Canadian Government Provides US Military Contractor With Names And Addresses Of Every Canadian Residence and Identifies who are military trained = Is this treason? | Updated 2026

Dylan Eleven | Truth11.com

This years Canadian census is being conducted by Lockheed Martin a US weapons manufacturer and military contractor.

The short form census illegally asks for the name of household members and phone number; under the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms section 8 Canadians do not have to provide personal information such as their name.

The rest of the questions are simple. Non- offensive questions, language spoken etc.

However the only other question that is out of place is asking if the residents are currently in the military or have been in the military before.

The Canadian government is providing a list of every person who has military training and is potentially armed, (and who is not) with their name and address. Providing this information to a US military company. Is this not treason?

Providing a foreign military power a list of armed and trained people is a very concerning practice. If a government, foreign or domestic, is going to attack its people or that of their neighbour, this list is the exact thing they would need.

Canadians are under armed in the majority. A list of trained, and potentially armed resistance (and who is not)"; is now in the hands of a foreign military contractor.

UPDATE | June 4 2026

It looks like I was not the only person concerned with this.

Brave AI Search Result

Lockheed Martin was contracted by Statistics Canada to provide software and hardware for the 2006 and 2011 Canadian censuses, a decision that sparked significant public controversy and legal challenges due to the company’s role as a major U.S. defense contractor. 

• Contract Scope: In 2003, Lockheed Martin Canada won a multi-million dollar contract to supply scanning, printing, and data capture systems, including the first successful use of a secure Internet channel for census responses. 
• Public Opposition: Activists argued that outsourcing census data processing to a U.S. weapons manufacturer violated privacy rights and potentially exposed data to the U.S. Patriot Act, leading to protests and campaigns encouraging "minimum cooperation."
• Legal Challenges: The involvement led to prosecutions under the Statistics Act; notably, peace activist Audrey Tobias was found not guilty in 2013 after refusing to fill out her form, while others faced conditional discharges. 
• Current Status: Statistics Canada confirmed that Lockheed Martin is no longer involved with census operations as of the 2016 census, ending the decade-long partnership that had been in place since 2003. 

According to Statistics Canada they have moved all of these functions internally.

A follow up question posed to Brave AI:

Q | Mandatory requires your consent; how can you be given a fine or imprisoned if you decline your consent to fill out the census?

A |

The premise that the census requires your consent is incorrect under Canadian law.  Participation is mandatory by statute, not by individual agreement.

Legal Basis for Fines and Imprisonment 

• Statutory Obligation: The Statistics Act (Section 31) explicitly mandates that all residents must complete the census. By living in Canada, you are subject to this federal law; your personal consent is not required for the law to apply. Refusing to comply is considered a criminal offence (summary conviction), not a breach of contract. 
• Penalties: If you refuse to fill out the census "without lawful excuse," you can be fined up to $500.  While the Statistics Act technically allows for a prison sentence of up to three months, recent amendments (Bill C-625, passed in 2015) removed imprisonment as a penalty for refusing to answer census questions.  However, imprisonment remains theoretically possible for other offences under the Act, such as obstructing an enumerator (fines up to $1,000), though this is rarely enforced.
• "Lawful Excuse": The law provides no exemption for lack of consent. In the 2013 case of Audrey Tobias, who refused to fill out her form due to the Lockheed Martin contract, the court rejected her argument that "freedom of conscience" constituted a lawful excuse.  She was only acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding her specific intent at the time, not because her refusal was deemed legal. 

Enforcement Reality

• Process: Statistics Canada does not immediately fine people. The agency first attempts to resolve non-compliance through follow-up calls and door-to-door visits by enumerators. 
• Prosecution: Legal action is a last resort reserved for persistent, willful refusal. The threat of fines exists to ensure compliance, but actual prosecutions are extremely rare. 

Follow up question:

Q | Evaluate this statement: The short form census illegally asks for the name of household members and phone number; under the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms section 8 Canadians do not have to provide personal information such as their name.

A |

The argument that providing a name or phone number on the census violates Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been consistently rejected by Canadian courts. The collection of this information is deemed reasonable and authorized by law. 

Why Section 8 Does Not Exempt You

• Authorized by Law: Section 8 protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. The Supreme Court of Canada has established that a search or seizure is reasonable if it is authorized by a valid statute.  The Statistics Act explicitly authorizes Statistics Canada to collect names and contact information (Section 31) to ensure accurate enumeration and follow-up. Because the collection is mandated by law, it is not considered an "unreasonable" seizure under the Charter.
• Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: While Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy, this expectation is lower when providing information mandated by a regulatory scheme for a public purpose (like a census). Courts have ruled that the public interest in an accurate census outweighs the minimal privacy intrusion of providing a name and phone number to a sworn statistical agency. 
• Strict Confidentiality: The Statistics Act (Section 17) imposes a lifetime ban on disclosing personal information to anyone else, including police, tax authorities, or immigration officials. This statutory "firewall" ensures that the data is used solely for statistical purposes, reinforcing the reasonableness of the collection. 

Legal Precedent

• Court Rulings: In challenges such as R. v. Jarvis (which dealt with similar statutory powers) and specific census objections, courts have affirmed that mandatory data collection for statistical purposes, when protected by strict confidentiality laws, does not violate Charter rights. 
• No "Lawful Excuse": Refusing to provide a name or phone number based on a Charter objection is not considered a "lawful excuse" under the Statistics Act. As seen in previous prosecutions (e.g., the Tobias case regarding Lockheed Martin), personal objections to data handling do not legally exempt one from the mandatory requirement.

Consequences of Refusal

• Offence: Willfully refusing to provide required information (including names and phone numbers) is an offence under the Statistics Act. 
• Penalty: You remain liable for a fine of up to $500.  Statistics Canada uses phone numbers specifically to verify responses and reduce the need for costly and intrusive door-to-door visits; refusing to provide one hinders their statutory mandate. 

So as it stands in this UPDATE as of June 4 2026 it looks like Canadians do not have the right to refuse the 2026 census based upon the Lockheed Martin argument as they have internalized the process, and it seems courts do not recognize Section 8 as a rightful defence stating:

The collection is mandated by law, it is not considered an "unreasonable" seizure under the Charter.

and

Courts have ruled that the public interest in an accurate census outweighs the minimal privacy intrusion of providing a name and phone number to a sworn statistical agency. 

In other words, you have to do it because they mandated it, and they think the benefit for the greater good outways the individuals rights, so they can bend the rulel and call it a minimal privicy intrusion. Rights are not rights if they can bend them or just take them away.

This is another AI search result, note the name quoted in the Core Argument: