G West.....

....posted the succinct reason FOR the census under "Tea Party North".

On The Money

Your on the Money Rafe.

I had the very same questions, who is asking these questions and deciding what to ask?
In my mind that would help answer the questions.

I requested from StatsCan info on what groups consulted on particular questions (during the census consultation period). They have a general breakdown, but WHO is asking me this question or that?

I was told that unfortunately those who consulted on the design and question selection were assured of privacy, so that information couldn't be released. I understand this in the case of individuals who consulted, but not NGOs, Industry and other government agencies.

So not only do you not get told why they want to ask you certain questions, you don't even get to know whose behalf the question is being asked.
To extract this information under the threat of penanlty is dubious, and the government adding an element of consent, through a voluntary survey, is certainly a step in the right direction.

Flying

If the Government is serious about privacy then how about all the information it collects on us when we fly? Does it really need 34 pieces of information about us to combat the boogieman?

census ruckus

beans, beans, beans ... so many beans...all to be counted, added, divided, multiplied and extrapolated...I think we need more bean counters...

shitdisturber at work again

Rafe is playing into the hands of the group who preaches no government involvement in anything!
Yes, we all worry about the info we have to give in daily life, and how it could be mis-used.
Guess it is a matter of: do we want to be part of society, or do we prefer to live in our own little world hoping for the best?
It can be a damned nuisiance to fill out forms and often the questions do seem irrelevant; but like everything else in life we are at the mercy of human intelligence and shortcomings.
As long as the result serves a good purpose, they can ask me questions and when possible I will comply.
The alternative may be easier in the short term, but could affect me hard in the end.

well, gosh

Conspiracy theories and paranoia all in the same person. C.mon Rafe, some of your questions are quite funny, and I sure as hell hope you're not as stupid as they make you sound.

For instance:

"Why should I tell you how much income I made and how much tax I paid?

"Are you seriously asking me to believe that this information will not be sent to the tax department? Am I to trust you? Be prepared for a surprise -- I don't!"

Do you seriously think that the info you give statscan on your income will be a nasty revelation to Canada Revenue Agency? If it is, then maybe you haven't been filing minutely-detailed annual tax returns like the rest of us. No question THAT could cause you some trouble.

Most of that 'invasion of privacy" stuff you're complaining about the government already has through various agencies. The reason Statscan wants a broader picture is because it doesn't have access to all that juicy info because it's illegal for those agencies to give it to them. Just like it's illegal for Statscan to sell it to telemarketers.

Paranoia, thy name is Rafe.

FUD

This is how Harper and the Conservatives win elections—or at least get the largest minority—fear and ignorance.

It has been explained many times how the information is used, what it is useful for, and how anything beyond statistical summaries is unavailable to anyone for at least 50 years. But Harper says "Boo!" and Rafe wets himself.

Poor showing Mr Mair.

Will sadly never buy another book based on Canadian stats again.

This is the most horrible thing about abolishing the long census. Never mind about our continuing dive into the abyss of right wing 'freedom to privacy' (but never for women's bodies). Canadian think tanks will become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. We won't have information for studies about Canada. It is tragedy for sociologists, who will probably leave Canada for surer seas (brain drain anyone?)

My parents filled out the long form when I was young. ONCE. They never got it again. Its probably a once or twice a lifetime 'burden'. Its not hard.

what's worse?

What's worse, filling out the census or siding with the reformatories, fraser institute and the canadian taxpayers assoc.? I'll take the census anyday, thank you! Of course it's easy for me to say, I've never been handed one. And I'm 55! Having said this, I see no reason for any type of info on this form that can identify the person who filled it out. The real worry people should have is the over use of debit & credit cards, and of course facebook (which could be called CSIS's homepage!). And the advent of RFID is enough to make a person not want to leave the house.

long form

I got the long form once. It's time-consuming, but otherwise harmless.

The issue here is whether or not its OK to compel someone to fill it out, and threaten jail if they don't. We risk all manner of fines for not co-operative with all levels of government -- try not paying a parking ticket some time. Why not just leave it alone.

On the other hand, how sad that we have to be "compelled" to provide the government with useful information that can benefit us all. Paranoia rules far too many of us.

To a certain degree I'm with

To a certain degree I'm with Rafe on this one but I'm willing to compromise, for example I'll give the year I was born, but not my full birth date, I will give you my postal code but not my exact address. It maybe against the law now for Stats-Canada to give out personal information, but all that 'stuff about you' is in storage and all it could be a stroke of a pen by some future government to let it out. As I mentioned before my 'ol man use to work for the RCMP and they have info on every Canadian on their CPIC system whether you have a criminal record or not.

Who's the biggest threat? Telemarketers or Harper?

Rafe, are you also with Harper on issues such as drug policy or prisons, for example, or any number of other issues where ideology trumps science to the detriment of individuals and society? Harper's approach to the census should be far more worrisome to you than the 'threat' of telemarketers, who seem to be your main concern, but who are more easily dealt with than lying, dogmatic politicians.

Sorry, Rafe, you're off base

Rafe, I normally consider you a fount of wisdom and reason. You're way off base on this one, though.

Your primary objections seem to be 1) you don't trust the government to do what it says it will with the information and 2) you don't think the information is needed.

If governments disregarded the privacy laws, they could assemble most of the information without the survey by combinging the various databases. So, the fact that they actually need this survey is good evidence they are following their own laws. As someone who's worked with governments on projects, I can tell you that there are cases that worthwhile initiatives are stopped because privacy commissioners get uncomfortable that the intent of the privacy laws are being infringed.

As far as the need for the information, sound public policy depends on the availability of good information.

questions

Surely asking whether you trust your government is a question that intrudes on your privacy! Who wants to know? What are they going to do with that information? Will they lock you up if you give the wrong answer?

It's about all of us.......

Rafe,

Although this is a complex issue, some of your questions have simple answers.

Of course you are right to suggest that StatsCan has no good reason to know about YOUR ancestry. But social policies are not directed at individuals.

What StatsCan needs is information about the ancestry of Canadians, as a whole. And the only satisfactory way to figure that out is to do a mandatory census, to make the data statistically valid.

Your questions should not be about whether the government needs to know your information, but rather they need to know any information about the population as a whole.

Of course, the Harper government knows this, but it doesn't matter to them because they don't want to base their policies on information at all. (That is, no amount of accurate information about how income is disproportionately distributed by things like race or immigration status will ever convince them that we need social welfare programs in this country).

Most people, however, care about creating policies that are based on evidence, and the needs and consequences that are made clear through that evidence.

Blame the people - not the process

Surely it must be obvious that most levels of government should be using census information to deliver services most efficiently.

So, if you are concerned that they aren't, or that the information is being mis-used, then why not focus your opposition on the government, not the census.

You could just as easily apply Rafe's arguments to driving licenses (invasion of privacy; all that info; what are they really used for?)

And by the way - as an amateur genealogist I'm immensely grateful for the info in previous census returns, as a way of locating my ancestors.

Northing like siding with the Party of Ignorance

Rafe,
I am surprised at you.

You know darn well that the census data is unreliable unless everyone surveyed answers it. And that won't happen without some form of mandatory requirement. Why do they need your name? To make sure you answer.

And why ask about ancestry? They don't give a darn about your individual ancestry. But they care, and we all should care, that in general people of all types of ancestry have an equal chance at a decent living - especially their kids.

Just one example. You know and I do that too many Aboriginal Canadians live in poverty - not just status Indians, but many who don't have status. How do we know how bad the problem is? How do we know whether things are getting better for them, or worse? Do they have decent housing? How well are they being educated? And so forth and so on. We know, basically through the census. (This is all just one example.)

Now if you're the Conservative government, you don't really care all that much how Aboriginals or any group, for that matter, are doing. (See what happened to the Kelowna Accord.) So they don't want Stats Can to ask.

But you, Rafe, I think care. So I'm surprised at your position on this, very surprised.

Pricipled Stand to the Benefit of No One

Rafe, your anti-census argument is even worse than Tony Clement's. At least he publicly acknowledged the benefit of the census. You, on the other hand, seem stuck in some libertarian fantasyworld where refusing to provide information is a mark of personal pride. Information, by the way, that is ANONYMOUS and from which come benefits to the whole of society, which means each and everyone of us.

Your curious statement that the existence of ombudsmen and auditor generals is evidence that government can't be trusted, is bizarre in the extreme. Most of us recognize that they provide additional oversee, which along with those elections that keep getting called, render government much more accountable that any business.

We all understand that your particular gig is to rail about this and that government misdeed, but your so-called principled stance to opt of a critical Canadian responsibility will only contribute to the ineptitudes you so often complain about.

Which means that you and Stephen Harper have something else in common: your special contribution to eroding government effectiveness and as a result, public faith in our institutions.

Good job Citizen Rafe!

Census

C'mon Rafe,
Use your imagination rather than the knee jerk response. If you are no longer known as a part of the demographic makeup of the country then within a very short time the general info will be that there are no Rafes in Canada and therefore no need to count them in the services required. If we the people think some questions are unnecessary then that should be addressed but throwing out the baby with the bath seems a very backward response. Lets be responsible rather than just sound off with smart noises.

You're right Rafe

I'm a bit surprised at the responses here.
Nievity? Maybe some loosely based "faith in greater pwwers"?
When I was young about 50 years or so ago I too had some belief that large corporations and governments WOULD do no wrong
I grew up

Census Long Form

Could this be your old SOCRED colours showing, Rafe?

The long form is a good opportunity....

The long form is a good opportunity to BS the BS'er.
It gives you a good chance to exaggerate a little or exaggerate a lot. Give them just enough info to make them think you are the poorest, or the dumbest bloke in the block. Here is a chance to tell them you have that PhD you have always wanted. The chances of getting nabbed for a few white lies are minimal, and you will feel so much better at having thwarted the government's inquisitiveness.

If we can't trust the gov't

If we can't trust the gov't to keep census data confidential (for 90 years, or whatever), we can't trust them on anything. I don't trust the Harperites. But I do trust the professionalism of many remainning civil servants, and I'd expect an explosion of leaks protests and possibly resignations if the Harperites decided to look at the individual census files.

Takers of the Census

My wife was a census taker back in the 80,s. Not only was it a lot of work but in our rural area there were a lot of those who did their best to hide from it as they were draft dodgers, pot smokers, or just general recluses. I was very impressed with Stats Can in their training methods and in how they were so adamant that the forms and the identity of the respondents be protected. It is their protection of the respondents privacy that maintains their credibility. We have employed a number of very intelligent people to make those decisions as to what questions are relevant and useful statistically. Perhaps we should listen to them before we jump on some politicians band wagon.

Rafe, You're Regressing

and pretty shamelessly at that. You have made no secret of your personal history, your illnesses, physical and/or mental, your politics. Get on board with ordinary citizens, then, and oppose the changes Harper is making in the census.

You must know that he does not do anything without a political motive behind the seemingly innocuous actions of his ministers, even when they resort to ridiculous explanations for their danse macabres.

Harper has said that we won't recognize Canada when he's finished with us. This is just another baby step along the way to that total "makeover" he's accomplishing. One of the changes he aiming for with this initiative is the income tax splitting that will now happen in the farming community. That sounds like a good idea, but the advantage will be accrued to factory farms, with family-owned farms paying the most, and the results hidden because Q33 is being also deleted (though the fine and jail penalty in the short-form census remains for farmers).

Sleight-of-hand deception is Harper's trademark. I'm surprised you fell for it.

ignorance is no excuse....

So, you have a lot of questions about why the census is needed. Good, but this implies that you are ignorant about it.

Get these questions answered, then write an intelligent piece on it.

It turns out that there are answers, and that they can be obtained. Further, if you do educate yourself, you will see that the census is very much needed, and nobody's privacy is actually at stake.

Sorry, Rafe

Sorry, Rafe, but I can't agree with you on this one. The Harper government has demonstrated time and time again their 'Don't confuse me with the facts!' approach to policy making (witness Insite, get-tough-on-crime, climate change, etc.). They don't like StatsCan because progressive groups regularly use the information against them. Even a former Socred ought to be able to see that the Fraser Institute is not on the side of the angels, on this or any other issue.

Baloney Rafe, you should know better

The personal data you include in your long form census is de-linked from your name, address and other identifiable information from the moment it is collected and recorded; the raw data, with personal information, is only made public after 92 years.

You may plan to be around then to protest the disclosure of your 'personal' information - but I have a notion you won't be. It's a complete and utter red herring....

There's nothing to worry about.

At the same time, if you wanted to start a movement to encourage a wholesale action by the 1/3 of Canadians who get the voluntary long form census to send it back to Pee Wee (through Stats Can) uncompleted as a way to tell the son of a bitch to keep his fundamentalist fingers off Canadian institutions and professionally gathered and managed statistical data, I'd support your efforts.

You're way off base on this one. We should stick a huge finger in Pee Wee's eye - but we shouldn't pay any attention to the phony reasoning you've trotted out in this article.

By my count

That's 2 for, and 28 against, Rafe. I'd say you're on the verge of being sent down to the minors on this one....

My sister suffers from a rare form of MS prevalent in some Asian and all Nordic populations. How much money should we allocate to research on this disease? How would you know unless you knew how many immigrants we had of a certain age from those countries 30 years ago? These are the people who would be likely to get it now. Where would researchers get that information to make their case? How would government bureaus decide on the importance of that funding unless they could check the population variation themselves?

Several times on this site I've enjoyed the pleasure of taking apart the ridiculous assertions made by a few of our resident half-wits with a few well-chosen statistics readily available on this site:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ca-canada

Did you want me to stop doing that? Or do it with the kind of statistics Zimbabwe uses?

Rafe, you're fooling around with my fun for no reason at all but sheer crankiness. Give it up! Or I'll start eating farmed salmon again!

When I was a little kid

I thought the government had a lot of nerve asking people questions and them being forced to answer.I spent a lot of years in different schools learning different disciplines and finally found out the reason for those questions.Now I fully admit that the quality of the questions is reliant totally on the knowledge of the people who make the census up.I,for one am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to census Canada.Being paranoid about information in this day and age is pure folly.I was lucky enough to have participated in the survey that got the vote for federal inmates.I doubt Mr.Harper would approve.Real shame that.

Rafe, with all due respect you're sadly uninformed

and your opinion is, frankly, irrelevant.

The Census is a foundational tool of democracies. It is useful in a wide variety of ways, from understanding demographic, income, and labour force trends to transportation and disability patterns. The Census was a not an issue until the Harper Reformers took over. Beyond the Census they've killed a number of other critical surveys.

You know, when I read that Harper had an ally, I wondered who the expert was and it turned out to be a right wing radio talk show host.

How many ways can you say NO CREDIBILITY.

You might want to read this, Rafe

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/847928--canada-s-census-intrusive-nothing-like-the-alternatives

As a person of non-violence ...

... living in a nation which spends tax dollars on unconscionable foreign adventures, the government can pound salt before I do anything to support any further intrusion into my life.

My freedom also means to be free from unnecessary governmental interference.

Its a duck

A lame duck and Harper is trying to fly it home only problem is Canadians don't trust the Conservative, prime minister from Alberta with their futures and that is very interesting indeed.

Dissing information

With valid information no longer an obstacle, Mr. Harper knows disinformation will be made a whole lot easier.