Justin Trudeau, King of Canada, has issued his first edict: the reinstatement of the long census form. Minister in charge of Canadian census Navdeep Singh Bains, will jail people who refuse to divulge personal information required by the long census form:
[The Liberal government] didn’t provide details on how it plans to make sure that people actually fill it out, although Navdeep Bains, the minister of innovation, science and economic development, said “the law is the law” and the Statistics Act hasn’t changed, which suggests penalties would include jail time. Bains said restoring the long form will mean a return to solid, high-quality data.
It seems lost on Bains that saying that “the law is the law” does not make any particular action of the government morally right. Putting old ladies in jail because they refuse to fill out a form is disproportionate to the alleged crime. That it is an invasion of privacy and a violation of universal human rights makes it all the more despicable. But the new Trudeau government seems to be carrying on the tradition of the elder Trudeau’s attitude towards law, as we discussed earlier (see, Burning down barns is not wrong because it is illegal; it is illegal because it is wrong).
In the past, the government found one woman guilty of refusing to fill out the long census form. She was 79-years old. I have seen how government persecution of senior citizens can lead to fear and sometimes premature death, as in the case of friend of the Isaac Brock Society Mark Pinetree, who lived out his final years in fear of the IRS. He was a psychiatrist who had moved back to Brazil after becoming a US citizenship, not realizing that the IRS would persecute him even though he no longer lived in the USA.
In any case, if we were hoping that the government of Trudeau the Younger would respect the privacy rights of citizens of Canada, we now have tangible evidence that the new King doesn’t really believe in privacy. This bodes ill for those hoping for the repeal of the FATCA IGA.
I am still trying to get over the sociopathic need of the government to know intimate details of our lives which nature gives us a right to withhold from everyone including the government.
Yeah, the realization sucks.
ooops…meant to quote Petros words.
What I mean is that no one who is offering any criticism has actually offered a single sustantive argument that the government actually has the right to violate people’s privacy.
The role of government in a free society is to protect the people’s himan rights, not to become the chief violator of those rights.
Petros, You are living in a fucking dream world.
With you all the way, Petros. The legitimate function of a census relates to simple population distribution (federal funds allocation, voting, etc.) and nothing else. Set aside the consideration that voting is mostly a useless opportunity for bloodless regicide. Statist armtwisting for broader data extraction calls for absolute resistance. Not yet mentioned is the extensive and primary use of expanded census data by corporate interests to profile and target you for their profiteering – with the connivance of their servile state. This is not an academic matter. Also, census data trash is used to justify measures with little regard to the degree of confidence that can be placed in the accuracy of the data. Finally, if you want good data, do you say “tell me” or I’ll whack you with the law if you don’t? Census self-reporting by a dubious “random” 20% produces very weak information. Other avenues make far more sense.
@USX, yes, garbage data in leads to marshmellow science. It is similar to the bacon causes cancer headlines where health technocrats declare meat to be a carcinogen based on garbage data from food surveys. I despise our technocratic society.
When taking obligatory bubble tests as a grade school kid, once I figured out I was not going to get a grade or even be told how I did, I started fillling in random bubbles and never got in trouble. How many people trying to avoid a $500 fine and a jail sentence start entering random facts into a 40 page questionnaire?
First Nations are among the chief objectors of the census in all its forms. Now how do the technocrats justify saying that we need the long form to get quality data about Aboriginal issues?
I have nothing to say on the long form census except that Elmer Fudd lives here and is happy.
Stand by your convictions and refuse to fill it out if you don’t approve of it. Anything else is pointless and a waste of taxpayers money.
@EmBee
(9) Where was this person born?
Specify one response only, according to present boundaries.
(10) Of what country is this person a citizen?
Indicate more than one citizenship, if applicable.
(11) Is this person now, or has this person ever been, a landed immigrant?
A “landed immigrant” (permanent resident) is a person who has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently by immigration authorities.
(12) in what year did this person first become a landed immigrant?
(25) Where was each of this person’s parents born?
(a) Father
(b) Mother
How is the Trudeau government supposed to obtain an accurate estimate of the reach of FATCA into Canada without conducting a census of this kind?
Also, indulging in infantile name calling directed against the newly and duly elected government of a sovereign Canadian government strikes me as conduct pretty unbecoming of those who profess to be defending Canadian sovereignty. I realized you didn’t do this @EmBee but the original poster did.
“How is the Trudeau government supposed to obtain an accurate estimate of the reach of FATCA into Canada without conducting a census of this kind?” Precisely. This would save Canadian banks billions of dollars if the government provided in advance the people who are implicated under FATCA. Please keep me posted on any anti-FATCA statements coming out of this government. However, I am not holding my breath.
“Also, indulging in infantile name calling directed against the newly and duly elected government of a sovereign Canadian government strikes me as conduct pretty unbecoming of those who profess to be defending Canadian sovereignty.”
Well I admit it is name calling. But petty and infantile? It seems to me that any government that insists on violating the privacy of citizens and threatens to fine or jail those who do not divulge the information voluntarily, is quite worthy of the names befitting royalty, and that the terms “servant” or “minister” are well beneath them.
I haven’t seen any indication that the current government plans to defend Canada’s sovereignty. I have seen signs to the contrary.
The comments to this post are in two categories:
Category 1 – Those who don’t like the language and tone in which the message was delivered.
Category 2 – Those who address the main message.
The way I see it is:
The issue is whether a government can force one to disclose personal information about oneself under threat of sanction. It may (or may not) be that the answer depends on the nature of the information. As @Embee points it is simply NOT true that disclosure of the “where were you born” group of questions is irrelevant. In fact, and in law, the Canadian Government has made this information very relevant and very dangerous for ANY U.S. born person to disclose. In terms of the damage disclosure can cause it can lead to other disclosure obligations like: FBAR, FATCA form 8938 and the rest. Yes, it’s true.
The Government of Canada has made it VERY CLEAR that it:
1. Accepts that those born in the U.S. who live in Canada are U.S. property; and
2. Will assist the the U.S. in locating them.
Whether the forced disclosure of this information comes from a King, a Prince, or a democratically elected government is irrelevant. The whole point of having a Charter of Rights is to defend citizens from the government (no matter what form that government takes).
The issue that Petros raises is very significant and important.
You might find this article to be of interest.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/10/09/woman_who_wouldnt_fill_out_census_form_found_not_guilty.html
It’s actually quite interesting. The Judge avoided the Charter issue by deciding that a crime had not been committed.
What about the argument that we need a mandatory long census in order to understand the demographics of Canadian population so that sound policy decisions can be made? One could even take the position that complying with the long census is an obligation and responsibility of citizenship.
BTW, anti-FATCA supporter, Ted Hsu introduced Bill C626 to bring back the long census.
From https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/en/census:
“Statistics Canada produces data that is used by all levels of government, community groups and businesses to make smart decisions. Bill C-626 gives Statistics Canada the tools it needs to collect important information on the commercial, financial, social and economic conditions of Canadians.
In 2011, the government decided to scrap the mandatory long-form census and replace it with the voluntary National Household Survey (NHS). This new voluntary survey produces data that are unreliable and even unusable; and it actually costs more to implement than the long-form census3. Canadians are paying more for less information.
Canada’s Chief Statistician at the time, Dr. Munir Sheikh, resigned in protest over this change4. Many industry professionals and organizations have also spoken out.
Voluntary surveys receive lower response rates when compared to mandatory ones [see background information]. Typically, vulnerable populations (new immigrants, Aboriginals, low-income, single parents) and those with the highest income have lower response rates; thus, data about their demographics is poorly represented in voluntary surveys. This lack of robust information about important groups leads to skewed data sets, poor decision-making, and costly government policy mistakes.
Ted Hsu’s Bill proposes to bring back the mandatory long-form census so the detailed demographic data required to make smart policy decisions about Canadians’ needs can be collected accurately and reliably.
We need to take action now to support the development of evidence-based policies for the benefit of all Canadians..”
I love how Harper used the ‘invasion of privacy” excuse to scrap the long census.
Re: “As @Embee points it is simply NOT true that disclosure of the “where were you born” group of questions is irrelevant. In fact, and in law, the Canadian Government has made this information very relevant and very dangerous for ANY U.S. born person to disclose. ”
To this I would say that the problem is not the census, but rather the capitulation of the Conservative government to USA’s FATCA.
Read this comment on an article regarding the census debate:
“Getting rid of the long form was simply a move to limit the amount of information the public has about issues the government doesn’t want to deal with. Governments like the Harper government flourish in a world where the public doesn’t have the facts on issues.”
Honestly, this over-the-top post makes me want to unplug from Brock.
This is tinfoil-hat crap.
Statistics Canada has been exemplary in its policy of isolating the data it connects from ANY other data collected by the government, and has historically had strong and effective privacy guarantees.
I’ve only had to do the long-form census once and found it undemanding and not particularly intrusive. And frankly, I could see the reasons why most of the questions were asked.
Is it too much to ask that you fill out this form (possibly, because its distribution is random) to help guide policy decisions in the country of your choice?
Paying taxes, voting and periodically filling out a census form aren’t a lot to ask in return for citizenship.
“PAYING TAXES, voting and periodically filling out a census form aren’t a lot to ask in return for CITIZENSHIP.”
Ooops, Mr Phyzix are you sure you meant what you wrote? I presume you are talking about RESIDENT citizens paying taxes and are not advocating CBT.
@ WhiteKat
I can see you heart that form but all I wanted was for everyone to be aware that it adds yet another possible pathway for the IRS to arrive on the doorsteps of “US persons for US taxation AND form penalty purposes”. I, personally, do not want to hand over personal information under the threat of fine and/or prison and frankly I don’t care if the government or businesses think they need more data on everyone in order to be able to make “better” decisions. There are other ways to make better decisions … like offerring referendums or asking for voluntary input on a particular issue. Also honest, unbiased, trustworthy, unmuzzled researchers could provide valuable advice. It IS possible to think through a problem and formulate a fair and just solution without having reams and reams of personal information available. Case in point … the Founding Fathers of the USA came up with a pretty good Constitution and Bill of Rights by simply using their intellect and thinking it through … and they probably listened to many different people in a variety of different settings … without compiling dossiers on each of those people.
@ Dash1729
However the Trudeau government goes about trying to discern the extent of the FATCA-affected in Canada (assuming it is even interested in doing this), it MUST do it in a manner which protects the anonymity of those who provide the information for this research. There is no anonymity on that long form.
“The Government of Canada has made it VERY CLEAR that it:
1. Accepts that those born in the U.S. who live in Canada are U.S. property; and
2. Will assist the the U.S. in locating them.
Whether the forced disclosure of this information comes from a King, a Prince, or a democratically elected government is irrelevant. The whole point of having a Charter of Rights is to defend citizens from the government (no matter what form that government takes).
The issue that Petros raises is very significant and important.”
100% true. The owner/founder of this blog made an important point. But I have to agree with critics who say it would have been better to make the point without infantile name-calling. Using royalty to do the name-calling makes it double-infantile, because despite the failings of the actual royal family, MOST of them weren’t supporters of the Nazis.
“You might find this article to be of interest.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/10/09/woman_who_wouldnt_fill_out_census_form_found_not_guilty.html
It’s actually quite interesting. The Judge avoided the Charter issue by deciding that a crime had not been committed.”
Yeah, one was found not guilty and one was found guilty. More outrageous is that the one who was found guilty had a very serious legitimate concern, that StatsCan outsourced the data processing to a particularly troublesome foreign country.
‘Statistics Canada has been exemplary in its policy of isolating the data it connects from ANY other data collected by the government, and has historically had strong and effective privacy guarantees.’
Because they outsourced the revocation of privacy guarantees instead of doing it themselves?
‘PAYING TAXES, voting and periodically filling out a census form aren’t a lot to ask in return for CITIZENSHIP.’
“Ooops, Mr Phyzix are you sure you meant what you wrote? I presume you are talking about RESIDENT citizens paying taxes and are not advocating CBT.”
Resident non-citizens too, as I have been for more than half my life. Also source based taxation (paying where the income was sourced even when not residing or even visiting there) and consumption based taxation (GST etc. even when just visiting). I hope Mr. Phyzix will post a correction.
“the Founding Fathers of the USA came up with a pretty good Constitution and Bill of Rights by simply using their intellect and thinking it through”
Experience and study of history also played big roles in coming up with those masterpieces.
Too bad their successors burned the things. If the US had been bound by its Constitution and Bill of Rights then this site wouldn’t even have to exist.
@Embee, just playing devils advocate here, re: “It IS possible to think through a problem and formulate a fair and just solution without having reams and reams of personal information available. ”
But perhaps the data helps to identify that there is actually a problem to be solved.
@ Norman Diamond
Yes, add “experience and study of history” to their intellect. I too feel like their work has been trashed. (Bush once called the US Constitution “that goddamn piece of paper”.) It’s a travesty.
@ WhiteKat
If a person’s thinking processes are still intact, the problem is obvious. There should be no need to extract more personal information from people who are already suffering from the harm of FATCA’s attack on their personal privacy. It’s like being beaten up by a bully and someone on the sidelines stepping in to beat you some more … in order to positively identify your problem.