Hi List, I don't suppose Jean will be taking up my challenge any time soon. Nevertheless, it was worth a try. Martyn in Peterborough ----- Original Message ----- From: Prime Minister/Premier ministre To: [email protected] Cc: Allan Rock Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:46 AM Subject: Census data Dear Mr. Obbard: On behalf of the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, I would like to thank you for your e-mail regarding Bill S-13, an Act to amend the Statistics Act. You may be assured that the comments you offered have been carefully reviewed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Industry, within whose responsibilities this matter falls. I am certain that the Minister will give your views every consideration. M. Bredeson Executive Correspondence Officer Agent de correspondance de la haute direction >>> "Martyn Obbard" <[email protected]> 25-05-03 9 :28:10 AM >>> Dear Prime Minister Chretien, Recently, Senator Lorna Milne sponsored a bill in the Senate (Bill S-13 'An Act to amend the Statistics Act') intended to ensure that Canadians have access to census information taken after 1910 following a suitable delay for release of information. Bill S-13 received First Reading on February 5, 2003. The genealogical community in Canada sought to have several amendments made to the Bill, but this effort was unsuccessful at the committee stage in April 2003. Bill S-13 is currently undergoing debate on Third Reading in the Senate. As a genealogist and family historian, I have serious reservations about the current bill and I am hopeful that when the Bill is sent to the House of Commons amendments may still be made. I would like to elaborate on the concerns I have about Bill S-13 as it is currently written. I do not oppose Bill S-13 as a whole, but do oppose what I believe to be the unnecessary restrictions the bill places on access to historic records. 1. I recommend removal of Clause 8, the so-called "informed consent" clause for censuses taken in 2006 or later. If this clause is retained it will jeopardise forever the usefulness of future census data for historical, scientific, or demographic research. This is because if citizens do not bother to check the "Opt-in" box, by default their information will not be available to researchers in the future. The net result will be a fragmented and incomplete database. If Clause 8 is not removed, then I advocate that it be changed to make it an "Opt-out" choice rather than an "Opt-in" choice. In this way, only those who have carefully considered the issue and specifically object to their information being released after 92 years would have their information protected from access. 2. If Clause 8 is retained, even if changed to an "Opt-out" format, then the census form should be re-designed so that basic "tombstone" and occupation information is at the front of the document and by default is "Opt-in". More detailed personal information, such as requested in the long form of the census, should be in the second part of the form with a clearly explained "Opt-out" choice. 3. I advocate removing all restrictions or conditions for access for at least the 1911 and 1916 records of census. These censuses were conducted under the same legislation and instructions to enumerators as the 1906 census. As you know, the 1906 census was recently released without restrictions of any kind and is accessible on-line for access by researchers around the world. The success of similar on-line exercises in Britain and the U.S. should convince the government that they can actually make money by allowing genealogists access to the information. This can be accomplished either through a license fee to a commercial company as is done with the Scottish census and vital records, or through a government site as is done with the English and Welsh records. 4. I advocate removal of the additional 20-year period beyond the 92-year restriction, where only partial disclosure of information found in census records (i.e., "tombstone" information) would be allowed, and the need for researchers to agree to an "undertaking" regarding this partial closure. Statistics Canada did not demonstrate that there was any need for these additional restrictions. These additional restrictions will not add to the privacy of respondents to the census (almost all of whom will be dead 92 years after the census was conducted), and they do not prevent information from being known as any researcher could uncover the same information. The additional restrictions are onerous and will only create a costly bureaucracy required to monitor those who have accessed the information. These proposed additional restrictions are provocative and particularly mean-spirited. Note that census records in the United States are fully disclosed after only 70 years, meaning that the U.S. 1930 census is currently freely available while Canadians struggle to gain access to the 1911 census data! Thank you for taking the time to listen to my views on Bill S-13. I have considered you to be a champion for ordinary Canadians throughout your political career. As your long contribution to the political life of Canada comes to an end, I urge you to ensure that as part of your legacy to Canada, ordinary Canadians now and in the future will have unrestricted access to the information on their ancestors that is contained in the census data. You or your staff could obtain additional information from Senator Milne, or from my Member of Parliament, Peter Adams, who supports release of the census data. Additional information on the issue may be found at: http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/ Sincerely, Martyn Obbard R.R.#1, Peterborough, ON