Sandra Finley

Jan 212011
 

Four different reports:  The President and Provost (Peter MacKinnon and Brett Fairbairn) overrode the Search Committee’s recommendation for Dean of the Law School.

As reported by the Star Phoenix and  by Global News, Jan 21, 2011

 

Top U of S officials face criticism over law dean selection

Search committee’s choice was ignored by university’s board

Jason Warick, The StarPhoenix: Friday, January 21, 2011

 

Some members of the search committee to pick a new dean for the University of Saskatchewan’s college of law are furious after top administrators ignored the committee’s choice and pitched their own candidate to the university’s board of governors in a private meeting.

Some members of the search committee to pick a new dean for the University of Saskatchewan’s college of law are furious after top administrators took the rare step of ignoring the committee’s choice and pitching their own candidate to the university’s board of governors in a private meeting.

Critics worry about the centralization of power in the hands of the university’s top administrators and the board of governors, which continues to ban the public from its meetings. They say this incident, which violates long-standing conventions, will make it more difficult to recruit talented people to sit on time-consuming, volunteer search committees.

“I think all those principles . . . I think it damages all those things,” said a committee member who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The board of governors unanimously approved U of S president Peter MacKinnon’s pitch for candidate Sanjeev Anand.

“It was a pretty straightforward matter. The board dealt with that in that manner,” said board of governors member Garry Standing.

“The board of governors obviously supported the decision that was made (by MacKinnon) and voted on it and voted to proceed,” said fellow board member David Sutherland.

No one interviewed criticized Anand, a high-profile, widely published University of Alberta criminal law professor who has worked at the U of S. The point, critics say, is the search committee’s top choice was dismissed from a field of finalists that also included two respected University of Saskatchewan professors and a senior official in the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice.

The search committee member representing the Law Society of Saskatchewan wrote a highly critical letter about the incident to the board of governors, but the university declined to provide a copy. The university says it is a personnel matter and as such is confidential.

Officially, committee members have been ordered not to discuss the issue and directed interview requests to the office of U of S academic vice-president and provost Brett Fairbairn, who spoke on behalf of the university administration.

“We can’t talk about anything that happened,” said the committee member.

Privately, however, many of the 10 committee members — students, professors, lawyers, deans and others who volunteered dozens of hours to conduct the search — are fuming, the committee member said.

“It’s a very time-consuming process,” said the member.

“This is not just about a few people feeling hard done by.”

In an interview this week, Fairbairn said personnel matters are private and declined to discuss the situation.

In general terms, however, he said the university values the hard work of the search committees and it’s rare for the search committee’s choice to be overruled.

“In most cases — it seems to me like it’s nine out of 10 or even more — it’s a very straighforward process,” he said.

When asked how he or MacKinnon could overrule the search committee, when Fairbairn admitted the research done by the search committee is important, he said there may be a difference of interpretations.

He said the board of governors is always made aware of the views of the search committee, but is not bound by its choice.

“Really, it’s about using the committee as the vehicle to collect and assess information,” Fairbairn said.

Fairbairn lauded the accomplishments and leadership ability of Anand, who takes over as dean on July 1.

“We’re terrifically impressed by his record as both a scholar and a leader,” Fairbairn said.

Board of governors member Linda Ferguson said board members “certainly” had all of the information at their disposal.

“We don’t usually discuss how decisions are made,” she said before referring further questions to Fairbairn.

Board of governors vice-chair Susan Milburn said there was more discussion on this appointment than others. She also noted the search committee is “advisory” and the board is free to make the final decision.

Asked if board of governors meetings should remain closed to the public given that other publicly funded bodies — school boards, health boards, governments — make most of their decisions in the open, Milburn compared the U of S to a “high-performing corporation” where certain information requires protection.

She said the board strives to inform the public of its decisions after they are made.

“We try to be as transparent as we can,” she said.

If administrators aren’t happy with the search committee’s choice, they should not overrule it, said U of S faculty association vice-chair and psychology Prof. Jim Cheeseman. Instead, the search should be declared “failed” and begin again.

Cheeseman, who is part of a group rewriting the rules for dean searches, said he hopes this will help avoid similar incidents in the future.

“One wants to be very careful about these sorts of things,” he said.

 

© Copyright (c) Shaw Media Inc.

PrintEmailShareFacebookTwitter

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?SectionID=1306&SectionName=News&VolID=316&VolumeName=No%202&VolumeStartDate=2/8/2011&EditionID=34&EditionName=Vol%2058&EditionStartDate=1/13/2011&ArticleID=3200

CANADA’S VOICE FOR ACADEMICS
Vol 58 | No 2 | February 2011

 

Controversy Mars USask Law Dean Hire

 

University of Saskatchewan college of law building [Photo: University of Saskatchewan]

The choice of a new law dean by top administrators at the University of Saskatchewan has come as a surprise to members of a search committee whose recommendations were overruled in the hiring process.

The university’s board of governors voted Nov. 18 to hire University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand, the short-list candidate reportedly favoured by U of S president Peter MacKinnon.

Although the university is not bound by the committee’s hiring recommendations, ignoring its choice violates long-standing convention, and has reportedly dismayed many committee members who put in dozens of volunteer hours researching and interviewing candidates. Those members cannot publicly discuss their recommendations because of privacy concerns.

“I don’t know of this ever happening before at the university,” said U of S faculty association vice-chair Jim Cheesman, who is part of a joint university council/board committee currently refining search and review procedures for senior administrators.

Those refinements are still under consideration by council, and were not used in Anand’s selection. Cheesman anticipates the new guidelines will ultimately be adopted by the board of governors for application in future hiring situations.

He characterizes the existing process as murky and says the joint committee’s recommendations will clarify employment criteria, define the makeup of selection committees, and attempt to promote transparency and accountability without compromising applicants’ rights to privacy.

Hiring recommendations made by search committees are non-binding as mandated by The University of Saskatchewan Act, and will stay that way, Cheesman adds.

However, Cheesman believes that where administrators “can’t live” with a committee’s choice, the search should be declared “failed,” and feedback passed along to the committee before another search begins.

“If you continue to ignore the recommendations of search committees, you’ll create a chilly environment. People will get very cynical about the process,” he warned.

U of S vice-president and provost Brett Fairbairn declined to speak about the details of the search for the new dean of law, but acknowledged that the current review of the hiring process amounts to a “codification of overarching principals,” and as part of a regular updating will provide a “better articulation of appropriate considerations.

“We involve a lot of people in search processes. It’s unique and reflects the academic culture. This results in diverse opinions,” Fairbairn said of the incident.

 

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

As reported by Academic Group, January 24, 2011

http://www.academicagroup.ca/top10/stories/11995

Top uSask administrators criticized over law dean selection

News Date:

Jan 24, 2011

Some members of a search committee for a new law dean for the University of Saskatchewan are angry after senior officials apparently overruled the committee’s choice and pitched another shortlisted candidate to the institution’s board of governors in a private meeting. Critics worry about the centralization of power in the hands of uSask’s top administrators and the board of governors, whose meetings are closed to the public. They say this incident will make it more difficult to recruit talented people to sit on time-consuming, volunteer search committees. The board’s vice-chair says the committee is “advisory” and the board is free to make the final decision. The faculty association’s vice-chair says if administrators are not happy with the search committee’s choice, they should not overrule it. Instead, the search should be declared “failed” and start again.  Saskatoon Star-Phoenix

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

As reported in the student newspaper, The Sheaf

http://thesheaf.com/news/2011/02/02/committee-silent-over-law-dean-controversy/

Committee silent over law dean controversy

Feb 02, 2011

KEVIN MENZ
Associate News Editor

The once vocal search committee for a new dean of law is now silent over accusations that University of Saskatchewan president Peter MacKinnon overlooked their recommendation for the new dean.

Accusations published in the StarPhoenix in recent weeks indicate that the search committee — which is made up of volunteers from the university and community — suggested appropriate candidates for the job, but MacKinnon’s choice, University of Alberta law professor Dr. Sanjeev Anand, was vetted.

Anand previously worked at the U of S, according to the StarPhoenix.

Jim Germida, the chair of the search committee, was unwilling to comment to media on the specific accusations, stating that whatever the university president and his vice-president Brett Fairbarn have said must be taken as correct.

At university council Jan. 27, MacKinnon acknowledged the accusations but mostly highlighted the demolished relationship between faculty and administration.

He said that the first time he was informed of the accusation that he had ignored the search committee’s suggestions was in the StarPhoenix.

“I was under the mistaken belief that if members of the faculty association executive felt [negative towards our hiring practices], they would have communicated such to me before such a, quote, ‘scathing public message,’ ” said MacKinnon.

“The charge that elite university administrators are making all the decisions is utterly without substance,” he added, pointing to “Section 49 of the University of Saskatchewan Act [which] makes it clear that deans are appointed by the Board of Governors.”

Brett Fairbarn, university provost and vice-president academic, stated to council that “we really should not be relying on the StarPhoenix as a source.”

He accused the newspaper of misquoting but would not clarify the inaccuracies to StarPhoenix reporter Jeremy Warren because, he said, he could not comment on this specific case.

MacKinnon said that of the 15 appointments in the last five years he is familiar with, 14 saw an offer made to the candidate the search committee preferred. It is only when the search committee cannot come to consensus over candidates that the Board of Governors makes a decision on its own.

“This was a case where there was not a consensus,” said Fairbarn after the meeting.

Germida would not confirm whether or not the committee had come to a consensus.

– –   image: Pete Yee

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

Jan 202011
 

FROM ELLEN: 

Discussion of Lockheed Martin on the Jan 20 Democracy Now.    Footage of President Dwight Eisenhower on the dangers of the military-industrial complex, followed by an interview with William Hartung.

Click on:  Fifty Years After Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, A Look at “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex”

(From:   http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2011/1/20.)

AMY GOODMAN: Our next guest traces the rise of the military-industrial complex through the story of the nation’s largest weapons contractor, Lockheed Martin. As a full-service weapons contractor, Lockheed Martin receives over $29 billion per year in Pentagon contracts, or roughly one out of every 10 dollars the Defense Department doles out to private contractors.

William Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation—his book is called Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex—joining us here in our studio.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: The significance of this massive weapons manufacturer in the United States and why you chose to write a book on it?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, I think they’re the largest, they’re the most corrupt, and they have the most political influence. So, for example, they make cluster bombs, which are used in the Middle East. They design nuclear weapons. They make fighter planes. They make combat ships. So they have the full gamut of weapons. But they also have branched out. They work for the CIA, the FBI. They work for the IRS, the Census Bureau. So they’ve become this full-service government contractor, which really is involved in every aspect of our lives. Every time we interact with the government, Lockheed Martin is likely to be there.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I was struck, some of the ones you talked about. The Census Bureau—what does Lockheed Martin do for the Census Bureau?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they help count the census. They have these people in little Lockheed Martin, you know, polo shirts who are—they have truckloads of data that they’re processing. They also helped design it. So they’re really in the middle of it. They’re running it, in some sense.

AMY GOODMAN: How did Lockheed get so big?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, the mergers of the ’90s were one of the big things. I mean, World War II was the first. Then, when Norm Augustine engineered the Lockheed-Martin Marietta merger, that’s when they really became by far the biggest company, and they didn’t have a real competitor at that point.

AMY GOODMAN: Lockheed and Martin Marietta.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Became one company, yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: They also branched out, as you note, into services to local governments. For instance, here in New York City, Lockheed Martin had the contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to basically develop a surveillance system in the subways.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And so, they increasingly got into this intelligence gathering or in information systems for local governments. Could you talk about how that developed?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they bought a company that had been involved in a New York City parking violations scandal. And then they branched out into social services in Florida. They tried to get the welfare contract in Texas. As you said, they worked on the New York City subway surveillance system, which was a disaster. They were fired after a $212 million contract. So they went into that for about five years, and they had contracts in 44 states. But they just couldn’t get the job done. Finally, they were fired from so many places, they decided to get out of the business.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance of President Eisenhower’s speech, what he meant by the “military-industrial complex” 50 years ago.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, he was concerned not just about the size, not just about the budget, but that it was going to undermine our democracy. And I think that’s what Lockheed Martin is about in many ways. I mean, they were involved with the Pentagon in doing surveillance on antiwar protesters. They build biometric identification systems for the FBI. The fact that they’re in the IRS makes me kind of nervous. It’s sort of creepy in a way. They’ve got so many kinds of data about us. I’m not sure, you know, a military contractor should really be in that position.

JUAN GONZALEZ: They were the firm that was involved in Total Information Awareness?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: The Counterintelligence Field Activity, which was closely related to that.

AMY GOODMAN: You say that Lockheed Martin makes foreign policy, has its own foreign policy.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: In many ways. I mean, not only were they involved in lobbying for the war in Iraq, but they have people in Liberia helping rebuild the justice system. They’re building refugee camps. They helped run elections in the Ukraine. They helped write the Afghan constitution. So, all kinds of things that you would think of as sort of the soft side of foreign policy, they’re making money from.

AMY GOODMAN: And its role in elections?

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Well, they recruit the monitors who monitor the elections in places like Bosnia.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean here.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Oh.

AMY GOODMAN: The money that they pour into elections at home.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Oh, they spend about $12 million per election cycle, either on lobbying or on candidates. And they have people like Buck McKeon, who runs the Armed Services Committee now. They’re the biggest donor to him. They’re the biggest donor to Daniel Inouye, who runs the Appropriations Committee in the Senate.

AMY GOODMAN: So, they get money from the Pentagon, from the U.S. taxpayer, and then decide who they want to elect.

WILLIAM HARTUNG: Essentially, they recycle our money into the political system, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to have to leave it there. It’s a remarkable book. Bill Hartung, director of Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. His latest book is Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex. We will link to an exclusive continued interview with him after on our website at democracynow.org.

Jan 192011
 

The Government did not pass legislation to make the “Census Long Form” mandatory.  Instead, the name was changed to “National Household Survey” which enables data collection on individuals to proceed day in and day out, every year.  (Censuses are limitied to once every 5 years, surveys are not.)

(item #1 below)   I just stumbled across the StatsCan webpage  “Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information”.   “Date Modified: 2010-06-28”,  the day before the announcement that the census long form would no longer be mandatory.

(item #2 ).   The webpage says “Section 3”  – –   BUT Section 3 of the actual Statistics Act is a definition of what the “Statistics bureau” is.  So I think THIS “Section 3” must be from a procedures manual or something?

(Item #3 below)   The rules regarding “disclosure” are in Section 17 of the Statistics Act called “Secrecy”.   It is referred to in (Section 3 – of whatever):   Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information.

I haven’t had time to look at what “Section 3:  Authorized Disclosures” entails.  Does anyone have time?

Thanks,

/Sandra

(1)               Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/pia-efrvp/section-partie3-eng.htm

Statistics Canada

www.statcan.gc.ca

Section 3: Authorized Disclosures of Confidential Statistics Act Information

3.1 Data-sharing agreements
3.2 Discretionary Disclosure Authorized by Subsection 17(2) Statistics Act

3.1 Data-sharing agreements

The Statistics Act permits the agency to enter into two types of data-sharing agreements whereby confidential Statistics Act information may be disclosed under specific conditions.

Section 11 data-sharing agreement

Section 11 of the Statistics Act recognizes the special status of provincial/territorial statistical offices that administer their own statistical legislation. It provides the authority for the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to enter into agreements to share data collected jointly with the statistical agencies of provinces and territories for statistical purposes.  Thus, information can be shared with provincial and territorial statistical agencies if (i) respondents were notified at the time of collection, (ii) the agency has the statutory authority to collect the information on its own, and (iii) the agency’s confidentiality protection requirements are substantially the same as those of Statistics Canada.  Agreements must be in place at the time the information is being collected. In other words, information cannot be shared retroactively.

Section 12 data-sharing agreement

Section 12 of the Statistics Act provides for the sharing of information collected jointly by Statistics Canada and with any federal and provincial government department, municipal government or other incorporated body such as an association or university.  Sharing of data is conditional on giving respondents prior notification of the proposed sharing, and giving them the right to refuse to allow their information to be shared.  A respondent’s right of refusal to the sharing of information does not apply if the department is authorized by law to require the respondent to provide that information.  As is the case for agreements with provincial and territorial statistical agencies, agreements must be in place at the time of the data collection.  Respondents are informed of data sharing and of their right of objection at the time of collection.  This is generally done at the end of the survey allowing respondents to make an informed decision based on the information they have provided. For mail surveys, provision for objection to sharing the information must be made on the form; for telephone and face-to-face interviews, objections are accepted verbally from respondents.  For ongoing surveys with the same respondents, annual reminders are made.

In many cases, such an agreement means that the other agency will not have to collect similar information through its own survey.  The shared information is used for statistical purposes, except where the other party is authorized by law to require the respondent to provide this information.  In such cases, the data are normally used for administrative or regulatory purposes by the other party.

Example of a typical section 12 data sharing question

The following question used for the Canadian Community Health Survey is provided as an example of a data-sharing consent question for which a section 12 data-sharing agreement exists.  As noted above, the data sharing agreement must be in place prior to the commencement of the data collection.

Statistics Canada would like your permission to share the information collected in this survey with provincial and territorial ministries of health, Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Provincial ministries of health may make this information available to local health authorities, but names, addresses, telephone numbers and health numbers will not be provided.

Do you agree to share the information you provide”
Yes
No

Non response (A non-response to the question is treated as a “no”.)

Transmission of the share file

The share file is transmitted to the data-sharing partner(s) in an approved manner such as using an encrypted CD-ROM or using the secure e-File Transfer Service.  The transmission of encrypted removable media has been used for a number of years with no instances of a breach of data confidentiality.

Summary

The privacy impact assessment indicates that appropriate safeguards are in place.

Diagram of the Data Flows: Section 12 Data Sharing

The following is a diagram of the data flows regarding the disclosure of information to a data sharing partner.

Diagram of the Data Flows: Section 12 Data Sharing

3.2 Discretionary Disclosure Authorized by Subsection 17(2) Statistics Act

Confidential information can be disclosed pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Statistics Act which gives discretion to the Chief Statistician to release certain types of identifiable information.  This discretion is limited and specific and includes the following types of information:

  • information collected by persons, organizations or government departments for their own purposes and communicated to Statistics Canada as long as the secrecy requirements to which this information was subjected when first collected are adhered to, and an agreement for disclosure is made between the Chief Statistician and the collector;
  • information relating to a person, organization or business if the person, organization or owner of the business consents to the disclosure in writing.

In exercising this discretion, the Chief Statistician is guided by the Discretionary Release Policy which sets out a review and approval process for all requests for disclosure of information under sub-section 17(2) of the Statistics Act.

According to the Discretionary Release Policy, the Chief Statistician could authorize disclosure when:

  • the information is needed for statistical or analytical purposes; and
  • the information released does not disadvantage Statistics Canada’s respondents and does not harm the relationship between the agency and its respondents.

Ultimately, it is only the Chief Statistician who can authorize disclosure and then, only within the limits set out in sub-section 17(2) of the Statistics Act.

Summary

Confidential information can only be disclosed by the program area only upon receipt of a signed Discretionary Disclosure Order.

The data file is transmitted to the approved recipient in an approved manner, such as an encrypted CD-ROM or using the e-File Transfer Service.  The transmission of encrypted removal medium has been used for a number of years with no instances of breaches of data confidentiality.

The privacy impact assessment indicates that appropriate safeguards are in place.  The privacy impact assessment will be reviewed if and when significant modifications to the current process are implemented.

Date Modified: 2010-06-28

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

(2)         SECTION 3 OF THE STATISTICS ACT IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE “STATISTICS BUREAU”

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/act-loi-eng.htm

Statistics bureau

3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are  . . . .

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

(3)         THE RULES REGARDING “DISCLOSURE” ARE IN SECTION 17 OF THE STATISTICS ACT.  This “Section 3 on Authorized Disclosures seems to be an interpretation of Sections 11 and this Section 17 ?

SECRECY

Prohibition against divulging information

17. (1) Except for the purpose of communicating information in accordance with any conditions of an agreement made under section 11 or 12 and except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act but subject to this section,

(a) no person, other than a person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, and sworn under section 6, shall be permitted to examine any identifiable individual return made for the purposes of this Act; and

(b) no person who has been sworn under section 6 shall disclose or knowingly cause to be disclosed, by any means, any information obtained under this Act in such a manner that it is possible from the disclosure to relate the particulars obtained from any individual return to any identifiable individual person, business or organization.

Exception to prohibition

(2) The Chief Statistician may, by order, authorize the following information to be disclosed:

(a) information collected by persons, organizations or departments for their own purposes and communicated to Statistics Canada before or after May 1, 1971, but that information when communicated to Statistics Canada shall be subject to the same secrecy requirements to which it was subject when collected and may only be disclosed by Statistics Canada in the manner and to the extent agreed on by the collector thereof and the Chief Statistician;

(b) information relating to a person or organization in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the person or organization concerned;

(c) information relating to a business in respect of which disclosure is consented to in writing by the owner for the time being of the business;

(d) information available to the public under any statutory or other law;

(e) information relating to any hospital, mental institution, library, educational institution, welfare institution or other similar non-commercial institution except particulars arranged in such a manner that it is possible to relate the particulars to any individual patient, inmate or other person in the care of any such institution;

(f) information in the form of an index or list of individual establishments, firms or businesses, showing any, some or all of the following in relation to them:

I.        their names and addresses,

II.        the telephone numbers at which they may be reached in relation to statistical matters,

III.        the official language in which they prefer to be addressed in relation to statistical matters,

IV.        the products they produce, manufacture, process, transport, store, purchase or sell, or the services they provide, in the course of their business, or

V.        whether they are within specific ranges of numbers of employees or persons engaged by them or constituting their work force; and

(g) information relating to any carrier or public utility.

Definitions

(3) In this section,

“carrier” «transporteur»

“carrier” means any person or association of persons that owns, operates or manages an undertaking that carries or moves persons or commodities by any form of land, sea or air transport;

“public utility” «entreprise…»

“public utility” means any person or association of persons that owns, operates or manages an undertaking

(a) for the supply of petroleum or petroleum products by pipeline,

(b) for the supply, transmission or distribution of gas, electricity, steam or water,

(c) for the collection and disposal of garbage or sewage or for the control of pollution,

(d) for the transmission, emission, reception or conveyance of information by any telecommunication system, or

(e) for the provision of postal services. R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 17; 1992, c.1, s. 131

Information is privileged

18. (1) Except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act, any return made to Statistics Canada pursuant to this Act and any copy of the return in the possession of the respondent is privileged and shall not be used as evidence in any proceedings whatever.

Idem

(2) No person sworn under section 6 shall by an order of any court, tribunal or other body be required in any proceedings whatever to give oral testimony or to produce any return, document or record with respect to any information obtained in the course of administering this Act.

Application of section

(3) This section applies in respect of any information that Statistics Canada is prohibited by this Act from disclosing or that may only be disclosed pursuant to an authorization under subsection 17(2). 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 17.

Census taken between 1910 and 2005

18.1 (1) The information contained in the returns of each census of population taken between 1910 and 2005 is no longer subject to sections 17 and 18 ninety-two years after the census is taken.

Census in 2006 or later

(2) The information contained in the returns of each census of population taken in 2006 or later is no longer subject to sections 17 and 18 ninety-two years after the census is taken, but only if the person to whom the information relates consents, at the time of the census, to the release of the information ninety-two years later.

Library and Archives of Canada

(3) When sections 17 and 18 cease to apply to information referred to in subsection (1) or (2), the information shall be placed under the care and control of the Library and Archives of Canada. 2005, c. 31.

(The entire document at this URL has “Date Modified: 2010-05-26”.)

Jan 192011
 

Sentencing takes place:   Thursday January 20,  9:30 Courtroom #8    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Provincial Court on 19th Street.

“What IS the law?”   see  2011-01-21 .

StatsCan “surveys” that take place in between censuses, are, according to the Statistics Act NOT mandatory.  They are voluntary and the sanctions (a fine and/or jail) do not apply.   Taking us back to my original statement:  what StatsCan is doing in between censuses, telling people that they have to supply the information requested in the “surveys”, under threat, is VERY illegal.  It is coercive, using the threat of prosecution, a fine and/or jail to force people to supply information, when the Statistics Act specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions.

A NOTE REGARDING THE CURRENT LAW IN THE STATISTICS ACT and  INPUT FROM TONY CLEMENT’S OFFICE:

–        As far as I know, there were NO CHANGES to the Statistics Act, in the fall sitting of the Legislature.  The existing Statistics Act stands.

The proposal, as I understand it,  is to tell people that the census long form – –  the “new” National Household Survey (NHS) – –  is mandatory, but really it’s voluntary, because there won’t be penalties if you don’t fill it in.  And so (using our great capacity to use language to manipulate) it can be mandatory to hand over your personal information AND it won’t offend the Charter Right to Privacy.   Orwellian newspeak.

In the real world StatsCan workers are telling citizens that the NHS is mandatory, and if they don’t supply the information, they can be prosectued, fined $500 and go to jail for 3 months.    By law, a “survey” is voluntary.  StatsCan is using the threat of court active as a tool of coercion to force citizens to hand over personal information.

 

–        June 2010-06-29  Tories announce that the compulsory census long form is no longer mandatory

–        I subsequently emailed Tony Clement’s office to ask:    are you introducing LEGISLATION to CHANGE the Statistics Act?    (The Minister of Industry, Tony Clement,  is responsible for Statistics Canada.)

–        September 17, 2010    Tony Clement’s office responded:  “ … our government announced its intention to introduce legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the Census and all mandatory surveys administered by Statistics Canada”

(Full text is at:  2010-09-25 entitled  Contradiction in proposed census legislation. George Orwell’s “newspeak”.)

–        My response (September 17 – – from 2010-09-25)  Excerpt:

SIMULTANEOUS “VOLUNTARY” AND “MANDATORY”

An  important contradiction I point out, with the intention that it will be helpful to the changes to the legislation you are making.  You say:

–        “Census information . . .  will be collected as part of a new voluntary NHS.” (INSERT:  National Household Survey”.)  You follow with the statement

–        “legislation this fall to remove threats of jail time for persons refusing to fill out the Census and all mandatory surveys”

I think you would be the same as me:   I would laugh in derision at any legislation which said that the census long form (INSERT:  and/or StatsCan surveys) was simultaneously “voluntary” and “mandatory”.   However, it is more than a laughing matter.

(INSERT:  I didn’t word this properly.  The Government’s statement makes “surveys” “mandatory”.  This would actually be worse than the current law which makes surveys voluntary.  See  “THE LAW ON STATSCAN “SURVEYS”  at  2011-01-21. The Statistics Act, as it currently stands, specifically exempts “surveys” from the sanctions that apply to failure to fill in a census form (prosecution, fine and jail).   “Surveys” take place IN BETWEEN censuses.)

Continuing with my input to the Minister:

The word “mandatory” BY DEFINITION, means you have to fill it in.

That is what the actual word says and means.   “Required or commanded by authority.”

By saying that the census long form (INSERT:  or the Surveys)  are  “mandatory” you misinform people, whether there is threatened punishment (jail time) or not.   I spend all my time trying to INFORM, not mislead.   “Communications” or “spin-doctoring” is not right or helpful.   Using words to say something that they don’t mean debases our language (“Newspeak” from George Orwell).  Language is an extremely important communication tool.  There is more than enough room for misunderstanding without deliberately saying what you don’t mean.

The proposal, as I understand it,  is to tell people that the census long form – –  the “new” National Household Survey – –  is mandatory, but really it’s voluntary, because there won’t be penalties if you don’t fill it in.  And so (using our great capacity to rationalize) it can be mandatory to hand over your personal information AND it won’t offend the Charter Right to Privacy.   Orwellian newspeak.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

And as explained many times over, the Census Long Form NEVER WAS MANDATORY because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a “biographical core of personal information” and the Government cannot meet the criteria for overriding the individual right.  (Charter Rights are a higher law than legislation such as the Statistics Act.)

The Judge disagrees (I was found guilty).  Her interpretation of the Law is under appeal.

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

Court decisions are posted on-line at  http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/WhatsNew/NewJudgmentsPC.htm

See also   2010-03-31 What is the law: StatsCan “surveys” vs census?    Edmontonian Susan Crowther threatened by StatsCan.

Jan 182011
 

Hey Janet – – thank you so much.  This is GOOD NEWS for everyone!   Party-time!  /S 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –  — 

Jeremy Rifkin: The Empathic Civilization. 11-minute YouTube: Highly recommended!!

Click on:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

Check out my blog
http://janetsplanet.ca
 

Quotations for Today/This Week/Whatever… [Jan. 17/11.] 

“Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming “WOO HOO what a ride!” ~ Source unknown 

“I believe we inherit a great river of knowledge, a flow of patterns coming from many sources. The information that comes from deep in the evolutionary past we call genetics. The information passed along from hundreds of years ago we call culture. The information passed along from decades ago we call family, and the information offered months ago we call education. But it is all information that flows through us. The brain is adapted to the river of knowledge and exists only as a creature in that river. Our thoughts are profoundly molded by this long historic flow, and none of us exists, self-made, in isolation from it.” ~ David Brooks 

“The single most important contribution any of us can make to the planet is a return to frugality.” – Robert Muller, former Assis. Secr.-General of the UN 

“The saving of the world from impending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of the non-conforming minority.” – Martin Luther King 

“The return from your work must be the satisfaction that work brings you and the world’s need of that work. With this, life is heaven, or as near heaven as you can get.” – W.E.B. DuBois 

“If we want ‘sustainability,’ we too need to start with an inner change like Gandhi did, like Nelson Mandela did, like Martin Luther King did, and we should be able to say and demonstrate that ‘My Life is a Message.’ – Kamla Chowdry, Vikram Sarabhai Foundation, Earth Charter Commissioner 

“The future belongs to the people who believe in their dreams.” – Eleanor Roosevelt 

“The plundering of the earth without regard for what will be left in a few decades cannot be effectively confronted except through a moral effort; that is, through a transformation of the spirit and the human relationship with life and the world.” – Vaclav Havel, President of Czechoslovakia  

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” – Thomas Jefferson 

“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.” – J.R.R. Tolkien 

“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” – Marshall McLuhan 

“The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny.” – Albert Ellis 

“Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.” – W.C. Fields 

“Life is like an ever-shifting kaleidoscope – a slight change, and all patterns alter.” – Sharon Salzberg 

“I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving: to reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes 

“Truth is the only safe ground to stand on.” – Elizabeth Cady Stanton 

“Hoard each joyous moment that comes to you.
No one knows how it will all end.”
 – Háfiz
 

Jan 172011
 

All is well.  I am very fortunate to have tonnes of support!   My sincere gratitude.

MEDIA COVERAGE:

What looked like a problem with the media going soft on the Lockheed Martin connection seems to be working itself out.   Also, I have done a number of “live” radio talk-shows from Montreal to Toronto to Alberta, etc. where I have been able to make the Lockheed Martin factor known – –  with no opportunity for anyone to edit my input!

APPEAL THE VERDICT?

Yes, that decision has been taken.  Depending on what the sentence is, we may appeal both the verdict and the sentence.

SENTENCING WILL TAKE PLACE:

Thursday, January 20, 2011

BLOG:

Please direct as many people as possible to  www.sandrafinley.ca if they’d like information on the census debate.

I started the blog in December 2010, in anticipation of the court decision and the need for people to know the story on Lockheed Martin in the census.  I am posting our past work (which was email only) to the blog as fast as I can.

It is very useful for people who are new to the Lockheed Martin debacle for Canadians.

The information is critical to informed discussion of the issue.

WHERE TO FIND THE LOCKHEED INFORMATION ON THE BLOG:

top – left tab “Pages”, drop-down list, Click on “Lockheed …”

SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONNECTION TO MAKE:

The Lockheed Martin (American military) census contracts fit in a larger context; they are part of a slow but steady corporate effort.

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH,  “THE ECONOMICS OF INNOCENT FRAUD:  TRUTH FOR OUR TIMES”  (2004)

J K Galbraith says the Americans (I would add Canadians) have a “myth of democracy”, not democracy itself.   The posting 2004-09-13 is worth a read.
“..   A large, vital and expanding part of what is called the public sector is for all practical effect in the private sector.  . .  . ”

We have corporatocracy.

The census contracts for Lockheed Martin fall within the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) which is the Big Business – Big Government (corporatocracy) agenda for “harmonization” and integration of regulations, military, etc. in North America.

You can find a taste of the agenda in the Maclean’s magazine interview with Ron Covais,  “President of the Americas” for Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Click on 2006-09-13 —    it makes the agenda clear, and HOW it is done.

If there is a SINGLE most important event in the serial acts of treason by Canadian officials (the quislings) it would be the “Canada First Defence Strategy”.  Last night I found and posted the most comprehensive information on that Strategy that we had (June 2008).   It’s not lengthy.  Even if you have read it before, I’d recommend reading it again.   Click on “Canada First Defence Strategy”.   Every time I read it I am re-motivated!

Perhaps the SECOND most important event is the Troop Exchange Agreement.   It is addressed in 2008-02-23 and 2008-02-27.

In THIRD place, I’d vote for the tactics used at Montebello.  Police officers were trained, disguised and deployed for the purpose of turning a peaceful protest violent.  The message to citizens:  do not get involved in protest.   Information at:

  • 2007-08 (The video of the protest catches the disguised police officers. The later explanation (?) by the Police Chief is included.)
  • 2008-11-28 (Follow-up report – no public inquiry).
Jan 172011
 

Eisenhower’s Words of Wisdom arise from his experience of the military-industrial-congressional complex.  And technological developments.    

He was prescient.  His words should be reverberating through the corridors of universities, governments, regulators and in our citizen-heads.   They apply not only to the military -industrial.  

RECOMMEND:   Scroll down under “Public Papers” to the bolded text. 

Eisenhower’s 1961 famous farewell speech:

Part 1:      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9_fyDV7Mnk

Part 2:

= = = = = = = = = =  ==  = = ==  = ==

WORDS OF  WISDOM FROM EISENHOWER: 

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.

I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.


Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower,

1960, p. 1035- 1040

Full text: (Link no longer valid http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

EXCERPT:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

  • and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

(INSERT:  Eisenhower’s speech-writers removed his original inclusion of “congressional” as descriptor in “military-industrial (-congressional) complex”.  Today’s descriptor is accurately the “corporate-industrial-governance-university” complex.  The complex has gone well beyond the military-industrial into universities, science, agriculture, pharmaceutical, and so on.  You know the list well.  The abuses and the corruption.)   

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.  . . .

Jan 152011
 

Most of the media is dodging the question of the involvement of Lockheed Martin Corp (American military) in the Canadian census.  

Many thanks to Doug: 

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/too-big-to-fail-lockheed-martins-got-their-fingers-everywhere-says-author-yftt_535769.html 

This is an important interview with William Hartung, author of “Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex“.   

Your assistance in getting wide distribution for this interview is appreciated.  

Too Big to Fail: Lockheed Martin’s “Got Their Fingers Everywhere”, Says Author

Posted Jan 04, 2011 09:05am EST by Stacy Curtin     Too big to fail?

That’s been the key question asked of Wall Street’s biggest banks since the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers, which sent shock waves through the global financial system and led to the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression.

But, there is another firm far from the circles of Wall Street for which that same question should be asked, says William Hartung, author of the new book Prophets of War. The subtitle of his book says it all: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex.

With $40 billion in annual revenue, Lockheed Martin is the single largest recipient of U.S. tax dollars. The company receives about $36 billion in government contracts per year.   In 2008, $29 billion of that was for U.S. military contracts – a dollar figure 25% higher than its competitors Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman.

What does that mean for you, the U.S. taxpayer? According to Hartung, each taxpaying household contributes $260 to Lockheed’s coffers each year!

All evidence enough that the company is “too big to fail”, as Hartung tells Aaron in the accompanying clip.

A prime example of Washington looking out for Lockheed happened just last year when debate ensued over whether to continue the company’s grossly expensive F-22 stealth fighter program, says Hartung, who has covered the defense industry for years and is also the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation.

The Pentagon eventually did suspend funds terminating Lockheed’s development of the F-22 Raptor, which has been the most costly fighter plane ever.  But, at the same time the U.S. Defense Department cut off funds for the F-22, it added an additional $4 billion to the Lockheed’s F-35 fighter plane program. The government “basically took with one hand and gave back [to Lockheed] with the other,” says Hartung of a company that is the only major contractor of fighter planes for the U.S. Airforce.

Warning from the past

Two weeks from now marks the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous “military-industrial complex” speech cautioning against “undue influence” from large and politically powerful defense companies. According to Hartung, Lockheed Martin epitomizes the exact threat Eisenhower warned about.

By now you might be wondering where the defense contractor’s remaining $7 billion in government contract goes. “They have got their fingers everywhere now,” Hartung tells Aaron. As outlined in his book, Lockheed does way more than produce military aircraft and weaponry. From the U.S. Census Bureau to the U.S. Postal Service to the Internal Revenue Service, “pretty much name a government agency and they are involved,” he says.

Despite Lockheed sheer size, its stronghold on so many government agencies is evidence enough that the company is “too big to fail.” “If the government becomes so dependent on [Lockheed], for many different activities it will be hard to hold them accountable if they underperform or if there is some sort of whiff of scandal.”

Bigger may not be better, but it’s working

Hartung’s scathing criticism of Lockheed Martin comes from his belief that “they have not done the job well, often enough,” pointing to decades of cost overruns, a corporate history littered with corruption scandals and the fact that the company was one of the first ever to receive a federal bailout back in the 1970s.

When it comes down to it, Lockheed’s dominance – even with what some might call a checkered past – has much to do with the company’s ability to influence those in power, says Hartung.  In 2009, it spent nearly $15 million on campaign contributions and lobbying fees — the second highest amount for defense contractors.

Another key factor that has helped the defense contractor secure the most U.S. military contracts is the company’s ability to exploit the revolving door between Washington, the industry and itself, says Hartung.  Not only has this led to the company having strong influence over those who hold the U.S. government’s purse stings, many who are former Lockheed employees or board members, it has allowed the company to influence foreign policy decisions like pressing for war with Iraq.

In the publicity notes for the book, Hartung claims “Lockheed Martin has also funded right-wing think tanks that have done everything from press for war with Iraq to lobby for the “Star Wars” missile defense program.” He tells Aaron that they are using these think tanks to make the points that are “embarrassing to make themselves.”

Hartung acknowledges that “we need companies like Lockheed Martin to defend the country,” but he says that a lot more can be done to regulate the industry by setting “stricter accountability rules.”

Jan 132011
 
http://www3.quicklaw.com/cgi-bin/LNC-prod/lnetdoc.pl?DOCNO=738

(INSERT:  This is a “quick law” interpretation of the proceedings.  I of course have my objections.  A notable couple:

  • “There was no interest in the individual responses, which were protected by anonymity.”.

FACT:  it used to be the case that individual records on the census data base did not have actual names on them.(The names could be tracked down by following a number code back to a microfiche record.)

The StatsCan witness at trial, Anil Arora, testified that as of the 2006 census (Lockheed Martin’s involvement) individual census records DO have the individual name attached.

I do not know how the statement can be made that the individual responses are protected by anonymity.

And to me, the assignment of the RCMP anti-terrorist squad to the “Encana Pipeline incidents”, the subsequent abuse of constitutional protections against police intimidation by the people at Tom’s Lake near Dawson Creek, and the growing militarization as a consequence of Canadians defending their land against the Tar Sands and other pipelines means that the Charter Right to privacy of personal information must be upheld.

Detailed files on citizens are characteristic of a police state.  It’s WHY we have the Charter Right.  There are postings on this blog re “IBM and the Holocaust“, the use of mechanized census data in Nazi Europe.  Read it if you have any doubts!!.

  • “There were extensive guarantees of privacy once the information was in the hands of Statistics Canada.”
  • FACT:  A corporation (Lockheed Martin) will always seek to extend its influence.  They create dependency of the host organization on them, through their expertise.  What they do not have access to today, they will have access to tomorrow.  And you are a fool if you believe otherwise.

    FACT:  The American “Patriot Act” takes precedence over Canadian Law.  If an American corporation, or subsidiary of an American Corporation, is ordered by the Govt of the USA (Homeland Security or the Pentagon for example) to hand over access to a data base, they are required by law to hand it over, without notification to the owners of the information.

    There is more, but that is sufficient.  Here’s the “quick law” on R v Finley:

 

Digest: R. v. Finley

[2011] S.J. No. 48

Criminal law — Constitutional issues — Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms — Legal rights — Protection against unreasonable search and seizure
— Application by Finley for declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was
unconstitutional dismissed — Finley was charged under s. 31(b) of Act for
failing to complete 2006 Long Form Census — She argued that s. 31 compelled
provision of personal information that interfered with her reasonable
expectation of privacy — Diminished privacy expectation in Statistics Canada’s
collection of personal information for statistical purposes — Census questions
did not unreasonably invade privacy — Appropriate balance struck between
individual’s dignity, integrity and autonomy and goal of effective information
gathering — Therefore, there was no breach of s. 8 of Charter.

Government law — Access to information and privacy — Protection of
privacy — Governmental or public information — Census records — Application by
Finley for declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was unconstitutional
dismissed — Finley was charged under s. 31(b) of Act for failing to complete
2006 Long Form Census — She argued that s. 31 compelled provision of personal
information that interfered with her reasonable expectation of privacy —
Diminished privacy expectation in Statistics Canada’s collection of personal
information for statistical purposes — Census questions did not unreasonably
invade privacy — Appropriate balance struck between individual’s dignity,
integrity and autonomy and goal of effective information gathering — Therefore,
there was no breach of s. 8 of Charter.

Application by Finley
for a declaration that s. 31 of the Statistics Act was unconstitutional. Finley
was charged under s. 31(b) of the Act for failing to complete and submit the
2006 Long Form Population Census. She reviewed the Census question by question,
and she objected to providing information with respect to all questions except
with respect to her gender. She gave two reasons. First, she was concerned about
the role of Lockheed Martin in the census process and objected to Statistics
Canada contracts being granted to Lockheed Martin Canada because of what she
believed to be the parent company’s activities in relation to armaments. In this
regard, Finley regarded refusing to complete the census as an extension of her
freedom of expression and a form of conscientious objection. Secondly, she
objected to being required by law to relinquish control over what she regarded
as a biographical core of personal information. She believed that this
information should only be requested on a voluntary basis and she did not choose
to release this information to Statistics Canada. She further believed that
private information about Canadians, collected by Statistics Canada in the 2006
census, might be compelled by the United States pursuant to that country’s
Patriot Act. Lockheed Martin Canada was contracted to print the 2006 census
questionnaires and provide the software used to scan the questionnaires and
convert handwritten responses into electronic and ultimately to coded numeric
responses. Approximately 64 of the 567 million dollars expended on the 2006
Census was awarded to Lockheed Martin Canada for its products and services.
Section 31 of the Act imposed, upon conviction, maximum penalties of a fine, not
exceeding $500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.
Finley sought relief under sections 8 and 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that
s. 31, insofar as it compelled the provision of personal information, was an
unconstitutional interference with her reasonable expectation of privacy.
HELD:
Application dismissed and Finley was found guilty. While s. 31 of the Statistics
Act was engaged by s. 8 of the Charter, there was no breach. The information for
the 2006 Long Form Population Census was sought for informational and
statistical purposes. There was no interest in the individual responses, which
were protected by anonymity. The value was in the aggregate of the information
obtained. That information, once in an aggregate form, had many potential
pro-social uses for governments, community, industry, universities, and private
individuals and corporations. There were extensive guarantees of privacy once
the information was in the hands of Statistics Canada. The guarantees of
anonymity and confidentiality that were in place met or exceeded what was called
for to protect Finley’s identity. The Statistics Act contained penalties not to
prohibit or limit the activities of individuals, as many regulatory statutory
schemes were designed to do, but rather to ensure a viable informational
response for good statistics. The information was not requested in pursuit of a
criminal investigation. The public goal of the enforcement provisions was not
aimed at preventing, investigating, or prosecuting crime but rather at ensuring
a good sample of responses and therefore reliable statistical information. There
was a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to the collection by
Statistics Canada of personal information for statistical purposes. The
questions posed in the 2006 Long Form Population Census, given the guarantees of
confidentiality and anonymity, did not amount to an unreasonable invasion of
privacy. An appropriate balance was struck between the societal interests of the
individual’s dignity, integrity and autonomy and the goal of effective
information gathering for statistical purposes. Therefore, there was no breach
of s. 8 of the Charter.