----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon A. Watts" <gordon_watts@telus.net> To: "Canada Census Campaign" <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:57 PM Subject: Post 1901 Census - S-18 amendments?? Greetings All. I am concerned regarding the suggestion that MP Werner Schmidt is going to move an amendment to Bill S-18 that if passed, would limit the information from Historic Census that would be allowed to be released to public access. There are a couple of things that bother me about this, not the least of which is that in my view, for Conservatives to be making such motions they would be breaking the commitments they made to us earlier in stating that public access to Historic Census records after 92 years was a policy of the Conservative party. In earlier correspondence from them, including from their leader, they stated that 92 years closure was a reasonable period after which the records should be available. It is only with their recent 'form letter' responses that they have been referring to release only of so-called 'tombstone' information. We have been dealing with this issue for a long time now. We have previously been advised that records from 1911 to 1996 have been microfilmed and there is no way to separate 'tombstone' information from the rest of the records. Considering that to be fact, we are in an 'all or nothing' situation. Prior to Bill S-18 being introduced in the Senate leaders of the Census campaign were advised, in general terms, what the Bill would contain. We were advised that the government would not consider introducing a bill that did not include the 'informed consent' clause. None of the leaders of the campaign liked, or wanted, an 'informed consent' clause for future Censuses in the Bill. However, considering that S-18, as worded, would give us *unrestricted* access to all records from 1911 to 2001 all leaders committed, albeit some (including myself) reluctantly, to support Bill S-18 without seeking amendment to remove the 'informed consent' provisions. Should the Committee reviewing Bill S-18 seriously entertain or allow motions to amend that would restrict the access allowed to past Censuses, and in fact pass such amendments, this would in my view, give us reason to reconsider our commitment to not seek amendments ourselves. I sincerely hope the Committee will reject any such motions for amendment. It is my understanding that some on the Committee suggested extending their hearings to allow for genealogists to appear, but were advised that we wished to forego appearing in order to expedite things. I would personally liked to have appeared before them, but had I sought to do so there would be no way that anything would have been settled before Parliament recessed for the Summer. In the interest of expediting the process I chose not to appear before the Committee, choosing instead to simply make a written submission -- and an abbreviated one at that. Should ANY amendments to Bill S-18 be passed or recommended by the Committee I will very much regret not seeking to appear before them. If, for any reason Bill S-18 is not passed before the Summer recess, I will be seeking to appear before the Committee. Much of the debate in the House appeared to focus on concern regarding what questions were asked on Census forms, and whether or not such questions should in fact be asked. In point of fact, many of us have similar concerns. However this has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of Bill S-18. It could very well be a topic for a future Bill, but not for debate regarding Bill S-18. A point that those debating S-18 have forgotten, or perhaps have deliberately chosen to ignore, is the fact that existing legislation, in the form of clauses of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts, and Privacy Regulations, clearly and specifically states our entitlement to the unrestricted access we seek for 92-year-old Census records. In point of fact, the access we seek has not been withheld from us because of any prohibitive legislation, or because of any direction of the government. It has been withheld simply because of a departmental 'policy' whereby control of the records would not be returned to the National Archivist - who should have had that control to begin with. Happy Hunting Gordon A. Watts gordon_watts@telus.net Co-chair, Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census en francais http://www.globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm Permission to forward without notice is granted