That makes no logical sense. An example - it's widely accepted that women get less pay than men for the same jobs; by your reasoning actually finding out the truth is sexist and indicates that we've failed.

Who knows - it is enough that it is possible. Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean it doesn't exist or might not exist in the future due to trends discovered over time in the data.

The guys at stats canada are internationally respected (canadians can actually say they have a world class organisation and it not be hyperbole). If they say something is scientifically unsound then it can be taken as read that it is actually scientifically unsound. Everything beyond that is political rhetoric.

Explain what? It seems self evident to me. Let me put it simply:

1. Other posters pointed out up-thread that some examples where it's helpful to have accurate demographic data containing the sort of information available through the long-form census (on income, ethnic background, language spoken in the home, etc etc) are provincial or municipal agencies in healthcare and education.

2. You seemed to object to this merely on the grounds that these are provincial agencies and the census is federal, therefore there is no need for the federal census to take note of such things.

3. I observed that provincial and municipal agencies are the clients of StatsCan when it comes to access to these sorts of data. Absence, or inaccuracy, of these data because of downgrading parts of the census to a voluntary survey will make it more difficult for these agencies to do their job effectively and efficiently. Where the data is used is not an argument against how it is collected. Your point is irrelevant - it's a red herring.

Maybe you don't care if provincial agencies waste money because they can't get accurate data about how to direct their expenditure most effectively. They're my tax dollars, and I'd rather they were spent properly. If that means I'm one of the 20% mandated to fill in a detailed census form, I really can't see where the argument exists that this is a bad thing.

Data stats canada provides is central to the formulation and implementation of most of the governments policies.

Just off the top of my head, environmental policies, policies relating to social equality, health care provision policies , housing policies, economic policies, education policies, taxation policies, immigration policies all require accurate data in order to determine first what the situation is, and then later on to determine how its changing based on what the government does and other external factors (which are also monitored by the census)

The census isnt intended to work like an opinion poll with degrees of accuracy plus or minus 3%, its actual hard factual data for that fixed point in time, a bed rock foundation to all the other surveys.

I think most of you are giving the long census way waay waaay too much credit. The vital stats are on the short census. Where to put a new highway, hospital, police/fire station are made from direct observations of local authoriies. The long census doesn't uncover previously unknown suburbs lurking in forests without road access.

Crying the gov't won't know what to do no more is just dumb IMO. To me it really tells more about the difference about what type of role the government should have in peoples lives. Most of you are throwing around Oakvillians red herrings with talk of a blind gov't. The real issue is about the choice of mandatory vs volunatry. So I pose this questions to you all. What do you think the punishment should be for someone who decides not to complete a mandatory census?

A decreased tax allowance to reflect the decrease in efficiency in government would seem appropriate.

Dont be putting words in our mouths. We are not saying they will be operating in the dark, just that the information they have will not be as accurate as it is with the long form.

Do you have an argument that says the information will be as accurate with a voluntary long form. I havent seen one.

Do you deny that if the information is not as accurate as it could be, then money is likely to be wasted as a result?

Do you deny that sending out surveys to 33% will be more expensive than sending them to 20%?

Do you deny that the short survey is still compulsory, so just as unacceptable from an idealogical point of view in compelling citizens to fill out a form every few years.

Are you alleging that the anonymity of data collected for the census is anything other than water tight?

I give up, Im off home for a beer.

Having to read this thread 100 times.

Do you have any proof that government policies (that no one can seem to come up with) are made better by a mandatory long census form as oppose to a voluntary one? Enjoy your beer Iaink, I will be digging in myself.

No, because there has never been a voluntary census in this country against which to judge. In the only other major democracy to have dabbled with a misguided attempt to answer people's misplaced bleatings about "privacy rights" by making part of the census voluntary, they have realised that it's a really stupid idea and have gone back to a compulsory survey. Enough said, IMHO.

on edit: Enough said, that is, except to add that everybody who harps on about privacy rights seems to forget that there are responsibilities that go along with them. Answering a detailed census once every (on average) 50 years (10 years x 20% long-form) is one of them.

what is the census requirement in the UK?

it is mandatory. There is no "long form" and "short form" - everybody answers all questions.

Francis Maude, the new Cabinet Office minister, has indicated that the government plans to scrap the census after 2011 and adopt a different approach to counting the population. But since so much government policy is dependent on census data (not to mention that it is all reported up to Eurostat and used to determine such important things for the UK as rebates on EU budgets) it is in my view unlikely that any alternative will be successfully implemented and the census will still be in place in 2021.

They are every 10 years and are quite detailed if I remember. Not sure if there are two forms of the survey or not - I don't think there is because the normal one is pretty comprehensive. I've not seen the long form or the short form here - I guess if I see it and it asks me how many times a week I knock one out or have a shit (to increase my positivity) then I might be more sympathetic to your side of the debate

I might be more sympathetic to your side if it was used for anything other than being overly politically correct and stereotypical.

and you know it's only used in this way...HOW?

Idiot.

well then,.. fell free to explain how else, oh intellectually divine one. I both await and encourage.

<snip>