ALBERTA-L Archives

From: Darlene Homme <>
Subject: [ALBERTA] Post 1901 census update
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:48:01 -0700

Census updates will be posted once per week to keep those who are
interested up to date. Attached are the postings for this week. Thanks,
--
Darlene Homme
Alberta GenWeb Provincial Co-ordinator
http://users.rootsweb.com/~canab/index.html
Personal Genealogy Web Site - The Homme Genealogy Page
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~alberta/

>We now have two (2) SENATE petitions for Canadians, one in
England and one in French language.
I have attachments and will be happy to forward.

Muriel M. Davidson <>


FYI. Taken from House of Commons Hansard for 15 November 1999
Excerpt from Senator Murray speaking again about Bill C-6
- --------------------------------

In the course of my speech on November 4, I also opened a parenthesis
concerning the confidentially of census data. That matter was raised
earlier today during Senators' Statements by our colleague Senator
Milne.

I referred to the campaign presently underway which would change the
law brought in by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that guaranteed the
confidentiality of personal and private information collected in the
course of the census. At that time, I expressed my opposition to a
change in that law as a matter of principle. Since that time, I have
had a number of indignant - indeed, in some cases irate - letters from
various people, notably those interested in genealogy. These people
represented to me that adequate safeguards could be devised if we
would but change the law. My response to them has been and is: Show me
the safeguards and we will consider them, if and when Parliament is
asked to change that law. However, on the general principle, I am
unmoved. I believe that personal and private information collected
from individuals by the government in the course of a census on the
basis of a law that guarantees confidentiality should be kept
confidential. I believe, as a matter of principle, that we should not
lightly change that law. After all, census-taking over the years has
become more and more intrusive, and just because people die does not
mean that the government should be relieved of the commitment of
confidentiality it made to those people.

That is my opinion, honourable senators. In places like the Senate, we
should be on guard against the apparent attempts by some historians,
social scientists and journalists to persuade us that the right to
collect and disseminate information should trump every other right in
the book. That is why I have advocated that we revisit the idea of
entrenching a right to privacy in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.

I cheerfully acknowledge that what we have here is a conflict or a
clash between two legitimate principles, one having to do with access
to information and the other having to do with privacy. As in any
similar conflict of principles, one must try to strike a balance. This
clash of principles or of values is also apparent in the bill that is
before the house today.
- ------------------------------------------

Gordon A. WATTS
Port Coquitlam, BC
ICQ # 9183352

Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at
http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index.htm
Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petiton now from
http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm
Subscribe to the CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN mail list at



Through my research of the various statutes etc. relating to
collection of Census since 1906 it is my opinion that the "promise of
confidentiality in perpetuity" touted by Statistics Canada and Privacy
Commissioner Bruce Phillips does not exist. I copy below a letter
that I have sent to Mr. Phillips. So far I have not received and
answer. I sent a similar letter, with appropriate changes in wording,
to Senator Lowell Murray.

My apologies for the length of this post. This post has been sent to
the British Columbia, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L,
Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Roots-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L
mail lists. Feel free to forward it to other list to which you
belong.

Gordon A. WATTS
- -----------------------------------------------------------

22 November 1999

Mr. Bruce Phillips

Privacy Commissioner

As one of those leading the campaign to obtain release of Post 1901
Census records to the public, I have been concerned with statements in
the press attributed to you in opposing the release to the Public of
Post 1901 Census records. You have been quoted as stating

"The issue here is privacy. It's having control of your own
information - and not having people with a vested interest in getting
into your personal information, without your consent, deciding what
the rules are."

I submit to you, Sir, that information in Census relating to my
ancestors belongs to me, and to my brothers, sisters, cousins, Aunts,
Uncles, and every other relative that I have. This information belongs
to me by right of inheritance. It belongs to me by right of the taxes
my ancestors paid to have the Census collected. If wishing to know the
names, birth dates and places, relationships, places of residence,
living conditions, religion, country of origin, time of immigration,
etc. of my ancestors causes me to have a vested interest, then I plead
guilty.

As things stand today, I do not have control of my information - you
do! I am not deciding what the rules are - you are! You are deciding
those rules on the basis of a misinterpretation of 93 year old
legislation.

You have been further quoted as stating

"People who give information to the government under penalty of law on
an unqualified promise of confidentiality are entitled to expect that
that trust will be honoured."

Statistics Canada in the past few years has produced various documents
that have made reference to a promise of confidentiality in
perpetuity. They have widely circulated a document entitled Access to
1911 and other Post-1901 Census Records. Many MPs, in responding to
letters from their constituents, have quoted much of this document
verbatim in a poor attempt to explain why Post-1901 Census records
cannot be released to the Public. This document, which I am sure that
you have seen, included the question

"Should Parliament declare, in effect, as invalid the explicit
guarantee of indefinite confidentiality that was promised to Canadians
when the data were collected?"

I have spent considerable time in researching and studying various
statutes, proclamations, Instructions to enumerators, etc. from the
early part of the century to the present day. I believe that I have
studied most of the legislation and documentation relevant to
collection of Census since 1906. Have you? Or have you taken at face
value what Statistics Canada has been saying about promises and
guarantees?

Nowhere in my research have I found any reference to a promise of
confidentiality in perpetuity or of an explicit guarantee of
indefinite confidentiality. There are of course, clauses referring to
confidentiality. These clauses are written in the present tense and
contain no reference to any time frame. I feel that if legislators of
the day intended that Census records would never, ever be released,
they would have included wording that would make that intent very
clear.

With the exception of the Privacy Act, I found no clauses that allow
transfer of Census records to the National Archives. More to the
point, I found no clauses that would prohibit that transfer. There is
simply silence in reference to any time frame for confidentiality, or
for transfer of Census records to the National Archives.

In my limited experience with the law it has been my understanding
that when one statute is silent regarding a particular issue while
another statute is not, the statute that is not silent would govern.
The Privacy Act provides for transfer of Census records to the
National Archives 92 years after collection. As the Census Act, in it'
s various incarnations, has been silent regarding transfer of Census
records to the National Archives, the provisions for transfer in the
Privacy Act should prevail.

The citizens of Canada are of course entitled to their privacy. I
would suggest however that they are concerned about that privacy in
the present time, not 92 years down the road. Much has been said about
striking a balance between privacy and access to information. In your
letter to the Chief Statistician of Canada (11 January 1999) you
referred to certain proposals to amend the Statistics Act to allow for
the transfer of identifiable census returns to the National Archives.
Your letter stated

"It will come as no surprise to you that this Privacy Commissioner has
not been persuaded that it represents an acceptable balance between
the preservation of individuals' privacy rights and the interests of
researchers and genealogists."

Mr. Phillips, you appear not to believe in any such balance as your
public position advocates total secrecy of Census records for ever and
a day. If this is your idea of balance I would not wish to be on the
end of your teeter-totter. Our legislators at some point obviously
thought that 92 years was sufficient to protect the privacy of
respondents to Census. Otherwise, they would not have included a
clause in the Privacy Act that allowed transfer of Census records to
the National Archives 92 years after collection

Our research has found no indication that respondents concern about
privacy in Census had to do with descendants seeking information on
family 92 years down the road. All indications are that concerns had
to do with a distrust of the government and a fear that information
from Census may be cross-indexed by other government departments. This
is borne out by the inclusion of a statement in Instructions to
Officers, Commissioners and Enumerators for the censuses of both 1906
and 1911 that

"The facts and statistics of the Census may not be used except for
statistical compilations, and positive assurance should be given on
this point if a fear is entertained by any person that they may be
used for taxation or any other object."

An article in the Calgary Herald of 26 May 1931 elaborated on this by
stating that information from Census would

"have nothing to do with taxation, military service, school
attendance, the regulation of immigration, or the enforcement of any
law."

Mr. Phillips, in your 18 February 1999 report to the Senate, you
responded to questions from Senator Kinsella. You indicated that the
greatest number of complaints received by your department had to do
with data matching (cross indexing) of information between government
departments. Most notable were those between Human Resources
Development Canada (671 privacy complaints) and Revenue Canada (356
privacy complaints). You indicated these were related to one
particular issue. That issue had to do with data matching between
Revenue Canada and HRDC in order to find people who were out of the
country while receiving unemployment insurance benefits. It would
appear that even today, distrust of government, and fear of cross
indexing of information between government departments has been
justified.

Nowhere in your report to the Senate, or in your Annual Report, did
you indicate that you had received a single complaint regarding
release of individual identifiable information from Census 92 years
after collection. Responding to specific questions regarding release
of individual identifiable information from Census Reports, both
Louise Desramaux of Statistics Canada, and Marta Khan of the National
Archives indicated these departments had never received a single
complaint of this nature. I would suggest that more than 98 years with
no complaints regarding release of individual information from Census
is a pretty good record.

Relating to the purported promise or guarantee of confidentiality
forever, some weeks ago I asked Statistics Canada to provide me with
information as to where this promise appeared, how it was worded, and
how this promise was conveyed to respondents of Census. Specifically I
asked

"In regards to Census taken from 1906 to the present I wish to know:

Specifically what clauses of what Acts spell out this never ending
promise?

The form (wording) of said promise of confidentiality in perpetuity.

The specific means by which respondents were advised that said
confidentiality would be forever. If possible I would like copies of
such advice or references to where they might be found."

Statistics Canada, while very co-operative, to date has been unable to
provide specific answers to my specific questions as above. As you
appear to have based your position re: release of Post 1901 Census
records upon this promise I would ask of you the same questions I have
asked of Statistics Canada. Show me the promise.

It is my considered opinion, and I submit to you Sir, that this
promise of confidentiality in perpetuity does not exist except in the
minds of those who wish it to be. A promise that was never made cannot
be broken. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I say again, show
me the promise.

Thank you.

Gordon A. WATTS

cc. Lorna Milne, Senator
Rosemary MacLellan, Senator
Murray Calder, MP

This thread:

• [ALBERTA] Post 1901 census update by Darlene Homme <>