The Foursquare Blog

In order to make this more accessible, here is a transcript of that interview.

You can find the original podcast MP3 here and you can find more on that day's episode at the CBC's website here.

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.

David Anderson, MP: Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you gentlemen for coming here today. Mr. Sheikh, does your home need renovations?

Munir Sheikh: Sorry?

DA: Does your home need renovations?

MS: Uhh... yes.

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.