Fellow campaigners: I thought that you might be interested in this letter that I received just before Christmas from the Privacy Commissioner. It seems to me that, reading between the lines, that one can find grounds for cautious optimism. Bob Office of the Commissariat Privacy Commissioner á la protection de of Canada la vie privée du Canada 112 Kent Ottawa ON KIA IH3 Tel (613) 995-8210 o 1-800-282-1376 Fax (613) 947-6850 - www.privcom.gc.ca Dr. Robert C. Westbury Census Release Committee of the Alberta Family Histories Society 4012 Comanche Road, Calgary, AB T2L ON8 14 December 2000 Dear Dr. Westbury: Thank you for sending me your critique of the Environics study of public attitudes concerning release of the historical census records. It is an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the study's methodology and findings. As I am sure you know, the report of the Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records has not been made public, so I cannot comment on your supposition that the Panel would have referred to the Environics study either during its deliberations or in its report. The Panel has submitted its report to the Minister of Industry; the Minister has not yet responded. You suggest that the proper analysis of the Environics findings will make it more possible to reach a reasonable compromise. Let me assure you that I view reasonable compromise as an optimal solution. You may be aware that when questions about the historical census records were raised with me in my recent appearance before the Senate, I stated that I supported a compromise proposed by the Chief Statistician, which I think would go a long way towards resolving the impasse. This is not to deny that I firmly believe that there are important privacy principles at issue here, but simply to say that a creative solution should not be beyond our capabilities. Whether the results of the Environics study, however reliable they may be, can be a deciding factor is another question. While I am interested in indicators of public opinion, I do not believe that issues of principle should be decided simply on the basis of polls. One of the reasons we have a Privacy Commissioner and other independent Officers of Parliament is that some questions require in-depth study and consideration. An independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner is able to commit time, resources, and expertise to the study of complex questions, beyond what can reasonably be expected of members of the general public. It is inevitable that this leads us, from time to time, to take unpopular stances. That is as it should be. The independence of the office is intended to permit exactly that. If my view on privacy issues is at odds with public opinion, I will certainly try to persuade the public to see it my way. But I would not be doing the job Parliament has entrusted to me if I were to choose my position according to prevailing political currents, rather than the principles I am sworn to uphold. Once again, thank you for providing me with your critique. I look forward to the Minister's response to the Expert Panel's report, and, like you, I am hopeful that we can arrive at a reasonable compromise. Yours sincerely, George Radwanski Privacy Commissioner of Canada