I've slipped into the habit of venting about the census every ten years or so. I did it in 1986 and in 1996. Now in 2006 I find myself doing it again.
The old institution has been with us since Biblical times. Age alone proves nothing, of course; a number of things have been with us since Biblical times, including the plague. I do prefer the census to the plague -- as I pointed out in 1996 -- but that's just about the only thing to which I prefer it.
I'll start with my minor objections to the government's penchant for wanting to know if I'm present and accounted for, and work my way up to the major ones. After spending about a full working day every month filling out government forms (and I'm just a journalist; imagine what a businessman must do) I take a dim view of bureaucrats expecting me to fill out yet another questionnaire. Not at my earliest convenience, at that, but within precisely four days or whatever.
I realize it could be worse. After all, Ottawa's paper-termites could request us to travel to the town of our birth to be counted, as the Roman census-takers requested Mary and Joseph, which was how Jesus of Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. Still, I don't propose to interrupt my schedule or travel plans at the whim of the government. I'd turn down an offer of $1000 if it entailed filling out forms on four days notice.
But this is piffle compared to the next problem, which is that the census has evolved from ordinary stocktaking on the part of the community to a tool of government intrusion. It has come to be conducted with damnable arrogance and no regard for privacy. Year after year the state has demanded answers to questions that are none of its business. In 1996, for example, the little red tape worms wanted to know the marital status and sex of my roommates and/or other inhabitants of my home. In 2006, by God, they're doing it again.
Such questions are intrusive and impertinent even in the abstract -- but of course the state also wants us to attach our names, as well as the names of other people, to this ostensibly statistical information. Then, to add insult to injury, the officials assure us that the information we give them is protected by law and will not be divulged to anyone.
"I don't know if Ottawa's civil servants really believe this," I wrote ten years ago. "If they do, they're moronic. If, as I suspect, they don't, they're telling a deliberate lie." It turned out to be the second -- without, however, entirely precluding the first.
After my 1996 piece appeared, a reader wrote a letter to the editor expressing bitterness over the fact that when she provided Statistics Canada with personal data, her questionnaire ended up being reviewed by a neighbour, a local part-time Census Representative. The reply came from the Assistant Chief Statistician. To his credit, he made no denials.
"We at Statistics Canada are very much aware and concerned about this issue," he replied. "It is without question the most difficult problem we face... We are trying very hard to find a practical, economical way to solve it."
Then he explained that Census Canada "tries to minimize the number of cases where [Census employees] would have to handle questionnaires of persons known to them." He added that in "large urban areas this approach works very well," but admitted that "in rural areas and small towns the problem is much more difficult."
Good news: Statistics Canada recognizes that compelling citizens to reveal personal information to their neighbours is a "problem." Bad news: the Assistant Chief Statistician confirms that Census Canada's assurances of confidentiality (extended to all Canadians, including those in rural areas) aren't only untrue, but are known to be untrue by Census Canada.
But even this is piffle, compared to the worst thing.
Governments readily admit -- indeed, boast -- that the census is used to foster plans of social engineering. This inevitably includes projects that a citizen may view as inimical to the public interest, from the gun registry to "Adscam." Compelling people to provide information that may be used against them, personally or collectively, is unconscionable. One way to respond to it is by civil disobedience. Boycotting the census is one option.
© 2006 George Jonas
CanWest Publications
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend