Traditionally census returns have been key-entered but that option will no longer be available in 2006. As a result, it will be necessary to introduce the scanning of the paper returns into the 2006 Census - and, again, integrate all of that with the Internet-filed returns. The complexity of these highly technical operations was entirely outside our range of past experience. When one considers the fact that the census must go almost flawlessly (because we do not have a second chance), it became abundantly clear that contracting out was the only realistic option. In addition to the technical complexities, we also conducted a very thorough cost benefit analysis of the "buy or make" option, to determine the appropriate approach for undertaking the significant systems development and operational activities required for the 2006 Census. The factors considered included cost, timeliness, integration, risk and the availability of resources/expertise and while not the only factor in our decision, the business case was clearly in favour for the private sector. Incidentally, the same conclusion was reached not only by our US counterpart, but also by the Office of National Statistics in the UK for their census systems development and processing activities.
After a lengthy consultation process with industry, proposals were invited by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) through a Request for Proposal (RFP). Critical security and confidentiality requirements were built into the RFP to ensure the protection of census returns. Indeed, these safeguards will be even higher in 2006 than they were in 2001 or in earlier censuses.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization Agreement regulations that governed this procurement, non-Canadian based firms were eligible to submit a bid. All of the bidders were Canadian firms, although several were US owned. The evaluation of proposals was very rigorous, with no opportunity for biasing the results either in favour of, or against, any one bidder. In addition, an independent fairness monitor certified that the selection process followed the terms of the RFP and that the process was fair and objective to all bidders. Through this process, PWGSC awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. to carry out activities in support of the 2006 Census. The firm will be leading a consortium consisting of IBM Canada and Transcontinental Printing Inc. Canada and ADECCO Employment Services Ltd Canada.
Lockheed Martin specifically has a successful track record in developing and implementing solutions in a census context and has access to international expertise based on lessons learned in the United States and United Kingdom censuses. Statistics Canada is capitalizing on this existing experience and investment.
Statistics Canada will maintain full control of all aspects of the census. Indeed, the data collected from Canadians will, at all times, be under the care and full control of Statistics Canada and everyone working on the census will, as always, be subject to the provisions and penalties of the Statistics Act. Only census agents who are sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act - and subject to considerable penalties should their oath be violated (including imprisonment of up to six months) - will have access to individual census information. Career employees will at all times be in charge of every aspect of census operations
All contractors will be security screened, and sworn in under the Statistics Act. As such, they will become Statistics Canada employees, subject to all the sanctions of the Act.
Stringent safeguards will be in place to ensure that only information required for the processing operation is accessible by the contractor. The census processing site will be strictly isolated from external networks, so unauthorised transmission of census data would be physically impossible. In addition, all sites will be subject to 24-hour supervision by our career employees. Needless to say, data will never be processed or stored outside the country. Processed data will be stored at Statistics Canada premises.
Statistics Canada has a well-earned reputation for quality statistics, which in turn depends on the trust of Canadians. It would never endanger that reputation by exposing to the slightest risk the confidential data that its respondents provide - let alone exposing it to access by any foreign country. The confidentiality of 2006 Census returns will be as stringently guarded as in the past; in fact, technology allows us to implement even better safeguards. We are ready to expose our plans to any expert scrutiny.
Ivan P. Fellegi
Chief Statistician of Canada
-------------
Mel Hurtig's response:
Dear Dr. Fellegi:
As you know, I am a long-time fan of yours and of Statistics Canada. All the more reason I am appalled by your decision re Lockheed Martin. This said, I am certainly not blaming you for the poorly-negotiated NAFTA agreement and its national treatment provisions.
Unfortunately, I am not one bit impressed by your assurances re the data that will be collected in the next census given the involvement of the giant American defence contractor.
There are many reasons for this, beginning with the Patriot Act and the way it has already been used in the U.S., Mexico and in South America. As you know, Mr. Ashcroft and associates can request that Lockheed Martin hand over all data to them and not only will this happen but you will never know that it has happened. Rest assured that Lockheed Martin will have whatever access to your data that they wish. To believe otherwise is
at best wishful thinking.
I remain quite unimpressed by your conclusion that it was necessary to bring in a foreign firm. You should have embarked on a research program allowing S.C. to become the world leader in the necessary technology. You haven't been rated so highly in international comparisons in the past because you relied on paying tens of millions of dollars to non-citizens to do your work for you. Moreover, you know as well as I do how many truly talented Canadians work for Statscan. In my opinion you had lots of time to develop the required technologies yourself. Surely, given what you are planning to pay Lockheed Martin, money was not a problem.
I would like to once again correct you. Lockheed Martin is NOT a Canadian firm. Your own Corporations Returns Act makes that quite clear. You are quite foolish to contend otherwise and I am disappointed that you do so so stubbornly.
No doubt by now you are aware of just how outraged Canadians are as a result of this unfortunate decision. Frankly, I would have thought that you would have anticipated the anger. It's so incredibly symbolic of how we've gone wrong in this country since 1984.
Lastly, you've done a good job of the census in the past. There's zero reason why you couldn't do a good or even better job in the future. This is a serious mistake that I'm certain you will regret in the future, if you don't already.
Mel Hurtig
---
"So many right-wing christians, so few lions." - t-shirt I saw @ school
Can Vive ask the Canadian Civil Liberties Union (is there such a thing?) to vet this plan, with an eye to the impact of the U.S. Patriot Act on Canadian data?
Here in B.C., the BCLU has put out press releases in the past objecting to confidentiality problems in Statcan surveys. (Plus I think their current President is Cameron Ward of APEC fame). Perhaps the BCLU can be asked to vet this plan.
And, why does Dr. Fellegi assume we\'ll be more accepting of Lockheed Martin by letting us know that the U.S. and Britain are using this system? THAT FREAKED ME OUT EVEN MORE! Is Dr. Fellegi living in Canada? Does he not know there are more than just a few sceptical Canadians?
I don\'t know about anyone else but I feel worse after reading Dr. Fellegi\'s explanation.
As far as the Census goes, his explanation rings hollow. There hasn\'t been a demonstrated need to change the methodology of collection, has there? When did Stats or anyone say that the response rate and data gathered were unsatisfactory or substandard, requiring a major chnage in the way data is collected. Mr. Fellegi says that key entry (people at terminals typing data in - jobs for people who need them!) is not available for 2006. Well, why not? Progress (or a facsimile of same) for its own sake is foolhardy to say the least.
Turning to Mr. Fellegi\'s words, there is a logical inconsistency within them. He writes about 20% being contracted out yet later says that everyone working on the Census will be, de facto, an employee of Stats Can. This is a laughable aessertion from an organisation who denies that I am an emplyee of StatsCan (I work for Statistical Survey Operations, a shell company that has no management or indeed employees other than Interviewers). I gather data for them, but when we came to negotiate a collective agreement they tried to deny we were actually government employees or even Stats Can employees (they did this so the could justify their continued non-compliance with various government employment policies).
Mr Hurtig raises a salient point when he asks about Stats supposed lack of expertise in the area of software development. Certainly if Lockheed Martin are in the game there is a market for the product, and one cannot help but wonder why Mr. Fellegi and StatsCan do not see themselves as world-leaders, ready and capable of developing product that can be used by themselves and other statistical agencies in the world. We have sent delegations to China and entertianed groups from Israel, all so that we may sell our ability to conduct surveys and gather vital data. Is Fellegi now abdicating the future of StatsCan as a world class agency, in order to save a few dollars? Remebr, there has still been no actual proof that these changes were or are needed; we only have the words of someone clearly on the defensive.
Surely there is the expertise in Canada to do what they claim only Lockheed can do.
some of that money come to local talent instead of a big US firm. I can
guarantee that I would work cheaper than any L-M employee, if for no
other reason than wanting to work for(and in) my own country.
---
JvH
in return:
1. When this census is completed, will we have Canadians who will have been trained to handle the next one?
[It really doesn\'t cut any ice with me that the UK didn\'t have the expertise to do their own census either. ]
2. Why don\'t we have the expertise to do our own census? There is a sufficient time between these exercises to
allow for planning and training, I would have thought.
3. Why decide on a process for which we do not have the capacity in our own country?
I suppose it would be too cheeky to ask if there\'s any connection between contracting out and a possible strike at Statscan?