Cancelling the long form census for starters. It didn't even save any money, it just made it more difficult to make informed policy decisions.

The Census had been abused in the past with Japanese Internment camps. Why should I be forced to disclose very personal information like my religion under penalty of law?

It was never about the money.

I wish those down voting would provide a response, though I suppose this is the nature of political conversations.

You can disagree with the conservatives position on this. But to pretend it was an economic motive is disingenuous.

I agree the stated reasoning for cancelling the census is because of privacy-related complaints. Of course, out of approximately 12 million forms only 166 complaints were known to be received directly or indirectly.

I'm not sure this is best forum for political conversations (or really anywhere online) and, at best, we can only make assumptions about motivations and reasoning beyond what we are told. My assumption is that is that census data makes it more difficult to govern based on opinion and therefore was less desirable to the Conservative government. But that is a pretty inflammatory opinion. However the reality is that the lack of census data over this period has caused significant damage to understanding of the country[1]. And cancelling it has gives very little benefit in comparison.

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cities-footing-...

You're not required to disclose your religion on the census. You can leave the field blank if you get the long form, and it isn't asked on the short form.

You are required to according to the law. The fact that it's rarely enforced does not change this.

Further if fields really were optional then it's not really "mandatory".

The form no longer contains a question on religion.

It doesn't this year, but they say it will every 10 years.

>There was a lot wrong

People seem to have a hard time distinguishing between "I disagree" and "is wrong".

Politics, by their very nature, are partisan. I disagreed with many of the previous policies (and agreed with others), but it's hard to point to things that were out and out wrong.

What's the semantic difference between "I disagree with X" and "I assert X is wrong", other than the former having a softer tone?

The semantic difference lies in whether one has doubts or qualifications on ones opinions, at the very least. Equating "I disagree" with "is wrong" presupposes that you are not mistaken and cannot possibly be mistaken, therefore if you disagree with something the problem must be with the something, not with your opinion.

Along similar lines, consider the difference between "I don't want to do X" (or even "I won't do X") and "I don't think anyone should do X".

Or the difference between "I don't think anyone should do X" and "X should be illegal".

From my point of view, all three situations are analogous and the difference in each case is not just a matter of tone.