Greetings All. FYI Gordon ================================== 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 27 May 2003 Mr. John Bryden, MP Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Sir: In recent years I have observed you on CPAC a number of times while you spoke in the House of Commons. A number of times you struck me as being very passionate in your support for access to information and your opposition to unnecessary withholding of government records from public scrutiny. In 2000 I read with interest your Private Member Bill C-206 relating to Access to Information. I was disappointed that C-206 did not at least get referred to Committee for discussion. As I recall you ventured an opinion during debate on Jason Kenney's Motion 160 that your bill might have given public access to Historic Census records after 30 years. While M-160 was deemed votable, prior to the vote Liberal MP Mac Harb moved an amendment that rendered the Motion virtually meaningless. You are aware that for the past six years there has been a public campaign by genealogists and historians. That campaign has sought to regain the public access to Historic Census records after 1901 that has been improperly, and believed illegally, withheld from public access by Canada's Chief Statistician, Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi. The campaign seeks to regain the same unrestricted access to records after 1906, that has been available for 240 years of Census records up to that time. You are on record as being supportive of the goals sought by this campaign. During our campaign we have delivered petitions to Ottawa containing more than 62,000 signatures to the Senate and the House of Commons. Untold numbers of letters and email have been sent to MPs and Senators - to the point where we have been advised that at times more letters and email were received regarding the Census access issue than on any other subject. These petitions, letters and email all sought the same thing - the return of unrestricted public access to Historic Census records after 92 years, in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act and Regulation 6(d) attached thereto. Over the course of our campaign we have seen two governments (albeit essentially the same one), four Sessions of Parliament, at least three Motions and four Private Member Bills in the House of Commons, and two Private Member Bills in the Senate. After five years the government finally acknowledged our concerns by announcing, on 24 October 2002, that they would bring down legislation to deal with our concerns. The proposed legislation, Bill S-13, was introduced in the Senate 5 February 2003. Senator Lorna Milne, our champion in the Senate, was asked to sponsor it. It was originally felt that Senator Milne was asked to sponsor S-13 to honour the work she had done on our behalf. However, the appearance now is that it was done more to control what she was able to do during debate of the Bill, than to honour her. We are aware that Senator Milne desires the same unrestricted access to Historic Census records as we do, but as sponsor she was required to put forth the position of the Government. As I write this letter, I am advised that today (27 May 2003) Bill S-13 completed third reading in the Senate and has been delivered to the House of Commons. Bill S-13 is a disappointment! From the time it was first presented we have known that we would seek amendments to it. We were led to believe that the government would not oppose the amendments we sought. In believing that we were wrong! Four of five witnesses appearing at the Senate Committee hearings deliberating S-13 supported expected amendments. In the end run, however, no amendments were considered and there was no clause by clause deliberation of the Bill. Such consideration and deliberation was prevented by Senator Murray making the virtually unprecedented motion (by an Opposition member regarding a Government Bill) to return the Bill to the Senate without amendment. S-13 does ensure the transfer of Historic Census records to the National Archives. It does ensure that genealogists and historians might examine those records 92 years after the Census was collected. In so doing, however, it places conditions and restrictions upon that access that go far beyond the stated purpose of removing a legal ambiguity regarding public access to these records. Genealogists and historians soundly rejected the conditions and restrictions imposed by Bill S-13 in 2000 when Statistics Canada first proposed their so-called "compromise solution". They were rejected again when that "compromise solution" was put forth during Town Hall Meetings and Focus groups held in December 2001 and January 2002. They go against recommendations of the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census Records commissioned by the government in November 1999. They go against all studies that have examined the access issue. They go against the precedent of 240 years of Census records that have already been made available without restriction. They go against the unrestricted access requested by Canadians, and others, through the petitions, letters and email mentioned above. They go against the precedent of more than one billion people having been enumerated in Canada, England and Wales, and the United States without a single recorded complaint regarding information from Census being released after a period of closure. The conditions of Bill S-13 include: · Committing genealogists to an "undertaking" not to disclose to others, information other than basic "tombstone" information, for an additional twenty years beyond the 92-year period after which access to the records was permitted. The "undertaking" was not spelled out but was to be "prescribed by regulation". · In addition to committing to the same "undertaking" required of genealogists, those doing historical research would be required to have their research sanctioned by "a person who is a member of a category prescribed by regulation". Again, by "regulation" that has not yet been made clear to the public. · The imposition of the above conditions upon the 1911 and 1916 Census records that, under the current Privacy Act and Regulation 6(d) attached thereto should be released unconditionally on the same basis as were the records of the 1906 Census of the North-Western Provinces. The 1911 and 1916 Censuses were conducted under the same legislation and similar Instructions to Enumerators (having the Force of Law) as was the 1906 Census. · The imposition of an "informed consent" clause whereby future access to individual records of Census from 2006 and later would not be allowed without the express permission (at the time the Census was taken) of the individual providing the information. · Inclusion of a fine, not to exceed one thousand dollars, for anyone found guilty on summary conviction, of violating the above "undertaking". The government has not demonstrated any need for the conditions and restrictions imposed by Bill S-13. There has been no public outcry against public access to these most valuable records after the mandated period of closure. National Archivist Ian Wilson and Information Commissioner John Reid are both on record as supporting unrestricted public access to all Historic Census records. The Information Commissioner, in a letter to Senator Kirby - Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, stated about the 'informed consent' clause of Bill S-13: "If the proposed consent provision is the price the pay for opening past census records to research use, then it is too high a price to pay. The historical database represented by census responses constitutes a developing, growing database of vital interest to the nation. It would be unprecedented and unacceptable to degrade its usefulness to future generations by the inevitable incompleteness that would result if even a small percentage of Canadians withhold consent. The fact that it is a legal obligation to complete the census is testimony to the importance of this database. If Canadians have no choic e when it comes to the completion of census forms, they should have no ability to choose, by withholding consent, to impair forever, legitimate public use of future census data. I cannot accept that all census records predating 2006 will be open in the future, but not subsequent census dates. I therefore urge your committee to reject the consent provision for post-2006 census records.." If, as stated, the purpose of S-13 is to clarify and remove a "legal ambiguity" regarding public access to Census records, then it should do just that. It should be sufficient to simply state that Historic Records of Census shall be transferred to the care and control of the National Archivist for subsequent public access in accordance with provisions in the Privacy Act and Regulation 6(d). Considering the foregoing, it is our hope, that as a believer in greater public access to government records you will consider moving and promoting a number of amendments to Bill S-13 when it is debated in the House. The amendments sought by the people are, in order of importance: Removal of Clause 8 - the supposed "informed consent" clause. This clause, if retained, will destroy forever any possibility of Census from 2006 and later being used for any scientific, demographic or historical research, and will prevent many genealogists from being able to research their ancestry. We originally felt it acceptable to simply make it an OPT-OUT provision rather than OPT-IN thus ensuring that only those who had given conscious thought to the issue and specifically objected to access of their information 92 years in the future would be excluded from the records. On further reflection, however, we now agree with the Information Commissioner that this provision should be removed in its entirety. Removal of all restrictions or conditions for access for at least the 1911 and 1916 Census records. The 1911 and 1916 Censuses were conducted under the same legislation and similar Instructions to Enumerators (having the Force of Law), as was the 1906 Census, the records of which have been released without restrictions of any kind, and have been placed online for the World to view. Removal of the "twenty-year" period during which only partial disclosure of information found in Census records might be made by a researcher, and the need to commit to an "undertaking" regarding this partial disclosure. Need for these conditions have not been demonstrated. They contribute nothing to the privacy of respondents to Census. They do not prevent information from being known. They create a costly, bureaucratic procedure that in the end run will simply be an inconvenience for those that would share information through their family history. Mr. Bryden, we seek a free and open debate of the merit, or otherwise, of the conditions and restrictions imposed by S-13, and the amendments that we desire. We seek a free vote in the House. It is our sincere hope that you will do everything you can to see that if Bill S-13 is passed in the House it is a Bill that is truly reflective of what the public seeks. That being the same unrestricted public access to all Historic Census records that has been available for 240 years of records up to 1906. Please help ensure that S-13 is a Bill that we can support without reservation. I remain available for any consultation that you may require. Thank you. Sincerely, Gordon A. Watts [email protected] Co-chair, Canada Census Committee Tel (604) 942-6889 Fax (604) 942-6843 Cc: Senator Lorna Milne, MP Murray Calder