There are several messages to "catch up" - Gordon will be sending direct after this -- the results of the "information release" is very disappointing. Muriel - list admin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon A. Watts" <gordon_watts@telus.net> Subject: [LL] Response to 'informed consent' in 2006 Census Greetings All. This morning (Tuesday 13 March 2007) Statistics Canada released the first information from the 2006 Census of Canada. This release included information relating to the response to the 'informed consent' question included for the first time in the history of Canadian Censuses. I am not happy, either with the responses given, or the form in which they have been given to the public. You can see these results yourself at http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/infor/gen_results.cfm FYI, I copy below a message sent this evening to my Census contact in Statistics Canada. Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-chair, Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, British Columbia Read my column, 'Gordon Watts Reports' at http://globalgenealogy.com/globalgazette/authors/authgw.htm ========================================= From: Gordon A. Watts To: Dale.Johnston@statcan.ca Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: Statistics re: informed consent in 2006 Census Dear Dale. I have viewed the first results of the 2006 Census of Canada released this morning on the Statistics Canada website. I must state in the most unequivocal terms possible my disappointment in the way response to the so-called 'informed consent' question has been presented. In your email to me of 14 December 2006 you indicated that when released, the response to the 92-year question would be broken down for each geographic area, to those who responded YES, those who responded NO, those who incorrectly responded in more than one way (MULTIPLE RESPONSES), and those who did not respond to the question (left it BLANK). You indicated that numbers would be given for each category of response. In the chart shown on the Statistics Canada website, for each geographic area the number of those who responded YES is given as a percentage. Those who gave MULTIPLE RESPONSES, those who responded NO, and those who left the response BLANK are lumped together as a single percentage. Lumping these categories together fails to give a true picture of the responses to this question. It also fails to consider the number of BLANK responses for those living in 'collective dwellings' where information for the individual being enumerated has been taken from administrative records, thus depriving the individual of the ability to answer the question for themselves. The appearance is that someone in Statistics Canada does not wish a true picture of the response to the 'informed consent' question to be made public. I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me with the numbers relating to responses to questions 8 and 53, broken down as per information you provided to me in your message of 14 December 2006. While the language of the forms completed is of little importance to me, I would appreciate additional information showing the breakdown of responses to the question on short forms and long forms, similar to that provided to me for the 2004 Test Census. If necessary, I will request such information through Access to Information, but I would prefer not to have to go through that route. While not intended as a personal reflection upon yourself, you are aware it is my considered opinion that Statistics Canada in general, and Dr. Fellegi in particular, failed miserably to live up to promises made to Senate Committees deliberating Bills S-13 and S-18. During those Senate Committee hearings Dr. Fellegi committed that, as Chief Statistician of Canada, he and Statistics Canada would promote and encourage respondents to Census to answer positively to the 'informed consent' question. Had information from the Statistics Canada website, specifically that titled "The 92-year question - Say yes!", been included as an insert with the paper Census questionnaires, we might have considered the promise of Dr. Fellegi to have been fulfilled. As it is however, Statistics Canada receives a less than satisfactory grade for their failure to make known to all respondents to Census the importance of responding positively to questions 8 and 53. The value of Historic Census records for genealogical and historical research has been in the 'completeness' of the records. The overall positive response of less than 56 percent for the 2006 Census falls far short of the 90 percent plus estimate given by Dr. Fellegi to the Senate Committee deliberating Bill S-18. Future research value of the 2006 Census has been destroyed by the 'informed consent' question that genealogists and historians were forced to accept in order to regain access to Historic Census records to which existing legislation already stated our entitlement. More than 45 percent of future genealogists seeking ancestral information from the 2006 Census will be out of luck. Historians will be unable to use Census records to paint an accurate picture of the History of Canada relating to 2006 and later. The legislation enabled by Bill S-18 provides for a review of the effect of the 'informed consent' question after two Censuses had been conducted under it. It may come as no surprise to you that consideration is being given to seeking that review without waiting for the research value of another Census to be destroyed. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. Gordon