A Toronto Globe and Mail article 30 June 2010 attributed to The Canadian Press was headed: “Don’t Count on Census Detail: Tories Scrub Mandatory Long Form.” The article stated “The move (to make the long form voluntary) is a response to protests from some Canadians who resented the personal questions in the long form.”

The article centered on the executive government’s portrayal of the policy change, citing objections from “some Canadians” — the source presumably being the Ministry who could cherry-pick. A StatsCan official said, “We do acknowledge that (in making responses voluntary) that we may not get the same level of detail as that of a census.”

Insiders speaking to the Canadian Press on condition of anonymity “decry a new world order within the agency since the Conservatives came to power in 2006”, with commendable analyses being dropped and total information reduced for “dozens of provincial governments, community groups and other organizations that depend on the data for developing policy.” Said one StatsCan source: “It will be a disaster. A lot of policy across Canada has been based on that long form.” As well, the voluntary aspect, through bias in who answers and is saying what, can be expected to skew the results.

Erik Waddell, spokesman for the responsible minister, Industry Minister Tony Clement, was quoted in the article as saying “Our feeling was that the change was to make a reasonable limit on what most Canadians felt was an intrusion into their personal privacy in terms of answering the longer form.”

Most Canadians? A Canwest News Service article in the Victoria BC Times Colonist 10 July was headlined “Census Privacy Concerns Absent in StatsCan Survey.” The article stated that a report on a StatsCan feedback survey after the last census covering responses from 1200 government agencies, municipalities, non-profits, community groups, academics, private businesses and ordinary citizens after the last census “makes no mention of the widespread privacy concerns the Conservatives now say are prompting them to axe the long census questionnaire.”

The obvious question is what prompts the Harper government to seek to withhold from the public the quality of information on Canadians and their operations for their governments, business and citizens’ decision-making that an obligatory long form census would produce. Media commentators see the intention as ideologically driven, which would suggest that the only source of information that should be useful to all sectors for planning is what the executive government wants given.

By 23 July knowledgeable observers including the relevant economists have weighed in on the reliability, validity and usefulness of a census if carried out as the Harper government intends. Since it is well known in the behavioural sciences that success in an organization means pleasing one’s superiors and has nothing necessarily to do with serving clients and the public, utterances by Minister Clement and his subordinates cannot be considered useful information for any group to hold the government fairly to account for fairness and usefulness in its decision-making.

Had the knowledgeable observers been quick off the mark, knowing well before June 2010 the governmenmt’s intentions, they could have collectively drawn up for the public an Equtiy Statement for the government’s intention that would state basically:

- who would gain what benefits from what the government intended, and why they should, in both the short and longer term;

- who would bear what costs and risks, and why they should, in both the short and longer term

The Equity Statement is not confined to money.

The observers could have (and still can) publicly present their Equity Statement as they see it to the Minister, and ask for his public response on its reasonableness. And, if the executive government doesn’t view the Equity Statement as reasonable, it would be invited to present publicly its own Equity Statement for its intention that would be subject to knowledgeable public challenge.

Thus each side can publicly assess the others’ for its fairness and completeness. The Auditor General can report to the House of Commons her opinion of the fairness and completeness of each Equity Statement emerging from challenge. Citizens would then have a more sensible basis for deciding their trust in the government’s ability and motivation in policy intentions that affect citizens and their organizations in important ways. The resulting level of citizen trust in the government would influence the outcome of the next federal election.