Open Canada's Post 1901 Census Records, Home Page- The Global Gazette

GLOBAL GENEALOGY & HISTORY BOOKSTORE WHAT'S NEW FREE NEWSLETTER CANADIAN RESOURCES

POST 1901 CENSUS PROJECT
Open the door to Canada's Historic Census

Back to Main Page of Post 1901 Census Project

The first symposium of the Canada Genealogy Centre was held at the Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec, on 1, 2 and 3 November 2002. The following report is a summary of the impressions of Gordon A. Watts, Co-chair of the Canada Census Committee, who was one of about 85 genealogists, historians, librarians, archivists, and academics in various fields invited to attend.

The symposium was opened Friday evening with lectures offered by the National Archives of Canada with the theme Universal Access and Social Cohesion: Making Records Relevant to Citizens Through Digitization. Among those welcoming the attendees and giving talks were Ian Wilson – National Archivist, Marie-Louise Perron – Specialiste de contenu, and Antonio Lechasseur – Directeur, Division des services aux chercheurs, both of the Canada Genealogy Centre of the National Archives. A lady whose name I unfortunately do not remember, and to whom I apologize for that, gave an online demonstration of The Meeting Place on the Heritage Canada website and a prototype portal to the Canada Genealogy Centre. A demonstration was also given on improvements made to the current online access to the 1901 Census of Canada.

The lectures were interesting, those that I understood. I am unfortunately not bi-lingual and some of the speakers spoke entirely in French, which was a problem for me. Others spoke entirely in English, which I am sure was a problem for some others attending. Arrangements for simultaneous translation had been made for the plenary sessions of the symposium but had apparently not been considered for the opening lectures on Friday evening.

The highlight of the evening, for me, was the opportunity to meet, and to put faces to names for several people with whom I had communicated, but had not yet met. They were too numerous to name here, but they will know about whom I refer. I had the pleasure to meet still others during the remainder of the symposium.

The symposium itself consisted of three sessions, two on Saturday and the final session on Sunday morning. Each session began with a plenary at which all participants were present. Following the plenary participants were broken up into three separate groups. Each group discussed the same topics and then came together again to summarize the results.

Session one dealt with relationships between users and stakeholders providing genealogical services. Subjects of discussion were: Which consultation strategies and methods should the CGC adopt? ; What are the needs of the users and service providers? What genealogical products and services do users and providers wish to have access to through the CGC? ; What projects should be set as priorities in developing online CGC components and what partnerships would be required to achieve them?

A number of different means for consultation were discussed. These included;

on-line surveys for both genealogists and partners
discussion lists – both existing and new
regular mail surveys to the various genealogical societies and their membership
online surveys
symposiums
an advisory board
focus groups
FM radio (talk radio in remote aboriginal areas)

and others. Topping the list, in my recollection, was online surveys, although a number of suggestions were made to make them more relevant. High on the list of improvements for on-line surveys was the inclusion of a space for participants to add their own comments. Use of focus groups was considered of little value.

Possible subjects for content on the CGC website were discussed. Organizers of the symposium had listed some subjects and others were added during the discussions. Subjects included:

Census records
Parish, marriage, death records
Land records
Aboriginal records
Immigration records (passenger lists)
Military records
Colonial Office records
Wills and probate records
Corporate records
Newspapers
C.E.F. records
City Directories
Sessional papers
1940 Registration files
Oral records

Not surprisingly, Census records and indexing thereof were at the top of the list. Parish marriage and death records (church records and civil registrations), and vital statistics were up there as well, although it was noted that these records came under Provincial, rather than Federal jurisdiction.

Expectations of the CGC, genealogists and possible partners were discussed. Access to authoritative content was considered to be number one, along with digitized collections – databases and finding aids – particularly indexes. Search engines and technologies to allow cooperative online projects between the CGC and its partners were discussed.

Those groups with which consultation and partnerships were envisioned included:

Genealogical societies
Local history groups
First nations groups
Public library network
Internet users
School communities
Communities and associations for young people
Religious groups and societies
Professional genealogical researchers
Network of universities – both national and international
Municipal archives

Session two was to deal with “Partnerships with the Canadian Genealogy Centre”. Group discussions on issues raised at the plenary session included 1. What are the challenges (responsibilities, commitments, advantages) of participating in the CGC as a partner? What governance model would be most effective for the Centre under the leadership of the Library and Archives of Canada?; and 2. What services should the CGC provide and what balance should there be between free services and billed services? What role could the private sector play in the CGC’s activities as a whole?

Insofar as the order of the questions asked is concerned, things got pretty well turned around. Discussion centered around what services should be free and what should be billed. Opinions were expressed that genealogy societies, or other groups, would be very reluctant to provide information put together by volunteers if there was to be a fee for those who would access that information. It was felt that while a fee for “value added” services might, in some cases, be justified, information provided the CGC without charge should not in turn require a fee to be accessed.

Discussion was held on a draft model of governance for the CGC. In other words, how to make it work. Organizers of the symposium had prepared a draft paper for discussion. This paper stated “The proposed governance structure is designed to foster discussion among all stakeholders and to give each an opportunity to express their needs and expectations of the Canadian Genealogy Centre”. It suggested the proposed structure would give the Centre the tools it needs to anticipate change and to be in a position to make the necessary adjustments to stay relevant to the needs of Canadians.

The proposed structure contained an advisory level consisting essentially of three interactive groups. These groups would include an NA/NL implementation team made up of contributors from the National Archives, contributors from the National Library, and Canadian Genealogy Centre staff that would be responsible for coordinating all the Centre’s activities; a group to serve as an advisory committee; and a group of all partners developing projects with the Centre. The structure presented envisioned two-way communications between each of these three groups.

Above this circular structure was an NA/NL Decision-making committee made up of members of the Library and Archives of Canada. It would be responsible for keeping the Centre in line with the government’s major strategic directions, at the same time keeping in mind suggestions arising from consultations with the advisory group and the partner group brought forward by the implemenation team. The decision-making team would report directly to the Library and Archives of Canada.

There was considerable discussion regarding this structure and opinions were expressed that the advisory group should have direct access to the decision-making committee. For some the model reminded them of old-fashioned “government thinking” with top-down direction. Some did not like the term “advisory” because it suggested that comments or suggestions were coming in but they would be seen only as suggestions with the final decisions being made by the upper levels of the CGC. Others felt that there were too many levels in the model suggested and that the advisory group should be on the same level as the decision making body. It was suggested that the CGC study other sorts of groups, such as the Canadian Initiative of Digital Libraries, to understand alternative models of governance.

Other ideas included a veto from the advisory group, that cooperation should be both perceived and real, there should be cooperation rather than competition between the different groups working with the CGC, that there should be ongoing communications between the different groups working with the CGC.

The structure of the Advisory Group envisioned would include;

Genealogy societies
Private enterprise
Historical societies
Education networks
Network of archives
Network of libraries
Professional researchers

The role of the advisory group would be to provide advice to the CGC in fulfilling its mandate. It would be a conduit for information between the Centre and the genealogical community. It would play a role in:

Improving services offered to users
Promote the CGC in the genealogical community through their networks
Develop best practices and policies with respect to the development of genealogical resources
Identify possible sources of funding for the Center
Develop standards
Consult with the genealogical community and the public
Identify priority projects for content development.

A question was raised for the possibility of minor funding for groups to facilitate assembly of data information. Comments were made regarding – a need to ensure templates are easily tailored -- advisory body should report to decision making committee – do not narrow the “bubble” of the advisory body to genealogy communities only – need for a solid structure where a difference is made clear between operational and decision making bodies – governance model might be premature if the funding is not in place for more than one or two years – governance model is unwieldy.

Fee or free. It was generally considered that for information freely contributed by volunteers there should be no fee. Some suggested that for information owned by the government, and thus owned by the people, there should be no fee charged. Some suggested a model similar to 1901 Census in UK where the multi-field indexes are available for free but there is a fee for primary documents or transcription – there would still be access to original documents (i.e. microform) for free but there might be some attention to raise overhead for institutions like archival libraries who would provide access – free access for original records but fee for convenience – volunteer contribution from subscribers, i.e. a small contribution requested for those using the service.

Others suggested that for “first pass” information there should be no fee, but for second level support, i.e, value added services, there might be a fee. Some suggestions were made regarding the possibility of membership fees for access to the CGC. In this regard it was suggested that there might be different types of membership fees, depending on what constituency users belonged to. It was suggested that some communities just could not afford to pay a fee and that one possibility would be a subscription through associations or organizations – i.e. if a person belonged to a genealogical society and had paid a fee for that membership they might have access to the CGC without charge. A model such as the LDS website was mentioned, where there is much free content but for some value added content there was a small charge. Concern was expressed about copyright and that information obtained for free from the CGC should not be taken and published on a “for profit” basis.

Regarding the funding of the CGC it was felt that this could come from different sources. 1. The first priority is that the CGC should be funded by the federal government; 2. There could be contributions from genealogical societies, but that such contribution should be in kind (i.e. voluntary labour – indexing and transcribing, etc.), not in money; 3. Private sector funding, certain commercial markets, and philanthropists

Private enterprise – the CGC should have the capability to provide links to companies or private sector resources. A word of caution be given to companies that violate copyright. Vendors want to provide a place where people will see a comfortable place to put content in – some companies have the tools available to do this but they are too costly to put them in place right now. An example given of a partnership that aids in research was for the University of Montreal History department, where the partner was a publisher who was able to gain some revenue from the results of the research, and the profit was re-invested in the project.

The Partner Group would be created over a period of time through partnership agreements concluded between the Centre and agencies, institutions, and/or individuals. This group would consist of representatives of these partners. It is envisioned that there may be some overlap between the Partner Group and the Advisory Group.

The third session dealt with approaches for the Canadian Genealogy Centre and stakeholders with respect to the production and sharing of content. Questions raised for discussion were 1. What projects could partners carry out together? (e.g. indexing, research tools and genealogical resource directory.); 2. What’s new in the exchange of genealogical information? (e.g. online collaborative tools such as Meeting Place and volunteer mobilization efforts.); 3. What protocols would have to be put in place for quality control of the content?

Projects that could be worked on in partnership included:

Resource inventory – regardless of where resources are – Federal or Provincial archives or different applications in the regions.
Census was very high in priority – indexing and digitization.
Information that exists in formats today that do not allow them to be shared widely need to be transformed in a way that will allow them to be shared amongst everyone.
Virtual reference – how to exchange services on answering genealogical questions that people are asking across the country – how are we going to do that? This was identified as a priority that needs to be developed together.
Birth, marriage and death indexes, registers that are available in different places and that are high on the agenda for people doing research.
Methods of information exchange – some of these are known already – everybody uses email – not necessarily everybody uses e-sat – some are using electronic bulletin boards, some are using some services more than others – teleconferencing.
Online collaborative tools – which tools can we develop online to help us? Work has been done on an area of the Canadian Heritage Portal that is called Culture Canada, and on the Culture Canada gateway there is an area called Meeting Place where there are online collaborative tools that can be used for the purposes that discussed here.

Other projects were mentioned but are too numerous to list in this report.

It appeared that there was little new in methods of exchanging genealogical information. There was more a discussion of what methods were currently being used – most of which have been mentioned elsewhere in this report.

The following is a summary of some of the comments made during this session. It does not include all comments, partially because many comments were made in French, and my attempt to record everything through the universal translation receiver was somewhat less than successful.

Transcription of records – what you see is what you type. If you know it is wrong you still type what you see. There may be room for comments on what you believe should be corrected but you still type what you see. Collection of data by word of mouth – still put down what was said, and note what you think the correction should be.
Concern expressed that because the NA is within the federal bureaucracy structure and has a number of limitations and controls about data sharing, they would have much less flexibility with software and templates. A question was raised about how information that was already place in databases and digitized might be integrated with the CGC website? It was suggested that the various projects going on now by the various groups have a very flexible software situation and that flexibility might be difficult to translate into the CGC as things stand now. One of the major things to look at would be how the Centre could have the same sort of ease of use and flexibility that many of the projects mentioned already have.
Control of content. Must be careful on what goes on the website, particularly voices of people who have been interviewed from “off the street” collections. Must ensure release forms have been signed. Many times these interviews have been for print purposes – not for electronic purposes. It must be remembered that the content of the interview may be authoritative only to the person being interviewed – it does not necessarily mean that what was said is true.
Quality control. Whatever databases or information finds its way to the website should be preceded by some kind of a template that would state how the material was gathered, was it transcribed, what was it transcribed for, a study of the sources, what type of people did the transcription – was it volunteers – was it paid professionals? In any organization you will have some volunteers who are very accurate, and some who are not so accurate. This becomes an issue because you do not know the validity of the information you are seeing. Having some kind of a template that would provide the various organizations the ability of indicating what kind of quality control they used and how that information came about would help the end user make the decision as to how valid the information is, and not have it strictly from the CGC standpoint to judge the quality, good or bad, of the particular database.
Not all projects are begun for the same purpose. Standards are very good and very desirable, but standards developed for one purpose may not always suit the purpose of another project. Standards set for academics, i.e. demographers, may not necessarily match standards for genealogists. Different fields from schedules of Census may be more important to one group more that the other.
It is not envisioned that all databases will be placed on one website but that different groups will have information and databases stored on various websites but there would be a central search engine that can extract from all these sites and pull the information together to give a reply to an individual query. The data would not necessarily be all in the same format, but it would allow one to access the information from a variety of sites, stored in different places that do not need to occupy storage space on a central site. This allows for differing needs for different sorts of standards for particular projects while still allowing the material to be used for other purposes so long as the user understands its limitations.

In a report such as this it is impossible to cover everything that took place, unless there is a verbatim record that would take as long to read as it took the events to take place. Such was not my intention in putting this report together. It is longer than many would like to take the time to read, and shorter than others may feel it should be. It is not possible to satisfy both positions.

In the end run there were a number of representatives of various groups, having the authority of the group they represented to make some degree of commitment of cooperation with the CGC on various projects, and some of these did so. Others were unable to make specific commitments and were able only to report back to their respective bodies with recommendations.

In summary, it is my opinion that the formation of the Canadian Genealogy Centre is something that is desirable. It will take a great deal of work, and a great deal of cooperation on the part of everyone in the various communities who wish to see it be successful. It is not something that can be done only by the staff of the Library and Archives of Canada and the employees of those institutions that have been assigned to the Canadian Genealogy Centre. Nor is that something that we would like to see, as the end result would not likely be what we want. It will require our continued input to ensure that the Canadian Genealogy Centre reflects the interests of the communities that seek to use it.

I have seen differing opinions on the value of the symposium. Personally, as a first step in the establishing the CGC I feel that it has value, provided that the comments and suggestions made in the various session are paid some heed. We look forward to seeing the results when the website is finally made available to the public.

Gordon A. Watts
Co-chair, Canada Census Committee.

Post 1901 Census Project Site Sponsored by: