Nov 072015

Janet asked:    What’s your take . . .

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

It’s probably crazy to expect that anything can be done at this stage (census long form).

NONETHELESS, I sent e-communications to ministers responsible:

Still nervous, yesterday I sent by Canada Post:

Because the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information is the responsibility of the Attorney General (Minister of Justice), I then sent through Canada Post:


To me,  the communication I sent to Bains and Monsef  says:

  • Coercion does not work  (2011 – non-compliance is 11%)
  • Openness is required.  The Lockheed Martin problem has to be addressed.   You cannot sweep it under the rug.
  • Collaborative problem solving is required.
  • Spin-doctoring doesn’t work.  (I didn’t say, but should have:  Neither does Deny, deny, deny work in a somewhat informed citizenry.)

I think the complete solution is more than getting rid of Lockheed Martin’s involvement.   (Note that Lockheed doesn’t  “process” the census and survey data.  They have been involved with the data base at StatsCan.)

I have no doubt that NSA “back-door” access to the StatsCan data base is in place, through Lockheed’s involvement at StatsCan:

  • The report by Ottawa Citizen on Security Conference in Ottawa,  unequivocal statement that the Americans want access to the data on all Canadians.
  • The Maclean’s report in which the “President for the Americas, Lockheed Martin” spells out how they are going to get what they want.
  • Add to that the information leaked by Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, include Assange.
  • Add to that the spying culture that has arisen out of American imperialism.

I did not, but should have included in the documentation sent to the Government, the story of Ladar Levison:

A few points:

  1. Getting rid of Lockheed Martin at StatsCan won’t remove the backdoor access to the data base.
  2. All credibility has been lost.  You can’t trust what is said.  Communications Consultants are about whitewashing and pushing an agenda.  Their work is not judged by ethical standards.   To them, truth and openness are obstacles.  There are unethical quislings in strategic positions in the bureaucracy, amongst the ethical and hard-working ones.
  3. We are “nice”.   We are prone to forget “not nice”.   At our peril.   Lockheed Martin is a big player in the corporatocracy which is well described by John Perkins.  I hope to soon circulate this link by email:  Confessions of an Economic Hitman

Janet – – if you haven’t read Perkins’ Confessions,  take time to listen to the Youtube interview of him at    .   Perkins is legitimate, I did background checks.   His work has been in the public domain for at least 8 years, and is supported.

4.   Most citizens understand that elected officials don’t run the show:  big corporations are doing it behind the scenes with their collaborators.   Perkins enlightens as to their tactics.  They are without scruples.  We have to deal with that reality.   And we are, through citizen movements big and small (Occupy, March Against Monsanto, Idle No More, Black Lives Matter, Dis-invest, #HaveNoFear;  Committee For Future Generations; ad infinitum).

5.   In light of point #4,  in light of the troubling fact that in 2011 we re-elected the Harper Conservative Agenda, in light of the still rampant racism (the denigrating emails that are circulating about Muslims), in light of everything that mainstream media does not tell citizens,  it is my opinion that Canadians will be making a tragic mistake if they agree to extinguish our Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

In answer to your question,  the resolution of the debacle at StatsCan must include a solid defence of this Charter Right.  It seems to me that many Canadians understand the danger inherent in allowing the state to build and maintain files that hold detailed personal information about them.

(Sorry – – never a “short” answer from me, Janet!)


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



Sept 20:  Advocating for detailed files on citizens  (Response to Maclean’s Magazine)


Nov 5.  Mandatory long form census, to Minister Navdeep Bains (Innovation, Science & Development)  Minister Responsible for the Census


Nov 6.   To Prime Minister J Trudeau, Census Long Form & Charter Right to Privacy


Nov 7.  My reply to “What’s your take?”


Nov 9.  Request to defend Charter Right (Privacy of Personal Information) – to Ministers Justice, Democratic Institutions & Privacy Commissioner    Includes reply and response.


Jan 9.  2016-01-09 To Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, Sean Casey, re Mandatory Census Long Form and Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information


2015.    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 1. Letter of Mandate to Attorney General & 2. Quotes from Trudeau’s book, “Common Ground”  


2015.    1940′s “U.S. Census was used to round up hundreds of thousands of patriotic American citizens at gunpoint”.   

  11 Responses to “2015-11-07 What’s my take? Census Long Form, Lockheed Martin Corp, Privacy of Personal Information, StatsCan”

  1. So far, I’ve vehemently refused to comply with this census as well as the other economic census..I angrily inform the door knockers that I am Metis and DO NOT trust their government!
    So far they have not reacted. Ive never, ever at any time in my memory signed any consensus

  2. QUESTION: Regarding Lockheed involvement in Census form/Stats Cda: Have you reported all this to any Canadian TV and/or radio stations? If so, what was their response? Has anything about this ever been discussed in Canadian media or any kind?

    Article on Liberals Bringing back Long Form Census.

    1. Form was printed months ago, but will come with a letter saying the completion of the form is mandatory. Info hasn’t really changed from last long form.

    QUESTION:: Why does a census form require a phone number and email address? Isn’t the form delivered by post mail?

    2. Article notes that the Stats Canada Act says failure to complete and return the form, or failure to answer questions honestly, can result in a $500 fine and/or 3months in jail. The current relevant Minister has not stated specific penalties for failure to comply with the new reinstated, mandatory long form, but the existing statutes are likely to apply.

    3. The average citizen, much less average immigrant not yet a citizen, cannot afford, economically and otherwise, to put themselves in a position to defy the laws that pertain to the census. As far as the U.S. getting access to stats on Canadian residents and citizens, it would be naive to think that anything will stop that…………the sad handwriting has been on the wall for several years, and things continue to progress, rapidly, in that direction, regardless of which political party has a majority.

    When the Conservatives did away with the mandatory long form and replaced it with a voluntary form, a large number of medical, social and educational institutions and organizations made their concerns known to government and the media, claiming that the lack of the mandatory long form would prevent the collection of data vital to providing an “accurate” picture of Canada and would interfere with the adequate planning and providing of vital services to Canadians, and would hurt some of the most vulnerable. How many of those institutions knew about Lockheed, I don’t know; and maybe they would not have cared.

    When I read the form, I have a hard time understanding how some of that information is needed for the purpose of planning and providing services to Canadians………………names, phone numbers, email, names of others in the household, countries of origin, etc………….clearly this is gross overkill; I don’t understand why some of the associations calling for the mandatory long form don’t see that…………especially social workers, etc……………..why wouldn’t they state their need for basic information, while also objecting to the excess of information required?

    This is the way things are going, and will continue to go, whether behind the scenes or in the open.. The end result will be the same.


  3. Regardless of all the points made by Steve, why in heavens name would Canadians want the largest arms manufacturer in the world, Lockheed Martin, to have access to the private lives of Canadians?

  4. I agree completely. Besides the overkill invasiveness of the long form census questions, it’s a complete mystery to me why the Canadian government would even consider allowing a US institution, much less a military one, to have anything at all to do with the private info on Canadian citizens. I can’t think of any explanations that are acceptable…..most are very disturbing.

    My questions remains: Has there been any effort made to make the Lockheed connection known to the major Canadian media, as well as various citizens groups concerned with privacy.

    Maybe we should be contacting the various associations and agencies that wanted this form brought back, and let them know about the Lockheed link.

    Any thoughts on the best way to do that?

    • I collected the record I have of the media coverage through the years, in order to back-up the reply I will make to your question, Steve (and thanks for the prompt!). Your question is important – – democracy is dependent upon an informed citizenry. So, has the media delivered the goods, in relation to Lockheed Martin, the census and the important Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information in a democracy? I have a couple of pressing matters, will get back to you later today. Cheers!

      • Steve – – I will give you what I observed as I was going through the media reports. I just spent half an hour looking for the URL’s I collected. It looks as though the list didn’t “save”. Not good – – I made notes as I was going! All lost.

        In response to your first question about TV and radio coverage>
        A general observation: television is a visual medium. In order for TV news to cover an issue there generally needs to be visuals they can use. And it is helpful if you aren’t out in the boonies where it’s difficult for them to get cameras to the site.

        So there was some TV coverage, for example, when some of the people charged for non-compliance were entering or exiting a court house.

        Early emails show frustration: media would often not mention Lockheed Martin’s role. The most egregious example was when the NY Times Canadian reporter filed a story. Before it went to print, “Lockheed Martin” was removed. The story became

        “Intense Debate in Canada Over Longer Census (Published: July 23, 2010)

        “a small number of people refused to fill out (the Canadian) census forms. But they were protesting the use of an American technology contractor.”

        You can understand that citizens are clueless – – Lockheed Martin’s name erased!

        The issue of Lockheed Martin’s involvement at StatsCan did not get reported, except in relation to the trials. Otherwise it is through comments from people who know about it, in “Comments” or letters-to-editor; also through blogs and social media. We inform each other.

        In order for citizens to fully understand that “mandatory census long form” means that the Government is constructing a file with their name and includes their very personal information, there needs to be discussion. Also, if you don’t know that you have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information, you can’t invoke it. We are dependent upon solid journalism.

        My experience with the Justice system tells me that the only people who are going to defend and protect the Charter Right to Privacy are citizens. The Justices are not going to. The Crown did not even have to argue the Oakes Test which, as taught in law schools (I confirmed), is required if the Government is going to override a Charter Right. Which they did with the Census Long Form – – I was found “guilty” – – no Charter Right and, as I say, no requirement of the Govt to pass the test for an override.

        These are serious matters – – deserving it seems, of zero discussion.

        In the reporting of the Tobias and Churnin trials in Toronto, in the midst of the revelations from Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange on NSA illegal access to data bases, when it’s known that Lockheed Martin is a contractor to the NSA, when unequivocally Tobias and Churnin’s non-compliance was because of Lockheed Martin’s presence at StatsCan, when the lawyer drew the Snowden-Greenwald connection to the attention of the Court – – There was not a peep in the media coverage about the connection to the Snowden leaks. (As far as I know. I don’t see ALL the media reports, but often someone will forward critical reports I’ve missed.)

        There tended to be local newspaper coverage of trials. The “Powell Peak” did very respectable journalism on the Stegenga trial. National media declined to pick it up. The Kingston Spectator did the same for the earlier trial of Stelmach. The Star Phoenix, CBC, Global, and CTV in Saskatoon did the same for my trial. Some national coverage then joined the Stelmach and Finley cases in their reporting.

        I did fine with media, because of running the email network for a long time. Through the years I’ve worked with a number of journalists.

        What emerges is pockets of relatively informed people (Powell River, Stegenga), Kingston (Stelmach), Saskatoon (Finley), Toronto (Tobias and Churnin). Czernewcan’s work and residence left him without continuity in a community. But his family is active in the Cdn Polish community. His Father was in the trenches with Lech Walesa in communist Poland. The Polish community became well aware of what’s going on at StatsCan. They could not believe that this (the reporting of personal information under threat of prosecution) would be happening here in Canada. The Czernewcans are refugees from a regime that had such practices. They understood their home here was in a democracy. Did mainstream media mention any of this? No. But the Georgia Strait did. So again – – alternative media.

        Yes, there have been efforts to draw in the mainstream media. Sometimes with success. But only if there have been trials. I suspect that the Justice Dept will not in future prosecute conscientitious objectors for census non-compliance. In order to justify prosecution, they at least need to be getting significant fines (the goal is to create an example that will serve as deterrence to others). They are failing miserably in their mission. The trials have instead aided the creation of awareness of Lockheed Martin’s presence at StatsCan.

        There have been overtures to some organizations. Civil Liberties, Often the organizations are overloaded already, and under-staffed. There have been postings on facebook Peace groups. Many people will have talked with organizations, but I don’t know which ones and how many. Actually, it was a well-researched and documented letter from the Society of Friends (Quakers) in Halifax about the involvement of Lockheed Martin at StatsCan in 2003, that is responsible for the path I ended up on!!

        I try, when I read another statement that demands a return of the mandatory census long form, to contact the author and supply information they likely don’t know. I have never received a reply to an overture. But never mind, I keep doing it. Maybe they’ll think about it. Maybe more likely, they delete it!!

        I’ve added links (above, at bottom of this posting) to the information recently submitted to the Cabinet Ministers responsible.

        Some people are using the Ministers’ and Prime Ministers’ facebook pages to join discussion threads about the Mandatory Census long form to point out Lockheed Martin’s role. I don’t know if any are using it to inform regarding Charter Right to Privacy.

        Letters-to-Editor are really important. A good way to reach lots of people. And an initiative that doesn’t require any organization or organizing.

        I supply information with the hope that others will pick it up and use it, in whatever way suits them. Just use the info, it’s free, don’t ask for permission. Edit to suit yourself.

        What do you think Steve?

  5. Thank you for all the media related information you sent.

    I agree that the future of true democracy’s depends on the willingness of people to speak up when they see injustice and threats to democracy.

    But I also know that this country is comprised of many immigrants who are 1) not yet landed residents, 2) landed residents but not yet citizens. Even if they are familiar with aspects of what we’re discussing, and even if they normally would protest this law in some way, they know their chance for becoming landed and.or citizens can be threatened by taking any actions that are seen as breaking a law – regardless of how unfair or undemocratic or maybe even constitutionally questionable a law might be.
    This fact is even more disturbing when you read the Census questions closely and get the clear impression that it is these very people that many of the questions seem to focus on……and I just don’t think that the focus is primarily to ensure these populations are adequately represented so they can be ensured proper services………..the census has been around a long time, and I still observe how poorly served many of these communities are……………….not to mention our own Native Canadians.

    Canada was once seen by many to be the shining example of the fairest form of democracy, and even many Americans disillusioned with decreasing respect for citizens’ rights and privacy, would point to Canada as an example of how government should be. In my opinion, Canada’s government is still superior in that regard, but from what I can see, it is looking and acting more and more like the U.S. in terms of privacy issues and not being open and up front about what it’s doing and why.

    Seen you have so much experience with this, maybe you should try another round of sending the major media in each city, by province, the media references you’ve outlined, along with the Lockheed connection confirmations and your own personal story Try sending them directly to the City editors, the legal reporters, the business reporters, and the family/life reporters, and the editors of each of those departments, as well as to the general news desk.

    Just a thought.

  6. Regarding the 2016 Census:

    1. Why is a 2016 Short Form Census still on the Stats Canada website since it’s been replaced by the Long Form?
    2. Do you think that people who recently failed to respond to one or more Stats Canada surveys (in my case, the Survey of Household Spending, 2015), but who did identify themselves (name, address, phone) to a Stats Cda. rep. at the time, are more likely to be targeted for followup after they submit their 2016 Census form?
    Please note that I also submitted as a comment, other 2016 Census-related questions earlier this evening to a non-census related posting. Should I re-post them here?

    • Hi Steve,

      1. Only one quarter of households will receive the Census long form (it used to be one third). The remainder receive the short form. That is why both forms are on the StatsCan website.

      2. I can only guess, I do not know. My guess is that the Census, a huge undertaking done once every 5 years, would have its own crew and its own challenges. I kinda doubt that they would have time to take a look at the previous behavior of the household in relation to StatsCan?

      YES! will you please re-post your other Comment on this page (not on a “Surveys” page)? I tried moving it myself, but was unable.


  7. Now Stats Can wants the Liberals to make all Surveys mandatory & from the article (see below) it seems to me the Privacy Act will no longer apply since Stats Can now wants to “divorce” itself from the government “and ensure statistical decisions by the chief statistician take priority over political considerations.” They want even more info & want to “force certain companies to hand over requested data, such as credit card transactions and Internet search records.” They say they’ll do away will jail time, but “Corporate fines would depend on a company’s size and the length of any delays.” The Liberals “promised to give Statistics Canada more freedom from government influence.” What happened to my right to privacy, including what I buy & where I buy from? What good is a Privacy Act when Stats Can can ignore it? Where do we send letters showing our disagreement with this?

    • Good grief! Thank-you VERY much for sending this in, Karen.

      I will start a new post with the article. Get that into our networks, as a first step. I can’t do a whole lot on it this week. My time is fully committed.

 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>