On January 28, 2011, I retired from Statistics Canada – the opinions expressed here are my own.

We are a few months from a point in Canadian history that will pass most of us by with barely a whimper but that may have implications for our lives that we will not realize for some time. Compared to the bloody turmoil in Egypt and Libya, it seems almost laughable to write about the concern surrounding the Harper government’s decision to replace the Census long-form with a voluntary survey. Yet what the individuals in Libya and Egypt are sacrificing their lives for today, is what we are allowing our current federal government to take away without a struggle. What we are sacrificing with little concern or regard is the truth about Canada under the Harper regime.

The last time the Census came under such a political assault was by the Mulroney Conservative government which wanted to ‘cancel’ the 1986 Census for budget reasons. The Mulroney Conservatives argued that it would be a cost-saving measure on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. Another truth was that Mulroney was about to be embarrassed by the Census revelation that Canadians were now paying more in taxes than they were for housing under his governance – this has only worsened for many of us.

So what potential embarrassments await Harper’s government that require him to create a straw man based on putative complaints about the intrusiveness of the long-form Census? According to Shannon Proudfoot, (Canada.com July 12, 2010), “the Conservatives say they scrapped the long form because MPs received widespread complaints from constituents that the mandatory questionnaire was ‘invasive’ and ‘coercive’. A comprehensive Statistics Canada report on public feedback following the 2006 census, however, contains no complaints related to privacy.”

Why should we care about the information that the long-form of the census collects – income, ethnicity, religion, education, work, housing and disability? One reason is that it provides the most accurate portrait of our nation at one point in time. We are able to see how well we are doing in a number of important areas and compare how we are doing now with how we were doing at previous times. If we are all doing significantly better, there is reason for celebration, if we are all doing substantively worse, then there is a thoughtful pause for contemplation. By doing away with this ability to compare how we are doing now, the Harper government is undermining one means we have as citizens to objectively evaluate how our government is governing us. It is one thing to say, individually, that I have less money, or my friend lost his job, or another her home, but when such evidence exists collectively, we have a powerful voice with which to challenge the policy and directives our of governments, particularly when we are worse off in areas that are specifically the purview of our federal government.

Another important role of the Census that may seem less compelling but is vitally important is that it provides a standard upon which all subsequent socio-economic research can be compared. Regardless of any errors or under-coverage that might exist in any Census, all researchers can use the same standard by which to compare the results of their research instruments and thereby agree that changes that are noted are a product of the effect they are examining and not of an error in measurement. This allows research that is done in different places and different times to be compared to the Census providing the basis for an objective and unbiased ‘truth.’

So what are the implications of not having that standard? For Ivan Fellegi, former Chief Statistician of Canada, “’the biggest loss in eradicating the long-form questionnaire is that it will destroy the ability to track changes in Canadian society over time because there will be no way to know if fluctuations in the statistics are real or the result of different methodology. The education gap between aboriginals and other Canadians and the changing use of the French language inside and outside Quebec are two major social issues that will now be difficult to measure. It's a fundamental preoccupation of all of us, or should be, to know whether certain very important underlying problems are getting worse or getting better or have stabilized,’ he says, ‘I recognize that the government has every right to do what it is doing, but I regret it’” (Susan Proudfoot, Canada.com, 12 July 2010).

The question is also whether we as Canadian citizens will also regret it as a fundamental erosion of our ability to confront our governments with the objective results of their policies and initiatives. When we no longer have access to the unbiased knowledge of how our collective experiences and outcomes have been affected by political decisions, then at that point we will no longer have the power to influence our politicians effectively with that knowledge.
I honour those who sacrifice their lives for freedom in Libya and Egypt, and thus wonder at our apathy in allowing ours to be eroded without even a whimper of protest.

Knowledge is power, and changing the long-form Census in this manner restricts our ability to exercise democratic power through unbiased knowledge. If “the truth shall set you free” then why give it up so easily when others must sacrifice their very lives just to dream of what we are throwing away – a viable and peaceful means to hold governments accountable for their actions. What does Mr. Harper want to hide and why are we not holding him accountable to our truth as we experience it? We free citizens in a democratic society have the right to know the implications of his policies upon our lives without political influence.

In an article by Jennifer Ditchburn (The Canadian Press, Fri, Feb. 11, 2011), Wayne Smith, the new Chief Statistician of Canada, stated that “there is still very much and there always has been, and I think everyone understands there has to be, an arm's length relationship between Statistics Canada and the elected government. Anything else means the data becomes meaningless.” Considering the political interference present, it just did.