Canada's Post 1901 Census Records, Enumerator Instructions

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

TOWN HALL MEETINGS
REGINA -- 25 JANUARY 2002

This page contains correspondence from Michelle Rusk pertaining to the Town Hall Meetings held in Regina. Michelle attended both sessions of these meetings. Her presentation follows

From: Michelle Rusk
To: Gordon A. Watts
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 11:15 AM
Subject: My Town Hall Presentation

Hi Gordon,
My impressions of the town hall meeting are not as crisp over the time since. The following is a version of the report I gave to the Saskatoon Branch at our February meeting, plus additional notes that have been coming back to me as I write to you.

Cliff Rusk, Lynda Andrew, Betty Wright, and I drove from Saskatoon down to Regina to attend the Post-1901 Census Town Hall Meeting on January 25th. Marge Thomas, Executive Director, and Bev Weston, President, from the SGS office in Regina also attended the town hall meeting. There were 5 presenters in the afternoon and none for the evening.

Prior to the actual presentations, there was reference made by several participants to the moderator and the co-ordinator that there had been insufficient publicity regarding the Town Hall Meetings. Apparently, the advertisement was placed in the Regina Leader Post and a French newspaper in Regina. The attendees pointed out that in Saskatchewan, and in fact in any of the prairie provinces, advertising in only one city newspaper is pointless as the provincial population is spread over a large area. Only one couple in the evening was there because of the advertisement in the Leader Post. There were 33 people there in the afternoon, and about 10 in the evening.

The moderator began the session by explaining the rules of the meeting - not a debate and that the audience was to refrain from boos, etc. if they disagreed with a presenter. Presenters were allocated 15 minutes to speak, and the moderator would have 5 minutes to ask questions to clarify any questions he might have regarding the presenters' view. He would also be asking a couple of questions regarding the "Compromise." He also filled in the background of the current situation, including some of the arguments already put forward regarding why the 1906 and 1911 censuses should be released. Interestingly, he always referred to it as, "The So-Called Promise." The moderator also requested, if possible, that presenters leave a paper copy of their presentation to ensure accuracy in reporting the details of presentations.

Bill Waiser, the U of S history professor who has been commissioned by the Saskatchewan Government to write a book on Saskatchewan for the 2005 Centennial, was the first presenter. He was very powerful. Professor Waiser itemized the various processes that have been pursued over the past years in trying to get Statistics Canada to turn the 1906 census data over to the National Archives. Some of his arguments included that not everyone had letters, and diaries; his historical and archival colleagues have found no evidence of a promise from Prime Minister Laurier in 1906 promising perpetual confidentiality; and noted that westerners are being denied access to the specifically western 1906 census, which was taken 1 year after Saskatchewan and Alberta were admitted to confederation. He stated that the 1906 western status is comparable in historical importance to the first census in Canada taken by Jean Talon in 1666. The last legal opinion on the release of the post-1901 census data was issued August 1, 2000. In that legal opinion, Ann Chaplin (Sr. Counsel, Department of Justice) stated that there was no legal ruling preventing the release. In fact, Statistics Canada is breaking the law by not obeying the National Archives Act and turning the 1906 census data over to the National Archivist.

Celeste Rider, represented SGS, although she listed herself as a private citizen, did a good presentation as well. Celeste noted that Statistics Canada refuses to heed the results of the expert panel (whom Statistics Canada convened), who recommended that the 1906 and 1911 census data be released. Other points she made included that Canada usually follows similar policies to Britain, and the U.S. - why not on this issue. The U.S. follows a 72 year release cycle, and Britain a 100 year release cycle, and there has never been a complaint raised. Celeste stated clearly that the proposed compromise solution was unworkable, and that the cost to administer it would be exorbitant to the taxpayer. One of Celeste's emotionally evocative points to the Saskatchewan audience was, the denial to Western Canadians of the same right to access census data on their ancestors as Eastern Canadians have had for decades, is one more act of alienating the West of Canada from the East.

Amongst my arguments for releasing the post-1901 census records was that in the past, there has been no problem regarding the release of census data after 92 years. I also pointed out that it is only recently that genetic research has become feasible, and that the science needs to be complemented by anecdotal, historical, and family data - and the census is one of the tools for connecting immediate and collateral family lines. Between 1900 and 1920 approximately 3.3 million immigrants came to this country, many of them to the western provinces, and it is from the census that we will get a historical snapshot of the tremendous changes to the Canadian demographic landscape. I also pointed out that unlike many countries, Canada has not had vital records destroyed in warfare, and many will be unable to locate family information and records in their countries of ethnic origins, because not only have the records ceased to exist - but so have the countries. February is designated as Heritage month in Canada, but how can we celebrate our heritage when we are blocked from discovering it.

The other two presenters, Ken Svenson and Mike Bartolf, were private citizens who used their own personal genealogy research as an example of using census data. They both referred to Senator Lorna Milne's Bill S-12. They also pointed out that Canada's history is made up of the lives of ordinary people, whose only written record of their life if often census data. Ken stated that a greater concern was the misuse government made of information than what an average individual would learn or do with census data that is decades old. Mike also asked if the census data is sealed away from research, what other records will follow - and then one asks for whose benefit are the records made, if not the actual citizens of Canada.

With the extra time left, a few others got up to make some points - including Bev Weston, Lynda Andrew, and a research scientist. The research scientist pointed out that secret wartime documents have been released, and even posted on the Internet. He also underlined that much more sensitive information was easily accessible from other sources, including information on mortgages and foreclosures, as well as wartime secrets and Cabinet documents. Another point made by a couple of the presenters was that they spoke to 90+ year old relatives, who were included in the 1906 and 1911 censuses, and they indicated pleasure in the idea of their descendants and others in learning about their lives via those particular censuses and those which they felt should be released in the future. In the evening, there were no presenters scheduled, and individuals got up without prepared presentations to make various points. Cliff Rusk asked where was the written proof that any type of promise was actually delivered to any 1906 or 1911 census participant by an enumerator, and it would be as impossible to produce an actual enumerator from that time period to verify Statistic's Canada's claim of a promise of confidentiality. He also pointed out that his family name has been in North America since the 1600s, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't need access to more modern records to verify connections and to develop the story of his family. Bev Weston pointed out that church records do not exist for many who belonged to non-conformist religious groups and of many who did not attend a church. Another gentleman spoke on the need for accessing the medical history available in census records. I spoke again without notes, and mentioned that we are debating an access issue that was not something that either the post-1901 participants, enumerators, or government officials expected to be an issue when individuals had already been viewing previous census records then on a reasonable time-delayed basis to protect contemporary privacy. I also stated that it is not reasonable to expect that all issues, ideologies, or even laws and government practices from a previous time, such as 1906, can be applied to all issues today - if it were the case, I would have no legal right to be at the town hall meeting stating my opinion as a woman.

Every presenter was asked their opinion of the "compromise". The moderator appeared to refer to questions in a binder that he was supposed to ask. Some of these seemed to have twists in them, that could lead an incautious person to answer in such a manner, that they could be perceived to be answering against the release of census data. Fortunately, all the participants were of a suspicious nature and carefully watched their wording in all answers. While presenters and audience appeared to be hostile towards Statistics Canada, particularly Mr. Fellegi and calling for his retirement, the general atmosphere and behaviour of everyone - including Environics Staff was congenial. Post the evening session the Environics Staff stated clearly that their reporting was to be unbiased and that any questions they asked that might appear to be from the Statistics Canada viewpoint, were only to ensure that all aspects of the issue were addressed. They also stated that their own personal honour, professional integrity, and the reputation of Environics, demanded that they report exactly what they heard - whether or not, it was what Statistics Canada wanted to hear.

Regards,

Michelle Rusk

Good Afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my personal reasons FOR transferring the Post 1901 Census Records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives; and for the National Archives to make these publicly accessible on the same 92 year rotation as has been so successfully done in the past.

I have spent considerable time reviewing documents and the opinions of those for and against the release of the post-1901 Census data. I have done a lot of soul searching regarding my own views on Personal Privacy and on the importance of Access to Information. I believe that government departments are responsible for maintaining the privacy of its contemporary citizens. I also believe that government departments are our most centralized source for compiling and ultimately reviewing the history of the citizens of this country and its governing bodies. That information is not collected to justify the existence of any particular department, but is information about the citizens of this country and to expect access to this data under reasonable restrictions should be an accepted fact. The 92-year rule regarding the release of census data has effectively limited the release of personal data to contemporaries, and yet has fulfilled the requirement of maintaining historical records to be accessed by Canadian citizens as they find it necessary.

Researching census records is not something that an individual randomly chooses to do out of boredom or for an expected cheap thrill. The census records that have been released on microfilm can be difficult to read. It is not a particularly pleasurable activity that one spends unnecessary time doing. Privacy advocates regarding the use of 92-year-old census data indicate a concern that the information may be used for potentially immoral or illegal purposes. These individuals have obviously never spent innumerable hours just trying to find information on a specific individual to whom you are related and have a reasonable suspicion of where to look. Despite the actual limitations in using census records, they are an invaluable source of information for a variety of reasons.

Access to post-1901 census information would be valued for genealogical, historical, and medical research. It is only in recent years that genetic research has truly become feasible. The science needs to be complemented by anecdotal, historical, and family data. For some, the only family data will be that which is found in the census information. Locating other family members of the past, and possibly finding connections to relatives in the present, is often only available by searching the past census records. I have been subjected to batteries of tests and changing diagnoses over the past years. The primary fact is that all the diagnoses lead to diseases that appear to have genetic factors. All are diseases that can profoundly change your life. The likelihood of a concrete diagnosis and the correct treatment of the underlying illness may be dependent upon my locating census records for family who are by now deceased, and leads to finding living relatives who could share information with me. In particular, the censuses from 1871 through 1911 specifically asked questions regarding infirmities. I am attempting a pro-active approach to my medical situation, and hoping to find the answers that will assist the next generation in not having to face the same situation.

I believe that Professor Waiser will state or has already stated the historical reasons for access to the Post-1901 census records. At the risk of redundancy, I want to point out that there were approximately 1.8 million immigrants between 1900 and 1910, and that the next decade saw another 1.5 million immigrants to this country. The first two decades of the 20th century saw the creation of three western provinces, and to them came an unprecedented population growth. In particular, the 1906 prairie census was mandated in order to take a historical snapshot of the tremendous change to the Canadian demographic landscape. Most of the individuals included in the census would never have expected that facts they gave regarding their ordinary lives would have such historical and social significance.

Canada has a 335-year census history. It is sad to think that in the earliest days of the 21st century, at time of information explosion and multiple means of preserving data that Statistics Canada and the previous Privacy Commissioner would wish to lock up and preferably destroy the census records. For the first half of the 20th century, the Canadian census records are amongst the most likely sources of information on many families. Canada, unlike most of the world, has not had vital records destroyed in warfare. Many will be unable to locate family information and records in their countries of ethnic origin, because not only have the records ceased to exist - but so have the countries. The census information that their families provided in this country will be their most valuable resource. We are coming up on February 2002 - the Heritage month. How can we celebrate our heritage when we are blocked from discovering it?

I would also like to address the issue of the so-called promise of confidentiality that Statistics Canada claimed was made to 1906 and 1911 census respondents. As has been referred to at previous town hall meetings, no one has seen a specific promise made to the citizens of Canada in 1906 and 1911 regarding perpetual secrecy. The last legal opinion was that the instructions were to the enumerators and census employees to ensure that they did not reveal any information to their contemporaries. I do not think that there was any consideration at the time as to whether or not the use of phrases meant to pacify nervous respondents would be considered promises made by a government to them for perpetuity. Promises from any level of the government are generally deemed by the citizenry to only be as good as the interpretation of current circumstances and how convenient adherence is for the members of that government. We need only look to the original Income Tax Act that was to only be implemented as a short-term measure, or to the ongoing collection of the GST.

Another issue is the suggestion of a compromise that would limit access to the census records to immediate family members or to historians who had been through a review process to prove their reason for wanting access. Personally, I view it as a compromise that is fraught with opportunities for additional bureaucratic roadblocks, and confusion. Often there would be difficulty proving an actual family connection, particularly as there are times when the census data is the proof. My father was an only child whose mother died when he was four. His father did not remarry and occasionally left him with his childless siblings. For over 60 years, the connection to his mother's family was lost. The release of the 1891 census in 1983 gave my father's maternal cousin - an amateur genealogist - the vital connection he needed to positively identify both my father and himself. If the 1891 census had been only available to viewing by an immediate family member, my father would have never had the opportunity to meet family before he died. In fact, my activity in genealogy began just after his death, when I couldn't answer specific ancestral birth information for the undertaker. It is ironic that I am here presenting arguments for viewing an old census, when the last thing my father ever did was to mail his census form on May 14th 1996, then return home and die. The same 1996 census records, which according to the presentation to the expert panel by Dr. Ivan Fellegi of Statistics Canada, were approved for destruction by the 1995 National Archivist and scheduled to be destroyed in July 2000.

The 1901 English & Welsh census has been released online after a 100-year interval, and the U.S. 1930 census is about to be released on a 72-year interval. From documentation I reviewed, there has not been a complaint registered by a census respondent in either those countries or ours regarding their information being made publicly accessible. From the Statistics Canada web site, life expectancy of the average Canadian in 1990 was 72 years. The standard for the release of vital statistics documentation, and military records is 20 years after death. The current rotation of 92 years readily fulfills a reasonable expectation of contemporary privacy. It is of interest to note that on their site, the life expectancy of someone born between 1920 and 1922 was only 59.37 years. It is doubtful that any information contained on the 1906 census would raise an objection from many respondents who may still be living, or in all probability, their descendants. Historians and genealogists, and medical researchers all adhere to codes of ethics regarding the use of information gathered from various sources and media. For example, the code of ethics for the Saskatchewan Genealogical Society contains some of the following points regarding confidentiality:

At all times the researcher will respect the fundamental rights of citizens, more particularly to the right to privacy.
The researcher will show discretion and judgment in the communication, publication, and distribution of the information collected.
The researcher will avoid relaying information, which could be detrimental to a third party.

This is also an issue regarding our government ignoring recommendations by an expert panel, justice department representatives, privacy representatives, and the people who have already been participants of focus groups - all because government employees of a department do not like that the public opinion and the National Archivist's opinion is contrary to their own. It has also been disturbing to see the responses of elected officials regurgitating a departments' "official line," while not discovering for themselves the opinion of Canadian citizens who they are to represent. Our government recently enacted rigid "security policies" for our "well-being" without a sunset clause - meaning that if all legislation or "promises" made by the Canadian Government are to be held in perpetuity - we will never see the return to a society with complete freedom of civil liberties. All governments, at least those that continue to evolve, have changes in policy and legislation to reflect the present needs and requirements of its citizenry. The citizens are responsible for ensuring that changes are for legitimate reasons. We are asking that legislation be passed that will allow for the implementation of access to the Post 1901-census records with the reasonable restriction of a 92-year waiting period.

Statistics Canada has worked to obtain an exemplary reputation as an accurate statistical organization. In fact, it is precisely because of the caliber of the census material collected, that it is so desired by researchers. Dr. Ivan Fellegi, the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada, has stated that he believes that the release of the Post 1901 census records will deter Canadian citizens from cooperating in future censuses. He has refused to turn the records over to the National Archivist to determine the records status in terms of historical significance or public access. The minimal publicity and reluctance of Statistics Canada to present this issue to the Canadian public seems contrary to their argument against the release of this census data. Based upon Dr. Fellegi's supposition, one would think that publicity would be in their favour, as supposedly the public would side with Statistics Canada. However, focus groups and surveys have not shown this to be the case.

Statistics Canada is doing more to damage its reputation nationally and internationally with this continues stonewalling than the release of nearly century old census data could ever do. The department would have been better served publicizing its purpose, and the reasons for the questions on census forms than continuously spending taxpayers' money trying to find some form of public response that coincides with its position on the release of Post 1901 census data. The endless cycle of polling for opinions must stop. This matter must be acknowledged by our legislators who should be completely informed on this issue - both sides - and enact legislation. It will be up to Dr. Fellegi and Statistics Canada to comply with that legislation.

Freedom of reasonable access to information - particularly that which is compiled by the government about its populace - is vital to the freedom of a nation. It is within a climate of total secrecy that despotism is bred.

Michelle Rusk

Post 1901 Census Project Site Sponsored by: