Mar 212016

Matthew asked whether Lockheed Martin has a role in the 2016 Census.

Short answer:   Yes  – the clincher:  Canada has obligations because of its partnerships with other nations on censuses, and Lockheed Martin is part of that collaboration.   Lockheed Martin’s role is in “steerage”.

Search on words “Lockheed Martin” on StatsCan website.

There are expense claims that help document collaboration on censuses.  Several countries are involved.   That I knew from information given by StatsCan witness Anil Arora,  at my trial (2008).

The additional piece of evidence to be inferred from the expense claims (2009, 2010) is that Lockheed Martin is definitely a part of the collaboration  (probably always has been).

The evidence by StatsCan witness Anil Arora at my trial was that the countries are striving for compatibility,  i.e. the data bases on citizens in various countries, through their census operations, will be compatible.   In the words of Canada-U.S. agreement on “Defence”,  the goal is “inter-operability” (compatibility is required if you want inter-operability).   Loss of sovereignty (the Lockheed Martin – NSA link) is merely collateral damage I suppose.

I would call the collaborative censuses among specified nations a component of international surveillance, under the “steerage” of Lockheed Martin (using the wording of the Travel Expense Claims).

The Important Considerations:

  1.  Collaboration among specified nations on censuses, with Lockheed Martin steerage

    It is VERY IMPORTANT to know about Five Eyes.   2014-09-26  Journalists and whistleblowers will go to jail under new national security laws,  Australia,  The Guardian. (Includes info on Five Eyes (FVEY)    (Australia is one of the collaborating countries.)

    With or without that background,  take a look at the APPENDED Travel Expenses by the Assistant Chief Statistician (Canada).

    Lockheed Martin is a participant in the Collaborations among countries on censuses (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the “Five Eyes” at least).

    What do you make of its role in the census meetings – – “Lockheed Martin Senior Management Steering Committee“?

    ONE of the Travel Claims from Canada’s Asst Chief Statistician, for example, reads:

. . .   Participate at the 2010 Meeting of the International Census Forum and Lockheed Martin Senior Management Steering Committee Meeting

2.    What actions arise out of the information?

 If you find the idea of surveillance repugnant  (American Corporate Empire with means and values infiltrated into Canada),  you will find ways to contribute to the resistance.   Never underestimate the value of simply “spreading the word” so more people are empowered – – they know what’s going  on and can decide how to respond to the Census in May and on-going StatsCan surveys.

We have been in contact in the past with  some U.K.ers who were fighting Lockheed Martin’s involvement in their censuses.   And contributed to debate on the American side when their Census Bureau contracted 100,000 workers to go building-to-building in the U.S. to enter GPS coordinates on census records.

It is important to see this for what it is – – success turns on resistance in more than just Canada.  You come to understand the need to contact people you know and organizations in the 5 Eyes countries.

Even if only half of us communicate with some of our contacts,  it will make a difference.


The Red Herring Considerations:

1.  What has StatsCan announced to the Canadian public?

 As far as I am aware, StatsCan has NOT made a statement to the public to say that Lockheed Martin’s involvement with StatsCan has ended.

Audrey Tobias, Janet Churnin, and Eve Stegenga were three who refused to cooperate with the 2011 census because of out-sourcing to Lockheed Martin Corp.  They were prosecuted.  Audrey’s trial was in October 2013, Toronto, followed by Janet’s.   Eve’s trial was in July 2014, Powell River BC.

At Audrey’s trial the StatsCan witness, under oath testified that “Lockheed Martin was out”  – – StatsCan had listened to the continuing outrage of Canadians and taken corrective action.   Lockheed Martin was no longer involved at StatsCan.

Given the significance of the issue:

  • 2011 Census non-compliance rate of 11%,  a more than five-fold increase over the 2006 Census.  The numbers for 2011 were provided under oath by the StatsCan witness (Yves Beland, then head of Census Operations) at the Tobias trial.    The non-compliance rate for 2006 was 2%, according to StatsCan reports to the media, at the time. )
  • the prosecutions:   so even though StatsCan testified that “Lockheed Martin is out”,  and the reason for the non-compliance was Lockheed Martin, they prosecuted regardless.  Bad enough their arrogance – – Audrey Tobias was 89-years-old and Janet Churnin was 79 years old.   Eve Stegenga is a self-employed yoga instructor who could ill afford the time and lost revenue required for research, preparation, numerous court appearances, and a pile of stress.   (Years later the decision still puzzles me.  It is as though insiders in StatsCan and the Justice Dept, in a position where they had to select people for prosecution, deliberately chose people who had the potention to ultimately embarrass StatsCan, drawing more attention to what was going on.   Or maybe they simply underestimated the power of women, even elderly ones.)

IF a decision had been made to end Lockheed Martin’s participation at StatsCan, surely it was StatsCan’s duty to report that to the Canadian public.

I double-checked the StatsCan website – – maybe there was an announcement I missed?  A search on “Lockheed” shows “0 results”.   But if you search “All” records, there are “4 results” two of which (appended) are Expense claims from Peter Morrison related to meetings with Lockheed Martin in 2010 and 2009 about the Census.

Given that a search on the StatsCan website yields only the Travel Expenses Claims,  and other searches,  I say with some confidence that StatsCan has not made a statement to the public.  (I should be able to find a Press Release, for example.)   (See below – – StatsCan CREDIBILITY GAP)


2.    One “BUT”, leads to another “BUT”

The transcript for the Audrey Tobias trial contains a statement that Lockheed is out.

If true, it would represent a huge victory for Canadians against the Military-Industrial complex.

BUT,  as evidenced by the expense claims of Peter Morrison (scroll down)  StatsCan is enmeshed in collaborative censuses (U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Canada  AND Lockheed Martin).  You have to be realistic in assessing the evidence given by Yves Beland (StatsCan) at the Tobias Trial.


See    2014-07-17 Transcript, Tobias trial establishes Lockheed Martin is OUT

The testimony of the StatsCan witness Yves Beland, Director of Census Operations Division, tells

a.    StatsCan was getting resistance to Lockheed Martin’s involvement from the beginning (2004) during the development period.

b.    StatsCan reacted by “scaling back” substantially on the Lockheed contract for the 2006 Census.

c.    StatsCan cut again, down to $20 million contract for Lockheed for the 2011 Census.

d.    Resistance continued   and so

e.    Lockheed will be completely out of it by the next census (2016).

The only source I know for “Lockheed Martin is “out””  is this transcript of the Tobias trial which ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE have seen.

So, from the transcript of the testimony by Yves Beland, StatsCan had made a decision before the Tobias trial (Oct 2013)   IN SPITE OF WHICH   StatsCan and the Justice Dept proceeded with the prosecutions of Audrey Tobias, Janet Churnin and Eve Stegenga all of whom were on trial because they objected to Lockheed’s involvement in the 2011 Census.

The administration of Justice is brought into disrepute.

3.   StatsCan’s record on truthfulness

       You have to address the StatsCan CREDIBILITY GAP in arriving at any conclusions about

Lockheed Martin’s current (2016) involvement in the  StatsCan Data Base on Canadians.

        You also have to be very careful about word-smithing by StatsCan, as noted in the posting about Lockheed Martin is “out”.


•   Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald did a good job of explaining that under the auspices of the NSA, backdoor entry to data bases is established if American “security” forces cannot obtain legal front door access.  Lockheed Martin is a contractor to the NSA. Both entities are surveillance specialists; both see themselves as being outside the rule of law.  The data base at StatsCan will contain the on-going collection of data through censuses AND surveys. Your name is on your file (established during the cross-examination of the StatsCan witness at my trial).  All in all, EVEN IF Lockheed Martin is “out”, a backdoor entry to the data base will be in place.

[The interest of the Americans in obtaining access to information on ALL Canadians is known through mainstream media report, Ottawa Citizen 2008.    The means?   Well, we have the “President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin” quoted in Maclean’s Magazine Sept 2006.  Lockheed’s position at StatsCan was in place by then.  Ron Covais was speaking in general when he said, The Ministers have told us, Tell us what you want, we’ll see that you get it.  This was how things were to work because as he said, they (corporates) knew they couldn’t get what they wanted through normal democratic channels; they would get it this way, working through the bureaucracy and agencies of Government.  I won’t repeat here how Lockheed Martin works,  nor what collaboration with them means.]

•   StatsCan claims that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away citizens’ Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  Most people know that Rights provided under Constitutional Law cannot be taken away by a regular act of Parliament.  Under Constitutional Law, in order for the Government to take away a Charter Right it has to meet the criteria set out in the Oakes Test.  As far as I know,  StatsCan / the Justice Dept has not applied to the Courts to see if they can meet the criteria, so the Charter Right stands. StatsCan’s assertions to citizens that the Statistics Act gives them authority to take away Charter Rights is bogus.

•   StatsCan proceeded with prosecution of 3 women AFTER the claimed decision (Lockheed Martin is “out”) was made – why would they do that if Lockheed Martin was indeed “out”?  The reason for dissent by all 3 women was Lockheed Martin’s involvement.

•   StatsCan continues to tell citizens “it is the Law”, you have to fill in (for example) the National Household Survey (formerly known as the long-form Census) when the Statistics Act says that participation in surveys is NOT mandatory (the sanctions for census non-compliance do not apply).   StatsCan uses a serious lie to intimidate and coerce citizens into providing information protected by the Charter Right.

•   According to the actual numbers provided by Yves Beland, StatsCan Director of Census Operations, at the Audrey Tobias trial, the non-compliance rate for the 2011 Census is 11%, not the 2% figure they supply to the media.   (StatsCan insists that 13 million out of 14.6 million is 98% compliance. It is 89% compliance. Do the math.)

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

So there we are, Matthew.  Is Lockheed Martin part of the 2016 Census?   I would say yes.  StatsCan has never made a statement to the public to say that the StatsCan contracts with Lockheed Martin have ended.   StatsCan’s credibility provides no basis for believing what they say.  So you have to figure it out.

To me, the CLINCHER is this:  Lockheed Martin is a component of the 5 Eyes partnership which commits Canada to collaboration and conformity with other nations in Census operations.

If people do not understand that this is about surveillance, they need to  read  (related to Bill C-51)   2014-09-26  Journalists and whistleblowers will go to jail under new national security laws, Australia, The Guardian. (Includes info on Five Eyes (FVEY)

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



 (In case the links to the Expense Claims on the StatsCan website become invalid,  screen captures of four of the Claims are pasted onto one word document, see bottom of this posting.)


Morrison, Peter, Assistant Chief Statistician

Travel expenses – 2010

Date Purpose Cost
January 28, 2010 ARCHIVED – Lockheed Martin Steering Committee Meeting $909.88
September 22, 2010 ARCHIVED – Corporate Business Architecture presentation to Regional Offices $1,523.32
October 11, 2010 ARCHIVED – Participate at the 2010 Meeting of the International Census Forum and Lockheed Martin Senior Management Steering Committee Meeting $2,062.94
October 21, 2010 ARCHIVED – Corporate Business Architecture presentation to Central Regional Office and visit to Regional Census Centre $1,128.14



Morrison, Peter, Assistant Chief Statistician

Travel expenses – 2009

Date Purpose Cost
June 17, 2009 ARCHIVED – To visit the Regional Offices in Vancouver and Edmonton $1,478.68
June 22, 2009 ARCHIVED – To attend the Steering Committee Meeting with Lockheed Martin and visit the United States Data Processing Centre (DPC) site $1,262.61
August 10, 2009 ARCHIVED – EX interviews $684.78
September 7, 2009 ARCHIVED – International Census Forum 2009 $4,369.27



StatsCan Expenses Claims Lockheed Martin 2009-2010



  18 Responses to “2016-03-18 Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census?”

    Lockheed will be completely out of it by the next census (2016)

    IMHO “out of it by” means ” by the end of” so LM will still participate in some way in 2016.
    To my mind this will just mean they will be given access to the data.

    • Derek – – I changed the posting. Moved the information about the collaboration on censuses between countries with Lockheed Martin’s participation to the top where it should be. Which reinforces your point. Thanks, Sandra

  2. Received from Jim, 2016-03-21, 6:36 PM

    Sandra, my wife got her Canadian Citizenship and the Judge instructed all

    new citizens that they must fill out the census form this year.

    After the ceremony ended, the new citizens signed a document
    I asked the Court Clerk, who conducted the last census?

    He replied, Statistics Canada.

    I informed him, No Lockheed Martin the defence contractor
    that is making the F 35 junk jets is and our data is going to
    the US.

    I was hoping he would tell the Judge.

    I did not know that all new citizens must swear an allegiance
    to The Queen….still. Not to Canada. My apologies for my
    ignorance, I thought that it was changed when we got our
    Constitution and independence from England. Silly me!

  3. Thanks to Matthew:

    Sent: March 21, 2016 12:48 PM
    To: Sandra Finley
    Subject: Re: Matthew – UPDATE some info from StatsCan website

    Thanks Sandra. Here is what I got from Stats Can:


    Lockheed Martin Canada was awarded a contract to provide Statistics Canada with technical services for the 2011 Census. This company is not contracted to provide any materials or services to Statistics Canada for the 2016 Census. All systems are being developed in-house.

    Please be assured that at no time is any contractor in possession of or able to access confidential census information. Respondent data are stored in a secure Statistics Canada system that does not have outside access.

    Yours truly,

    William (Doré) Garland
    Media Relations / Relations avec les médias 613-951-4636
    Statistics Canada | 100 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway, Ottawa ON K1A 0T6
    Statistique Canada | 100, promenade Tunney’s Pasture, Ottawa ON K1A 0T6
    Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada

  4. I am reading a bit about the “Five Eyes”

    Meantime, the U.S. Census website contains census information on many countries around the world. We’ll probably never know for sure whether or not they also have the individual personal info that accompanies these stats.


    • Interesting, thanks Steve.

      The old conundrum – – human beings can use their technologies for good, and/or for bad.

  5. From: Dorothy
    Sent: March 22, 2016 12:44 PM
    To: Sandra Finley
    Subject: RE: Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census? & Other Updates

    Thanks Sandra Great info!
    Will sent to my lists

  6. From: barnes
    Sent: March 22, 2016 5:51 AM
    To: Sandra Finley
    Subject: Re: Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census? & Other Updates

    Have you shared whatever is on the Lockheed info link with the Canadian Media?

    • Hi barnes,

      I have not yet made a specific effort.

      I am kind of slow! I usually get the info into my own network, then respond to the feedback. In some cases I then go to facebook groups that might have an interest.

      Canadian Media comes after that!

      You have to hope that your timing is right. For example, the ISIS bombs in Brussels today will take over most media attention. If you don’t hit a “dead” day, the chances are reduced that there will be coverage.

      Also – – it is easier to get media coverage if the public is conversant with the terms. “Five Eyes” will draw a blank with most Canadians. So, I try not to be dependent on mainstream media. Alternately the strategy is to create enough awareness that the media will then be more likely to do something with the information.

      Also, an impediment: television coverage needs visuals, like a person walking out of a courthouse. I don’t have that with this.

      The communication of the information is very dependent upon individuals in the network to see ways that they can help to spread the word, if they believe that action is warranted, given the content.

      That said. Today, March 26th, I sent my first overture to a journalist who, based on his work, MIGHT be interested. Fingers crossed. And will continue to look for other potential coverage.

      Thanks for the nudge, barnes!

  7. From: Angela
    Sent: March 22, 2016 7:10 AM
    To: Sandra Finley
    Subject: Re: Does Lockheed Martin Corp have a role in the 2016 Census? & Other Updates

    Grrreat stuff, Sandra–thanks for the updates!!

  8. I don’t understand this paragraph posted on your site above: “StatsCan continues to tell citizens “it is the Law”, you have to fill in (for example) the National Household Survey (formerly known as the long-form Census) when the Statistics Act says that participation in surveys is NOT mandatory (the sanctions for census non-compliance do not apply). StatsCan uses a serious lie to intimidate and coerce citizens into providing information protected by the Charter Right”.
    Are there penalties in law or not ? (whether they are enforceable is another question)
    For the record I am NOT completing the NHS ever….


    • Hi Ron,

      Re your question: Are there penalties in law or not ?

      There are no penalties in law, for failure to fill in a StatsCan SURVEY. See the posting: Are StatsCan “surveys” mandatory?

      But a word of caution to people new to the issue. If it’s the CENSUS Long Form, the Law sets out penalties:

      The NHS (National Household Survey) has gone from being called the

      (1) “Census Long Form” (2006, 2011 censuses), to
      (2) National Household Survey (NHS), (after the 2011 census) and now back to
      (3) “Census Long Form” for the 2016 Census. One in four households will receive it.

      When it is the “CENSUS Long Form” (censuses are once every 5 years), there ARE penalties in law for failure to comply (up to $500 fine and/or 3 months in jail). StatsCan routinely forwards 65 people to the Justice Dept for prosecution for non-compliance, out of the tens or hundreds of thousands who do not abide by the letter of the law. The summons to Court are issued approximately two years after the Census in order to meet the Statute of Limitations.

      When it is the NHS there are threats of prosecution but as far as I am aware, there have not been prosecutions (which is consistent with the Law).

      I do not know whether StatsCan will continue with the NHS after the 2016 Census (in between censuses). If guessing I would say yes, given their appetite for building files on citizens.

  9. Your comments above reference people “receiving” the census.

    Do you know if anyone not in an institutional setting is going to be physically receiving the census form, or is everyone, like me, going to receive a census notice that provides a code to use to access the census online, which is when you find out whether you’ve been selected to do the long form or short form.?

    Also, a I reported in a previous posting in a dfferent section, it’s interesting to note that Stats Canada now explains – on its website – that the 2016 Census form will not ask for financial information. Instead they will be getting this directly from our tax returns, which I have always thought were strictly confidential within Revenue Canada. Stats Canada says they do not share personally identifiable information with any other “investigative” agencies – whatever that means – yet they are given free access to all citizens’ tax returns. And by completing the census online rather than asking to receive a hard copy to return by mail, (which outs you past their requested response date of May 10), then they probably also have access to your IP address, which includes a lot of information, including the name of your internet provider. And the questions on the census form indicate that they are after a lot more information than the statistics they say are so vital to planning for services, etc.

    • Thanks Steve. You spell out conundrums for citizens very well.

      (For other people: The “previous posting” you refer to is at – – “Response to Interview of Chief Statistician, Wayne Smith. CBC Radio”)

      In answer to your question: no, not everyone receives the notice with a code to access on-line census form (as you received).

      For example, StatsCan has a special programme to increase data collection on First Nations people. In northern communities the Census started in February . A paper copy of the actual Census questions was administered to those citizens.

      I presume that in general, in areas with lower rates of internet connection, a paper copy of the census form is delivered. Also, in areas where StatsCan wishes to improve on historically- low participation rates, the employment of local community persons in an intermediary role is a known successful strategy.

      Re: StatsCan will be getting our financial information directly from Revenue Canada. . . . Lord, what a muddle! So over time, and now with “compatibility” of censuses with specific other countries, under the “steerage” of surveillance specialist Lockheed Martin, contractor to the NSA, StatsCan demands an upward-trending amount of personal information. Many people reacted by supplying garbage information. StatsCan’s counter strategy, rather than honour the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information (the Rule of Law) is to get your financial information directly from Revenue Canada (CRA, Canada Revenue Agency).

      I am reminded – I will try to find documentation of it – – a few decades ago the Privacy Commissioner was alerted: the Government had built one huge consolidated data base of information on individual citizens. The data bases from the various departments that had information on citizens were merged into one. The Privacy Commissioner successfully challenged the Government. The data base was ordered to be destroyed. And Canadians relaxed. I was always a bit skeptical whether that illegal data base was actually destroyed.

  10. GOOGLE TOO. Not just Lockheed Martin.

    In an online search for Government of Canada Online Privacy, the info above came up thru Employment and Social Development Canada, but I don’t doubt that it’s true for all Canadian government online services,INCLUDING STATS CANADA.. Data collected thru your computer/inernet connection with one or all Government of Canada websites, (at least in Employment and Social Development Canada) goes OUTSIDE Canada to GOOGLE (because they use Google Analytics), and may be processed in any country where Google operates, and such data is subject to the laws of that/those countries. In this info link the government uses USA Patriot Act as an example of the law that the data may be subject to. The privacy statement says that you can opt out of Google’s Java script or the Google Analytics, and still access the government’s website, but may not be able to use its “secure services.” I would assume that would also apply to Stats Canada online census form, too?!

    If you want a frightening and astonishing list (as of 2008) of the vast empire of info that Google collects and stores, listed by Google service types, including online searches, Gmail, Youtube, etc. – go to I can only imagine that the list of what they collect now is even more extensive as technology has advanced.

    I would have also posted this info in a separate section on Government of Canada Online Privacy Info but wasn’t sure how to do that.

  11. Important information. Thanks Steve.

    Re a separate section on Online Privacy (Govt Policy):

    Such a section is on this blog but it’s hard to find. Which I’ll change.

    The Privacy question arose from actions around Lockheed Martin and the Census. Years ago I started filing it under Lockheed Martin (under Peace/Violence) ( Duh. And also under Edward Snowden (under Solidarity with the Warriors) ( Duh again!

    I will break out and consolidate the category so it’s easier to find, and alert blog participants to your research.

    (There is a lot on the blog that needs re-jigging because of the changes that happen over time. I have had it on the “to do” list for a long time!)


  12. From: kari
    Sent: August 19, 2016
    To: Sandra Finley

    Hi Sandra,

    . . . My experience so far in refusing to fill out the census (mine was a long-form), was that I had four visits, each time from a different person, asking if I still intended to file. In each case I explained my position: I have nothing against the census, and am only refusing to co-operate because of the Lockheed-Martin contract. Each time my answer was accepted, apparently with genuine interest and understanding of my position. In each case they said they were unaware of the L-M connection.

    I am not a facebook user (being very a low-tech gal), and would love to connect by email with others who are refusing to file for the same reasons as mine. If it comes to going to court, I’d like to consider collaborating with others in the same boat.

    I look forward to hearing from you again.



  13. From: Sandra Finley Sent: August 22, 2016 11:15 AM
    To: ‘kari’

    The chances of being prosecuted are much less than 1%. I figured it out one time – – will find the numbers on it. Also: the ones selected for prosecution, if past practices hold, will not hear until just short of 2 years from now – – within the Statute of Limitations. So, patience is required.

    Mother’s Day, created back around 1870 (after the slaughters that happened in the American Civil War) was started by women who were determined to join hands between nations to stop men from making decisions that involved the killing of their sons. I would like to do something before Mother’s Day 2017 that could remind women; and simultaneously help to bring awareness to more people about the growing of the war industry in Canada. It only happens with our support – – – we pay the bills through our taxes.

    I thank you so much for standing with us, in resistance to Lockheed Martin. It is important.

 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>