Jan 212011

NOTE:  in the time since the following was written,  Parliament did pass an amendment to the Statistics Act.  ONE PERSON, the Chief Statistician,  can decide what personal data can be collected from citizens.

HOWEVER,  the Statistics Act will ALWAYS be subservient to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  Charter Rights are not Statutory Law.  They are part of the higher level Constitutional Law.

This posting is the early (2011) exploration of the Law on Surveys.

Closely Related, the law on the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information2010-12-23 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 8 Privacy – Case Law: The Queen Vs Plant protects a “biographical core of personal information” from the state. Oakes Test to override.


UPDATE:     2016-07-01 StatsCan Website: Surveys are Mandatory,  then Voluntary,  then Mandatory.         The Law still says that Surveys are voluntary  This Update,  with the Timeline also contains the full  argument – – what does the law say?   A couple of points have been added to the main arguments presented earlier (below).   Hopefully it is water-tight.

The effect of the StatsCan letter (reported on Reddit), accompanied by a change to their website to say “all surveys are voluntary”, meant that the legal action being brought against StatsCan by a citizen was stopped.

But maybe as late as June 2nd, 2016 (a couple months later)  the website was changed back to say that some surveys are mandatory.   See the above URL (StatsCan Website: Surveys are . . . )     Scroll down to the consolidated information about what the Law says.



ORIGIN – WHAT LED TO THESE POSTINGS ABOUT THE LAW ON CENSUSES AND SURVEYS?:   the objections to the extensive data collection on Canadian citizens by Statistics Canada (comparable to the “Census Bureau” in the U.S.)  BEGAN with the out-sourcing of StatsCan work to Lockheed Martin Corporation,  with sub-contractor IBM.

The resistance started in 2003.  Lockheed Martin is an integral part of the American war machine.  Its practices (land mines, cluster munitions) are illegal and immoral.  That was the genesis of the resistance against what StatsCan is doing.   (Lockheed’s role of “contract interrogators” (torture) at off-shore American prisons is equally illegal and immoral but was largely unknown until 2015.)

The leaks by Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald have confirmed what Canadian protestors understood:  through “back door” entry, data bases are illegally accessed by the American “security” forces.   Lockheed Martin works with the NSA.   You have to be gullible to believe that the ever-more detailed information on individual Canadians  in the StatsCan data base, after years of Lockheed Martin participation, is NOT accessible to the American surveillance machinery.   To the original objections (illegal, immoral, expensive) is added “unconstitutional”.   We have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  (Except in the Province of Saskatchewan – – the Sask Court of Appeal did not uphold the Charter Right.)

. . .  but, back to the question of the Law on participation in StatsCan “Surveys” which, day-after-day, weekends included, add to the compilation of files on individual citizens:


= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

In addition to this posting,  please  see  Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?  which takes you to people’s experiences with StatsCan operating outside the law, using coercion, intimidation and harassment to force people to fill in “surveys”, providing personal information that is protected from “dissemination to the state” under the Charter Right to privacy of personal information.

UPDATE:  there are also stories in the “Comments” at the bottom of this posting.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


In order to understand the law, it is necessary to understand the difference between a “census” and a “survey”.

Related:  2010-03-31    Edmontonian Susan Crowther threatened by StatsCan.   Statistics Act,  what is a census and what is a survey?  What is the law?  StatsCan is operating way outside the law.  

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


The law is that surveys are voluntary.

  • The Statistics Act specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions that apply to censuses.   (Censuses happen once every 5 years  (2006, 2011, 2016 …).   “Surveys” are on-going all the time, day-after-day data collection on citizens.  The StatsCan data files contain the names of individuals, contrary to widespread belief.)
  • The following thread provides the explanation for the voluntary nature of “surveys”, under the Law.


Keep in mind that, in the past, the majority of the data collection on citizens was done through censuses (the “long form” census), once every five years.    Objections to the involvement of Lockheed Martin (American surveillance) in the data base at Statistics Canada led to protests and non-compliance – – at that time with the census.    Things changed,  the Government (Prime Minister Harper) went to a single “short form” census.    The data formerly demanded through the long form census became the “National Household Survey”.    There is also the Labour Force Survey, the Household Spending Survey, an Agricultural Survey – –  I don’t know what other data collection.   Surveys are on-going, not restricted to once every 5 years.

Now to the Law.

First, it is helpful to know what the Act of Parliament says about


Section 31 of the Statistics Act, about censuses, reads:

False or unlawful information

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,   (INSERT:  I also argue that the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information provides “lawful excuse” and lawyer Steve presented that argument to the Court.)

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 29.

= = = = = = = = =  = = = = = =


From: Sandra Finley    Sent: January 20, 2011 5:09 PM

To: Lawyer  Steve

Subject: Your reading on “surveys” – is different from mine ?

Hi Steve,

When I read Section 8 of Stats Act, I get a different outcome than you.  Are we reading the same text?  My interpretation goes thus:

1.        Section 8  (appended) says that Statistics Canada can collect data in between censuses.

2.        When that happens, it is not called a “Census”.  It is called a “survey”   and

3.         where such information is requested,  section 31 (jail time and a fine) “does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

Have I misinterpreted?


(APPENDED, from my blog):


Section 8 of the Statistics Act:

” Voluntary surveys     (Note that the TITLE of Section 8 is “Voluntary surveys”)

8.   The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =


Reply From:  Lawyer Steve   (refuted by the next input)

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 3:33 PM

To: ‘Sandra Finley’

Subject: RE: Your reading on “surveys” – is different from mine ?

You are correct, but there is an additional factor – taking out some of the language, the Minister has discretion to “authorize the obtaining of information…on a voluntary basis”. My reading is that the Minister has to authorize the “survey” to be voluntary.




From: Sandra Finley

To: Doug

Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:38 PM

Subject: RE: Census Lockheed Martin Trial: R. v. Finley, verdict is “guilty”

Thanks very much Doug.  I appreciate your input.

It is interesting to me that you and I seem to have taken the same meaning, but Steve interprets differently:

You stated thus:  there may be no conflict between the Charter and the Stats Act because they’ve given everyone an out with respect to the penalties in Sec 31 (fine and/or jail)  by stating in Sec 8 that s. 31 penalties don’t apply for anything but # of people and # of cows.

If there is an error in interpretation, where is it?



RE: Your reading on the mandatory nature of “surveys” – is different from mine ?

Hi Sandra,

sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I lost this email… anyways, I think your lawyer is trying to say that the Minister may authorize the survey to be voluntary, and I believe Parliament’s intent was to state the Minister may authorize the survey itself, not that it be voluntary.

I believe the Minister is authorizing the OBTAINING OF INFORMATION, not the VOLUNTARINESS of it.

And I believe the reason is because the Minister doesn’t have the legislative authority to force someone to breach their own privacy rights… Parliament’s intent in drafting this was to say that… OKAY MR. MINISTER, WE’LL LET YOU AUTHORIZE A SURVEY FOR Statistics Canada to collect ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BUT IT HAS TO BE INHERENTLY VOLUNTARY BECAUSE YOU CAN’T FORCE SOMEONE TO PROVIDE THEIR PRIVATE INFORMATION OTHER THAN NUMBERS.

In other words, the MINISTER doesn’t have the legislative authority to choose whether to make a survey voluntary or mandatory… he just has the ability to authorize a survey.  If he had the choice to make it mandatory, it would definitely be a charter breach, IMHO (in my humble opinion).  And I’m sure that’s why they took the penalties out for extra information collected in surveys.

From the legislation:

Voluntary surveys

8.  The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 (the Sanctions) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

– – – – — – – – –


EXCERPTS FROM “COMMENTS” POSTED ON    Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?

From Angela:   Stats Can’s website describes the Labour Force Survey as “mandatory”, which does seem to be a contravention of the Act — unless they have the power to re-define “voluntary” surveys as mandatory, at their leisure. . .

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

From Patti:  I understand it as the labour survey is not a mandatory thing, even though they want to treat citizens as if it is.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Re your question: did I ever receive an answer to question regarding interpretation of Section 8 of the Statistics Act?

My Response is “No AND yes”. I look at it this way:

If I, the citizen, working with other reasonable and intelligent citizens, cannot read and interpret the law, especially one as simple as the Statistics Act, then the law is not serving us.

WHO is the law for? It is a vehicle for defining the relationships among ourselves and the government, so that we can live harmoniously. It is a dispute resolution mechanism (even if it is poorly designed, is being used by the Government and by Corporations as a tool for intimidation and coercion. It is in obvious need of overhaul. The Chief Justice of Canada has been imploring the legal profession for years to address the problems. They seem unable to deliver the goods to her (for the public).)

Did I receive an answer to my question on Section 8 of the Stats Act? .. . Yes. We figured it out ourselves. Doug’s input was elucidating. And now you capture the essence way better than I have: “unless they have the power to re-define “voluntary” surveys as mandatory, at their leisure”.

– – – – –  – – – –

I tried high-lighting the differences in interpretation (appended). Then I stripped away all the other words. Leaving only this high-lighted text:

(The Minister may, by order:)

Steve: authorize the obtaining of information on a voluntary basis (It helps – – you can see how Steve might have arrived at his conclusion.  He is saying that this paragraph of the Act says that in order for a survey to be voluntary, the Minister has to authorize it to be voluntary.)

Doug: authorize the obtaining of information other than information for a census of population or agriculture,

I still arrive at the conclusion that Steve was in a hurry and made a mistake.
Doug’s interpretation and elaboration makes sense.

The argument is reinforced by the TITLE of the paragraph: VOLUNTARY Surveys.

I did not understand why legislation would need the clause “on a voluntary basis” when it is specified “section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

WHICHEVER WAY YOU COME AT IT, I think it comes down to the one thing:
where such information is requested section 31 (jail time and a fine) does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information.”

IF ANYTHING, “on a voluntary basis” serves to reinforce the message that section 31, the sanctions, do not apply in the case of surveys.

Which means that Statistics Canada is acting outside the law, telling people that they have to supply the information and if they don’t they can be fined and/or go to jail.

I am in complete agreement with your statement: “I understand it as the labour survey is not a mandatory thing, even though they want to treat citizens as if it is.”


P.S. I think it is all irrelevant anyway because of the Charter Right to privacy of personal information  in all provinces except Saskatchewan – the outcome of the appeal process in my trial.

Statistics Canada needs to be taken to Court for intimidation, coercion and harassment.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –


Recommend: The most recent posting re Are Surveys Mandatory? 2014-05-26 More concise argument? (conversation with JoAnne)

  14 Responses to “2011-01-21 Are StatsCan surveys mandatory? Interpretation of the Law.”

  1. Hi Sandra,

    This is month 2 for me… I refused month 1 information to their ‘Interviewer’ after reading online. I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading info from everywhere, but I always come back to your site, Sandra. The information is real.

    I received a funny letter today in the mail. Suddenly they have my name on it rather than “Occupant” at my address. They have not called me as they don’t have my phone number. They do NOT have my legal name which I would use for anything and everything that would arrive by postal mail… I bet they “groped” my ‘usual’ name out of my building superintendent.

    Sorry, back to the funny letter… “In response to your request, we have enclosed a copy of the Statistics Act.” I never requested that, my copy is current and theirs is from a 1992 amendment… What a waste of money on postage… They go on to write the following in regards to sections 8 and 31 in their own words:

    “Section 8 permits the minister responsible for Statistics Canada to order that participation in a survey be on a voluntary basis. No such order has been signed for the Labour Force Survey, therefore, participation is mandatory.”

    “Section 31 sets out penalties for providing false answers or for refusing to participate in a mandatory survey.”


    I’ve even read the instruction sheet for their Interviewers and I’ve found the ‘Guide to the Labour Force Survey’ here (they just updated it):


    I like Section 5.3. Read it fully. For those without a PDF viewer:

    5.3 Non-response to the LFS

    Non-response to the LFS tends to average about 10%
    of eligible households. Interviewers are instructed to
    make all reasonable attempts to obtain LFS interviews
    with members of eligible households. For individuals
    who at first refuse to participate in the LFS, a letter
    is sent from the Regional Office to the dwelling
    address stressing the importance of the survey and
    the household’s co-operation. This is followed by a
    second call (or visit) from the interviewer. For cases
    in which the timing of the interviewer’s call (or visit) is
    inconvenient, an appointment is arranged to call back
    at a more convenient time. For cases in which there is
    no one home, numerous call backs are made. Under
    no circumstances are sampled dwellings replaced by
    other dwellings for reasons of non-response.

    Each month, after all attempts to obtain interviews
    have been made, a small number of non-responding
    households remain. For households non-responding
    to the LFS, a weight adjustment is applied to account
    for non-responding households.

    Sandra, thank you for standing up for your rights as I am now also doing. Your blog is a beautiful thing. 🙂 I’m sure I’m going to enjoy ignoring their “Interviewer” immensely.

    People, be strong. You pay taxes. Know your rights. Live them to the fullest. See StatsCan in court. I will.

    Ken T.

  2. I have just began my fight with Stats Canada over the labour force survey. I initially refused because I am away in school and they managed to get my cell number calling me. I now am in my third month of fighting the survey; today on the phone the lady I talked with refused to tell me the possible penalties if I refused to answer she stated that she wasn’t allowed to tell me. I told her then send me higher to Ottawa if that helps. She then thanked me and hung up.

  3. Has anyone actually been charged and convicted for not participating in the Labour Force Survey? From all the reading I have done it sounds like they pester you until you finally give in. I too have been contacted recently and refused to do the survey and they insist participation is required by law.

  4. Hi Kirt,

    I have received lots of stories from people who have resisted the Labour Force Survey.

    I am not aware of ANYONE who has been prosecuted. A couple of days ago I explained the reason to “Maureen” who was selected for the survey and was feeling threatened by StatsCan. See the box below.

    I think it comes down to this: StatsCan announces from on high that Surveys are mandatory. But it’s not what the Law says.

    There’s an on-line letter-to-editor that tells the wording being used by StatsCan to try and make the surveys mandatory. I’ve read the same thing before. I’ll add it to the collection of information here on my blog and give you the URL, also in the box below.


  5. Continuing . . .

    1. The text of StatsCan’s pronouncements that surveys are mandatory is captured in this letter-to-editor:

    Are Tories getting data via backdoor route? http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12670

    2. The explanation of why people are threatened with jail and a fine if they don’t provide the data requested in the Labour Force Survey – – but are not actually prosecuted, as I understand things:

    (This is the last Comment on http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12247, the posting re Janet Churnin’s stand vis-a-vis Lockheed Martin’s role at Statistics Canada. It is in response to Maureen’s difficulty with the Labour Force Survey.)

    2014/03/17 at 2:53 pm

    Dear Maureen,

    The law says that surveys are voluntary and you cannot be fined or go to jail if you don’t want to participate.

    I hope this can help you:

    1. Yes, you can choose not to answer your door.

    2. You will not go to jail. The Justice Dept would have to lay charges against you and there would have to be a trial, and a Judge would have to find you guilty, and the Judge would have to decide to sentence you to jail – – NONE of which is going to happen.

    The Justice Dept will not lay charges because the law is clear. “Surveys” are not mandatory.

    A Judge would not sentence you to jail. Even people who are threatened with a fine and jail for refusal to fill in the Census, if taken to court, do not get sentenced to jail time.

    3. ANOTHER OPTION: You can print off this little paragraph (it is the Law) and give it to the StatsCan worker. It says that Surveys are Voluntary:


    Voluntary surveys

    8. The Minister may, by order, authorize the obtaining, for a particular purpose, of information, other than information for a census of population or agriculture, on a voluntary basis, but where such information is requested section 31 does not apply in respect of a refusal or neglect to furnish the information. 1980-81-82-83, c. 47, s. 41.

    (Section 31 is the fines and jail that could possibly apply IF A CENSUS is being conducted. A “survey” is not a census. Repeat: the law says that surveys are voluntary and you cannot be fined or go to jail if you don’t want to participate.)

    The Statistics Act is at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm.

    Hold strong, and don’t be afraid. The Law is on your side.

    It is very important for Canadians to get Lockheed Martin Corporation (the American military) OUT of Statistics Canada.

    The American military and intelligence forces are doing intensive data collection and surveillance of citizens. They are breaking both American AND Canadian laws.

    Canadian officials (quislings) are collaborating with the Americans. They are taking away our Charter Rights to privacy of personal information. This is what happens in fascist police-states; it is not supposed to be happening in a democracy.

    It is very obvious to anyone who has paid any attention to the leaks made by Edward Snowden. And it is apparent from news articles in Canada through the years. This is not “conspiracy” talk by me.

    The only people who will defend Canada against this American military and corporate take-over are us, ourselves. That is the job of citizens in a democracy. It is much easier to do when we are banded together and have solid information to share.

    I wish you strength and courage.

    Know that you are not alone.

    I talked just yesterday with Eve Stegenga, a young woman from Powell River BC who is on trial over the 2011 CENSUS (because of Lockheed Martin’s role at StatsCan). With support from networked Canadians, Eve is moving forward in her trial. I will post information about it when it happens (I attended her pretrial earlier this month).

    Please get in touch anytime, if you have more questions.

    All the best,


  6. I have just been through the same situation. I have received 2 calls per day for the past 5 days. I finally gave in and answered the call and declined the survey. The first interviewer didn’t put up much of a fight and gave up on me. I was then called at 9:15PM by a 2nd interviewer and it was explained how “important” this information was and that they are not a normal government body and their office hours are 8AM to 10PM 7 days a week. She then told me again that it was a mandated survey under the statistics act as a census. I said I disagree with that interpretation and that there is no provision or mention of any “mandated survey” she then gave up and the conversation ended. I don’t want to be labelled a trouble maker and I enjoyed up until this point being able to stay under the radar. I seriously believe our rights are being infringed and our tax dollars are paying for these illegal coercions. I’ll keep declining until actual legal action is threatened. I don’t want a criminal record over something so silly. Glad I’m not the only one going through this garbage.

  7. Thanks for your input, Mr. A!

    It may be helpful for you to know the process, in relation to your statement “until actual legal action is threatened”.

    The use of the THREAT of legal action starts in StatsCan. But they cannot lay charges; the Justice Dept does that. Both StatsCan and the Justice Dept count on the THREAT working. At any point, all you have to do is to comply, and that will be the end of it.

    Had I known then what I know now, I would have kept track of the number of times that I was threatened with legal action. Each time they made the threat I listened but politely declined to supply the information. I wrote and explained the difficulties to StatsCan. I had a 45-minute non-confrontational phone conversation with the head of the Census operation who knew the rhetoric around the Census but could not actually answer the tough questions to justify what StatsCan is doing.

    Right up to the time of my first appearance in Court, I could have complied and it would have stopped there. Even AFTER the early Court appearances, I could have stopped, with no consequences. In the end, I was given a conditional discharge and the cost to me was what they know: getting drawn into the “Justice” system is expensive, with no guarantees that the Law will be upheld in the end. That doesn’t matter to me. I did my best to try and make them understand why we even have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, how fundamental it is to democracy.

    What I don’t understand is how people can be well “educated” and not know enough about history and political systems, or even have a critical understanding of what is going on in the world today, to understand the value of our Charter Rights. Those Rights didn’t just happen, they are the consequence of hard-fought battles for democracy, a gift that arises out of the wisdom of the experience of oppressed people.

    There is another thing: in order to lay charges against you, they have to have “evidence” to submit to the Court. I made it easy for them to prosecute me. I had a conversation at my door with the census-worker. I explained to her why I could not fill out the form (Lockheed Martin). She made notes, as they are required to do. She was called as a witness for the Prosecution. The point is: you have to give them something – – something they can use as hard evidence in Court to prove that you were asked but did not fill in the form.

    My case was over the Census long form. This current discussion is about StatsCan SURVEYS. Not the same thing, as you know – except that the tactics used by StatsCan and the Justice Dept are the same, whether it’s census or survey.

    Corporations use the Justice system in EXACTLY the same way, as a tool for coercion and intimidation – – think of Monsanto and farmers.

    But enough of all that! Thank-you for making your story accessible to more people. I hope tnings turn out to your satisfaction. /Sandra

  8. Hey folks,

    I thought I’d follow up on my situation from last summer. I was contacted once more by my “Interviewer” about three weeks after my post here. She managed to get into my apartment building past the controlled entrance and came up the stairs to knock on my door in person. This was a huge mistake on her part.

    As soon as I opened my unit door I was greeted by a woman wearing a Statistics Canada ID tag on a lanyard around her neck. She identified herself using the same name I’d been contacted by in the past. This is where it got really easy for me. I told her she was “trespassing on private property”, that I had “not granted (her) access to the building” and that she was “harrassing me”. I then told her to “get out of the building” and she left.

    It’s now April 2014, almost 7 months after that final event and 9 months since the beginning of a “6 month survey”. I have neither been further contacted by Statistics Canada nor any other parties in regards to the Labour Force Survey and my level of participation. I guess they decided to make a “weight adjustment” according to Section 5.3 of their guide for my household. 🙂

    Guide to the Labour Force Survey – http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-543-g/71-543-g2013001-eng.pdf

    Know your rights. Stay strong and stand your ground. No court date required. 🙂

    Sandra – Thanks for having this blog here to help people understand the truth.

    All the best,

    Ken T.

  9. They tell us to not give out our personal information, and then they threaten us if we don’t. Which is it? Is this the 42,000 new jobs created last month? Or the 200 they originally stated. This means we are PAYING for them to harass us. Ridiculous. Even if we comply, we are out of the country for 3 of the ‘mandatory’ 6 months, what happens then? Once again, ridiculous.

  10. April 20, 2015

    Gary Dillon, Director
    Central Region
    Arthur Meighen Building
    25 St. Clair Avenue E.
    Toronto, ON
    N4T 1M4

    Re: 72 Maple Street W., Aylmer ON

    Dear Mr. Dillon

    Please be advised that I was extremely annoyed at the conduct of your interviewer and how she gained access to our controlled entry building. I am very familiar with the Statistics Act, and I understand the need for canvassing pertaining to this Act. I would like you to know, and I repeat, this building has a controlled entry. I also understand that it is best to “work with” building owners/managers to maximize the success of your field canvassers/interviewers. Here’s the problem, the building your interviewer entered is primarily tenanted by seniors, and the ones that were being harassed were NOT notified by letter from Statistics Canada. I will draw your attention to another Act called The Trespass Act, also one which I am familiar with. Our building is set up with a lobby that houses a panel with all the names of our tenants and their respective unit numbers. Your interviewer should have buzzed only those names of tenants who received a letter indicating an interview, and no-one else. I will not permit the harassment of my tenants. I also note that 3 calls to your office to verify the legitimacy of your interviewer went unanswered and I did not receive a return call. I also note that my contact number is on the panel and is clearly indicated however I did not receive a call from the interviewer to announce herself, I do not call that “working with” property managers.

    In the future please inform your interviewer that in the event the tenant that has been selected to be interviewed is not at home, it will be expected that they are to exit the building without disturbing other tenants. If this type of behavior persists in the future I will remove your interviewer personally. Perhaps, and as a result of the ignorant manner in which your interviewer addressed me, it would be best advised to have a court order in hand next time.


    Darcy A. McLean

  11. Statistics Statistique
    Canada Canada

    Central Region
    Arthur Meighen Building 25 St. Clair Avenue East 5th Floor
    Toronto, Ontario M4T 1 M4

    Region du Centre Immeuble Arthur-Meighen 25 avenue St. Clair Est
    Toronto (Ontario) M4T 1M4

    April 15, 2015
    Darcy McLean 72 Maple West Aylmer, ON
    Dear Mr. McLean:
    Thank you for taking the time to contact Statistics Canada regarding your concerns about a Statistics Canada interviewer’s recent visit to your building.
    I would like to confirm that our interviewer was visiting your building to make contact with selected respondents. I can also confirm that upon entering your building, the interviewer
    followed Statistics Canada’s collection procedures in carrying out her duties. She was initially granted access to the lobby by one of your staff to whom she introduced herself, stated the purpose of the visit and asked for the property manager.
    The interviewer will continue to follow procedures, and will be back again to contact the selected occupants in your building. We hope to work co-operatively with you and I ask you to please refer to the information package the interviewer had provided to you during her visit.
    Please note that Statistics Canada interviewers carry an official photo identification card, and their identity can be verified by contacting: 1-800-387-0714.
    If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Bruce Dale, Data Collection Manager, at 416-952-4002 or toll-free at: 1-800-387-0714.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.


    • I find it interesting to note that the interviewer felt that she was “above the law” and that the Trespass to Property Act did not apply to her. She was not let in by “staff” she merely pushed buttons and harrassed tenants until she was “let in” by a resident of the building, who was not “on the list” for an interview.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>