Angry in the Great White North

In being thoroughly unimpressed with Tasha Kheiriddin's awful defence of the mandatory long census, I wonder if the problem is rooted in an inability for a conservative to muster a coherent argument for something that is intrinsically and fundamentally un-conservative.

Why would it be so hard for a conservative to form a cogent argument in this case?  I scratch it up to the way conservatives in general, and Tasha Kheiriddin in particular, refuse to rely on arguments that are emotional or irrational.  There are no rational arguments in favour of a government census form that is six pages in length, quizzes the respondent on such things as the number of bedrooms they have in the house or which parent handles teen angst issues, and for which refusal to fill in runs the threat of imprisonment.

Yet, for some reason, and cobbled by an innate limitation to resort to arguments that are not variations of conservatives-are-the-devil, Tasha Kheiriddin insists on trying to defend the long form census:

On immigration, for example, how would future governments effectively set policy in the absence of data on how current immigrants are faring? Are they integrating? Are they speaking English or French? Are they earning a living commensurate with their education level? On transportation, how would you prefer governments decide where to build a new road? On the basis of statistics, wild guesses, or whose electoral district needs a new spending project? (Sure, abuses happen anyway, but at least opposition politicians and/or the public can object, because they have the data to back up their arguments).

OK, so let's take this in order.

As to how immigrants are faring, broad patterns ought to be apparent in the unemployment and welfare rolls.  The census is a pretty blunt instrument to use to tease out this information.  Better adjust the applications for unemployment benefits and welfare so that this sort of data comes right from the source. 

She wonders how the government will know if they are integrating.  Want them to integrate?  Kill official multiculturalism, and let Canadians wear their national pride on their sleeves.  Play the national anthem more.  Make it clear to immigration candidates that this is a country that has no patience with such aberrations as Sharia Law, and if that is a problem, here is a list of other countries to immigrate to.  Try France, for example.

Are they speaking French or English?  Hey, that question is on the short form!  As soon as I read that argument in defence of the long form, I knew Tasha Kheiriddin was casting around desperately for a way to defend the indefensible.

Are they earning based on their learning?  Well, the answer to that question is yes, always, because the market decides what the right price is.  If a particular skill is not in demand, people won't be paid much for providing that skill, and fewer students will pursue learning that skill in school based on the pay being offered in the want ads.  School administrators will note the fall in demand for those classes and adjust accordingly.  What is the government going to do that the market does not?

Where is the government going to build a new road?  Traffic patterns are not revealed through the census.  And as for areas of growth, such as new subdivisions, all that data is gathered by municipal and provincial governments when developers apply for permission to build.  And again, the short form is more than sufficient to accurately map where people are living right now (though how a snapshot today provided by the census helps figure out where to put a road that could take years to build thanks to the environmental assessment reports and protests and local political interference is not explained).

I give Tasha Kheiriddin credit for trying, but her arguments are weak, and I see no reason to reconsider my fundamental opposition to government inquisitiveness in what is my personal business.  It is gratifying, on the other hand, to see how ineffectual one of Canada's more insightful conservatives is at defending a liberal idea.  Nothing can help make a bad idea look good.