With the dramatic resignation of Statistics Canada chief Munir Sheikh, the debate over the Harper government’s plan to abolish the mandatory census long-form continued to make headlines in Quebec this past week.
When Mr. Sheikh announced his resignation last Wednesday, Voir’s Josée Legault opined that the chief statistician “had no choice.” In a column published online only hours before Mr. Sheikh posted his letter of resignation on the Statscan website, Ms. Legault had argued the long form census is particularly “essential” for Quebec because it gives the most clear and unbiased portrait of the status of the French language in the province.
Friday in La Presse, André Pratte declared that the census controversy was typical of the “rampage” against Canadian institutions the Conservatives have been on since taking power. “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Environment Canada, The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Rights & Democracy, and now Statistics Canada… Which institution is the Harper government going to attack next?” he asked. Mr. Pratte went on to contend that the Harper government’s behaviour towards Statistics Canada has been guided by “simplistic ideology” and is further proof of the government’s “incompetence.” He argued that “a competent government would have asked Statistics Canada to do an in depth comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory versus voluntary census questionnaires […] Instead, the government decided on these changes, despite the reluctance of Statistics Canada, on the sole basis of some calls received by MPs at their riding offices. There are school boards governed more seriously than this.”
In Le Devoir on Saturday, Jean-Robert Sansfaçon called Mr. Sheikh’s resignation “courageous” and declared it proof that Statistics Canada has been in disagreement with the government on the long form census issue all along. Mr. Sansfaçon acknowledged that some polls have shown strong support for the abolishment of the long questionnaire among Canadians, but he argued that “just because the majority of people declare themselves against something, it doesn’t mean that the government should always follow the crowd.” He contended that the Conservative government’s tendency towards a “distressing” level of “populism” does not bode well if it manages to win a majority of seats in the next election.
Column of the week
Le Soleil’s Élisabeth Fleury considers Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s recently released foreign-affairs platform that pledges to keep Canadians in Afghanistan after 2011 as police and military trainers. “If Michael Ignatieff was trying to regain some credibility with this announcement, he has more or less succeeded,” Ms. Fleury writes. Although Ms. Fleury is pleased to see Mr. Ignatieff take a stand in a debate about the future of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan, she contends that, by talking about what happens after the 2011 deadline, Mr. Ignatieff is playing right into the Conservatives hands.
“Stephen Harper’s official line is that the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011,” she writes, “but considering the Conservative’s philosophy [regarding military invention in Afghanistan] it is doubtful that Stephen Harper really wants to have to pull all soldiers out of the country.” Ms. Fleury observes that this puts the Conservatives in a difficult political situation: “The Conservatives have a minority government, they know that most Canadians do not support maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan and they want to assure their re-election,” she writes. They have “skillfully” opted to allow the opposition to tackle the difficult question of what to do after 2011, and Michael Ignatieff has “eagerly” obliged.
