Thank you Gordon. Your comments give some food for thought, and when all is said and done they may be proven to have some validity. In that, only time will tell. In his refusal to follow the recommendations of the Information Commissioner it is my considered opinion that the Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, was likely not following his own dictates but as others have done before him was simply echoing the desires of the Chief Statistician. Of course, not having seen the letter he sent to the Information Commissioner giving possible reasons for that refusal I cannot be certain of this, but that is my gut feeling. Mr. Emerson was elected to the Parliament on 28 June 2004. He was appointed as Minister of Industry 20 July 2004. He rejected the recommendation of Mr. Reid on 24 August 2004 -- five weeks after being appointed as Minister of Industry. With all that he would have had on his plate during this period he would hardly have had time to become fully aware of and conversant with the Census access issue. At the time of his decision he would hardly have had time to receive the benefit of seeing letters to him from supporters of access. By that time he certainly had not received my personal correspondences to him. In actual fact, I have been advised by someone in the Vancouver office of the Ministry of Industry that it is highly unlikely that the Honourable Mr. Emerson will ever personally see any of our correspondences on this issue. I was not given any encouragement in my attempt to obtain an appointment to meet with Mr. Emerson either in his constituency office or in the Vancouver Ministry offices. As important as the Census issue is to us -- and we would like to think that it is equally important to the Parliamentary representatives we look to for support -- looking at things realistically, for most of them it is likely near the bottom of their lists of priorities. Issues such as the economy, health, a daycare program for children and programs for Seniors, aboriginal Canadians, cities and communities, the environment, pride and influence in the world, and governing in 'common purpose' played a major part in the Speech from the Throne on the opening of the 38th Parliament of Canada. There was no mention of the Census issue, nor had I expected any as our concerns regarding this, when compared to most other issues would be considered 'small potatoes'. I recently received an email from someone who had called the Office of the Minister of Industry in an attempt to find out why the Honourable Mr. Emerson had rejected the recommendation of the Information Commissioner to release the 1911 Census records. She was unable to get an answer to that but was apparently advised that "both the Chief Statstician and Mr. Emerson are in favor of releasing historical documents, such as the 1911 Census". She was also advised that "the two of them have been working together on a bill that would clarify the parameters......and allow for the release of the information." Supposedly such a Bill would be tabled soon. My informant was apparently advised that "everyone involved in genealogical research would like it.". It seems to me the government has told us that before. I cannot speak to Mr. Emerson's personal feeling regarding access to 92-year-old Census records and will reserve judgement on that until I see some response to our messages to him. I am however, frankly sceptical when anyone tells me that the Chief Statistician is "in favour" of releasing the 1911 or subsequent Census records. The record shows otherwise. I am concerned that any Bill that Dr. Fellegi plays a significant part in drafting will be, as was Bill S-13, more concerned with placing conditions and restrictions upon access to Historic Census records than it is on providing the access sought. In particular, I am concerned that it will include the "informed consent" clause that so many, including the Information Commissioner, have voiced objection to. In my opininon it was that clause, more than any other, that caused the demise of Bill S-13. In our correspondence, and on our current petitions, we have suggested the wording for a single clause to be added to the Statistics Act. That clause would provide for the transfer of records of Historic Census records after 1906 to the National Archivist for subsequent release, with no added conditions or restrictions, on the same basis as 240 years of records up to that time have been released. Release to public access after 92 years would continue to be governed by clauses of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and Privacy Regulations. It remains to be seen if the government pays any attention to our representations when drafting a new Bill. I will be watching with great interest for any new Bill that purports to provide the access we seek. I will in particular be watching to see what conditions and restrictions it might impose on that access. Happy Hunting. Gordon W. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Berdahl To: Gordon A. Watts Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [CCC] Post 1901 Census - Information Commissioner responses Gordon, This is to advise that today I received my response from the Information Commissioner and am sending him my signed consent for him to apply for review by the Federal Court. Mr. Reid has provided a very strong analysis and conclusions, and it looks fairly promising at this point. But it seems so silly, for one branch of the Federal Government to have to go through this convoluted and time-consuming process in order to get another branch of the same government to comply with the law - all at taxpayer expense, of course. It appears that the Minister of Industry (likely representing the view of his Chief Statistician) either: a. thinks that StatsCan will win in this Court because of their recent win in the case represented by Lois Sparling, b. thinks that a new Bill, similar to S-13, will be introduced to circumvent this process, or c. just wants to drag this out as long as possible prior to a twelfth hour release like they did for the 1906 census. If they win in this Court, it would be disastrous for genealogists and historians. At worst, it would likely result in us never seeing another census. At best, it could result in a new Bill that is as bad as or worse than Bill S-13. Gordon Berdahl