français

1455 Delia Drive
Port Coquitlam, BC
V3C 2V9
17 March 2003

Senate Standing Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
The Senate, Ottawa
Ontario, Canada, K1A 0A4

Honourable Senators.

I am writing this in the form of an addendum to my written submission regarding Bill S-13, dated 17 February 2003. I will make an effort to keep any duplication of points made in my previous submission to a minimum.

I appeared before the Committee on 27 February 2003 to give my verbal presentation on Bill S-13. Five minutes to give a verbal presentation followed by a short period of questions from Committee members was hardly sufficient to cover the many aspects of this Bill and I would have welcomed the opportunity for a more comprehensive discussion of the issues concerned.

Since my appearance before the Committee and my reporting of the proceedings thereof, I have received correspondence from many people expressing concern about Bill S-13. Much of that concern has to do with the fact that S-13 makes references to "undertakings" and "regulations" for which no information has been provided. It does not appear likely that such information will be provided prior to passage of the Bill. There is a fear that the "undertakings" and "regulations" could be made difficult to begin with, and could be changed at any time in the future with no public input or knowledge.

Those expressing concern are upset about clauses of Bill S-13 setting up conditions for access to Historic Census records for which there has been no demonstrated reason or need. They see no reason for restrictions to access or disclosure of Historic Census records to be more stringent than provisions currently in the Privacy Act and Regulations attached thereto. The twenty-year extension, beyond the 92-year period of closure specified in the Privacy Act and Regulations would make this "privacy" restriction the most stringent of any contained in any statute of Canada. It would be the most stringent "privacy" restriction of any country that currently releases Census records. No other country in the world requires a two-step "privacy" clause for access and disclosure of their Census information. No other government information in Canada is subject to such stringent "privacy" restrictions.

Concerns are expressed regarding sub-section (8) that, as presently worded, could render future census records virtually useless as a comprehensive source of information for genealogical or historical research. We are advised that without an "informed consent" clause being included, Cabinet would not have approved the presentation of Bill S-13. We are told that it was only with the inclusion of sub-section (8) that Cabinet finally gave their consent to Bill S-13. We are told that an amendment to remove an "informed consent" clause could cause Cabinet to withdraw their support of Bill S-13. We wonder about the motivation of Cabinet members being so insistent that such a clause be included with no demonstrated need for it. Such a provision, 20 years after death, is not applicable to any other personal information in government.

Need for an "informed consent" clause to be included for release of future Census has not been demonstrated. It should be sufficient to advise respondents to Census that information they provide will be made available after a mandated period of closure. As mentioned in my previous submissions, more than one billion people have been enumerated in Canada, England and Wales, and the United States. There has never been a single recorded complaint regarding information from Census being made available to the public after a period of closure. There is no reason to believe that situation is likely to change.

While some questions in long form Census might be considered "sensitive" in terms of contemporary privacy, they are far less sensitive than information from other sources, readily available immediately or relatively shortly after an event takes place. One such source that comes to mind immediately are probated wills that contain information regarding finances, properties owned, bequeaths to beneficiaries, etc. Military records of personnel serving in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the First World War are readily available and are indexed on the National Archives website. These records contain information that in most cases are far more personal than anything contained in Census.

From examples given by Dr. Fellegi during questioning, it is obvious that his ideas regarding what information contained in Census is "sensitive" differs considerably from those of genealogists and historians. Information regarding years of schooling and whether an individual can read or write can hardly be considered "sensitive" 92 years or more after the fact.

Such information, however, is invaluable to someone trying to round out his or her family history. It serves to give a greater understanding of the lives led by their ancestors. As an example, my grandfather, born 1884 in Nova Scotia, had formal education only to grade three. As a young man, however, he was well traveled, known to have worked at logging in Fargo, North Dakota and on Vancouver Island, and coal mining in Washington State. He married in Tacoma and had two children born in Washington. Some time between 1906 and 1911, he homesteaded near Fairmount, Saskatchewan, and had three more children. He was involved in the establishment of the Ealingford School on property near his homestead and was a trustee of that school. He was on the board of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The fact that he had only a grade three education, while it was possibly included in some Census schedules, is hardly an embarrassment to his descendents, but shows only the degree to which he was able to eventually advance himself, his family, and others around him.

There are a number of websites available that list questions included in Census from 1825 to the present. I would encourage Honourable members of the Committee to view these questions and determine for themselves if any questions asked could be considered harmful to anyone 92 years after the fact. Two such websites can be accessed at:

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/censusq.htm

http://simmons.b2b2c.ca/CENSINFO.htm

Questions were asked about "medical" information included in Census - past or future. The response from Dr. Fellegi was that the "most sensitive of those is about so-called infirmities". He cited a number of conditions that, in contemporary terms would indeed be considered to be "sensitive". Again, those items could hardly be considered "sensitive" 92 years after the fact, and in all likelihood several years following the death of the individual concerned.

Medical questions on Census have never been, and are never likely to be, requests for a detailed medical history. The general questions asked, however, and the equally general responses given could provide clues to those seeking information regarding the presence of genetically inherited diseases. Finding that a distant ancestor died of "consumption" or "creeping paralysis" could allow persons living today to take action to prevent or lessen the possibility of suffering a similar fate. This is a major reason for some seeking information on their ancestry through Census.

At another time and place, the few opponents to access of Census records have stated that there may be information in Census that families might not want to be known because of a potential to be embarrassing or harmful. These detractors forget, or choose to ignore that it is, in fact, those families that seek the information in Census.

During the term of our campaign to regain public access to Historic Census records, we have heard much about the need to balance privacy concerns with the needs of genealogists and historians for access to the Census records. Your predecessors in the Senate and in the House of Commons dealt with this when deliberating Bill C-43, from which were enabled the Access to Information and Privacy Acts in 1980-1983. They determined that in return for respondents to Census providing their information, 92 years was a reasonable period of closure before that information would be made available for purposes of research. Therein lay the balance established between privacy and access.

In response to a question from Senator Murray, relating to subsection (8), and an amendment thereto that would make consent for access to future censuses an OPT-OUT as opposed to the current OPT-IN situation, Dr. Fellegi stated:

"Every census taker in the world would tell you that confidentiality and trust are essential to census taking. I believe the proposed bill is a compromise that, like any compromise, can be pushed. If it is not based on first principles, if it is a compromise, either side can say, "How about giving a little more?" With regard to privacy, one could say, "Why should restrictions not be forever as opposed to 90 to 112 years? Why should there not be full peer review for the historical census, as opposed to the kind of review outlined by Mr. Wilson?" On the other side of the coin, you can ask: Why not 72 years? - as Mr. Leadbeater said."

I must, in all sincerity, suggest that "giving a little more" is exactly what is being asked of genealogists and historians by the clauses of Bill S-13 that make reference to the need for "undertakings" and "regulations". "Giving a little more" is what the twenty-year period during which information from Census is partially restricted from disclosure is asking of us. Legislators bringing in the Access to Information and Privacy Acts provided a reasonable "balance" between privacy and access by instituting a 92-year period of closure. We are now being asked to "give a little more" than was envisioned necessary by those legislators.

I might add in respect to this that we are not dealing with the deliberations of legislators of almost a century ago, but those from only twenty years ago. It is entirely possible that there are still some of those legislators around that could advise on the thoughts and considerations at the time Bill C-43 was debated and passed into law.

Dr. Fellegi has commented that he is concerned that knowledge information given by respondents to Census would be made public after a period of closure would cause them to respond less fully or less honestly. He has nothing on which to base this concern.

In recent correspondence with Mary Ledoux of Statistics Canada I asked for any information regarding possible studies, after the passing of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts in 1980-1983 that would either support, or dispel such concern. The response from Ms. Ledoux was that she could find no evidence that any such study had been conducted. We have seen no evidence that the recent release and posting online of the 1906 Census has been upsetting to anyone. We have seen no evidence that it will cause people to be more hesitant to cooperate fully with the next collection of Census. To the contrary, the millions of hits on the Census web pages would demonstrate the great interest Canadians, and others, have in viewing these most important records.

Senator Milne asked Dr. Fellegi a question regarding how Bill S-13 would, in his opinion, affect the ability of those preparing indexes of Census, to continue doing so. Contrary to the opinion of National Archivist Ian Wilson, Dr. Fellegi responded that such indexing would be prevented until the expiration of 112 years from collection.

From the answers given by Dr. Fellegi it is apparent that he is unaware of the value of indexing to those seeking access to Census records, or of the limited information normally provided in an index. It is apparent that he is unaware information provided by indexes is normally less than what would be allowed disclosure, under the current restrictive terms of Bill S-13, after 92 years.

Searching for someone in Census is not an exact science. Without an index available it can take days, weeks, months or even years of searching to find a given individual. For those censuses currently available, hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours have been spent by members of genealogical and historical organizations putting indexes together. To prevent indexing of available Census records until 112 years after collection, when the records themselves are accessible after 92 years, makes no sense whatsoever. It places unnecessary difficulties in the path of those whose only motivation is to seek their ancestry.

To view one example of an indexing project for the 1901 Census of Canada I urge Committee members to access the website located at:

http://automatedgenealogy.com/index.html

At the bottom of the opening page click 1901 Census Index . On the next page click any one of the Districts that have been indexed and then click View for any sub-district to see the end result of this indexing project. Information provided here is somewhat less than that allowed by Bill S-13 to be disclosed after 92 years.

Canada is supposed to be a democracy. Many people, over many years, have referred to it as less a democracy than an elected dictatorship. As a democracy, the government is supposed to be responsible to the people, and is supposed to be subject to the will of the people through their elected and appointed representatives. It is to be hoped that the position taken by parliamentary representatives would actually reflect those of the people whom they purport to represent.

The clauses of Bill S-13 that require added regulations and the signing of an "undertaking" as a condition of access to the records after 92 years; that impose an additional twenty-year period of partial non-disclosure of Census information; and that impose an "informed consent" clause on release of future Censuses do not reflect the will of the people of Canada that have been consulted or that have made representations to their parliamentary representatives.

• Since 1998 more than 62,000 signatures have been sent on petitions to the House of Commons and the Senate seeking unrestricted access to Post 1901 Census records.
• Untold numbers of letters and email have been sent to Members of Parliament and Senators seeking that access. We are advised that over the past few years there have been 'complaints' that MPs and Senators than have received more correspondence regarding the Census issue than on any other subject.
• The Expert Panel appointed to study the issue in November 1999 recommended release of all Census records - past, present and future, without restriction, 92 years after collection as per the Privacy Act and Regulations attached thereto. They did not feel legislation was necessary to accomplish this, but stated if the government felt legislation was necessary to clarify the release of records after 1918, it should be done through an amendment to the National Archives of Canada Act. The Expert Panel saw no reason to require "informed consent" for access to future Census records. They felt it sufficient to advise that information provided would be made available for purposes of research 92 years after collection.
• The legal opinion of Ms. Ann Chaplin, Justice Canada Senior Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law, issued 1 August 2000, supported public access to Historic Census records after 92 years. Ms. Chaplin's opinion, unlike other earlier opinions, took into consideration all applicable legislation and clauses in Instructions to Officers and Enumerators of Census. As did the Expert Panel, Ms. Chaplin recommended access be accomplished by a simple amendment to the National Archives of Canada Act.
• Participants in Town Hall Meetings finally commissioned by Statistics Canada and held in December 2001 and January 2002 supported unrestricted access to Census records after 92 years. 151 of 157 presenters at these meetings strongly endorsed that access. Each of them also unconditionally rejected the so-called "Compromise Solution" presented by Statistics Canada. Those clauses in Bill S-13 that cause the most concern at this time were born of the document rejected at these meetings.
• A legal action initiated on behalf of 11 plaintiffs, representing many thousands of others who contributed to a legal fund supporting the action, sought access to the 1906 Census records. This action was initiated only after several years of attempts, by other means, to have Statistics Canada transfer care and control of records of the 1906 Census to the National Archives for subsequent release to the public. It was halted only because of the timely release of those records on 24 January 2003.
• The Information Commissioner, responding to complaints regarding the refusal of Statistics Canada to release records of the 1906 Census of the Northwestern Provinces to the National Archives for subsequent public access, was prepared to take the issue to the Courts on behalf of the complainants. Should Bill S-13 fail, and should Statistics Canada refuse to release records of the 1911 National Census to the National Archives, it is presumed that the Information Commissioner would likewise be prepared to go to Court to obtain release of those records as well. Should Bill S-13 fail you can be assured that there will be requests made for those records.

The statements above reflect the will of the people regarding public access to Historic Census records of Canada. The past position of Statistics Canada in refusing access does not.

Statistics Canada would have you believe that participants in focus groups conducted by Environics Research for the Expert Panel, and those held in conjunction with the Town Hall Meetings mentioned above, favour withholding release of Historic Census records. Anyone taking the time to actually read and understand the procedures and reports of those focus groups would come to a different conclusion. In the case of the former, responses were biased against access by an undue emphasis, in information given and questions asked, on the non-existent "promise" so much touted by Statistics Canada.

For the latter, participants were not influenced so much by what they were told, but by what they were not told. Specifically, participants were given information and asked questions relating to some Instructions to Enumerators. They were not, however, given information regarding all pertinent sections of those Instructions. Information was provided that previous Census records had been accessible but gave the impression that nominal information from them had not been accessible. Therefore, intentionally or otherwise, responses from participants of these focus groups were likewise biased against access. Having participated myself in focus group studies I am only too much aware how information provided or withheld, and questions asked, can be manipulated to obtain the results desired.

It should be noted that the research of the focus groups, in particular those connected to the Town Hall Meetings mentioned above, was qualitative in nature. As qualitative research, the results are not representative of the general population. This was a point frequently made in the Environics Research Report.

I would urge the Honourable Senators to read for themselves the reports on the focus groups taken for the Expert Panel, and for the Town Hall Meetings. Both are available on the website of Statistics Canada. I suggest paying particular attention to the procedural explanations, to the information provided and questions asked, and the responses thereto. Reach your own conclusions rather than accepting carte blanche the summaries put forth by the researchers and Statistics Canada.

Reports from many participants at the Town Hall Meetings have been placed on the Post 1901 Census Project website. They are accessible for your information at:

http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Townhall.htm

Honourable Senators, like many others I would like to be able to view my own name in a release of Historic Census records. The timing of my birth, however, dictates that the first National Census upon which my name appears would be that for 1951. With a 92-year period of closure that Census would not be available before the year 2043. My age at that time would be 101. The odds, therefore, of my ever seeing my own name in a Census are very much against that happening.

Bill S-13 is a government Bill. As such, it is expected that it will be passed. We hope that it will be passed with amendments to make it more in keeping with the will of the people, and less with restrictive clauses for which no need has been demonstrated.

It is hoped that the Honourable Senators, being Honourable in more than just name, will give the most serious consideration to the submissions of myself and others in your deliberations on Bill S-13. We hope your recommendations regarding Bill S-13 will reflect the will of the people and your considerations thereof. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gordon A. Watts
Co-chair, Canada Census Committee
Tel. (604) 942-6889
Fax (604) 942-6843