Greetings All. FYI Gordon ================================ Ms. Aileen Carroll, MP Attention: Mary Ellen Torobin I am writing at this time regarding two pieces of email correspondence originating from your office. The first being that sent to Muriel M. Davidson, and the second being sent to Melville R. Andress. The text of these two messages is copied below. Insofar as your response to Ms. Davidson is concerned, it is indeed unfortunate that you chose your wording in such a cavalier manner. While it may not have been your intention to appear arrogant in your reply, it certainly reads that way to me. Regarding the inference that you are "responsible only to Mrs. Carroll's constituents concerning responding to individual questions and requests." Do you really find it easier to respond to non-constituents in this manner, rather than to simply answer the question asked? Would it have taken a great deal more effort to respond either positively or negatively to the Question: Would you vote for or against a Bill to allow access to Post 1901 Census records, starting with the Census of 1906? I think not. Surely Mrs. Carroll, being a rational, thinking, individual, has a definitive opinion regarding this question. Her constituents wish to know what that opinion is. Regarding your response to Mr. Andress. It has the appearance of being a form letter, and I note that you could not be bothered to personalize the salutation by using his name, simply stating "Dear Constituent". It may interest you to know that he is not, in fact, a constituent of Mrs. Carroll. >From your reference to the Environics Research Focus Group study relating to Historic Census (although not by name), it is obvious to me that you have not read the report of this study but have relied solely upon media reports that sensationalized one statement of that report while ignoring the rest of it. The original Focus Group surveys consisted of a maximum of 72 persons, divided in to six groups of 10 to 12 participants. The majority of these participants had no previous knowledge regarding Access to Census. They were first told there was a "promise" of never-ending confidentiality, and then asked if that "promise" should be broken. I would suggest to you that on any given subject, if a group of people having no previous knowledge regarding that subject, were advised there had been a "promise" made (whether or not, in fact, there had been), and were then asked if that "promise" should be broken, the majority of answers would be negative. Statistics Canada, and former Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips have been asked on a number of occasions to produce documented evidence of the "promise" they contend was made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1905/06. They have been asked to prove me wrong in stating that "The Promise Does Not Exist". To date they have been unable to do so. I would advise you that the complete report of this survey, including the Focus Group survey, and two National Omnibus surveys, is now available online on the website of Statistics Canada as a downloadable .PDF file. To make things easier for you, this link http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/public.pdf will download the file for you. I urge you to study this survey report with care. You will find that contrary to your statement that "There is in fact little support for releasing the historical data", the two national surveys indicate that the majority of Canadians do, in fact, support allowing access to Historic Census records. Statistics Canada, not getting the response they wanted in the first national survey, in order to elicit a pre-determined negative response manipulated the questions in the second survey by unduly stressing the unproved "promise" and "guarantees of never-ending confidentiality." The responses to the second survey were not, in fact, negative. They were only less positive than responses of the first survey. On 24 May 2000, the files for my submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census, titled "The Myths of Census" were sent to you. I urge you to read this submission. Should you no longer have the files I would be more than happy to resend them. While the report of the Expert Panel has been on Industry Minister John Manley's desk since 30 June 2000, he has yet to release this report to the Public. We hope that he will do so soon. I am not a constituent of Mrs. Carroll. I would, however, respectfully request a one line response giving a definitive answer to the question above. That answer will be added to her correspondence log on the MPs Scoreboard located at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census so that her constituents might be aware of her position. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Canada Census Committee 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 Tel (604) 942-6889 Fax (604) 942-6843 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm 09/19/2000 - email from office of MP Aileen Carroll to Muriel M. Davidson. Carroll, Aileen - Assistant 1" wrote: Ms. Davidson, We realize this issue has a Canada-wide interest range, but we are responsible only to Mrs. Carroll's constituents concerning responding to individual questions and requests. This is the way the system works. Please try your own M.P. Mary Ellen Torobin Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P., Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford 06/28/2000 - apparent form letter from office of MP Aileen Carroll to Melville R. Andress. Dear Constituent, Thank you for your letter on the issue of release of census data. This matter has been a subject of concern for family history researchers for some time. As you know, Statistics Canada is prohibiting from disclosing census returns filed in 1906 and later. A Private Members' Bill is in the system to amend the privacy legislation, but Statistics Canada has undertaken its own study to ascertain the support among Canadians for incorporating the researchers' and historians' request in government legislation. Although the study has not yet been officially released, early indications are that the study found people objected to retroactively changing legislation to allow disclosure of individual answers. There is in fact little support for releasing the historical data. Most participants felt that the government made a promise of confidentiality and that this should be respected. People who answered those censuses believed their answers would be confidential, and thus it would be a breach to release the information. However, there are yet arguments to be studied on both sides, and I will ensure that your request is seen by Mrs. Carroll for her consideration. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Torobin, Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P. M. Aileen Carroll, M.P., Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.