The interview is a bit dry at the beginning. It's statistics after all,
and Mr. Sheikh is very precise with his terms. But the overall message
of loyalty and integrity comes through in the end.
Anna Maria Tremonti: Well that man there, the one who needs
the renovations, is Munir Sheikh, the former chief statistician
at Statistics Canada. And the man asking him about the state of his
home is Conservative MP David Anderson. That exchange is from a House
of Commons Industry Committee hearing in July, right after Munir Sheikh
resigned, and at the height of the controversy over the government
decision to cancel the mandatory long form census.
DA: I notice my colleagues across the way are laughing at that
question, but I think that your position on this question is that it is
important, because you have made it mandatory on the long form census
in the past. Should something like that be a mandatory question?
MS: I think I want to emphasize the fact that we are a data
collection agency. We are not the users of the data. It is the users
of the data who tell us what data do they need. So you should ask that
question the people who are the users of that information.
DA: Well I find it interesting that you've distance yourself from
that question, because the next question then is: is it worth imprisoning
people, or threatening to imprison Canadians, for your users?
MS: Again, I think that's a question that the government needs to
answer. If the government doesn't want people to go to jail, it's not
my issue. The government can go and change legislation. All I'm stating
is, Sir, is the quality of the information produced under a voluntary
survey would be less than that under a mandatory census. Every statistician
on this planet would answer that question exactly the same way. And that's
the only issue on my mind.
AMT: Munir Sheikh's career as a public servant spanned 4 decades
and 8 Prime Ministers. It ended in July with his resignation from Statistics
Canada. In the process, he became one of the biggest news makers in the
country. This morning Munir Sheikh still believes cancelling the mandatory
long form census will mean data on which so many rely to make decisions
will not be as good. He joins us now as part of our project "Shift,"
our look at demographic changes altering the country. Munir Sheikh is
in Ottawa. Good Morning.
MS: Good Morning.
AMT: Well, as you well know, despite the decision to scrap the
mandatory long form census, Statistics Canada will continue its work
using a voluntary census. So, after five or ten years under a new system,
what do you believe we would be missing as a result?
MS: Well, as you just said, Statistics Canada would keep collecting
the information in that survey as had been done in the past in the census.
What we are gonna lose out is basically two things: 1) the quality of
the information that will be collected in a survey will be less than
that of a census, and 2) because of the discontinuity in the information
from the past, what happens in the future will not be comparable to what
has happened in the past. So to try to determine whether or not things
have gotten better or gotten worse, compared for example to 2006 and
earlier, we will not be able to answer that question because the information
will not be consistent in the future with the information in the past.
AMT: Now, Steven Chase is reporting today in the Globe that a
study done for Statistics Canada while you were still at the helm
shows that there can be significan errors if that census becomes voluntary.
Do you remember looking through that study? Before you resigned?
MS: The results of that study are not a surprise. In fact
that is exactly the point we keep making. That the quality of the information
that we will get with a survey isn't going to represent the phenomena
we are trying to capture. Just take about any piece of information
which is part of the census. The census, since we count just about
everybody as part of that process, will actually tell us what's going on
in the country. When you have a voluntary survey, depending on the
response rates that people give, it will introduce a bias and error as the
Globe and Mail story indicates today. And when you compare the information
from an actual count in a census, with the voluntary results of a
survey, and you run a test, as the study did, you know the degree of
inaccuracy that is introduced. And this study basically says
the degree of uncertainty, the degree of inaccuracy, is really quite
large.
AMT: Did you take that study to the government before you resigned?
MS: Well, as I think I've said in the past, and I'll continue
to say that, as part of our advice to the government, we produced a number
of facts, and we did, you know, a lot of analysis. But what did we tell
the government is protected under the law, and so I'm not able to really
answer the question as to what information or advice we gave to the
government as part of our recommendations.
AMT: Ok. Can you give me an example of what you think we won't
know, that we could have known, if this goes on for, say, 5 or 10 years?
What won't we know at the end of a decade that we might have known?
MS: Well, I guess there are two parts to that issue. The first is
what data would we gather in the future that we were gathering or not
gathering in the past? And the answer to that question is that if the
survey remains the way it is, in the future (which means that all of the
questions that were being asked in the census are going to be exactly
the questions that will be asked in the survey in the future) then
Statistics Canada will indeed be gathering all of the same information
in the survey that have been gathered in the past in the census. So the
information will be available to Statistics Canada. The other part of course
is...
AMT: Will it be skewed? I mean...
MS: That is exactly the point, that the information will be less
trustworthy and less reliable compared to the information we were putting
out in the past. And as a result, some of the information that was released
in the past, Statistics Canada may not want to put that information out
in the future, and that would apply to, for example, small area information
or information on smaller groups, because that information will not really
be good enough to be put out in the public. So I cannot answer the
question as to what that information will be, because we have never
done a survey like that in the past. And so it's really in the future that
once StatCan looks at that data, they'll be able to determine as to which
information that they put out in the past will not put that out in the
future.
AMT: Now the debate over the government's decision to no longer
make the census mandatory got very public and very heated over summer.
Did it surprise you, how heated it got?
MS: Well, actually it did. You know, statistics is pretty boring
subject...
AMT: You would have thought!
MS: There aren't that many people who would find this to be exciting.
And so the reaction to what happened took me by surprise. And I'm still
baffled on the reaction. I just thought that it would probably last a few days
and then go away. But it hasn't.
AMT: What do you think it says about Canadians? What did it tell you?
MS: I think what it tells is that Canadians deeply care about
information and they think that decisions need to be based on factual stuff
and that the agency which produces that information, Statistics Canada,
is held in quite high regard by Canadians. And we were really quite
pleased to see that reaction.
AMT: Now during that debate there were those who said that the census
is an antiquated way of collecting data, that we should be looking at
new ways, that this is the chance. What do you say to that?
MS: Well, it's, I think, always a good idea to look at new ways
of doing old things. And indeed, you know, Statistics Canada, I would
say based on my 2 years of experience at that organization is one of
the most innovative places I've ever worked at. But you know, of course,
if there are better ways of doing these things, please, let's sit down
and talk about those. But it's my view that changing things at this
time of the year, just a few months left for the actual census, is
probably not the appropriate time to make such a fundamental shift.
So my preference would have been to run the 2011 census as is, but let's
gather a group of knowledgeable people, try to figure out how to do a
better census in 2016.
AMT: Now you have been immersed in statistics as an economist
for a very long time. What do you see when you look at numbers
that I might not see? What's the attraction? What's the fascination?
MS: Well, I'm sure you'll see in the numbers exactly the same
thing as I see. For example, when we put out a number like the inflation
rate is 1.8% What I see is that on average prices are rising at 1.8%
a year and I'm sure you'll get the same information. I think where
our knowledge may differ is the technical aspects of data collection
where we statisticians probably know a lot more than most other people.
But once the numbers are put out, I think you'll get exactly the same
information from them that I do.
AMT: But you obviously have a fascination with the raw numbers.
MS: Yes, we like working with raw numbers and they're quite
interesting, and it isn't an area which most people would find
fascinating. Some people do. Others probably would not.
AMT: When you doodle, do you doodle in numbers or do you doodle
in drawings? I'm just curious.
MS: I like numbers.
AMT: I'm not surprised.... Let's go back to July of this year.
Your resignation was not simply about the change in the policy, was it?
MS: Actually, my resignation had nothing to do with a change
in policy, and I'm glad you've asked that question so I can clarify
it one more time. As I said in my parliamentary committee testimony,
we the public servants are taught two things: 1) you provide fearless
advice to the government, and 2) implement the government's decisions
loyally. And as a public servant, and having taken oath on the Statistics
Act, I can say without a shadow of doubt in my mind that I was able
to fulfill my oath to the best of my ability. So that really wasn't
a reason that I resigned, that the government made a decision to
replace the long form census with a voluntary survey. The reason I
resigned was simply, and just one reason, to protect the integrity
and reputation of Statistics Canada.
AMT: .... Because... the industry minister said that Statistics Canada,
that, that, or that you supported or endorsed the change. Am I correct?
MS: There were actually two parts to that. The first was an impression
in the media left following a number of conversations that the minister
had with a number of groups, but the media stories said that the quality
of the voluntary survey data would be as good as that of the mandatory
census. And secondly, I guess given that, that Statistics Canada and
the chief statistician were fully supportive of the government's decision.
Now of course, as I said, there isn't a statistician who would argue
that the survey and the census produce equally good data. So the users
of the data were quite baffled as to why would Statistics Canada, you know,
provide that kind of an assurance? As I said earlier, the information
we provided to the government as part of our recommendations, the analysis
that we did, that is all protected under the law, and I cannot talk about
it. So the question I was asking myself was, you know, how do I put the
smoke out regarding StatCan's integrity and reputation? Honest to God,
I thought of a variety of things, but the only thing that, you know, I thought
I could do to put the smoke out as quickly and effectively as possible was to
resign from my job, because I did not want to be held accountable for
providing advice to the government that no statistician would find
defensible.
AMT: So... I want to understand. You're actually telling me that
had there not been a statement that said StatsCan and its chief, who
was you, endorsed this change, had it just been announced that the
change was going ahead, you wouldn't have had to resign? But it was
the fact that there was the impression that it had your endorsement?
MS: That's right. If, you know, the government had basically said
what the government has been saying since my resignation, that this is
a decision made by the government and that, you know, they are totally
responsible for the decision, we would have implemented, under my
leadership at StatCan, we would have implemented the decision to the
best of our ability, which I'm sure Statistics Canada would now do.
AMT: Even if you didn't agree with it? You would have done it?
MS: Even if I didn't agree with that. Because that is part of
our job as a public servant and as a deputy minister. You know, I would
have preferred that the census be mandatory, and I'm still making that
argument in public now that I'm out of the government, but I would have
implemented that decision to the best of our ability, and nobody
outside StatCan or the government would have ever known where StatCan
stood on it.
AMT: But the minister, Tony Clement, put you on the record
essentially as endorsing it and that was too far? Am I understanding
that correctly?
MS: I think there were stories in the media particularly the
story that appeared on that Wednesday in the Globe and Mail, which
basically said that the chief statistician is supportive of a decision
which statistically would produce quality data that is as good as that of the
census. That is not something that, you know, I can ever do, and so
imagine if I was on my job, and there was this impression that I was
advising the government, supporting things which are totally
indefensible, my position at StatCan would have been untenable.
AMT: How long did it take you to make the decision to resign
then? Was it a tough decision?
MS: It was a tough decision in the sense that I loved that job.
I was working in one of the best organizations, I would say not even
in Canada, in the world. People at StatCan are truly professional,
they are wonderful. It's like a big family. And to walk away from all
that is not easy. But at the same time, the agency's reputation and
my own reputation were at stake, and given the choices between continuing
to do the job you love versus putting the organization at risk, I thought
the decision wasn't really that hard to make, and I'm glad I made that
decision.
AMT: Ok... I'm still trying to understand what you're saying.
You have been a public servant for almost 40 years. Eight Prime Ministers
have come and gone. Over that time you must have had to bend when
faced with government policy or changes with which you disagreed.
And this one you would have bent. You would have kept doing it, if you
could have done it without putting your name to it? Essentially?
MS: Yeah. Well, the question of... we have to bend? We bend
100% of the time. Any time a government makes a decision, we implement it.
And of course, many many examples in my 38 years in the public service
where the government made a decision different from the advice that
the public service gave, we implemented it, and nobody outside those
4 walls knows about that. It would have been exactly the same thing
in this particular case. The government made a decision to cancel
the long form census. They made a decision to bring in a voluntary
survey. That isn't something that, you know, in my mind, the best
way to get statistics, but we definitely would have implemented the
decision. It was this argumentation being put out that we believed
that a voluntary survey results would be as good as that of the mandatory
census. We cannot believe that. And that we were fully supportive
of this change? We cannot defend the argument that I've mentioned, that
we are not gonna lose on the quality of the data. We will lose on
the quality of the data.
AMT: What you're telling me is interesting, because we often hear
politicians say that Canada's civil service has a mind of its own, and
that it fights politicians, that they take it upon themselves to change
the rules. You're saying that's not the case, for most civil servants.
MS: Well, I can speak on my behalf. In my long career in the
public service, it hasn't troubled me once to implement the government's
decision, which was contrary to what I personally believe in. That is
my job. And if I cannot do that job, I should not be in the public
service. The one instance where very specific situation developed
where I was supposed to be supportive of a change which to anybody
would be indefensible, that is a problem which affected the reputation
of the agency I worked in, and in my mind, you know, the reputation,
the integrity of an institution far outweighs any personal interest
in the public service any public servant may have.
AMT: Now that you have left Statistics Canada, do you think the
scrapping of the mandatory long form census could have other implications
for it as an agency? Could this open the door to more change? Could
this change its reputation?
MS: Well, I hope it doesn't go any further than this, but the
fact that we're not gonna have a long form census is going to have
an effect in the future on the quality of the information a number
of other surveys will produce, so the effect just doesn't stop here.
This is somewhat technical issue, but I'll mention it. That the census
provides benchmarking for a lot of the other surveys that Statistics
Canada does, and if that benchmark is lost then the quality of some
of the information in those other surveys will diminish as well.
So the impacts of this decision are gonna be ongoing on the organization.
AMT: Is it still hard for you to believe the federal government
has taken this decision and is sticking to it?
MS: Well I think I won't want to speculate on this, but you know
I wish we had gone on with a mandatory census in 2011, and that the
government have setup some kind of mechanism to study whether or not
the census can be done in a better way, and then implement whatever
the results of that analysis would be for the 2016 census.
AMT: And what is next for Munir Sheikh?
MS: Well, I have joined Queen's University, the school of policy
studies, and I'm gonna be doing a bit of lecturing, hopefully some research,
and maybe even teach a bit. So that's where I am at least for now.
AMT: Mr. Sheikh, thank you for speaking with me today.
MS: You're very welcome.
AMT: Bye-bye
MS: Bye.
AMT: I've been speaking with Munir Sheikh. He resigned as the
chief statistician at Statistics Canada this summer. He spoke to us
from Ottawa.
