Transcription
A Statistics Canada agent showed up at my door and basically told me, "You will fill out the Canadian census or else." I looked her in the eye and I said, "I'd prefer not to." Since when is no longer an option on your own property?
Yeah, you can't send, you know, can't go door to door harassing people with fines to get, uh, to rebuild that trust. Like, wrong approach.
Let's dig in. Last week, a Statistics Canada agent showed up unannounced on my property. She was polite, but the message was clear: "You will participate in the Canadian census or else." Now, I did tell her that I would prefer not to, but this mandatory Statistics Canada census is conducted every 5 years across the country to collect detailed personal data and information on every single household. And it's gone viral this year as thousands of regular Canadians push back hard against the intrusive questions and aggressive enforcement tactics like the one you'll see in this video. This comes with the hiring of 32,000 Statistics Canada staff earlier this year. But since when is no not an acceptable answer on your own private property?
Okay.
And there's a legal obligation for us to get one from every property. Uh, you're right.
Yes. Are you able to do one online or would you like me to do one with you right now?
Um, I'd prefer not to do it at all, actually.
Okay. Um, there is a process for a formal refusal if that's the way that you would like to go. I just have to get...
If it's anonymous, why are you showing up at my house?
It's not anonymous at all. Definitely not. It asks you for your name, your birthday, everything. But it is legislated under the Statistics Act that every household in Canada has to participate.
Okay.
I'm not comfortable handing over that kind of personal information. I've always been a stickler about data and privacy protection, from medical and health records to my everyday happenings. So, I reached out to lawyer Danielle Fryheight from Lions Advocacy to get some straight answers on what our actual rights and obligations are. Here are some of the most important parts of that conversation.
So, people are basically the laws that you have to provide. You have to answer these questions. You have to answer them honestly, truthfully. And if you don't, uh, it's no longer jail. Uh, it's a $500 fine, and if you don't pay the fine, you don't go to jail either. That was a kindness of Trudeau. So, thank, thank you, Trudeau.
The census goes back to the biblical era. So, there's always been, uh, an importance, uh, in tracking population. So, that the B, the first census was just a population count. And actually, I think it was, I believe it was for military purposes. Um, but census is important just for a functioning society. You need to know how many people live where. You know, the more information you get, the better because you then you could deliver social services. You know, Canada's a socialist country in many ways. So, we deliver healthcare, we deliver education, you know, uh, retirement, immigration, like there's a lot of causes that we need as much information as possible for. So, you know, getting this stuff, uh, voluntarily could skew the data. So, I see the rationale, the twisted rationale of the government to say, "Hey, we need this information because otherwise, you know, we're not going to have a functional society."
But what about the growing number of Canadians who are increasingly uncomfortable with the government's mandatory coercive collection of personal information and data, especially when Statistics Canada uses that power to make anywhere from 120 to 156 million every year selling custom surveys and special data analysis to private companies and businesses?
I definitely see that argument more and more, you know, being active. These past five years in some of the COVID stuff, election interference, a lot of the, you know, questionable loyalties of certain MPs, like a lot of it has now changed. So, I very much respect anyone who does not feel comfortable sharing, uh, the long-form census, especially, but even the short form, I, I get it. I get the, the concern that a lot of citizens have now. And it's a matter of building trust back up. That ain't going to be easy to do. Yeah. You can't send, you know, can't go door to door harassing people with fines to get, uh, to rebuild that trust. Like, wrong, wrong approach.
The act gives a lawful excuse. You have a lawful excuse not if, if you don't want to provide the information. So the question is, and there's not a lot of jurisprudence on this, but what are the lawful excuses for not providing information? The one lawful excuse is that I, I don't believe you're actually a qualified enumerator. Uh, you know, prove who you are. So they have to have a badge. It has to be verified. I'd like to see your driver's license, photo ID, government photo ID, the same stuff they harass Canadians for in different circumstances. I want to see that from my enumerator to make sure they're actually who they say they are because more lawful excuse now. Now there's been cases of fraudulent, um, people going in, right? You saw that and, um, getting information from people. And if you look, you look qualified enough, you could probably get a lot of information from people without them having the right lawful authority to give that to take that information. So one lawful excuse, I think, is making sure is verifying the the identity of this person. Um, second, there's also an oath that each, um, enumerator who's collecting this information has to swear and it has to be commissioned. So, um, that's another authenticating feature that Canadians might want to look into is has this person signed an oath? Did they swear it? When did they swear it? Where did they swear it? And who commissioned it? All stuff that's basic that they should provide. Um, and if you, I want to see a copy of it. And if you haven't sworn the oath, I want your name because that means you have, that's if they haven't sworn the oath, that's a big deal. That means that they're taking this information and they don't have any, um, solemn, uh, you know, declaration saying what they're going to do with it. And then third, and I don't want to go down this path, but if you have a medical exemption, if, if the, you know, a legit medical exemption, good luck getting it. But, um, that these questions cause great anxiety, that they really disturb a person, that they're going to trigger something, that would possibly be a lawful excuse as well. But again, I'd be very careful going down that route because I've seen what the regulators do now to the doctors who give those kind of exemptions and members of the public who are declared, you know, hyper anxious if that makes them nervous. Well, hey, maybe you need to be put in an institution like we're seeing that kind of stuff now. So, you got to be careful with your medical exemptions.
So, what actually happens if you refuse the census? Well, there are only two real court cases on this in Canada. In 2013, 89-year-old World War II veteran Audrey Tobias refused to fill out the census because the data was being run through a US military contractor's software. And an Ontario judge found her not guilty, saying that the Crown failed to prove that she had the required criminal intent to prosecute and heavily criticized the government for coming after what the judge called a model citizen. In 2014, 79-year-old retired social worker Janet Chernin also refused for similar reasons: the involvement of an American defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, but she was found guilty. While she didn't get a fine or jail time, she did have to complete 50 hours of community service. The bottom line appears to be that the government almost never takes people to court. And even if or when they do, the punishment is minimal, a $500 fine at the most. According to the Statistics Act, you could be fined up to $500 for refusing to fill out the census or knowingly giving false or misleading information, but you can't be imprisoned for it. And perhaps most interestingly is the question of whether or not there would be a constitutional argument against the compelled disclosure of personal information, especially as the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms has now filed a federal court judicial review challenging key parts of the 2026 long-form census, arguing that questions on health conditions, sexual orientation, gender identity, commuting habits, housing, and daily activities force Canadians to reveal highly sensitive data under threat of penalty, exceeding the census's lawful scope and violating charter-protected privacy rights.
I think that is, sorry, another lawful excuse that I didn't mention. I think, uh, there is a charter right to free speech, right? So you don't have, like, I don't have to speak just because somebody tells me to speak, right? Um, and there could be, you know, there could be incriminating answers as well if the, or, or right, or other prejudicial, um, uh, information that a person may be compelled or feel compelled to disclose. So there, there is an interesting question there. I don't think it's been raised yet in any court, that case that I've seen, but that would be, uh, another way to challenge compelled speech, forced to answer, um, private questions, especially the new ones that don't have a precedent yet. But again, it's, uh, this is like a David and Goliath battle. You're having to fight a $500 fine and you're gonna have to spend, you know, $20,000 in legal fees to fight, fight it.
With Canada now in a technical recession, i.e., two straight quarters of shrinking GDP, what Canadian is going to take on this kind of legal battle? Look, I get that some basic population data has value for planning, you know, roads, schools, and hospitals. But when agents are trained to pressure you on your own doorstep, when "no thanks" triggers paperwork and follow-ups and threats of a fine, it all starts feeling less like civic duty and more like compulsion.
If we don't have a formal refusal, and, and to be honest, I'm not sure what happens with those, um, then we have to continue to come back until it's further.
Okay.
Canadians should know that they have rights in this situation, including the right to ask questions, verify identity, and yes, perhaps even say no. What do you think? Have you had a knock at the door yet? Drop your experiences below and let us know because staying informed is important, but so is staying polite and staying firm on your privacy. For Rebel News, I'm Tamar Ugalini. Have you seen our latest swag in the Rebel News store? It's a great way to support independent journalism while rocking some freedom-loving, perhaps even liberal-triggering gear out in the wild. Head on over to rebelnewstore.com right now and grab yours today, and you can use code Tamara10 at checkout to save 10% off of your total purchase. That's T-A-M-A-R-A-1-0 at checkout at the rebelnewstore.com.