By YayaCanada

My experience with the Labour Force Survey conducted by Statistics Canada

Other people's experiences

Click here to share your own experience.  You can make it a private message, if you like, by ticking the box that says: "Private Post" and including your email address for reply.

Update March 8, 2004 - There have been no further attempts by StatsCan to contact me - it appears I have been factored into the planned-for 5% who fail to respond - and, so far, I'm not in jail nor have I been fined.  My next failure to respond may have to be the Canadian Census if things continue the way they've been going.
Update November 18/03 - The first interview
Update December 14/03 - Email to government officials re being harrassed by Stats Canada
Update December 22/03 - Apologies and explanations from Stats Can, and my ungrateful reply

A week or so ago, I and 51,999 other Canadian "Householders" were sent a letter stating that we have been "chosen" by Statistics Canada to participate, "under the authority of the Statistics Act", in a Labour Force Survey to take place once a month over a period of six months, in which all members of our households over 15 years old will be interviewed.

We're told  that each of us represents 235 Canadians, and the government relies on our participation "to arrive at important decisions that affect the day-to-day lives of Canadians".

Oh, and although it's a labour force survey, they mention that they sometimes ask some really personal "supplementary questions" such as not only the amount of our income but what it is spent on. 

Our addresses were on the envelopes, but not our names, and I, for one, felt reassured by that, and further soothed by Stats Can's promise that the interviewers are "trained professionals" who are sworn to mumness.

But then I thought, hey, wait a minute, if they don't know who I am, then how do they know how many members are in my household?  Wouldn't they need to know that in order to have arrived at the figure of 235 Canadians that each of us represents?  Don't tell me they know how to cross-reference the census forms!

So are they just pretending not to know who I am?  If they really don't know my name, then how will the interviewer be able to call on me at my security controlled apartment without a name to use to find the dialup code?  Will they lurk in a dark corner of the vestibule until some unwary resident returns home, and then quickly sneak in before the door closes?

They should know right now that I don't answer my door unless I'm expecting someone, my motto being that 99.9% of the time when someone lands unexpectedly on my doorstep it's not for my benefit.

Being a self-employed person on the run, even my friends have to more or less make an appointment to see me, or leave a message so I can telephone them.  So how is Statistics Canada going to connect with me if they don't know my name or phone number?

Why didn't their letter ask me to contact the interviewer to set up an appointment?  Why do they presume to drop in on me unexpectedly when my closest friend wouldn't do that to me?  And the biggest question of all - what was the selection process that made the 52,000 Canadian households the Chosen Ones?  "Chosen", the letter said, not "randomly chosen".

Oh, oh... the information pamphlet enclosed with the letter says they are using "a sample of 53,500 households to accurately measure"... all sort of things.  The pamphlet itself is measured accurately enough to fit the envelope, I can say that much in their favour.

Here's something even weirder:

The pamphlet goes on to relate the kinds of things our government learns from this type of survey.  For instance, in 2002 it discovered that  "retail and wholesale trade employs most people in Canada,  followed closely by manufacturing" and that "the average hourly wage of employees was a little over $17 per hour."

I'm not lying.  I can show you the pamphlet.

Somebody in manufacturing clearly is making a million bucks an hour if Stats Can was able to come up with an "average" like that.  For those of you who sit too much in the good seats with the curtains drawn, retail sales workers traditionally are paid minimum wage, and I can't imagine wholesale workers get a whole lot more.

If Stats Can surveys end up so badly skewed, it would seem that we Chosen Ones are going to be letting down approximately 235 Canadians apiece, who are just like us, if we participate.  But any one of us failing to participate will ruin the entire survey because Statistics Canada "cannot substitute another household". 

Say what?  Cannot?  When there are 235 people just like me to choose from?

Stats Can's letter thanks us in advance, assuming we won't have the nerve to refuse.

It's a darn good thing we can't foresee, when we wake up in the morning, what dilemma(s) the day holds in store for us.  If we did know, then "I shoulda stood in bed" might be a beforethought instead of an afterthought.....

Well, speak of the government, as I was writing the above on this peaceful Sunday afternoon, there suddenly came a loud rap-rapping at my door.  They really are "trained professionals", I thought.  They've cracked the security code without knowing my name, or they've managed to sneak in somehow!  Interesting that they chose a time when the super is off duty to do their own nefarious duty.

No, of course I didn't answer the door.  I look like hell.  Don't you when you're not expecting company?

After a brief interval of quiet, I heard paper being shoved through the space between door and frame.  Another no-name envelope.  Nothing but my address on it.  Still pretending, are we, I thought.

It's a second notice signed by "Margot, the local interviewer for Statistics Canada".  Margot wants me to telephone her between the hours of 830 and 2030 to arrange an appointment for a brief interview to be conducted at MY convenience.  Now that's more like it, and why didn't they do that in the first place? 

Margot asks, all innocent like, that I leave my NAME, telephone number and address when I call, which more than implies that I'm going to be treated to her voice mail. Imagine that.

I'll leave my first name; it's only fair since she gave me hers - if indeed it's her real name - and when she calls me back she'll encounter my voice mail.  Then, when I call her back........

I wonder if Margot has seen this Globe & Mail article: Poor pay, poor jobs - Millions of Canadians earn less than $10 an hour, often working in bad conditions and getting few benefits, but they're afraid to complain, a new report says. Only 63 per cent of Canadian employees have full-time, permanent, paid employment, says the CPRN report. The rest are engaged in non-standard employment. People with permanent part-time arrangements make up 11 per cent of the work force, full-time temporary workers account for 7 per cent, part-time temps make up 4 per cent of the work force and the rest are self-employed.

Incidental Note: for anyone who has defaulted on a student loan (when will education ever be considered important enough to be free?) -  you might want to change your name and consult a plastic surgeon because HRDC is hiring someone to track you down.  Go here and type 90196 in the search box to see the published request for tender.

And whatever you do, don't participate in an anonymous Labour Survey, because they'll need to know your name.

November 18, 2003 - The first interview

Yesterday I left a voice message asking the Stats Can interviewer to telephone me at 9:30 am today, and she did. And I answered the phone.

She was a nice person, but contrary to what the letter from Stats Can said, she could not answer all of my questions.  She expressed surprise at the discrepancies between the letter and the pamphlet, and said she would point them out to her superiors.

In particular, I stressed the skewed "average" hourly wage, and she acknowledged the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots that produces such a misleading figure.

She said that a certain number of addresses in a given area are chosen to be surveyed.  Depending on the density of population, they might pick every 25th, or 30th, or 40th residence.  Something like that.

She thought there might be a legal obligation to comply with Stats Can's request to spill to them, but wasn't positive; maybe there could be a fine.

I told her I'd checked the Statistics Act and saw nothing in there that clearly said I had to comply, but if you've glanced at the Act yourself, you'll know that even the average Stats Can officer can't understand the convoluted language.

Anyway, most people comply, she said, and very few ask the kinds of hard questions I was asking.  That's a shame, I said, but had she considered that when she unexpectedly drops in on, say an immigrant family, they might feel intimidated into compliance?  No response.

 I was home when you knocked on my door on Sunday afternoon, I said.  She apologized for coming on Sunday afternoon.  Doesn't matter what day it was, I replied, you shouldn't just show up.

Well, the letter gave notice I was coming, she said, and then her voice sort of trailed off.....  She knows the letter didn't say when.

On with the interview, conducted by phone, no home visit necessary.  I refused to give my last name, and she wasn't perturbed.  I also refused to tell her how much rent I pay, since that's one of those "supplementary questions" that don't relate to a Labour Force Survey.  No problem.

Since I'm self-employed, she didn't want to know how much I earn an hour, and wasn't too bothered when I was vague about how many hours a week I work.  I have a good idea how many hours I work in a month but she didn't ask me that.  She asked if I had been out sick during the past week, and I assured her I can't afford to be sick.

And that was it, except that she said she was going to hand my file over to her supervisor who will do the monthly followups.  I laughed out loud at that, and she laughed too.  That'll teach me to ask too many questions!

And to think that there are 235 people out there, give or take a few, who are just like me!

I found out later that the Statistics Canada interviewers make $11. an hour, with university degrees!  I don't blame this person for handing on a tough interview like me.  She's not paid enough for the stress of it, and she's a perfect example of why the average hourly wage statistic is so absolutely revolting in its hypocrisy.

Drat!  I forgot to ask her how she got into my apartment building without knowing my name!

December 14, 2003 - Letter from me to government officials re Labour Force Survey

To: Statistics Canada

 Ann Marie Arrowsmith
Title Unknown
Location Unknown
By email at fe-stcontario@statcan.ca

c.c. Douglas Newson, Director, Central Region: newsdou@statcan.ca
cc.  Ivan P Fellegi, Chief Statistician: fellegi@statcan.ca
c.c. Minister of Labour, Claudette Bradshaw : Bradshaw.C@parl.gc.ca
c.c. Prime Minister Paul Martin: pm@pm.gc.ca

Re: My Experience with Statistics Canada’s “Labour Force Survey”

An attempt was made to reach you by telephone on Friday, December 12, 2003, at approximately 3:20 pm, but the person who answered at your 1-800 number – which was given to me in a letter from Douglas Newson, Director, Central Region, Statistics Canada - went to check to see if you were in, found your office in darkness, and concluded that you must not have been to work that day. 

This same person wanted to know why I was calling in case she could help, but it eventually became evident that she could not, which was a waste of my valuable time.  Adding insult to injury, she repeatedly called me “Dear”, even after I had pointed out to her that I found it demeaning and unprofessional, and she had apologized for it. 

It would appear also that your own presence at your Statistics Canada location is of so little consequence that the office staff are not even certain whether or not you had even been there that day.

All of which is added to a whole series of recent indications to me that Statistics Canada is not an entirely professional organization. 

I’m a Canadian Citizen by birth, am 63 years old, have been a tax payer since the age of 16.  I have been a model citizen, have never been charged with any criminal act, have never been in tax arrears, have never defaulted on any debt, have filled out all census forms faithfully and honestly, and have tried very hard to believe that the Government of Canada knows its own business. 

But now that I have been virtually ordered by Statistics Canada, under threat of punishment by law, to participate in what is overtly called the “Labour Force Survey” to collect information about the “employed and unemployed”,  I have to tell you that I am shocked, not only at what the government has given itself the power to demand from its employers - the Canadian people - but more so by the lack of professionalism exhibited by Statistics Canada representatives. 

This government department can walk into a person's home unannounced and demand, under threat of fine or imprisonment, that everyone in the household provide on-the-spot information of a personal nature, over a period of six months, with no precise disclosure of what the questions will be, when such visits will occur, or with whom the collected information will be shared.  Not to mention that the Labour Force Survey is being used as a cover under which to ask other questions, unrelated to this survey, the purpose of which is not disclosed. 

One simply receives a letter stating that one has been “chosen” and must comply by law, and that this event will happen in “a few days”, which in my case occurred a week and a half later on a Sunday afternoon, my only time to get some peace and quiet.  When asked how I was chosen, the response was: “scientifically”, as if this were an answer. 

Apparently, the government does not have to be as considerate as one’s closest friend would be, and need not ask politely if I would mind a visit at such and such a time.  The letter I received was not even dated, nor was it even officially signed, being merely a photocopy of a form letter over the name of Douglas Newson, Director, Central Region. 

But Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Statistics Act, which I found online, pretty much says that any document “purporting to be signed by” a Stats Can official is sufficient to command  my compliance, so a professional appearance is clearly not a requirement. 

Neither did the letter reveal that the interview could be done by telephone, which I discovered was quite acceptable when the interviewer got no response at my door and left a note asking me to call her to arrange for a telephone interview.  I’m left wondering why this wasn’t done in the first place. 

The letter ended by telling me I could contact some untitled person named Nancy Guarino if I needed more information.  But it also said that the interviewers were “trained professionals” who could answer my questions. 

My interviewer, cryptically named “Margot”, could not answer my questions pertaining to certain discrepancies between the letter I had been sent and the pamphlet enclosed with it, as well as what the penalty might be for non-cooperation with the survey. 

I strongly expressed to “Margot” my perturbation at finding out just how grossly misleading Stats Canada’s final reports on surveys can be.  For instance, the pamphlet stated that “the average Canadian earns $17 per hour”.  I’m sure this must be very comforting to self-serving politicos, but it has made the eyes pop of everyone I’ve told this to, and even the interviewer was surprised.  I found out later that Stats Canada interviewers are paid $11 an hour as “trained professionals”. 

This “statistic” merely points out the huge gap between the few extremely wealthy and the multitudes of dirt poor in this country, and that Statistics Canada surveys are totally useless in assessing the true situation for the “average Canadian”.  But they do seem to function well for an increasingly right-leaning government agenda. 

Little wonder that I suspect any information provided to Stats Canada will used against the Canadian people rather than for them - for example: to justify such crookedness as the government parlaying budget surpluses into huge tax cuts for corporations while cutting back on social programs due to professed lack of funds.  Do I really want to assist with this travesty?  No, I do not.  But have I cooperated?  Yes I have, to the best of my ability and conscience. 

“Margot” the interviewer was a very nice and patient person, and I did answer all the questions that applied, considering that I am neither an employee nor an employer, but am a registered Sole Proprietorship. 

I feel that “Margot” recorded my responses faithfully.  What happened to them after that is anyone’s guess, because I am since being harassed for non-cooperation. 

I did refuse to answer one question - how much rent I pay - which the interviewer admitted has nothing at all to do with the Labour Force Survey, but is one of those questions that Statistics Canada is trying to sneak in under cover of the Labour Force Survey. 

Since “Margot” couldn’t answer all of my questions, she advised me that her supervisor would be doing the next interview, in a month’s time, and we ended the conversation amicably. 

Within a week or so, someone named “Denise” left me a voice message late in the evening, asking me to call her.  I called her the next morning, and she said that she was the supervisor for the Labour Force Survey.  But it quickly became obvious she couldn’t remember why she had called me.  She made a few guesses in the hope that I would fill in the blanks, but the guesses were all wrong.  She thought maybe I had a complaint about the interviewer.  Wrong. She thought I might be someone from Renfrew. Wrong again. 

What she did seem to remember was that she needed me to promise that I would comply with the Labour Force Survey, but of course I had complied, and her question proved to me that she had no clue whatever about me or the reasons for her call, and I told her so.  She repeated several times that she had turned over the information to “the computer” and that’s why she couldn’t recall it, and quite frankly she was scaring me with her apparent mental fuzziness, so when she persisted in trying to extract a promise from me, I told her to stop harassing me, and advised her that I was hanging up the phone. 

Judging from the phone numbers I had been asked to call, the interviewer and her supervisor are outsourced personnel, operating from their private homes.  I doubt very much that these homes are secret cleared, and I doubt very much that everyone in the household is secret cleared.  So if one of these outsourced persons, god forbid, has a criminal relative, that relative has access to my complete address, and knows that I am an elderly single woman living alone. 

So much for the “security” that Stats Canada touts for the information contained in their surveys. 

Well, speaking of being harassed, I’ve now received another letter  - this time a dated one, December 8, 2003 -  from Stats Canada, again over Douglas Newson’s photocopied signature. 

In this latest letter: Mr. Newson (or his ghost writer) states he understands “from Claire Arcand, the Senior Interviewer” in my area, that I was “reluctant to disclose information….for use in the current Canadian Labour Force Survey.”  He enclosed the Statistics Act, which he claims I requested - but of course I had not since I had already viewed it online - which Act “leaves no doubt that each individual is expected by law to supply information when requested to do so.” 

The document that purports to be the Statistics Act, both online and in the hard copy Mr. Newson provided, contains the disclaimer that it is for convenience of reference only and, as such, has no official sanction - yet this is what I am referred to in order to convince me that I must comply under the law. 

The compelling paragraph (31) is preceded with: “Every person who, without lawful excuse”.  I can’t help wondering what constitutes “lawful excuse” and who manages to get exempted from compliance. I wonder if anyone at Stats Canada knows what constitutes “lawful excuse” since they use only the abbreviated version of the Act.  I wonder if the fact that I am neither an employee nor unemployed in any way constitutes “lawful excuse”. 

Mr. Newson wants me to believe that his perceived non-cooperation on my part will screw up the whole survey.  What about the people who have “lawful excuse”?  Do they screw it up even further? 

I am most certainly wondering who Claire Arcand is.  I’ve never spoken with this person, yet the implication is that I have, and that s/he has been requested to call me “again” in December. The hope is expressed that I will reconsider my previous “decision” because “accurate information on the number of people who are employed or unemployed is extremely important”. 

What decision?  My decision not to cooperate with the Labour Force Survey?  I have so far cooperated fully with questions related to the Labour Force Survey. 

And I must say that when one is a business it’s not easy to answer such questions as: “how many hours do you work a week” without advance notice in order to average out my time spent with clients over the year.  I had to guess at that.  So much for the accuracy of the survey. 

And whether or not I was “out sick” in the week prior to the interview seems of little relevance, but I did answer that I cannot afford to be “out sick” – or, for that matter, to leave my office in darkness for no reason that anyone else is aware of. 

The letter closes with “If you have any further questions please call Ann Marie Arrowsmith at”….the same number as I was earlier instructed to use for Nancy Guarino.  Whatever happened to Ms. Guarino, I wonder?  Is her office now in permanent darkness? 

It’s seems apparent that quite a few of Stats Can’s people have plenty of time to press this issue with me, but not the acuity to understand what I have already told them and asked them. 

Having no advance idea of what questions will be asked of me in future interviews scheduled over the next six months, I can’t say that I will answer all of them if they have nothing to do with the Labour Force Survey, but I hear that Ottawa’s jails are kept in a putrid and disgusting condition, and I have been wanting to find out for myself if this is true, so if Stats Canada wants to toss me there for non-compliance, I’m ready. 

I confess that I might actually have been persuaded to comply with all questions had Statistics Canada been more up front about their agenda, and had the demeanour of certain of its representatives and the quality of its written material convinced  me of the efficacy and professionalism that it touts for itself.  But I am now less inclined than before to answer any questions unrelated to the Labour Force Survey. 

Since the events of September 11, 2001, and the increasing loss of freedoms for ordinary Canadians, and invasions into personal privacy that have occurred as a result of hysterical paranoia (or cynical design?) on the part of  Canadian officialdom - while ordinary Canadians are much more preoccupied with scratching out a living and not getting cancer - I’m afraid I have very little faith in the integrity of this latest information gathering frenzy. 

Can you imagine the fear that immigrant families, who have come here from oppressive countries, must feel when a government representative arrives on their doorstep without an appointment, and all members of their households are questioned about their daily activities and told they must comply or face fine or imprisonment?  Whatever happened to the True North Strong and Free, the refuge from tyranny? 

None of the platitudes offered by Statistics Canada have reassured me; in fact they have been responsible for making me feel less secure where my government is concerned.  The reason I have chosen to put all this in writing, instead of telephoning as advised, is because my spoken words have been misconstrued too often already by Statistics Canada representatives. 

Therefore, in future, if Statistics Canada has any further questions to ask me with regard to any survey, I am afraid I must request that this be done in writing, and I will respond in writing. 

Please be advised that this whole episode, from start to finish, is being posted on my website for information to other Canadians, although I hear the government is also seeking powers to shut down websites it doesn't like.

Yours truly,
“The Householder”
(Address)

yayacanada.com

From: fe-stcontario@statcan.ca 
Cc: Ivan.P.Fellegi@a.statcan.ca ; AnnMarie.Arrowsmith@a.statcan.ca ; Nancy.Guarino@a.statcan.ca 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Your email to Statistics Canada

Dear Ms. Allan:

Thank you for your email sent to the attention of our Project Supervisor, Ann Marie Arrowsmith and bringing your experience to our attention. I want to sincerely apologize on behalf of Statistics Canada for the difficulties you've encountered. We endeavour to provide a high quality of service to the public, however at times we don't meet our objectives. Your comments will be helpful in a review of our procedures.

We acknowledge the letter sent to you originally was a photocopy. As the letter states, yours is one of 52,000 households selected to participate. It would not be practical for each to be personally signed.  The reason the letter is not dated is that these letters are sent on a monthly basis. It is less expensive and more practical to produce these letters in larger quantities to cover a year's requirement. 

We regret that you felt "ordered by Statistics Canada, under threat of punishment by law, to participate." This was certainly not our intention. However, it is our policy as well as our obligation to inform those selected  for a survey  whether their participation is voluntary or mandatory, as determined by the Statistics Act. In the case of the Labour Force Survey, participation is mandatory and this statement is included in the original letter sent to you. There is no mention of fines or penalties in the letter, and our interviewers are not well-versed on these precisely to avoid people feeling threatened. The Project Supervisors and Managers try to be available to answer these questions and a copy of the Statistics Act is posted on our website, as you have noted.

I would like to address your comment that we have not been up front with our intentions. Indeed, most of the things you  felt  we have not told you were  included in the literature and letters sent to you. Both our brochure and letter give a general outline of the topics the questions will address including "jobs, education and training, housing, retirement and family life." As the questions vary with each individual circumstance, it is not  possible  to provide a complete list of questions at this point.

In answer to  another  question, the rent  part of the survey  is used to calculate the rent portion of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), often referred to as the cost of living index. The rent data can have a particularly large impact on the CPI. The rent index accounts for approximately 7% of the All-items CPI. As an example, this means that if rents were to increase by 10% from one month to the next, the All-items CPI would rise approximately 1%. Since the CPI is used for negotiating salaries and wages, indexing pensions, and calculating the cost of goods and services, such an increase would have an impact on the economy amounting to billions of dollars. This information is part of the interviewer training  program so that they can answer any questions. However, based on your comments, we will be reviewing this material with our interviewers again.

The selection of the sample consists of a random selection of all  private households in Canada,  designed   to ensure an accurate representation of all provinces and regions in the country. For complete details about the sampling and methodology of the Labour Force Survey, please see the attached "Guide to the Labour Force Survey (Revised February 2003), Catalogue Number 71-543-GIE ", also available for download from our website at http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-543-GIE/free.htm.

You state that we do not disclose "with whom the collected information will be shared." Please note that it is our policy that if there is a data sharing agreement between Statistics Canada and another organization, we will  only share your data with your express agreement.  In the case of the Labour Force Survey however, there is no sharing agreement in place. Indeed our brochure outlines that "information that could identify an individual is never released to anyone, not even other government departments. . . Your information is kept strictly confidential and is used only for statistical information." Only data published in aggregate form is available.  We have attached a copy of the Labour Force Survey publication (Statistics Canada Catalogue Number 71-001-XIE) for the week of November 15, 2003  for your inspection.  (You will need Adobe Reader to view, available free at www.adobe.com) 

With regards to your question  about why the  introductory letter doesn't state that it was acceptable to do the survey as a telephone interview, and "why this wasn't done in the first place": I draw your attention again to the brochure which states that "all interviews after the first one may be completed by telephone." We attempt to conduct the interview at a time that is convenient for you, within the time period given us to complete the survey (one week per month.) The initial interview is conducted in person to allow you to meet our interviewer and confirm their identification. If, after several attempts, contact in person hasn't been established, our interviewers are instructed to make an active offer to complete the interview by telephone. This allows us to accommodate people's schedules and wishes while at the same reduce costs. Subsequent interviews are generally conducted by telephone from one of our offices in Ontario. 

Statistics Canada interviewers are employees of Statistics Canada, sworn to secrecy. Because of the nature and location of their work, some work from secure areas in their homes. The information is protected by the Statistics Act, and they are subject to severe fines and penalties for any breach of confidentiality. Information collected on their laptops computers is  immediately encrypted and would be useless to anyone without proper authorization. 

The Project Supervisor, Ann Marie Arrowsmith will call you after January 20, 2004 to collect the information for January. Ms. Allan, we hope we can count on your future cooperation, and will try to do better in the future. 

Thank you 

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Newson
Director, Central Region

To: Statistics Canada

 Ann Marie Arrowsmith

"The Project Supervisor"
Location Unknown
By email at fe-stcontario@statcan.ca 

Dear Ms. Arrowsmith:

I am replying to you because I feel certain that the email over the name of Douglas Newson, Director, Central Region, was from you and not Mr. Newson, since it came from the email address given for you: fe-stcontario@statcan.ca, and not from the email address listed for Douglas Newson in the GEDS: newsdou@statcan.ca.

Again I am copying my remarks and yours to the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister's office, because my original email was copied to them, and your response to me was not copied to them.  It seems the people who should know these things are kept in the dark, and yet they still imagine they can run the country.

You seem to have not thought of the possibility that your initial letter announcing the survey could have asked interviewees to telephone a number in order to respond to the survey by telephone.  I'm sure people would have had no doubt they were calling Statistics Canada.

Instead, the letter simply asserts that an interviewer will "contact you" in the next few days.  In another place it says the interviewer will "call" once a month.  Yet there is no mention at all of knocking on one's door unexpectedly on a Sunday afternoon, which is what occurred in my case - in a "security" apartment building, no less, with that person ostensibly not knowing my name!  A wasted visit, and a waste of the taxpayer's money I might add, since I never answer my door unless I'm expecting someone - which I am sure you will agree is a sensible thing for an old woman living alone to do.

I can't help wondering why you don't want to say outright that the first visit will be a knock on the door at a time not pre-arranged.  You may think you are doing things for the convenience of the respondent, but you are not.  So again, one has to wonder why.

Furthermore, in spite of your repeated platitudes, I am not convinced of the confidentiality of any government information, especially in light of the fact that the government is setting up an arrangement with the United States that even Revenue Canada information can be shared with that country if deemed necessary for reasons of "national security".  And in view of other scandals in the government involving leaked secret information, I don't know how you can feel so certain, unless you don't keep up on the news.

You say that no threat of penalty was implied in your requests for information.  This is simply not true.  In both letters I received, the "authority" of the Statistics Act and my legal responsibility under that Act were stressed, and Section 31 of the Act makes it quite clear that there is a penalty for non-compliance.  It certainly does seem that you want the public to believe they have no choice in the matter.

In your email, you state that the public is informed in the accompanying pamphlet that information will also be requested that is not part of the Labour Force Survey.  This is the pamphlet that states "53,500" households, contradicting the accompanying letter that states "52,000" households.  This the pamphlet that tells the lie that the average Canadian earns $17 an hour.  And, oh yes, this is also the pamphlet that very quietly, in one small line, says: "The survey sometimes includes a number of supplementary questions...."

I have carefully reviewed the pdf documents you attached outlining the details of the Labour Force Survey.  There is no mention of any "supplementary questions".

Therefore, I repeat my offer to cooperate in answering questions having to do solely with employment - as long as those questions are sent to me in writing.

For all other information, I suggest you contact Revenue Canada, as the United States intends to do.

Looking ahead - a number of Canadians I have talked to are very concerned that the upcoming Canadian census will be contracted out to Lockheed-Martin, an American company of questionable repute.  This will certainly enhance access to Canadian information by the U.S. - whether or not Lockheed-Martin is required to swear a million oaths.

I think this is a move that should be seriously reconsidered.  Otherwise, you'd better be prepared for thousands of intractable people just like me when census time rolls around.

Thank you for at least trying to reassure me and answer my questions.  I do realize you are just doing your job.  But I'm just doing mine also, which is the job of all ordinary Canadians who are not on the government's payroll - to see that the government works for us and not we for the government.

Sincerely,
Corinne Allan
(Address)
http://www.yayacanada.com

Reader comments:

Links to websites advocating boycott of Canada's 2006 Census
ViveleCanada: Report Proves Canadian Census Info Not Safe With Lockheed Martin
CanContent: 2006 Canadian Census and National Missile Defence - Two stones in the same swamp