----- Original Message ----- From: Frank McKERRY <mckerry@home.com> To: Gordon A. WATTS <gordon_watts@telus.net> Sent: Friday, 23 June, 2000 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [CCC-L] Report of Census Survey Focus Groups Gordon: 72 people will be the one's that say we cannot access the census ? I don't even think the full senate and the house of Commons have that right. HOW DO WE GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE ? These sessions are a farce and a disgrace ! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon A. WATTS" <gordon_watts@telus.net> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 10:40 PM Subject: [CCC-L] Report of Census Survey Focus Groups > Greetings All. > > I have heard from Dr. Pamela White regarding the report of the > census Focus Group summary. While Dr. White suggested I might want > to wait until the final report was released to the public, she did > not restrict me from posting this report now. She stated: > > "The final report brings together the results of the focus groups > with the public opinion results. This interim report provides the > results of a limited number of focus groups involving about 10 - 12 > people at each session." > > This indicates that in the six focus groups held there were a total > of 60 to 72 people involved. Not a lot of people to generate the > headlines that accompanied Mr. Bronskill's National Post article of > 20 June 2000. In reading the report copied below, I would not have > come to the conclusions indicated by those headlines. The public > opinion survey, yet to be released to the public, could have > completely different results. I look forward to seeing that report > which should be posted to Statistics Canada's website near the end > of June or early in July (according to Dr. White.) > > My apologies for the length of this posting. Happy Hunting. > > Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net > Port Coquitlam, BC > ICQ # 9183352 > > 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 > > This message has been posted to Alberta-L, British Columbia, > Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, > PictouRoots, Roots-L, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. > Permission to forward without notification is granted. > --------------------------------------------- > > Focus Group Research Regarding > Options for Release of Census Records > Summary of Findings > > PN4588 > > Prepared for: > Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records > > Prepared by: > Environics Research Group Limited > > February 2000 > > Introduction > > In November 1999, Environics Research Group Limited was retained by > Statistics Canada and the Expert Panel on Access to Historical > Census Records to conduct a series of six focus groups to test > public opinion regarding options to amend the confidentiality > provisions of the Statistics Act. The purpose of the focus groups > was to test versions of a draft questionnaire and to probe opinion > about the release of individual-level census data for future > censuses and for past censuses. Participants were asked about their > awareness of the topic of the release of individual-level census > data, about how they would respond if individual data from the next > census or other future censuses were released after a time delay of > about 100 years, and about how they would respond if legislation > were changed to allow the release of individual-level data from past > censuses, particularly the 1911 census. > > Six focus group sessions were conducted. The pilot phase of the > research consisted of two focus groups conducted held in Ottawa on > December 7, 1999. The second phase of the research consisted of > four focus groups, including two in Toronto and two in Montreal. > The two groups in Toronto were held on January 27, 2000 and the two > in Montreal were held on January 31. In each city, one focus group > included those with high education (a university degree) and the > other those with mid-level education. All sessions included > participants from a mix of age groups (18 years of age and over), > occupations and genders and also included some representation of > foreign-born. > > This report summarizes the results of the research on the > substantive topics. > > General Awareness of Topic > > Almost no participants had heard about the topic of releasing > individual-level census data for future or past censuses. A total > of one or two participants in the Ottawa groups said they had heard > of the topic. > > Future Release > > Most participants thought it acceptable that their personal census > information might be released after a time delay of about 100 years. > However, a few participants strongly objected to the release of this > information. > > A variety of issues emerged in the focus groups: > > * Many questioned the usefulness of such data - why would anyone be > interested in personal answers after 100 years? > > * A number of participants could not understand why anyone would > need to know individual names. > > > Among the few who were opposed to the release of these data, the > most common concerns were: > > * Would this lead to more government control of individuals? > > * Would the information be used against them at some point in the > future? > > * Would there be long-term consequences of disclosure for future > family members in areas such as ethnicity, race, and health? > > Many participants said that they were not aware of the content of > the questions in the census. When, in some of the sessions, the > moderator described to them the questions contained in the 1996 > census, the description raised several reactions: > > * Most felt it would be non-problematic for them if this type of > information were released 100 years after a census was taken. > > * Some participants felt that the type of questions asked were basic > ones and would be of little value for future historians or > genealogists. > > * Some said that there are other richer data sources for individuals > available in both the public and private sectors. > > * A few voiced a concern that in future censuses, once the principle > of disclosing information is accepted, a series of new questions, > more personal or intrusive, would progressively be added. > > Participants were presented with a number of arguments supporting > the release of the individual-level data from future censuses after > a time delay of about 100 years. > > When participants were presented with the argument that historians > would find the information extremely valuable, most participants > reaffirmed their scepticism concerning the validity or usefulness of > the information for historians. > > Participants were more receptive to the argument that their > information might be useful for their descendants. However, some > felt that their own personal interest in knowing about their family > origins was low and this would probably be the same for their > descendants. > > Although many were fairly open to releasing this information for > "medical" purposes, some were sceptical as to whether the kind of > information available in the census would be of any value. They > felt that hospital or doctor's records would be much more useful as > a source of medical information. > > Most participants were open to the idea of changing the existing law > to allow future census data on individuals to be released after 100 > years. However, some felt that people participating in future > censuses should be given an option, such as a check-off box, to > indicate consent. Others felt there should be conditions placed on > the release of this information. > > A few participants expressed concern about this issue. They felt > that if the government is ready to rescind an existing law, what > would stop the government from modifying a future one and reducing > the 100 year prescription for future censuses? They were also > fearful of who would have access to the data in the future and that > it might be used against them in some undefined way, or against > their descendants. > > Release of Historical Data > > The vast majority of participants responded negatively to the > prospect of allowing the release of individual answers from earlier > censuses including the 1911 census, after a time delay of about 100 > years. The response was negative toward the principle of release as > well as to changing legislation to allow the release. > > 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. > > In some of the focus group sessions, as soon as the notion of > "breaking a promise" emerged, the idea was seized upon by other > participants who then expressed their opposition to release. > Keeping these data as confidential came to be seen as the "right" or > moral thing to do. > > Historical and genealogical reasons for releasing historical data > were not powerful or even helpful in changing opinion, and > participants reiterated many of the same doubts expressed earlier. > When informed that historical census data were a unique data source > for historians, some participants stated that there are other > sources, such as local churches and schools, for historical > information, so these data are not so critical. Some also felt that > the information contained in the 1911 census would really be of > little interest to historians. But even among those who accepted > the idea that the data may be valuable for these purposes, this was > not enough justification, in their opinion, to warrant the release > of the data. > > However, a number of participants suggested that the information > could be made available to specialists (historians, genealogists) > under special request and/or that the access to an individual record > should be limited to the close family or descendants of that person. > > Some participants were moved by the argument that this kind of data > release has already occurred in the United States, the United > Kingdom and Australia, but others felt this was not relevant and > that Canada should develop its own approach to the issue. > > > Impact of Change > > Most participants said that a change in the law to allow the release > of future census data at the individual level would not affect their > participation in the next census or the truthfulness of their > answers on that census or other future censuses. However, some > people expressed the view that others would be more inclined to be > untruthful. Only a very small number said that they themselves > might be more inclined to give untruthful answers. > > The vast majority of participants said that this change would not > affect their opinion of Statistics Canada. >

Hi Everyone, I may be mistaken, but for statisical purposes don't you need at least 1 000 people polled. 72 people means nothing. I think we must, as Gordon has said, be polite at all times and with a smile on our faces quietly and with firmness demand that the debate on the census be with FACTS and not illogic and fear. We have facts and logic on our side let us continue to use them. At the very least guys the politicians may just decide to shut us up and release the census, with the promise that we will leave them alone : ))) Well I am off to do more research as we all await the Expert Panel Report Jacquie Nex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frank McKERRY <mckerry@home.com> > To: Gordon A. WATTS <gordon_watts@telus.net> > Sent: Friday, 23 June, 2000 9:51 AM > Subject: Re: [CCC-L] Report of Census Survey Focus Groups > > > Gordon: 72 people will be the one's that say we cannot access the > census ? I > don't even think the full senate and the house of Commons have that > right. > HOW DO WE GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE ? These sessions are a > farce and a disgrace ! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon A. WATTS" <gordon_watts@telus.net> > To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 10:40 PM > Subject: [CCC-L] Report of Census Survey Focus Groups > > > > Greetings All. > > > > I have heard from Dr. Pamela White regarding the report of the > > census Focus Group summary. While Dr. White suggested I might > want > > to wait until the final report was released to the public, she did > > not restrict me from posting this report now. She stated: > > > > "The final report brings together the results of the focus groups > > with the public opinion results. This interim report provides the > > results of a limited number of focus groups involving about 10 - > 12 > > people at each session." > > > > This indicates that in the six focus groups held there were a > total > > of 60 to 72 people involved. Not a lot of people to generate the > > headlines that accompanied Mr. Bronskill's National Post article > of > > 20 June 2000. In reading the report copied below, I would not > have > > come to the conclusions indicated by those headlines. The public > > opinion survey, yet to be released to the public, could have > > completely different results. I look forward to seeing that > report > > which should be posted to Statistics Canada's website near the end > > of June or early in July (according to Dr. White.) > > >