Mailed mine today (09 June) Lyn Duncan, White Rock, B.C.

To all -- Very possibly, Dr. Rey Pagtakhan never saw my letter to him -- it must have had grey-hair when the assistant replied on his behalf. Muriel M. Davidson [email protected] Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee ================ OTTAWA June 2, 2003 Dear Mrs. Davidson:- On behalf of the Hon. Dr. Rey D. Pagtakhan, I wish to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding Bill S-13. Please rest assured that your concerns will be given proper consideration. Thank you for taking the time to write to our office. Yours sincerely, Zeina Harb Parliamentary Assistant to Hon. Dr. Rey D. Pagtakhan, P.C., M.P. [Winnipeg North Riding] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/03

Mailed mine to-day June 9. Martyn Obbard

My ATI Request was mailed Saturday, June 7. Bob Wiffin

Mine was mailed June 3rd.. Dalcy Gripich

Mailed June 9/03

Mailed June 4th. / 03 Shirley R. Kelowna B.C. Canada

Hey there everyone: I just wanted to clear something up about how S-13 will proceed through the House of Commons. S-13 will be on the Order Paper every day from now until it is passed. However, to find out whether or not it is likely to be debated on that day, you need to consult the Projected Business section of the website. This is the link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/projected/projected-e.htm If S-13 does not appear on that page, it will not be debated on that day. It changes every day, so check each morning to get the most up to date information. S-13 will not be debated today. The whole day has been reserved for C-24. Jeff Paul Policy Advisor Office of the Hon. Lorna Milne Ph: (613) 947-9744 Cell: (613) 715-2965

my ATI Request was filled in and mailed June 02, 2003. Inez Allen [email protected]

Mailed June 5. Ron

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/orderpaper/114_2003-06-09/ordgo114-E.htm Gordon, Bill S-13 is on the order paper for Mon. June 09/03 Juanita "Gordon A. Watts" wrote: > Greetings All. > > Even though Bill S-13 - an Act to amend the Statistics Act - was on the > schedule for second debate in the House of Commons three days of this > past week, it did not happen. The projected schedule for the coming > week does not show Bill S-13 as being included. > > I stand to be corrected, but it begins to look as if no further action > on Bill S-13 will happen before Parliament recesses for the summer. If > so, this gives us more time to convince our Parliamentarians of the need > for amendments to remove the conditions and restrictions imposed by the > Bill.

Hi Juanita. While S-13 does appear on the Order paper dated Monday June 9 2003 I do not believe that indicates that it will be debated then. The reference to S-13 here indicates the date it received first reading and that at some point it has to be considered. The Orders of the Day lists items to be dealt with, and possibly the order in which they are considered, but not necessarily when they will be dealt with. The Projected Order of Business at http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/projected/projected-e.htm lists the Bills expected to be dealt with for the coming week and the day they are expected to be debated. S-13 is not listed here at all, whereas for the days last week that it was expected it would be debated, it was listed here with a notation to the effect of "Second reading (first time debated)". Some of the procedures and references on the parliament website are confusing, but this is my interpretation of what I see there. As always I am subject to correction. Happy Hunting. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "joseph macdonald" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [CCC] Post 1901 Census -- Debate of Bill S-13 http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/orderpaper/114_2003-06-09/ordgo114-E.htm Gordon, Bill S-13 is on the order paper for Mon. June 09/03 Juanita "Gordon A. Watts" wrote: > Greetings All. > > Even though Bill S-13 - an Act to amend the Statistics Act - was on the > schedule for second debate in the House of Commons three days of this > past week, it did not happen. The projected schedule for the coming > week does not show Bill S-13 as being included. > > I stand to be corrected, but it begins to look as if no further action > on Bill S-13 will happen before Parliament recesses for the summer. If > so, this gives us more time to convince our Parliamentarians of the need > for amendments to remove the conditions and restrictions imposed by the > Bill. ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== How to unsubscribe from Mail Mode. Send a message to [email protected] that contains (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text.

MY ATI request is filled in and will be mailed in the morning. Carol (tweetybird) Home page:<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~tweetybirdgenealogy/> Visit my home page for "Home Children" information and other "world wide" links plus various passenger lists. Searching : Hart, Haslip, Jackson, Stevens, Little, Budge, Chipman, Welch, Russell, Johns & Glover --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 6/5/03

Lynne:- I am so very happy to learn your search has been successfully culminated -- I know the feeling as I have assisted many others, in my own personal ways. One neighbour learned he had had eight brothers and sisters, many deceased, all British Home Children and given different surnames by census enumerators. We are so very happy for you and all members of your family. Muriel M. Davidson [email protected] Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee ----- Original Message ----- From: John A Cavanagh To: Muriel M. Davidson Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:10 AM Subject: Hello from Lynne in Australia Hello Muriel, Just a little note to tell you that our long searched for and then located "sister" has now been to Australia for a month and has returned to Canada. She has now met and bonded with her five younger siblings in Australia AND has been reunited with her other relatives from her youth (now in Scotland, England and Holland) The help and encouragement I received from "computer" friends will never be forgotten. If I had one wish now re. searching for relatives lost through adoption, divorce, family break down etc it would be that one INTERNATIONAL site could be created where the known details could be listed and that people world wide be educated to search such a list. Organisations like the Salvation Army, who were searching on our behalf, must work with very limited budgets and personel. In our case I had actually given them enough information that should have made it easy to find her but I managed to locate her before they could. Once we found her, we discovered her name (one of the possibilities we supplied) and her telephone number WAS listed in the directories. From Australia the search was slow. If there is ever anything I can do to help another searcher, I shall do my best for them. Knowing the urgency I felt while searching and finally knowing the thrill of seeing a 59 year old woman met her family I know that my feelings re this matter will never change. While our time together was not 100% perfect, I have no regrets re the search and the outcome. Searchers will always have my prayers (and help if I am able to offer any advice) Please send this message on to Gordon Watts so that each of you may note that our search for Jeanette MacDonald ( BUCHANAN ) ELLIOT culminated in us bringing her to Australia so our search is finished (on this issue) Although we have no real need to continue to search in Canada, I have become very interested in several lists so still follow the progress of your efforts. Once again my thanks and best wishes, Lynne HALL-CAVANAGH --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/03

To all -- especially CPAC watchers:- The entire opening ceremonies of the Juno Beach Centre is being televised on CPAC -- NOW -- very heartwarming to all who are interested. Following the wonderfully-written speech by The Hon. Jean Chrétien, it would be very appropriate for him to remember the names of those who died at Juno Beach were on the 1911 Canadian census. This would be a fitting legacy for him to remember -- as we remember those who died. One person was very close to me. In time, the Maple Leaf Project will have photos of all tombstones in the cemetery -- Steve Douglas is assisted by volunteers, one is my granddaughter, presently in Bournemouth who photographed Canadian graves in that locale. Muriel M. Davidson [email protected] Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee [Former Code-Talker - WWII] --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 6/1/03

Greetings All. Forwarded FYI. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Burness,V.M. To: Muriel M. Davidson Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: Fw: New Records at Archives of Ont. Muriel I just had this e-mail from one of sgts. who works as a volunteer at the Archives of Ontario. Thought you might be interested in the records that have been released. Verna -------Original Message------- From: Lorelei Date: Saturday, June 07, 2003 19:14:00 To: Verna May Burness Subject: New Records at Archives of Ont. Verna: The Archives of Ont. finally released another year of records; so they have: Births: l869-l906 Marriages: l80l-l921 Deaths: l869-l931

Greetings All. With all our petitions, letters and email seeking to regain public access to Historic Census records it is felt that the greatest factor in the eventual release, on 24 January 2003, of the 1906 Census of the North-Western Provinces was our Legal Action instituted on behalf of eleven plaintiffs from across Canada. Even though that Action did not actually make it before a Judge, the effect was that we won our case and the Courts awarded costs to our lawyer. It is obvious from the testimony of the Chief Statistician, the Privacy Commissioner and the comments of Senators opposing the amendments we seek to Bill S-13, that their greatest fear is the Courts would give us what we seek -- unrestricted access to all Census records -- past, present and future. On Thursday 5 June 2003 our lawyer, Lois Sparling, submitted a second Action in Federal Court relating to access to Census records. This new Action, like the previous one, deals with the failure of the Chief Statistician to turn over control of the Census to the National Archivist. Unlike the previous Action, this one has only one plaintif -- Merle Beatty of Calgary. She has submitted an ATI request but Lois has not waited for it to be refused before starting the current Action. We believe the ATI requests we suggest supporters of access make are a very powerful, meaningful way of sending a message to the government. The greater the number of requests made, the stronger the message. ATI request forms were distributed at last weeks AFHS meeting -- it is thought about 50 requests will result from this. It is my intention to distribute request forms at the BCGS meeting this coming Wednesday. Perhaps other genealogical and historical organizations will see fit to do likewise. Complaints regarding the refusal of Statistics Canada to release records of the 1911 Census must be submitted to the Information Commissioner. We believe he will be prepared, as he was prepared to do for the 1906 Census, to proceed himself to the Courts on behalf of the complainants. Perhaps he can do so in time to join with Lois in her Action. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. Watts [email protected] Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC http://globalgenealogy.com/Census en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm Permission to forward without notice is granted.

Greetings All. Even though Bill S-13 - an Act to amend the Statistics Act - was on the schedule for second debate in the House of Commons three days of this past week, it did not happen. The projected schedule for the coming week does not show Bill S-13 as being included. I stand to be corrected, but it begins to look as if no further action on Bill S-13 will happen before Parliament recesses for the summer. If so, this gives us more time to convince our Parliamentarians of the need for amendments to remove the conditions and restrictions imposed by the Bill. 1 June 2003, last week, marked the 92 year anniversary of the taking of the 1911 Census. We suggest that all who are interested in regaining access to Census records submit an Access to Information request for access to the 1911 Census records. While we expect all such requests to be refused, submitting them is another way of applying pressure on the government. Information on how to submit ATI requests has been posted on the Post 1901 Census Project website at the URL following my signature. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. Watts [email protected] Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC http://globalgenealogy.com/Census en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm Permission to forward without notice is granted.

Since I messed up in the directions to find this report and the correct name of Global News, I am sending the report for anyone interested in reading. I hope you have been able to access the write up on Global - if not I can send it as well. Freda Stewart Calgary Annual Report: 2002-2003 CHAPTER I: 20th ANNIVERSARY YEAR IN REVIEW B. Privacy vs. Openness - Census Records During this reporting year, another conflict between the values of privacy and openness came to a head. Statistics Canada has steadfastly resisted allowing genealogical and historical researchers to have access to individual census returns--even very old census returns. The Chief Statistician's professional concern to protect the confidentiality of individual returns was always based on a desire to maintain the public's trust and, hence, ensure public cooperation with the census. On the other hand, that strong refusal to disclose historical census returns ran counter to the less rigid confidentiality régime for census records set out in the Privacy Act Regulations. The Privacy Act Regulations (section 6) provide that historical census returns transferred to the National Archives become accessible for research purposes after 92 years have elapsed from the date of the census. Many researchers became frustrated about the Chief Statistician's refusal to transfer census records to the National Archives and, hence, their inability to take advantage of the access regime set out in the Privacy Act Regulations. In the face of this impasse, several researchers made requests to Statistics Canada, under the Access to Information Act, seeking access to the individual returns for the 1906 census. Upon receiving Statistics Canada's refusal, some 29 complaints were made to the Information Commissioner. In parallel, a researcher launched an action in the Federal Court challenging the Chief Statistician's refusal to transfer the 1906 census records to the National Archives. The Information Commissioner completed his investigation and determined that Statistics Canada was under a legal obligation to transfer the 1906 census records to the National Archives. He also concluded that the failure to respect the legal obligation could not be asserted as a valid basis for refusing access to these records. Consequently, the Information Commissioner recommended that the 1906 census returns be disclosed to the requesting researchers in the same terms as if they had been transferred to the Archives. The Chief Statistician refused to comply with this recommendation and, with the consent of the requesters, the Information Commissioner prepared to file applications for review in the Federal Court seeking orders compelling disclosure. On the day the Federal Court applications were to be filed (literally, the originating documents were in the court's registry), the minister responsible for Statistics Canada (the Minister of Industry) announced that the 1906 census records had been transferred to the National Archives and were available, online, to the public. The minister also announced that he would introduce a Bill in Parliament with amendments to the Statistics Act designed to establish an access regime for post-1906 census records to the present, and for the future. This government initiative resulted from the government's view, on the one hand, that the census data base is a national resource from which researchers should not be barred. On the other hand, the government was also of the view that the existing 92-year rule in the Privacy Act Regulations is not sufficiently sensitive to individual privacy to engender the trust of Canadians necessary to full cooperation with future census surveys. The new compromise regime was introduced this year in the Senate in the form of Bill S-13. Here is the proposed regime: For any census between 1910 and present: 1) Public access will be permitted after 112 years. 2) Researchers will be permitted access after 92 years (subject to an undertaking not to disclose some personal information until 112 years have elapsed). For any census in the future: 1) Public access will be permitted after 92 years but only if the person completing the return has consented to such access. 2) Secrecy of the return will be maintained forever if consent is withheld. As might be expected, this compromise is highly controversial--especially with respect to the terms of access to future census records. It is the Information Commissioner's view that the compromise scheme contained in Bill S-13 is seriously flawed. Under existing law, 1911 and 1916 census records are accessible by anyone--in accordance with section 6 of the Privacy Act Regulations--after 92 years from the date of the census. There is no reason to restrict that access now nor to treat these census records any differently from the 1906 census records. There is no evidence of any promise having been made to Canadians that there would be any longer period of secrecy for these records. For the future, there is no justification for allowing Canadians to throw a blanket of secrecy over census information forever, merely by withholding consent for disclosure after 92 years. This expansion of the zone of secrecy would be unprecedented. As attractive as the notion of up-front consent may be, other personal information held by government--even the most sensitive, such as medical, psychiatric, parole or criminal records--may be kept secret only until 20 years have elapsed after an individual's death. Moreover, the consent provision will result in a severely degraded data base for future researchers. When adopted in Australia, almost 50 percent of respondents refused to give consent for future disclosure. This consent proposal is a recipe for the serious degradation of the census database as a national research resource. It must be emphasized that there is no evidence indicating that a regime of access to census records after 92 years would jeopardize in any way voluntary participation rates in any future census. The British permit full access after 100 years, the Americans after 72 years; neither jurisdiction has participation rate problems as a result. Consequently, the Information Commissioner has urged Parliament to drop the consent provision. If, as proposed in Bill S-13, 112 years represents an appropriate period after which the law should deem that privacy interests cease in past census records, then it should also apply for the future. Such a time period is consistent with the Privacy Act's provision that privacy rights survive only until 20 years after the death of an individual.

Hi Freda - is the following the site you were mentioning. <http://www.canada.com/national/features/soundoff/story.html?id=9FA78FF0-F80 1-42D3-A1B6-6EF8E4A50DCE> At 12:11 PM 6/5/03 -0600, Freda wrote: >Reading an item on today's National Post website re John Reid, Privacy >Commissioner blasting the 'Conspiracy of Secrecy' in the government - very >interesting - I replied on the 'Sound-Off' segment, suggesting that >interested persons should get on or website to find out what problems we >were experiencing. Mr. Reid's comments are worth reading. >Freda Stewart >Calgary > > >==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at > http://globalgazette.net