| Name: | Joan Fraser |
| Political Party: | Liberal |
| Province: | Québec |
| Senatorial Division: | De Lorimier |
| Telephone: | (613) 943-9556 |
| Fax: | (613) |
| Email: | frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca |
| Website: |
| Address: | Senate of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OA4 |
05/06/2003 - letter from Senator Joan Fraser to Muriel M. Davidson.
May 6, 2003 Mrs. Muriel Davidson Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee 25 Crestview Avenue Brampton, Ontario L6W 2R8 Dear Mrs. Davidson: Thank you for your letter regarding Bill S-13. I am sympathetic to your position. I was at the meeting where the Social Affairs committee reviewed the bill clause-by-clause. Indeed, I would have supported amendments in committee, but was outvoted. This being said, Senator Milne's third reading speech in the Senate Chamber on April 30th really impressed upon me that perhaps the bill was best left as it was. She told Senators about Senator Lowell Murray's characterization of the bill as being a delicately framed balance that should not be disturbed. Just listening to the questions and comments following her speech made me realize just how divisive this issue still is. As there is no clear concensus on the release of census data versus the right to privacy, I believe that the balance achieved allows both sides to go away winners. And I don't think that's so bad. Thank you again for writing. I would note that your fight does not end in the Senate. The bill will move on to the House of Commons, where you will have the opportunity once again to influence the lawmakers. I wish you luck with your work in this matter. Sincerely, Senator Joan Fraser 05/-6/2003 - email from Senator Joan Fraser to Norma Brown.
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:38:15 -0400 To: "Norma Brown" Subject: RE: Amend Bill S-13 May 6, 2003 Mrs. Norma Brown Nepean, Ontario Dear Mrs. Brown: Thank you for your letter regarding Bill S-13. I am sympathetic to your position. I was at the meeting where the Social Affairs committee reviewed the bill clause-by-clause. Indeed, I would have supported amendments in committee, but was outvoted. This being said, Senator Milne¹s third reading speech in the Senate Chamber on April 30th really impressed upon me that perhaps the bill was best left as it was. She told Senators about Senator Lowell Murray¹s characterization of the bill as being a delicately framed balance that should not be disturbed. Just listening to the questions and comments following her speech made me realize just how divisive this issue still is. As there is no clear consensus on the release of census data versus the right to privacy, I believe that the balance achieved allows both sides to go away winners. And I don¹t think that¹s so bad. Thank you again for writing. I would note that your fight does not end in the Senate. The bill will move on to the House of Commons, where you will have the opportunity once again to influence the lawmakers. I wish you luck with your work in this matter. Sincerely, Senator Joan Fraser -----Original Message----- From: Norma Brown [mailto:browndm@sympatico.ca] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 9:41 AM To: Fraser, Joan: SEN Subject: Amend Bill S-13 Dear Senator: Re Bill S-13 I know that shortly after the Senate resumes its sittings, Bill S-13 will come up for Third Reading. The census is the record of the ordinary people who make up Canada. It should include everyone and should be a respected research tool for people around the world and at home who want to study the growth of Canada. Very few of us will ever be known to future generations except through the census. It could well be the only document that will prove our relationship to others and might be essential in legal matters. In the year 2098 it will be too late to decide that a huge mistake was made with the wording of Bill S-13. Completing a census return is an obligation with penalties for failure to complete. All Canadians should be prepared to stand up and be counted! At the present time part of the proposed Bill S-13 reads as follows: (8) The information contained in the returns of any census of population taken in 2006 or later may, starting ninety-two years after the census is taken, be examined by anyone if the person to whom the information relates had, at the time of the census, given their consent to disclosure of that information. When the Senate resumes its sittings I ask you to ensure that there is a debate to amend the Bill, preferably by eliminating Clause 8. Its present wording allows people to declare if they want their information to be made public. This option opens the door to an emasculated historical census for future generations to study and research. When the 2006 census is opened to the public for research in 2098, the composition of cities, towns and villages will be badly skewed if people have been given the privilege of choosing not to have their information made public. No statistician worth his pay would want to work with such information! Clause 8 is being called the "informed consent" clause. I think it is trampling on the rights of a large number of Canadians. Are the rights of people in the following situations being ignored? ----Who checks the "informed consent" box for the children in the family? ----Who is looking out for the rights of the 1-day-old child in the family? ----Will the child who did not sign on its own behalf be given the option at a future date of declaring its own "informed consent"? Or will that child be denied its right to have its name and information appear in the future record of the citizens of Canada? ----Does the person with whom a minor is spending the census night have the right to sign the "informed consent" agreement for that child? ----Do the people in hospitals, who are cognitively impaired, lose their right to have their descendants know that dementia was in the family or might they cease to exist because an administrator chose to make their records private? For many of these people the nursing home or hospital is their permanent address. ----Does the person who has been injured in a car accident and is in a coma on census night lose his opportunity to give "informed consent"? For any of the above people -- and there are many more similar situations that can be imagined -- clause 8 is a disaster and should be eliminated from the bill. Or at the very least it should be an "opt-out" rather than an "opt-in" clause. I believe it is the obligation of the Government of Canada, through Statistics Canada, to have as complete a picture as possible of Canada. If there must be a choice then make it an "opt-out" choice, i.e. declare to keep one's information private. Another section of Bill S-13 that should be amended, or eliminated, is the one which is loosely described as "The Undertaking". So far we only been given a verbal understanding for what this agreement will say. The restrictions being placed on the use of the information in the 1911 and 1916 census returns can surely serve no meaningful or practical purpose. Who is going to police this restriction? If it can't be policed then what purpose does it serve? Why is it being made into law? Since the 1906 and 1911 and 1916 census were all conducted under the same act why should 1911 and 1916 be singled out for special attentions? This "Undertaking" deserves to have an undertaker bury it. Thank you for your time. Norma Brown Nepean, ON 09/29/2001 - email to Senator Joan Fraser from Marg MacDonald.
Dear Ms. Fraser: Thank you very much for your "YES" support regarding the release of the 1906 and subsequent Census records to the public. As a Canadian citizen, I strongly support the release of these documents after the required length of time. I have been researching my families' roots for many years. Without such records as the Census' being available for all to review, it makes the search very difficult, if not impossible. These particular census are especially vital to my research and I'm sure to many others, since huge numbers of our forefathers immigrated during this period. Once again than you for your efforts on our behalf, and I know that I speak not only for myself but for my colleagues as well. Sincerely, Marge MacDonald Maple Ridge, B.C. 08/15/2001 - letter from Senator Joan Fraser to Gordon A. Watts.
Mr. Gordon A. Watts 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, B.C. V3C 2V9 Dear Mr. Watts: Thank you for writing about the availability of Census data. I remember having corresponded with you on this very topic last year. As you know, I have spoken in favour of making census data available to the public in the Senate Chamber on May 4th, 2000. I plan to support Senator Milne's bill. It was nice to hear from you again. Sincerely, Senator Joan Fraser 05/04/2000 - The following extract was taken from Hansard Records of Canada's Senate. Senator Fraser speaks to Senator Milne's Bill S-15. Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 2nd Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 138, Issue 52 Thursday, May 4, 2000 The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore Statistics Act -- National Archives of Canada Act Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, for the second reading of Bill S-15, to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census records).-(Honourable Senator LeBreton). Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I should like to say a few words about Bill S-15, if you will bear with me. I shall bear in mind that the hour is late. I should like first to congratulate Senator Milne for her indefatigable work in this valuable cause. When she began with an inquiry in the last session of Parliament, I think some of us thought that she was talking about something fairly obscure, something that was of interest to a few Canadians, but not really of general importance. Now we know better. This bill addresses what threatens to create a serious gap in Canada's historical record - the policy of Statistics Canada that individual census records from all censuses from 1911 on must remain secret in perpetuity. Statistics Canada believes that this policy is grounded in law and in a promise made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906. Given that belief, Statistics Canada is correct in refusing to make the individual census returns available to researchers, unless instructed to do otherwise by Parliament. There is room for some argument about whether Statistics Canada's belief is correct. I was particularly interested to read a brief by Gordon A. Watts, of Port Coquitlam, B.C., that was submitted to the Minister of Industry's expert panel on the release of historic census records. Mr. Watts has done a careful search of all the parliamentary debates in 1905 and 1906 relating to statistics and the census. He has been unable to discover any place where Sir Wilfrid in fact made this famous promise to Canadians. Indeed, Mr. Watts says there was no debate at all about privacy, confidentiality or secrecy relating to information regarding identifiable individuals - no debate at all. There was a major debate in 1905 about the new act respecting the census and statistics, but it did not, he says, touch upon secrecy. What actually happened, apparently, was that secrecy was imposed at that time not by legislation or by a prime ministerial commitment to Parliament but by regulation. The regulations were drawn up by the then minister of agriculture, Sydney Fisher and, under the terms of the act, acquired the force of law. As is so often the case now, as then, there was no debate in Parliament about these regulations. In a later revision of the actual legislation in 1918, they were incorporated into the law itself, presumably because by that time they had become accustomed to practice. Indeed, in practice, the Dominion census had been providing confidentiality for individual returns ever since Confederation, which in 1905 was still fairly recent history, well within the lifetime of most parliamentarians. However, the question of perpetuity does not seem to have been addressed, and that is what concerns us today. In fact, Mr. Watts suggests that the famous secrecy surrounding individual records may have been imposed almost by accident or, in any case, as a simple corollary to the rule that corporate records had to be protected, because companies obviously did not want their competitors to have access to details about their operations. I cannot say what Minister Fisher had in mind when these regulations were adopted. However, we can easily conclude, upon reading the instructions given to the employees of what was to become Statistics Canada, that the fundamental point was to reassure Canadians that their records could not be used by other government departments. We could not then and we cannot now use these records for income tax purposes, military service, immigration and so on. This is of course essential for any census in a free and democratic society. However, to say that we can never use these records, even generations later, for legitimate research purposes, seems to me to be going rather far, too far. Even if it is true that Parliament originally intended the records to remain secret forever, it is the job of each succeeding Parliament to reassess past policies in light of present needs. Parliament today has the right to change a decision made by Parliament in the past, even a decision made after lengthy and full debate. When the original decision in question was made by simple regulation, not debated at the time, there is even more reason to revisit it now, nearly a century later. Senator Milne's bill offers a neat solution by having Statistics Canada transfer the individual returns to the national archives, which would, 92 years after each census, then make them available for research in proper archival terms. Ninety-two years is the period that was applied for the release of individual returns in all censuses before 1911, so it has the virtue of consistency. As I suggested here last year, however, I think we should perhaps consider lengthening that term slightly, now that so many people are living well into their nineties. I think it would be appropriate to have a 100-year term or perhaps even a little more. Clearly, we do not wish to invade the privacy of persons who are still alive. The basic principle that these records should become available at some point is, in my view, indisputable. They are simply too important as historical records. They are useful for genealogists like Senator Milne, but also for historians, social scientists and even for some physical scientists such as biologists. The information they provide is literally irreplaceable, not available from other sources, or not available in this detailed, comprehensive form. Other major countries have considered this dilemma, this need to reconcile the need for privacy with the need for good historical records, and they have concluded that, after a suitable period of secrecy, the individual returns should be made available. Australia and the United States, for example, have both reached that conclusion. I believe that Canada should do likewise. The expert panel is expected to report by the end of this month. I hope it will make appropriate recommendations to end this policy of perpetual secrecy, and if it does make those recommendations, perhaps the government will act accordingly and rapidly. If not, however, Senator Milne's bill is here to ensure that the right thing will in fact be done, and I am more than pleased to support it. On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Johnson, debate adjourned. Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 1st Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 137, Issue 107 Thursday, February 4, 1999 The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker Access to Census Information Inquiry-Debate Continued On the Order: Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Milne calling the attention of the Senate to the lack of access to the 1906 and all subsequent censuses caused by an Act of Parliament adopted in 1906 under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-(Honourable Senator Johnson). Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I realize that this debate was adjourned in the name of Senator Johnson, but I would appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on this topic, on the understanding, of course, that the debate would continue to be adjourned in her name. I would thank Senator Milne for drawing this topic to our attention. We live in an information age when data of all kinds are increasingly important. Census data are among the most precious resources we have and the question of access to them merits, I believe, serious consideration by the Senate. Senator Milne gave us an excellent summary of genealogists' reasons for believing that individual census returns should continue to be available to researchers after an appropriate lapse of time. Genealogists are not the only people who use this material. Many other researchers do as well. I should like to focus particularly on the historical aspect. It is not always realized that Canada's census has a very long history indeed. The first census of New France was ordered by Louis XIV and conducted by Jean Talon in 1666. You may be interested to know that at that time the population of settlers in New France totalled 3,215. The following year, they did a census of livestock, but I am afraid I do not know how many cows and pigs they found. Throughout the French regime, periodic censuses were taken. The British regime was less assiduous in collecting such data, but censuses did continue to be taken on an increasingly regular basis and the results have been a vital resource for historians. Section 8 of the British North America Act specifically instructs the federal government to conduct a decennial census. Accordingly, the first post-confederation census was taken in 1871 and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, now Statistics Canada, was established early in this century. It has gained an enviable reputation around the world for the quality and rigor of its work. We can all understand why the initial policy was adopted in 1906 to ban access to individual returns that would be completed from that time on. The policy met two goals: It ensured that private information would remain private, and that, in turn, helped to ensure that people would tell the truth on their census returns. Since a census is useful only if its results are accurate, this was and is important. Until now, researchers had no particular need to be concerned because they did have access to returns completed before 1906, after a period of 92 years had elapsed. Now, however, it is 93 years since the blanket ban of 1906. If the policy is not changed, researchers will be forever excluded from examining this important material. It seems to me that we simply must find a way to reconcile once again the tension between the need for individuals to preserve their privacy and the need for researchers to have access to important data. Canada is not the only country to have faced this dilemma. In Australia, a parliamentary committee has thoroughly examined the same question. It received 291 submissions and reported to the House of Representatives last year. I think we can learn something from its experience. The Australian committee found the same tensions between competing interests that we face now in Canada. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, like Statistics Canada, was most concerned with ensuring that citizens would feel complete trust that their returns would remain completely private. Indeed, the Australian authorities, unlike Statistics Canada, actually destroy the individual returns. However, other groups and institutions, including the Australian national archives, argued that it was possible to reconcile that important goal of privacy with the needs of serious researchers. I would like to quote some of these witnesses as reported by the committee. A historian, Dr. Jennifer Harrison, said: The records will give us the people. History, I always say, is made up of three elements; it is made up of people and time and events, but the greatest of all these are the people. When we actually look at movements of people, it is the individual cases that give lie to the myths that have been created. It is only by looking at lots and lots of case studies and building up the actual individual experiences that we get the overall experiences. A senior political scientist, Professor Donald DeBats, told the Australian committee: The census creates the people's history because the census is the only record of the people. It is the only record in which the people - all the people - speak. A demographer told the committee how census analysis was making it possible to analyze historical issues relating to fertility decline. A geographer explained how the examination of individual census returns could contribute to studies of a wide range of questions, from the intergenerational transmission of poverty to the relationship between changes in marital status and fertility and mortality rates. Dr. Harrison, the historian, also made the vital point that, in her words: ...whereas the 19th century is quite well documented, the 20th century particularly, despite technology, will be relatively unrecorded as far as people go. Indeed, one might think that it is precisely because of technology that our century and the next one will be relatively unrecorded. In an age of cellular telephones and e-mail, we do not leave the same paper trail that our ancestors left, nor do we require public registration of some of the things that 19th century states required. Common- law marriages, for example, are now numerous and do not need to be registered, so we cannot necessarily replace census information with information gleaned from other sources. The Australian committee considered all these points of view and concluded that it would be a significant contribution toward preserving Australia's history to give researchers access to individual records after a significant period of time. It recommended allowing access after 99 years. This would be comparable to the practice in the United Kingdom which allows access after 100 years. It is my understanding that the Australian government has not yet acted and, in any case, Canada obviously should adopt a policy based on its own needs, not on those of another country. I believe that the value of our records, to historians alone, not to mention other fields of research, merit restoring the policy of allowing access to individual returns after a suitable period of time has elapsed. In an era when people live far longer than they did in the 19th century, 92 years may well be too short a period of time. Many of us know people who are still going strong at the age of 92, and certainly there should be no question of personal information about their childhood suddenly being made public. Perhaps a longer period; 100 years, or 125 years, would be suitable. It is important not only to preserve the privacy of Canadians but to preserve their trust in the census system. However, honourable senators, I cannot believe that we should seal these records forever. The parallel that to me seems irresistible is with the Doomsday Book. When William the Conqueror ordered the compilation of what he called a description of England in the 11th century, his object was not to help out future historians, he simply wanted to be sure he was getting all the tax revenue to which he was entitled. In 1086, his inquirers produced a uniquely thorough record, listing not only individual people but vital information about them, from the amount of land they owned right down to numbers of livestock and agriculture tools. The citizens were not happy, of course. Who wants to pay taxes? It was they who gave this inquiry the name Domesday Book. Historians have been feasting on the results ever since. The Domesday Book, which is actually two books, are among the most precious historical resources ever compiled. They are consulted even more often today than at some periods in the past because they give an absolutely unparalleled look at how real people actually lived at that moment 900 years ago. Honourable senators, our individual census records are better than the Domesday Book because they continue through time, through more than three centuries now. Nothing else can compare with them. The accounts of our history that are written by those who participated or observed that history as it unfolded will inevitably be shaded by writers' views of the truth, or even, dare I say, by writers' wishes to distort the truth. The census records do not lie. I find it simply inconceivable that we should close our minds to this wonderful, irreplaceable record. One of the great lessons we have learned as a society is, surely, that to move forward with constructive purpose we must look to where we have been and how we got to where we are now. We have been able to consult our past. Surely, the generations to come deserve, in turn, the right to consult their past. Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a couple of questions of the Honourable Senator Fraser. Were there particular questions that brought forth information which was regarded as not suitable for publication even after 90 or so years? Senator Fraser: Honourable senators, I am not quite sure. If one looks at the census forms, one can see that there are some questions about which one would hesitate to have the results made public. For example, there are very detailed questions about income on the long form. There are questions about the status of one's marriage. There are still people who would prefer that their children not know that their marriage is common law rather than traditional. It seems to me that after a great deal of time has passed, these records, like cabinet and royal records, lose that sensitivity and become a historical resource. Senator Stewart: Honourable senators, I suppose to some extent the answer to my question could be found by looking at the speeches that were made back in 1906 when the act was amended. Are the questions relative to marital status and income as precise as they were in 1906? Perhaps there is a distinction between the short form and the long form in this regard. Senator Fraser: I am sorry that I did not bring my copies of the forms with me. As I looked at the questions last night, however, I thought they were probably more detailed and precise now than they were in 1906. They go on at some length about income from rents, income from dividends, income from all kinds of things. I believe we ask more now than we did then. However, I believe the basic point probably remains the same. Senator Stewart: Am I correct in thinking that while on the one hand the honourable senator thinks that some of this information should remain undisclosed for a long period of time, you feel that after the expiry of that long period of time the reasons for the non-disclosure in the earlier years have lost their significance and, consequently, the information should be available? I think that is the honourable senator's position. I understand, by the way, with the help of Senator Milne, that the questions on the 1911 census are identical to those on the 1901 census, which would seem to answer my earlier question. Senator Fraser: I believe you have understood it perfectly, Senator Stewart. I would add that notions of what is extremely private or sensitive vary, as we know, from time to time and from country to country. I was interested to learn, for example, that in Australia they do not even ask a date of birth. I am not sure why. I can only assume it is because it was thought that some people would lie about it. Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I ask that the item remain adjourned in the name of Senator Johnson. On motion of Senator Carstairs, for Senator Johnson, debate adjourned. The Senate adjourned until Tuesday February 9, 1999, at 2 p.m. 07/01/2001 - letter sent to all Senators by Gordon A. Watts.
Honorable Monsieur ou Madame Salutations. Vous devez être au courant que depuis plusieurs années beaucoup de canadiens/nes veulent recouvrer l'accès au public des dossiers des recensements historiques, 92 ans après la collecte des données, comme permis selon les règlements de la Loi sur la Vie Privée. Cet accès au public des dossiers des recensements historiques après 1901 est retardé dans le moment à cause de la législation mal interprétée et des opinions légales fausses de Justice Canada qui sont les causes pour lesquelles Statistic Canada garde le contrôle de ces dossiers de l'Archiviste National. En novembre 1999, le ministre de l'Industrie d'alors, John Manley forma un comité expert afin d"étudier et de faire des recommandations concernant l'accès au public des dossiers des recensements historiques. Leur rapport a été présenté à la fin de juin 2000. Il a été finalement rendu publique, le 15 décembre 2000, à cause de la demande faite sur l'accès à l'information. Le ministre de l'Industrie actuel, Brian Tobin en libérant le rapport du Comité Expert sur l'Accès aux Recensements Historiques rejeta les recommandations a cet égard, incluses dans ce rapport, déclarant "qu'une consultation plus étendue avec tous les canadiens/nes" était requise. Il est de mon opinion que M. Tobin n'a même pas lu le Rapport du Comité Expert, et qu'il suit les directives du Chef Statisticien le Dr Ivan Fellegi, qui s'oppose à rendre public l'accès à ces dossiers. Je vous conseille vivement de lire par vous-mêmes les conclusions du Comité Expert sur l'Accès aux Dossiers des Recensements Historiques. C'est disponible en copie reliée cartonnée, ou accessible sur le site internet de Statistic Canada à l'adresse électronique suivante: http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/finalrep.htm en français http://www.statcan.ca/francais/census96/finalrep_f.htm Brièvement, le Comité Expert, trouva qu'une garantie de confidentialité à vie ne s'appliquait pas aux recensements. Ils ont compris que c'était toujours l'intention que les dossiers des recensements seraient finalement rendus publics et ils n'ont pas vu la nécessité d'avoir une législation pour le faire, comme brisant une promesse aux défendeurs. Le rapport recommanda de permettre au public l'accès à tous les recensements, passés présents et futurs, 92 ans après la collecte des données. Ils ont recommandé d'être prudents seulement concernant des mesures législatives qu'on pourrait penser être nécessaires d'affecter l'autorisation de rendre public les recensements entre 1921 et 2001. Ils ont suggéré que s'il y avait un changement législatif à faire qu'il soit fait dans la Loi des Archives Nationales plutôt que dans la Loi sur les Statistiques. Ce communiqué est envoyé à chacun des membres du Sénat du Canada afin de leur demander une réponse individuelle sur la question spécifique concernant comment vous voteriez sur un projet de Loi appuyant l'accès au public des Dossiers des Recensements Historiques. Un exemple serait le projet de Loi S-12, présenté au Sénat par l'Honorable Lorna Milne. Le projet de Loi S-12 a reçu une deuxième lecture et a été soumis au Comité. Le projet de Loi C-312, identique à S-12 a été présenté à la Chambre des Communes par le député Murray Calder. LA QUESTION: "Comme membre du Sénat du Parlement du Canada, voteriez-vous POUR ou CONTRE un projet de Loi appuyant l'accès au public, des dossiers des recensements ultérieurs à 1901, 92 ans après la collecte des données? (Les données du recensement de 1911 seraient disponibles en 2003, ceux de 1921 en 2013, etc.)" Vous pouvez visionner le site internet concernant les recensements ultérieurs à 1902 à l'adresse électronique suivante: http://globalgenealogy.com/Census Parmi d'autres choses, il contient une explication du problème, des pétitions à télécharger, des liens aux diverses soumissions du Comité Expert, des projets de Loi et des Propositions concernant les Recensements Historiques, des extraits du rapport de Hansard pour la Chambre des Communes et le Sénat, et des colonnes que j'ai écrites moi-même qui ont été publiées dans le Global Gazette -- un magazine-e publié par Global Genealogy. Le site internet contient aussi "un tableau" montrant la position des députés et des sénateurs concernant la question ci-haut mentionnée. Votre réponse ( ou votre manque de réponse) à la question sera affichée sur le tableau des sénateurs sur ce site internet. Si vous désirez faire des commentaires, ou élaborer sur votre position, un journal de bord est disponible pour chaque sénateur à partir du tableau. Le courrier adressé à vous ou de vous qui m'a été acheminé, sera inscrit dans ce journal de bord. Le site internet des recensements ultérieurs à 1901 est parrainé par "The Global Gazette" un magazine en ligne servant la communauté généalogique et héritage. Un nombre important de courriels et d'appels de souscripteurs et de visiteurs sur le site, indiquent clairement que cette question est extrêmement importante pour eux. J'attends votre réponse bientôt. Merci Sincèrement Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-président, du Comité du recensement du Canada P.S. Vous pouvez utiliser le courrier électronique si vous le désirez. Honourable Sir or Ms. Greetings. You may be aware that in the past several years a great many Canadians have been seeking to regain public access to Historic Census Records, 92 years after collection, as allowed by Regulations attached to the Privacy Act. Public access to Census Records after 1901 is currently prevented because of misinterpreted legislation and faulty legal opinions from Justice Canada that cause Statistics Canada to withhold control of these records from the National Archivist. In November of 1999, then Industry Minister John Manley commissioned a panel of experts to study and make recommendations relating to public access to Historic Census Records. Their Report was submitted at the end of June 2000. It was finally made public, because of an Access to Information Request, on 15 December 2000. Current Industry Minister Brian Tobin, on releasing the Report of the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census, rejected the recommendations contained therein, stating that “further broad based consultation with all Canadians” was required. It is the considered opinion of this writer that Mr. Tobin has likely not even read the Report of the Expert Panel, and is taking his direction from Chief Statistician Dr. Ivan Fellegi, who opposes public access to these records. I urge each of you to read for yourself the findings of the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census Records. It is available in hard copy, or accessible on the Statistics Canada website at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/finalrep.htm en français http://www.statcan.ca/francais/census96/finalrep_f.htm Briefly, the Expert Panel found that a guarantee of perpetual confidentiality was not intended to apply to the census. They felt that it had always been intended that census records would eventually become public and did not view any legislation deemed necessary to do so as breaking of a promise to respondents. The Report recommended allowing public access to all Census records, past, present and future, 92 years following collection. They advised caution only regarding any legislative steps that might be thought necessary to effect release of Census between 1921 and 2001. They suggested that any legislative change felt necessary be done in the National Archives Act rather than in the Statistics Act. This message is being sent to all Members of the Senate of Canada to ask for individual responses to a specific question regarding how you would vote on a Bill supporting public access to Historic Census Records. An example of such would be Bill S-12, presented to the Senate by the Honourable Lorna Milne. Bill S-12 has received second reading and has been referred to Committee. Bill C-312, identical to S-12, has been presented to the House of Commons by MP Murray Calder. The Question: “Would you, as a Member of the Senate of the Parliament of Canada, vote FOR or AGAINST a Bill supporting release to the Public, of Post 1901 Census Records, 92 years after they were recorded? (1911 census information available in 2003, 1921 in 2013, etc.)” A website dealing with Post 1901 Census has been posted at http://globalgenealogy.com/Census Among other things, it contains an explanation of the problem, petitions to download, links to various submissions to the Expert Panel, Bills and Motions relating to Historic Census, extracts from Hansard for the House of Commons and the Senate, and to columns written by myself that have been published in the Global Gazette -- an e-magazine published by Global Genealogy. The website also contains ‘Scoreboards’ showing the position of MPs and Senators relating to the above question. Your response (or lack thereof) to the question above will be recorded on the Senator’s Scoreboard located on this website. Should you wish to comment, or elaborate on your position, a correspondence log for each Senator is accessible from the Scoreboard. Correspondence to or from you that has been forwarded to me, will be recorded in this log. The Post 1901 Census web site is sponsored by The Global Gazette, an online magazine serving the genealogical and heritage community. A vast number of e-mails and calls from subscribers and web site visitors, clearly demonstrates that this issue is extremely important to them. I look forward to your early reply. Thank you. Sincerely, Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee |
|
|
