Greetings All. I have finished reading the Environics Report on the Town Hall Meetings and Focus Groups, and to say the least, I am not impressed. Information on the Town Hall Meetings was no surprize as we had reports of participants and witnesses previously and were aware that the vast majority of presenters supported access. The way that things were presented, however, was a surprize in that no numbers were indicated when presenting the various aspects of the issue. We know from other sources that there were 157 presenters at the meetings. We know that there were 6 presenters that spoke against access while the other 151 spoke for it. The Report, however, gives no indication of those numbers. It speaks of a 'majority of presenters', 'many presenters', 'a number of presenters', 'some presenters', 'several presenters' and 'a few presenters'. Similar references were made whether discussing either the pro access or negative access positions. But no numbers were cited. As such an unfamiliar reader would not be aware of the overwhelming support for access that was shown at the meetings. A similar situation exists in the individual reports and the summary of the Focus Groups, although perhaps not to the same extent. There are some numbers mentioned there, although they are not presented in a tabular form such as were the results of the surveys conducted for the Expert Panel. The Summary of Findings states, in part: 'Although qualitative results are not representative of the population as a whole, we did find that, by a two-to-one margin overall and in a majority of the sessions, the focus group participants would withhold the release of these records. This is in stark contrast with the town hall presentations, where the overwhelming majority supported the release of these records.' Not encouraging to say the least. There were approximately 43 questions asked of focus group participants. Not one of them specifically mentioned the 'promise' of never-ending confidentiality, however in responses in the individual reports on the focus groups it is referred to so frequently that I find it difficult to believe that all references to it were spontaneous. >From the start I have expressed my concern about the possibility that a bias towards negative response would be used in the focus groups. It is my opinion that there was such a bias here, although it is not as obvious as it was in, especially, the second survey held for the Expert Panel. Contrary to the surveys held for the Expert Panel, I believe this bias shows up not so much in what participants in the focus groups were told, but in what they were NOT told. They were told that Canadians have been participating in censuses for 3 centuries and that 'the overall data on population figures and other measures have always been released'. There was NO MENTION that individual information was included in the information released. They were next INFORMED that some people feel that data collected for individuals from censuses should be available after a delay of about 90 years. Emphasis was placed on the reference to information on INDIVIDUALS. Participants were shown two clauses from the Instructions to Enumerators for the 1911 Census. The first was Clause 23. 'Secrecy of census provided for'. Some questions on this clause followed with the main one asking if this clause had anything to do with the issue of the release of historical census records. They were next shown clause 36. 'Clear and legible records.' relating to enumerators being required to 'write legibly' and that the 'records would be stored in the Archives of the Dominion'. Again they were asked if this clause had anything to do with the issue of the release of historical census records, and if there was any conflict between the two clauses. What participants were not shown was a third clause of these instructions that plays a very important part in the issue of access. That clause, 16. 'Rural and village enumeration to be kept separate.' stated, in part: 'This separation will facilitate the tabulation of agricultural statistics, and it will have value as a record for historical use in tracing the origin and rise of future towns in the country.' One might ask how these records could 'have value as a record for historical use' if it were never intended that they be accessible in the future? This question was never asked of the focus groups. 'Appendix F - Summaries of Town Hall Meetings' contains the same reports on individual Town Hall Meetings that were placed on the Environics Research Group website at http://erg.environics.net/ , less the disclaimer that each report had. I note that earlier today those reports were still accessible. In checking just now, however, the link takes us to the Report on the Statistics Canada website. 'Appendix H- Summaries of Focus Group Sessions' contains reports on individul Focus Groups using a format similar to those for the Town Hall Meetings. These reports appear to be presented in a subjective manner, giving the moderator's interpretation of responses, rather than in an objective manner that would specifically detail the responses given with numbers or percentages attached to them. Each of these individual reports has the same disclaimer attache to them as was originally attached to the reports of the Town Hall Meetings. This disclaimer states: 'This summary is based on the notes of the moderator. Although this summary accurately portrays the overall findings in this session, this report is not based on a review of the session transcriopts and must be taken into consideration with the findings in upcoming focus group sessions. As well, qualitative results are not representative of the general population.' I find the last sentence of this disclaimer particularly interesting. If qualitative results are not representative of the general population, what was the purpose of this recent exercise? In the Report of the Expert Panel, questions asked in the surveys and responses given were placed in tabular form with numbers or percentages given for each response, and indicating the degree of those responses. No such table is found in this report. 197 people participated in the Focus Groups. Of those, by my count 94 specifically opposed access, which is a far cry from the 2 to1 margin referred to at the beginning of the Report. I read this to be less than 50% or closer to 1 to 1. Those who opposed access, for the most part, did so because they believed a 'promise' had been made and it should not be broken. Others gave moral reasons for not allowing access. Others preferred some type of compromise, but few favoured the compromise suggested by Statistics Canada. I find it hard to believe that 100 dissenting votes from the Focus Groups and Town Hall Meetings can outweigh close to 50,000 supportive votes sent to Ottawa in petitions, letters and email to our MPs, Senators and other officials. Thats it for my first go around with this report. I may have more to say when I have had time to more fully digest it. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC http://globalgenealogy.com/Census en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm Permission to forward without notice is granted.