POST 1901 CENSUS PROJECT
Open the door to Canada's Historic Census
TOWN HALL MEETINGS |
|
This page contains correspondence from Murray Long, a privacy consultant and researcher, and President of Murray Long and Associates. As evidenced by the correspondence Mr. Long was invited to participate in the Ottawa Town Hall meeting by Environics Research Group. Mr. Long's presentation to the meeting follows his correspondence. From: Murray Long To: gordon_watts@telus.net Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:19 PM Subject: 1906 census Hi Gordon I am a privacy consultant and researcher focused mostly, but not entirely on the new Personal Information protection and Electronic Documents Act and what businesses must do to comply with it. I have, however, waded in, from time to time in other privacy issues and people in the privacy community know who I am (at least in Ottawa). This led to a call today from Environics, asking if I would like to be a presenter on Friday at one of their two meetings in Ottawa to gather public input on the 1906/1911 Census question. I am certainly aware of previous Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips's views although as someone who has an interest in history and the preservation of history, I don't agree with the "promise is a promise" philosophy as an absolute never-changing position. I lean strongly towards release of the data after 92 years. However, Phillips also made the point that census data collection is getting more obtrusive and people would not feel comfortable answering such questions as "How much money do you make and from what sources?" and "How many live births have you had?" - the examples cited by Janice Hamilton in her article. My question to you is how much more intrusive has the census actually gotten and do you have online samples of the long census form from the most recent census (I must confess, having only received the shorter form I have not looked personally at the questions asked in the longer form.) Having a copy of the questions might help me understand Phillips' concerns better about whether Canadians would answer truthfully if they knew the data would be released in 92 years. I found a web site listing the data from censuses taken in the last century (1825 onwards to 1901) but not including the special 1906 census, or the 1911 one. We've come a long way from asking, as they did in 1861 about "Colored persons, Mulatto or Indians, Deaf and dumb, Blind, Lunatics or idiots. Census sensitivity seems to have improved greatly over the years. However I would be interested in knowing what exactly was asked in the 1906 census and also in 1911 and questions on more recent longer forms. As you know, other than the legal question of whether "a promise is a promise" should exist for all time, the other point is whether there are legitimate privacy issues associated with an individual's name after the passage of 92 years, either from the 1906 census or the most recent one. I take the pragmatic view that privacy sensitivity increases with the sensitivity of the data. Income data after 92 years is not, in my view, particularly sensitive. There may, however, be some other forms of data that would still be sensitive to surviving family members and their descendants. I need to inform Environics tomorrow morning as to whether or not I will present. As I said, I lean strongly towards your position, but want to better appreciate what privacy concerns about the nature of the data collected might exist, either historically or currently. I do understand, by the way, the reasons why, in the wake of the Riel Rebellion, the ensuing land surveys, etc, why people on the Prairies in 1906 were concerned about confidentiality and why the promise was made at the time to allay their suspicions about how the data might be used. The historical reasons for making such a promise have evaporated in my view. The only issue would be if any data collected back then could truly be harmful to any living individual's current or future interest. Any light you can shed on the above would be very helpful. Thanks Murray Long President Murray Long & Associates Inc. web-site: http://www.privacyscan.ca Notes for Town Hall Meeting on Release of 1906 and 1911 Census Data Murray Long, December 14, 2001 I would like to thank you for the invitation to participate in this further sampling of public opinion on release of the 1906 and 1911 census data. I appreciate the offer extended to me by Environics to take part in this Town Hall meeting although I confess that, as someone who makes his living as a privacy consultant, my focus has been more on the data protection responsibilities of private companies rather than the policy issues surrounding the release, or not, of historical census records. I further confess that those who seek to label me as firmly on the side of perpetual privacy for these records may be somewhat disappointed. The folks at Environics encouraged my participation as a pro-privacy advocate in contrast to those "on the opposite side of the fence." I am not sure exactly what lies on the other side of the fence. However, I intend to wander over the entire farm property and may jump a few fences in the process. I will start with some comments on the specific privacy issues surrounding the release of the 1906 and 1911 census data and then comment briefly on broader public policy issues concerning future census data. I recognize in doing so that I have not spent the level of time and effort that others have on exploring and understanding these issues and that my view is really that of a moderately informed Canadian with a heightened interest in the privacy aspects of this issue. Are there residual privacy issues today surrounding records collected in 1906 or 1911? I have not had an opportunity to review in detail the questions asked on the 1906 or 1911 census forms but, via information I have looked at, I understand the census forms contained some questions that would be considered highly sensitive information at the time of asking and politically incorrect today – for instance the question about infirmities in the 1911 census that included the terms "crazy or lunatic" and "idiotic or silly". Even for such health-related questions or similar questions about income and property, the passage of time generally reduces the level of sensitivity. With the passage of more than 95 years since the 1906 census and the 1911 census records reaching a threshold 92 year mark in 2003, there is no longer any remaining privacy interest on the part of any individual who would have participated in these two censuses. Virtually everyone over the age of majority who responded to questions asked by an enumerator in the 1906 census is most likely to be dead well over twenty years. Similarly for the 1911 census. As stated by former Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips, Canada’s Privacy Act “considers that personal information continues to be such until 20 years after the death of the person.” After that date, there is no residual privacy interest. In some jurisdictions, in fact, any residual privacy interest disappears upon death. Where data about a child was collected in 1906, a one-year old child then would be 95 today and a one-year old child in 1911 would be 90. There is no basis for any claim of residual privacy based on any statistical data that would have been collected in those census years. The lack of public outcry or subsequent complaints over prior release of the 1901 census data seems to substantiate this. The data is only of direct use and value to researchers into local history and those studying their own family roots. There is no privacy issue. The expectation of confidentiality In addition to the current privacy sensitivity associated with 1906 or 1911 census data there is the question of the promise of confidentiality that was made by the census enumerators to the census subjects. I can only accept the report of the Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records that words like "perpetual" or "eternal" or "for ever" were used neither in the legislation nor in the instructions to enumerators and are never found in the debates surrounding the 1905 and 1906 Census and Statistics Act. According to expert sources, the most prevalent concern of the time seemed to be that census information would be shared with the tax collector or military conscription personnel. As a result, in the 1911 Census, enumerators were told to give “positive answers and assurance in the course of their work… If a fear is entertained by any person that they may be used for taxation or any other object." At the same time, enumerator instructions in 1906 read in part that “The census is intended to be a permanent record, and its schedules will be stored in the Archives of the Dominion.” In practical terms, with no clear evidence of a promise ever given of perpetual privacy, the data subjects were entitled to an expectation that their census data would never be released in a way that might ever cause them material harm, or subject them to other consequences. With the passage of 92 years or more, that commitment has been met. Even if the government seems to be breaking a retroactive promise, – and this was a cause of strong concern for some Canadians surveyed by the Expert Panel, – that concern is mitigated by the public consultation process that the government is going through on this question. It is also mitigated by the lack of real issues surrounding the release of earlier census data – data that the National Archivist has said constitutes some of the most frequently consulted records in the National Archives. There are many examples of governments changing policy directions or breaking with promises, policies and traditions of the past when it serves a strong public interest – but it would be reprehensible to do so arbitrarily and without consultation. Those who took part in the 1906 and 1911 census can no longer speak for themselves on this issue. We must speak for them and consider the various concerns – chief of which are privacy interests and commitments that they suffer no harm through a breach of this promise of confidentiality. I am satisfied that they will suffer no harm. Release of subsequent census data The last issue is policy direction on release of subsequent census data. The issue before us today is related solely to 1906 and 1911. The situation after 1918, with the passage of the Statistics Act of 1918 and its legislated commitments to protect the confidentiality of information, appears to be markedly different. I note the introduction of a private bill by Senator Milne to change the Statistics Act to permit access to census records after 92 years, but also to allow individuals, – but only in the 92nd year after that census –, to be able to object to the release of their personal census data. Were I still alive at age 92, this might be about the last thing on my mind, assuming I still had a functioning mind at that rather dottering age. I note as well the strong reactions of the current Privacy Commissioner to the provisions of Bill S-12. While I hesitate to wade into this debate about subsequent census data, I will offer three casual observations about the future. One is that the type of census data being collected today, especially on the longer form, is becoming far more intrusive and sensitive. This certainly raises the level of privacy sensitivity. Second is that the 92 year schedule for release of documents to the National Archives (a date which seems to be arbitrarily derived at best) should perhaps become a 100 year schedule – as Great Britain has set. Although only a slight mathematical change, it seems to me that it is far easier for a member of the public to project as to where they will be in 100 years time than 92 years. Furthermore, as people live longer, moving to 100 years will ensure that any head of household, with an age of majority now set at 18, is likely to be deceased at least 20 years upon any eventual release of the data. My third point recognizes that people today are far more able to make considered choices and to provide informed consent about how they want their information eventually to be disclosed and used, even long after death. They certainly have far more access to relevant decision-making information and are far more intellectually aware of the corresponding issues today than they were living in an early prairie settlement. It seems to me the best way to respect individual wishes in the future is to allow people to opt out of any subsequent disclosure of their census information after a 92 or 100 year period, but not have to wait until they are 92 to do so – a timeframe which, practically speaking, expunges that right for the vast majority of citizens. Rather, the right to opt-out should be a reversible right that exists continuously from the point in time that the census form is filled in until death. This might frustrate some historians or genealogists at some time in the future, but as this right is not likely to be exercised by many Canadians and as there are now far more ways to access information about people than ever before in our connected society, it is not likely to be a significant concern. Even if it is, it is far better to err on the side of informed consent and individual privacy rights than to extinguish those rights, particularly as the opportunity to allow informed consent clearly exists for all future census taking. That being said, in the case of the 1906 and 1911 census information, I am satisfied that there is no privacy or confidentiality issue that would stand in the way of the release of this information to the National Archives and the public. Murray Long is a leading expert on private sector privacy law in Canada. He is the co-author of the Canadian Privacy Law Handbook, a comprehensive guide to the new Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. He is also the editor and principal author of PrivacyScan, an online information source on privacy issues facing Canadian business. Mr. Long participated in the development of the CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information and is the principal author of Making the CSA Privacy Code Work for You, a guide to applying the code published by CSA International in 1996. In 1999, he prepared the evidence for CSA International explaining the CSA Code before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry. He also wrote a detailed Guide to the New Private Sector Data Protection Bill for the Privacy Commissioner's 1998-99 Annual Report. With the passage of Canada's new private sector privacy law, Mr. Long has provided privacy consulting services to business groups in the financial services industry, telecommunications, the transportation sector, and the retail industry. He has developed numerous tailored codes and procedures manuals based on the CSA Model Code. |
Post 1901 Census Project Site Sponsored by:
Everything for The Family Historian!
1-800-361-5168 Bookstore Website
Copyright © GlobalGenealogy.com Inc. 1995-2009
