Observations reçues par le Groupe d'étude

Soumission complète

(Soumis en anglais seulement.)

Auteur : G. John Garner
Envoyé : Saturday, March 17, 2001

Gentlemen:
I understand that your Task Force is currently reviewing the Freedom of Information Act.

I am concerned about the use of Schedule II of the Act by Statistics Canada to prevent access to the various census records that would be useful in my genealogical research.

There is no logical reason why the old census records should be blocked forever. Others I understand have suggested that a 92 year moratorium is sufficient. In my opinion, even 92 years is excessive. Why should I be prevented from looking at a valuable historical reference document that relates to my ancestors and relatives for any length of time as long as I can demonstrate that in fact they are my relatives and/or I am a legitimate researcher?

Anyone who has used such data will tell you that most of the information is highly dated in terms of its usefulness anyway, and that the effort required to root out the information demands an extremely motivated researcher to make the necessary efforts. About the only person who gets much value from the records is a family member or an historian. For the marketing boogiemen that everyone seems so concerned about, even 25 year old data is practically useless.

The major concern seems to be the birth date data. But as one senior said to me recently "I don't understand why some people are so secretive about their birth date. Since I reached 75, I brag about it, yell it from the roof top, not hide it!"

I would suggest that the following makes some sense. Access to the census records should be permitted to legitimate family members or a suitably empowered researcher, within 40 years. I can see some reason why the specific birth dates might be blocked for anyone under 65, but there is no reason why the names should be hidden.

This is an important issue to me. In my case, I have decided not to provide any further census information to Statistics Canada until such time as these provisions are changed. Indeed, I am actively encouraging others to take the same step. And I do understand the legal implications of that stance.

I believe that the government collects far too much information on me as it is, but frankly some recent experiences demonstrates what a terrible job it does with that information. For example, I was transferred by a previous employer to the US in late 1988, my family and I moved, and we returned to Canada in 1994. The Alberta government recently granted energy rebates that were based on residency for the 1999 tax year, and we never received ours. An inquiry lead to the discovery that:

• One of my sons never left the country with the rest of the family;
• We as a family had never returned to Canada;
• My current address was incorrect and had been for three years;
• We had filed tax returns in all of the appropriate years (although one of mine was missing); and
• My social insurance number didn't exist although I had filed income tax returns from about 1970 onwards.

I have never seen such incompetence.

It's time for some logic to enter this whole debate. The brutal reality is that most of the information that is being denied to people is cover-ups of incompetence or failures to do what was reasonable in the first place.

Yours truly,

G. John Garner

Observations reçues par le Groupe d'étude