ONTARIO-L Archives

Archiver > ONTARIO > 2007-03 > 1173967257


From: "Francoise Seguin" <>
Subject: Re: [ONTARIO] Response to 'informed consent' in 2006 Census
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:00:57 -0400
References: <005901c765fc$d7faf2a0$6800a8c0@GORDON2><003e01c76613$653a9ba0$667ba8c0@ab.hsia.telus.net>


Good one Gary I think they did. You know it's the Government you see. All
the best Fran
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Boivin" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [ONTARIO] Response to 'informed consent' in 2006 Census


>I was amazed to find many genealogy researchers answered
> no to this question. One person told me that they responded
> NO because of the way the question was worded.
>
> Guess they (Stats Canada) hired the same writers as those
> that authored the Quebec Referendum question.
>
> BTW... One of the persons that I know that checked off NO
> is a worker at our local LDS Family Centre.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gordon A. Watts" <>
> To: "Scots-In-Canada LIST" <>; "Roots-L LIST"
> <>; "Pictouroots LIST" <>;
> "Ontario LIST" <>; "NSRoots LIST"
> <>;
> "Nova Scotia LIST" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:51 PM
> Subject: [ONTARIO] Response to 'informed consent' in 2006 Census
>
>
>> Greetings All.
>>
>> This morning (Tuesday 13 March 2007) Statistics Canada released the first
>> information from the 2006 Census of Canada. This release included
>> information relating to the response to the 'informed consent' question
>> included for the first time in the history of Canadian Censuses.
>>
>> I am not happy, either with the responses given, or the form in which
>> they
>> have been given to the public. You can see these results yourself at
>>
>> http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/infor/gen_results.cfm
>>
>> FYI, I copy below a message sent this evening to my Census contact in
>> Statistics Canada.
>>
>> Gordon A. Watts
>> Co-chair, Canada Census Committee
>> Port Coquitlam, British Columbia
>>
>> Read my column, 'Gordon Watts Reports' at
>> http://globalgenealogy.com/globalgazette/authors/authgw.htm
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> From: Gordon A. Watts
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:33 PM
>> Subject: Statistics re: informed consent in 2006 Census
>>
>>
>> Dear Dale.
>>
>> I have viewed the first results of the 2006 Census of Canada released
>> this
>
>> morning on the Statistics Canada website. I must state in the most
>> unequivocal terms possible my disappointment in the way response to the
>> so-called 'informed consent' question has been presented.
>>
>> In your email to me of 14 December 2006 you indicated that when released,
>> the response to the 92-year question would be broken down for each
>> geographic area, to those who responded YES, those who responded NO,
>> those
>> who incorrectly responded in more than one way (MULTIPLE RESPONSES), and
>> those who did not respond to the question (left it BLANK). You indicated
>> that numbers would be given for each category of response.
>>
>> In the chart shown on the Statistics Canada website, for each geographic
>> area the number of those who responded YES is given as a percentage.
> Those
>> who gave MULTIPLE RESPONSES, those who responded NO, and those who left
> the
>> response BLANK are lumped together as a single percentage. Lumping these
>> categories together fails to give a true picture of the responses to this
>> question. It also fails to consider the number of BLANK responses for
> those
>> living in 'collective dwellings' where information for the individual
> being
>> enumerated has been taken from administrative records, thus depriving the
>> individual of the ability to answer the question for themselves.
>>
>> The appearance is that someone in Statistics Canada does not wish a true
>> picture of the response to the 'informed consent' question to be made
>> public.
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me with the numbers
>> relating to responses to questions 8 and 53, broken down as per
> information
>> you provided to me in your message of 14 December 2006. While the
> language
>> of the forms completed is of little importance to me, I would appreciate
>> additional information showing the breakdown of responses to the question
> on
>> short forms and long forms, similar to that provided to me for the 2004
> Test
>> Census. If necessary, I will request such information through Access to
>> Information, but I would prefer not to have to go through that route.
>>
>> While not intended as a personal reflection upon yourself, you are aware
> it
>> is my considered opinion that Statistics Canada in general, and Dr.
> Fellegi
>> in particular, failed miserably to live up to promises made to Senate
>> Committees deliberating Bills S-13 and S-18. During those Senate
> Committee
>> hearings Dr. Fellegi committed that, as Chief Statistician of Canada, he
> and
>> Statistics Canada would promote and encourage respondents to Census to
>> answer positively to the 'informed consent' question.
>>
>> Had information from the Statistics Canada website, specifically that
> titled
>> "The 92-year question - Say yes!", been included as an insert with the
> paper
>> Census questionnaires, we might have considered the promise of Dr.
>> Fellegi
>> to have been fulfilled. As it is however, Statistics Canada receives a
> less
>> than satisfactory grade for their failure to make known to all
>> respondents
>> to Census the importance of responding positively to questions 8 and 53.
>>
>> The value of Historic Census records for genealogical and historical
>> research has been in the 'completeness' of the records. The overall
>> positive response of less than 56 percent for the 2006 Census falls far
>> short of the 90 percent plus estimate given by Dr. Fellegi to the Senate
>> Committee deliberating Bill S-18. Future research value of the 2006
> Census
>> has been destroyed by the 'informed consent' question that genealogists
> and
>> historians were forced to accept in order to regain access to Historic
>> Census records to which existing legislation already stated our
> entitlement.
>> More than 45 percent of future genealogists seeking ancestral information
>> from the 2006 Census will be out of luck. Historians will be unable to
> use
>> Census records to paint an accurate picture of the History of Canada
>> relating to 2006 and later.
>>
>> The legislation enabled by Bill S-18 provides for a review of the effect
> of
>> the 'informed consent' question after two Censuses had been conducted
> under
>> it. It may come as no surprise to you that consideration is being given
> to
>> seeking that review without waiting for the research value of another
> Census
>> to be destroyed.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
>>
>> Gordon
>
>
>
> ***********
> Search Ontario Genealogy & Resources at
> http://olivetreegenealogy.com/can/ont/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: