for data collected henceforth. Want to know how things have evolved in the last 5-10 years? nope, sorry.

There's just no good reason to change something that has been part of the responsibility of Canadian citizenship for so long. What's the up side, you placate a tiny, tiny number of hysteric libertarians? It isn't even a cost-saving measure, their voluntary proposal costs MORE!! Politically, it's just ######ed - it is an astonishing, needless political miscalculation.

If they were going to do anything, simply delete the threat of jail time (which has never actually happened) for not completing the form. done.

[old-fart]

I can see how the information contained therein is useful to various government agencies and private corporations. How many 3 bedroom houses in Calgary vs. Montreal of example, etc. etc.

Having said that, what kind of underwear I wear (or don't), how often I change them, how often I play slap the monkey and my average length of time to uh... completion could also been seen as very useful information to any number of private corporations and/or government agencies. Perhaps the real answer here is to make the long form... the LONG form. Lets ask every conceivable question there is of every single person, that way we'll have all the data, all the time. Wait, that'd take to long. Perhaps installing chips in everyone and cameras in every room of every house would be easier/better.

[starseed]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I can see how the information contained therein is useful to various government agencies and private corporations. How many 3 bedroom houses in Calgary vs. Montreal of example, etc. etc.

Having said that, what kind of underwear I wear (or don't), how often I change them, how often I play slap the monkey and my average length of time to uh... completion could also been seen as very useful information to any number of private corporations and/or government agencies. Perhaps the real answer here is to make the long form... the LONG form. Lets ask every conceivable question there is of every single person, that way we'll have all the data, all the time. Wait, that'd take to long. Perhaps installing chips in everyone and cameras in every room of every house would be easier/better.

It is certainly a slippery slope! One thing leads to another and next thing you know, the government will start cramming your kids into government run facilities in order to control your very way of thinking.

I better see what Glenn Beck has to say about the census.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

If they were going to do anything, simply delete the threat of jail time (which has never actually happened) for not completing the form. done.

The Liberal bill also eliminates the threat of jail time.

[Devils'Advocate]

A-huh. The slipper slope argument. "If we allow gay marriage, it will lead to cats marrying dogs and infant children marrying goats, there will be world wide chaos and then we will all die". Come on. Reasonable people can see that there are shades of grey. Stats has working groups that work with the public to ensure that there is a balance between respondent burden and required data PLUS STC works with the Privacy Commissioner to again assure a balance between required data and the privacy requirements of the public. How many bedrooms you have in your home passes, how often you slap the monkey, well, does not.

Bunk: That is EXACTLY what the Liberal bill says. Remove the archaic unused jail provision, and leave the fine.

Azure: What concrete steps did the Conservatives take to get Canada through the recession?

I think fotze brings up an interesting point and it is WHY this is unsettling to the people in the East. I don't know why you would think the Conservatives would be strict on wanting information and the Liberals not so much. I think most would agree that a primary plank of the Reform party, from which Harper came, was individual freedom. We are each the designer of our own destiny. For example, they were against nationalized daycare, but for daycare credits. Liberals on the other hand have historically been for curbing individual freedoms for the sake of the greater good to society. Some call it the nanny-state, I prefer to put it as Hillary did - it takes a village to raise a child.

The other side to this is that under Chretien and Martin, federal government spending and government decisions were being driven by Statistics Canada data. STC data was being used at the highest levels for justifying almost all major decisions. While in power, they were happy to be known to be making decisions based on the best available data. Unfortunately for them Stats had no data on why it was bad to give money to your friends in Quebec. On the flip side, the Conservatives have not been using our data and often say the exact opposite of what our data says. For example, they want to spend billions on getting tough on crime and Day comes out and says that crime is running rampant and that crime rates are going up across the country. Our data actually shows the exact opposite. The Conservatives are run by their agenda, their politics, their values and beliefs.... it's very much the Colbert "I don't like facts, my gut tells me everything I need to know."

So it's not the long vs short form that is making people question the Conservative government. In general, people don't care. But what people do care about is whether the government of the day is striking the right balance between societal need and our need for personal freedom (and the poll numbers would suggest that most do not feel that the giving of some personal information is a significant infringement given the benefit to the country) and they also care that the government is making decisions for the right reasons (is the government making decisions such as with the new crime bill because the facts back them up, or is it pandering to a base?).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think fotze brings up an interesting point and it is WHY this is unsettling to the people in the East. I don't know why you would think the Conservatives would be strict on wanting information and the Liberals not so much. I think most would agree that a primary plank of the Reform party, from which Harper came, was individual freedom. We are each the designer of our own destiny. For example, they were against nationalized daycare, but for daycare credits. Liberals on the other hand have historically been for curbing individual freedoms for the sake of the greater good to society. Some call it the nanny-state, I prefer to put it as Hillary did - it takes a village to raise a child.

Not exactly. The Liberals are more socialist (no, that's not a dirty word), but they're also more, well, liberal! It's conservatives (small c, but those people are part of the big C Conservative base whether the big C Conservatives like it or not) who want to legislate morality (anti-piracy, anti-gay, anti-marijuana, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion etc.). That's why it's somewhat ironic the party that represents the people who want to tell society what to do also represents those who don't want the government to know what they're doing. Have to wonder if it's not a case as "do as I do, not as I say".

It also works the other way too... the conservatives don't want Canadians watching what they're doing in government. They could have backed of this move much earlier had they been transparent with their intent. Instead they tried to sneak it through when they thought nobody would be paying attention and got busted. They've also muzzled party members, withheld documents from the majority of the legislature and censored some of what they have released to the point that it loses its informative value.

And Devil's Advocate, thanks for your post. Great discussion that somehow helped me articulate what I wanted say.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not exactly. The Liberals are more socialist (no, that's not a dirty word), but they're also more, well, liberal! It's conservatives (small c, but those people are part of the big C Conservative base whether the big C Conservatives like it or not) who want to legislate morality (anti-piracy, anti-gay, anti-marijuana, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion etc.). That's why it's somewhat ironic the party that represents the people who want to tell society what to do also represents those who don't want the government to know what they're doing. Have to wonder if it's not a case as "do as I do, not as I say".

Yeah, I guess that's where my thinking was messed up. The stereotype of the Conservatives is that they want to legislate behaviour, where the Liberals are expected to follow Trudeau's old adage of, "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". So, it seemed strange that the Liberals are in favour of forcing people to tell Stats Can the details of their lives.

I guess it's a case of "do whatever you want in your own bedroom, just let us know how many bedrooms you're doing it in".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Azure: What concrete steps did the Conservatives take to get Canada through the recession?

I said they steered us through the recession and into a pretty optimistic recovery.

Most of the problems during this 'recession' has revolved around the banking sector, and Canada did pretty well because of good regulations being in place. We weren't caught up in any sub-prime mortgage 'scams', or anything like that. Were the Conservatives the reason for that? Certainly not. Paul Martin, and numerous other people who guided Canada prior to the Conservatives taking power were the cause of that regulation.

But the Conservatives have steered us through some tough times, but by staying the course, cutting taxes, and working with the banks to make sure the banking sector doesn't fall apart.

No, its not 'sexy' or anything, but it got the job done. Jobs are up, economy is doing relatively well, deficit is falling, and if the US can get their act together we'll do pretty darn good considering we ran into problems that Canada had no part in causing. This speaks to a long line of financial ministers doing a great job, and the current one is no exception to that.

I have my share of problems with the Conservatives, but until we come out of this recession completely, and start rebounding in a big way, which we will because of energy and our strong aerospace industry, I don't think its wise to start calling elections.

IMO, staying the course is essential right now. Of course, that doesn't mean that the public can't get pissed off with certain things like the non-mandatory census forms. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Harper government turned around and worked with the Liberals to reform the census form a bit(remove jail time), but kept it mandatory. Have governments made mistakes before? Absolutely. Do we have to spend $500 million every single time they do on an election? Well, you and IFF might want that, because you want the Liberals to rule the country, and while the Liberals might be appealing to me too in the future, except for their moron of a leader, I would be cautious to call an election now. Economically what we have is working, and we shouldn't disrupt that because of some petty census issue that can be solved by internal debate in the House of Commons.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by getbak

So, it seemed strange that the Liberals are in favour of forcing people to tell Stats Can the details of their lives.

If you're not subjecting the population to oppresive laws, then their need for privacy is diminished. If nobody cares what you're doing, then you don't need to hide it. The Lockean, liberal ideology says that you are free to do what you want until you start doing so at the expense of others. In that framework, and if you avoid a tyranny of the majority, then privacy serves little purpose.

On another, fairly unrelated point, information is a key requirement for an efficient market, so I support the mandatory census.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by Azure

IMO, staying the course is essential right now. Of course, that doesn't mean that the public can't get pissed off with certain things like the non-mandatory census forms. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Harper government turned around and worked with the Liberals to reform the census form a bit(remove jail time), but kept it mandatory. Have governments made mistakes before? Absolutely. Do we have to spend $500 million every single time they do on an election? Well, you and IFF might want that, because you want the Liberals to rule the country, and while the Liberals might be appealing to me too in the future, except for their moron of a leader, I would be cautious to call an election now. Economically what we have is working, and we shouldn't disrupt that because of some petty census issue that can be solved by internal debate in the House of Commons.

I agree with this 100% There are so many things that the conservatives have done that I disagree with (but also many that I do agree with) that I'd like to vote them out of power. But not right now. Right now the most important thing is to stick with the devil you know, and to pester them on the details of their plan rather than altering the course.

The foundations of our relatively strong economy come from our last 2 notable Liberal Finance Ministers, but that doesn't mean that staying on track is an easy job in this environment. And we seem to be over achieving considering the global economy.

My biggest beef with the Harper government is his unwillingness to let the media do it's job. At a time when the news is becoming increasingly fragmented into different medias (often with built in biases) he has effectively centralized the flow of information from the executive branches of our government. That means that the messages sent to the populous (voters) are 'in line' but it also means that depending on the filter that we read them through our biases are confirmed. I prefer an open debate because sometimes issues boil down to more than 12 second clips and involve actual individual thought.

Well that rant went on longer than I thought. So if this bill goes through will it be a confidence motion? Because I think that the Libs have crafted a pretty good bill that I'd like to see the MPs vote on. We'll at least get to see who tows the party line and who can vote independently. But if it brings another election I have no choice but to send my vote to the Cons. At this point in the economic recovery we are better with the devil that we know.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by simonsays

At this point in the economic recovery we are better with the devil that we know.

The oldest federally registered party in Canada isn't really that mysterious.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by SebC

The oldest federally registered party in Canada isn't really that mysterious.

No but some of the a$$hats that drive them are. Hey I'm pretty ok with what they represent, it's how they represent themselves that has me frustrated.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not exactly. The Liberals are more socialist (no, that's not a dirty word), but they're also more, well, liberal! It's conservatives (small c, but those people are part of the big C Conservative base whether the big C Conservatives like it or not) who want to legislate morality (anti-piracy, anti-gay, anti-marijuana, anti-prostitution, anti-abortion etc.).

I often wonder where the libertarian vote lies in this country. When it comes to issues like the ones you stated, the Conservatives stand for restricting individual freedom. On other cases, such as gun control or environmental regulation, the Liberals stand for restricting individual freedoms for the greater good. Makes it difficult for a true libertarian to make a choice.

Azure: So to get us through the recession, the Conservatives did very little and were lucky because the Liberals put so much regulation on our banking industry. That doesn't bolster my confidence in their abilities.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I often wonder where the libertarian vote lies in this country. When it comes to issues like the ones you stated, the Conservatives stand for restricting individual freedom. On other cases, such as gun control or environmental regulation, the Liberals stand for restricting individual freedoms for the greater good. Makes it difficult for a true libertarian to make a choice.

Libertarians accept restricting individual freedoms to preserve the freedom of others. What they don't accept is restricting individual freedoms because other people might get offended. I'm not sure that "true" libertarianism excludes taxes/subsidies to adjust for economic externalities either (as it would pertain to environment regulation, for example). Gun control serves the libertarian by keeping them safe. Environmental regulation serves the libertarian by keeping their environment clean. Opposing gay marriage only offends the libertarian. I'd have to think they vote Liberal, if only because I consider myself somewhat libertarian and I prefer the Liberals for the reasons laid out above. Social conservatism ruins all conservatism for me.

Another group who don't really have a party representing them are fiscal conservatives. I'd argue that the recently the Liberals have been just as, if not more, fiscally conservative than the Conservatives recently.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

The oldest federally registered party in Canada isn't really that mysterious.

If Paul Martin were PM I would actually seriously consider an election right now. But an issue like the census is small compared to the economy. And we absolutely need to keep doing what we're doing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Azure: So to get us through the recession, the Conservatives did very little and were lucky because the Liberals put so much regulation on our banking industry. That doesn't bolster my confidence in their abilities.

Just admit it. You don't want to say that the Conservatives did a remarkably well job. Even if it meant sticking with status quo.

And status quo doesn't meaning doing nothing. A government doesn't do 'nothing' ever.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Gun control serves the libertarian by keeping them safe.

Well, that is if gun control would work.

If a libertarian believes in individual freedom and responsibility, he'll also believe in the individuals right to protect his home and family.

Gun control doesn't do that. Because no matter HOW controlling your laws are in the restriction of firearms, it is impossible to keep a certain segment of the population(criminals), from having access to a variety of firearms.

Gun control is nothing more than an illusion created by the government that makes certain people think they are safer because the government is regulating 'firearms.'

Gun crime is very much alive, even with our $4 billion dollar gun registry, and restrictions on certain firearms.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

Another group who don't really have a party representing them are fiscal conservatives. I'd argue that the recently the Liberals have been just as, if not more, fiscally conservative than the Conservatives recently.

I would say that from 1990 to whenever Paul Martin quit being involved with the Liberal Party they were indeed more fiscally responsible.

Not sure how I would look at them now with the two latest leaders they have had.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, that is if gun control would work.

If a libertarian believes in individual freedom and responsibility, he'll also believe in the individuals right to protect his home and family.

Assuming it's true that gun control doesn't work (a position I'm shifting towards) then it's (obviously) true that gun control doesn't fit the libertarian's view at all. That said, I think it would still be less offensive to the libertarian than imposing conservative values as at least the intent behind gun control is public safety.

Originally Posted by Azure

I would say that from 1990 to whenever Paul Martin quit being involved with the Liberal Party they were indeed more fiscally responsible.

Not sure how I would look at them now with the two latest leaders they have had.

Dion moved the party away from fiscal responsibility. He turned out to be a left wing nut and that's why he's not the party leader anymore. It's hard to say where exactly where Ignatieff would fit in.

[Devils'Advocate]

New poll out today:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...intention.html

Support for the conservatives is considerably down with the university educated, in part leading to the poll numbers showing the Liberals and Conservatives in a near deadlock.