U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-05-2015, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Vernon, British Columbia
3,020 posts, read 2,705,682 times
Reputation: 2137

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
I filled out the short census, and the long farm census and filed the optional long census in the trash. The farm census was long enough. Then they called me and tried to pressure me into filling out the long census, not mentioning the fact that the long census was voluntary but acting as though I had neglected to fill out the census. That bugged me more than anything. If they had come out and said that they realised the long census was voluntary, but please could I... But they didn't.

I do understand the need for census information, but I am busy, and unless they're taking DNA samples I can't think what the long census would have done that I hadn't already answered on the farm census form. And that's what I told them. I am a little bewildered why the 'random' selection of people for the long census form wouldn't somehow have been better thought out. I don't see why farmers should have to fill out two long census forms. I was feeling picked on by the time I finished the farm census.

The Harper government certainly screwed up on that.
I think you are a bit confused. Harper has absolutely nothing to do with the long form Census. How it is constructed is left up to Statscan. The only thing Harper did was say that it was no longer mandatory. This in my opinion is a crying shame. People who think that it shouldn't be filled out are anti-science in my opinion because the information gathered is extremely useful, both on the research side and the practicality side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2015, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,699 posts, read 6,553,867 times
Reputation: 8208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx View Post
I think you are a bit confused. Harper has absolutely nothing to do with the long form Census. How it is constructed is left up to Statscan. The only thing Harper did was say that it was no longer mandatory. This in my opinion is a crying shame. People who think that it shouldn't be filled out are anti-science in my opinion because the information gathered is extremely useful, both on the research side and the practicality side.
LOL! My post could have been better written but I am not confused. My comment about Harper screwing up was related to his making the long form optional. Obviously, the majority of people wouldn't fill it out. I don't know what Harper was smoking when he thought that up because he must have been confused about the purpose of the census.

The first part was my vent about the stupidity of the census people trying to strong arm people into completing the long form by pretending it wasn't optional. I assume, on the off chance that people wouldn't know it was optional. The minute I feel I am being manipulated by someone is the minute I check out. I should have made it clearer what referred to what but I was in a hurry to post before getting some work done. It is an early spring here and work is coming out of my ears.

Happy Easter!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2015, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,173,188 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx View Post
I think you are a bit confused. Harper has absolutely nothing to do with the long form Census. How it is constructed is left up to Statscan. The only thing Harper did was say that it was no longer mandatory. This in my opinion is a crying shame. People who think that it shouldn't be filled out are anti-science in my opinion because the information gathered is extremely useful, both on the research side and the practicality side.
Totally agreed! This is really why I posted about it earlier.. The article was from Al Jazeera - I mean Al Jazeera..... I think its embarrasing and the lack of data the government now has about its own people is pathetic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2015, 11:22 PM
 
1,385 posts, read 1,209,453 times
Reputation: 1707
"Anti-science"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glacierx View Post
I think you are a bit confused. Harper has absolutely nothing to do with the long form Census. How it is constructed is left up to Statscan. The only thing Harper did was say that it was no longer mandatory. This in my opinion is a crying shame. People who think that it shouldn't be filled out are anti-science in my opinion because the information gathered is extremely useful, both on the research side and the practicality side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 12:46 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,190 posts, read 1,761,851 times
Reputation: 2683
No, Stephen Harper is not Canada's greatest prime minister. But, I'd suggest, neither is he the worst. My own feeling is that history will judge him as "just another Canadian PM."

His anti-crime, no more "faint hope clause" bill is overkill--as a colleague called it, it's the equivalent of "kill a prison guard for free" bill. But at the same time, he killed the long-gun registry, which cost Canadian taxpayers a couple of billion, pi**sed of numerous legal long-gun holders; and did, effectively, nothing to curb gun crime. Witness the population's revulsion when the RCMP went into citizen's homes in High River, Alberta and illegally seized lawful citizens' rifles and shotguns--the courts agreed that this is not how Canadian law enforcement should behave, and rightly so. The RCMP has since had to admit that it was wrong; that it contravened the Charter s. 8.

Harper doesn't believe that the CBC is a sacred cow, which accords with many Canadians who never watch CBC TV (except for hockey) or listen to CBC radio, period; but who have to pay for it though taxes. (As an aside, why can we not have a national broadcaster that appeals to the Canadian people as a whole, rather than the Toronto and Montreal elites?) But at the same time, Harper is a bland and boring economist who looks at every issue through the eyes of an economist, untrained in legal affairs. If he were a lawyer (as I am), he might see his anti-crime initiatives differently, he might see the constitutional implications differently, he might see the big picture differently.

There are other pros and cons about Harper's premiership, but in the end, he's no different from a series of middling prime ministers who came before him. Yes, they were PMs, but none of them (with the possible exception of PET in constitutional issues) "trapped" Canada on a forward course from which it could not deviate. Neither does Harper. In short, Harper is pretty middling.

Another aside: I have often said that the "idea" of Canada is bigger than any government or prime minister. This country will not fail because a government, under a prime minister, introduces a bill, or repeals a law, or does something that has the citizenry writing angry letters to the editor. We will not fail to respect our Charter (and Harper has been struck down on this a couple of times, proving that it works), we will continue to respect the philosophical construct of "rule of law," and in the end, Canada will continue. No matter who is in power, I'd suggest that none dare mess with the "idea" of Canada as a secular, free (and free-enterprise), state that stands equal to any in the world community of nations,

Last edited by ChevySpoons; 04-06-2015 at 02:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 01:07 AM
 
Location: Canada
5,699 posts, read 6,553,867 times
Reputation: 8208
^^I agree with much of what you say - Harper isn't the worst PM we've ever had - that honour belongs to Mulroney. But I certainly do not believe that Harper is one of the greatest - he has taken this country in a lot of strange directions. I also agree that the idea of Canada is greater than any Prime Minister or party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 01:39 AM
 
1,317 posts, read 2,037,756 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
^^I agree with much of what you say - Harper isn't the worst PM we've ever had - that honour belongs to Mulroney. But I certainly do not believe that Harper is one of the greatest - he has taken this country in a lot of strange directions. I also agree that the idea of Canada is greater than any Prime Minister or party.
I'm not a massive fanboy when it comes to Mulroney, but to call him the worst PM is a huge exaggeration in my opinion, especially when that a$$hole Trudeau went just before him. How anyone can hold PET in high regard (and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't know if you do and I'm not implying you do, but many Mulroney haters do hold PET in completely uncritical high esteem) is beyond me. I'll give him some credit on the Charter, but that didn't go far enough in my opinion, and it left a few too many loopholes which politicians can use to trample on the rights of the citizenry. Charter aside, though, PET was a complete disaster on several important levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 02:07 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,190 posts, read 1,761,851 times
Reputation: 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock View Post
I'll give him some credit on the Charter, but that didn't go far enough in my opinion....
Just because I'm interested--what woulld be "far enough," in your opinion?

Quote:
.... and it left a few too many loopholes which politicians can use to trample on the rights of the citizenry. Charter aside, though, PET was a complete disaster on several important levels.
What loopholes can politicians use? How was PET a disaster?

Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'd just like you to expand upon your points.

Last edited by ChevySpoons; 04-06-2015 at 02:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 02:35 AM
 
1,317 posts, read 2,037,756 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Just because I'm interested--what woulld be "far enough," in your opinion?
Property rights should have been written into the Charter. Fundamental freedoms should not be explicitly subject to limitations of any kind. The temptation of politicians and the judiciary to limit property rights and to cavalierly disregard fundamental freedoms is troubling. These are just a couple of things in my mind where the Trudeau-led patriation effort didn't go far enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
What loopholes can politicians use?
The Notwithstanding Clause is one of them, something that was inserted at the insistence of the premiers. Not PET's doing, admittedly.

Failing to explicitly protect property rights and tempering fundamental freedoms by making them explicitly subject to limitations are a couple of other loopholes. (I view them as loopholes because they embolden the politicians and give them the pretext they need to trample over the property rights and the fundamental freedoms of individual Canadian citizens.) There are no doubt a few more, but it's late and I need sleep more than I need to furnish an exhaustive list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
How was PET a disaster?
Cripes, where to begin? Encouraging the lazy anti-American sentiment in our country was one of his less admirable points. Also, he single-handedly destroyed federal finances and encouraged people to believe in Uncle Ottawa and his magical money tree. When people blame Mulroney for leaving a financial mess, they almost always fail to understand or to appreciate that much of Mulroney's financial mess was caused by trying to meet public expectations on spending, which were still unrealistic in the post-PET era, while also servicing the massive federal debt, which debt had been piled high by PET during the period that he took it upon himself to destroy Canada's balance sheet. Canada returned to a current account surplus for the first time in many moons on Mulroney and Wilson's watch. People forget that (or don't understand what it means). The National Energy Program was a complete disaster for Alberta as well. There are many more sins that he committed, but I don't have the time or the interest to list them all at the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'd just like you to expand upon your points.
Happy to oblige.

Last edited by maclock; 04-06-2015 at 04:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 06:05 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,025 posts, read 6,313,210 times
Reputation: 12443
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnSoCal View Post
Why do so many of you have a hangup about something that happened 203 years ago?
Anything to end Obama's rampage against his own country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top