Hi Maybe a whole week of demonstrations centering around Labour Day? If you folks would like to come up with a poster to display at NGS May 27-31 in Pittsburgh (I can print on 11x14 legal size poster card stock), I will print them out and distribute to all vendors who are willing to display them, plus post on bulletin boards - see ngsgenealogy.org for vendors, speakers and organizers you may want to contact. I think I will do a poster for the Massachusetts legislation problem too. Might as well get more concrete discussions on these trends at a national conference. Read about the Florida state library closing issue, see the demonstration photos and press coverage http://www.rootsweb.com/~flsgs/graybldg.html http://www.rootsweb.com/~flsgs/statelib.html It might be a good idea for folks who organize demonstrations to print out a a simple fact sheet and an information request form. During our recent Massachusetts state archives records forum, the Massachusetts Genealogical council handed out copies of the offensive bill with a summary of the worst parts and engaged others in our discussion - including librarians and historians who did not know what was going on. Lots of stakeholders in the Canadian census issue do not know what is happenning. Love the Canadian spirit! Open, generous and kind - but determined, fair and protective of heritage. Go get em! Sharon ===== Sharon Sergeant Ancestors and Ephemera http://GenealogyFair.com Bring Your Ancestors Home!

I like this idea but can we pull it off? Lois Sparling Roz Griston wrote: >after, i posted yesterday, a thought crossed my mind. > >at town council meetings, mayors and council often declare "such and >such" national month/week/day. token moves really, but the media >attends these council meetings..ergo, it then brings the census issue >home to small communities. > >if we could co-ordinate with various genealogical/historical and >heritage societies to have them assist with a national release the >census day. this could go across canada and hit every community. > >we would need someone in each community/and or province to either make >a presentation to the town council, or at least send a letter to the >town council requesting that the community recognize this date. the >more exhuberant (sp) among us could get out and set up mall/shopping >centre displays. complete with petitions, and information. > >we would need to pick a date and be organized to act upon that date. >what's crossing my mind is labour day. it would give us the lead time >(maybe, if the legislation doesn't go through by then.) > >furthermore, there are many labour councils (who hold labour day >picnics/family gatherings) who may assist us. after all it was their >ancestors blood, sweat and tears who went into organizing labour >rights, and just pure and simple a more compassionate society. these >ppl shouldn't be lost/forgotten because of beaucratic legislation. > >anyhow, something to think on. >roz > > >On Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:10 AM, Gordon A. Watts >[SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > > >>Greetings all. >> >>Following the posting of Bob Westbury's message regarding a >> >> >discussion > > >>of "civil disobedience" I feel some clarification is needed. >> >>Long time CCC listers will be aware that from time to time the >>question of civil disobedience has come up, and that when it did I >>have tended to discourage it. I am honestly not a large fan of civil >>disobedience -- not entirely because of legal implications, but also >>because of considerations regarding what could be done, and how it >>could be implemented. Because we are so spread out across the >>country it is difficult to coordinate any specific activity. >> >>Prior to Bob posting his message I had a two hour meeting with him at >>his home in Calgary. Included in our discussion was the possibility >>of civil disobedience and we had a good go-around regarding this. In >>the end run I agreed that Bob could post his message about civil >>disobedience provided that he did so in the form of a question for >>discussion purposes. This he has done. >> >>A discussion regarding civil disobedience need not entail only those >>items that are "against the law". As Lois has pointed out, >>counseling others to break the law could have legal repercussions. >> So far as I am aware discussing and questioning possibiltities does >>not. >> >>I would like to see a good discussion regarding any possibilities to >>bring our issue to the public. Something I would personally like to >>see is a picket line at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa that would >>bring to the attention of the media and the public what we are trying >>to accomplish, and the drawbacks to the conditions and restrictions >>of S-13. On my trips to Ottawa I have seen similar activities taking >>place at the Parliament buildings. This is something, however, that >>would have to be organized and implemented by someone onsite in >>Ottawa. It is not something that I could do from my location in >>British Columbia. >> >>Others may have different ideas, but my personal feelings are that >> >> >for > > >>the time being, discussions regarding civil disobedience should be >>restricted to the CCC list. >> >>Happy Hunting. >> >>Gordon >> >> >>==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >>How to unsubscribe from Digest 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. >> >> >> > > > >==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== >Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at > http://globalgazette.net > > > >

Bravo Lois Sparling joseph macdonald wrote: >Dear Honourable Terry Stratton, > >I read your speech contained in the Hansard Report for May 15, 2003. >Statistics Act, 'Bill to Amend.' > >"It is not possible to recreate and to pretend that what happened back >then in its historical context should be changed. History cannot be >changed. The attitudes of the people from that time were what they were. >I am convinced that confidentiality was important at that time, and that >it was important for the reasons I cited above. We should pay respect to >that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there >out of respect." Respect for whom, may I ask? > >I don't believe anyone is trying to recreate history, or change its >historical context, but one man's interpretation of it taken out of >context can greatly distort it. Do you really believe that it is paying >respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should >not go there out of respect.? Hon. Stratton, your idea of respect and my >idea of respect are definitely not the same. > >The Opening up of the West and the Head count of 1906. The Head count >was compulsory (mandatory if you will) just as it is today minus the >large intrusion of gov't into their 'privacy' that we have now. The >Government of the day painted a pretty picture as they lured people from >around the world t >

Hi Folks Do you have any suggestions about how I might approach city hall about this. I do not belong to the local geno club as I found them not too helpful. They do put on a great seminar once a year which I do attend. But How can we approach city hall when there is an outfit to do it., and they do not. I have approached the local radio station, and they are willing to help. And they are tough but it is only local. And my MP(Tricky Dicky) is willing to vote which ever. I don't think he cares, if the liberals want it, he does not. Is there any radio station that covers Ontario that has talk shows that we can use. They would probably be interested. No Federal stuff is going to pay any attention to northern BC Bonnie At 07:18 PM 5/17/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Hello Bob:- >Sorry about the upcoming hospital trip -- but am happy >to obtain your new e-mail address -- will get this changed. >Yes, Bill S-13 is in deep, deep trouble -- and I feel many >should know about this. > >If we had a briefer message, between Gordon and myself, >we cover most of Canada - plus other! > >This is a suggestion -- it only takes me about 10 minutes >to send a message to at least 40 lists - Gordon has some >as well. I am copying this to Canada Census Committee and >Friends lists -- their opinions are valuable! I also copy in one >branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society. > >Muriel M. Davidson [email protected] >Brampton, ON >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert C. Westbury" <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 6:58 PM >Subject: [CCC] End-game > > > > Esteemed Listers; Greetings! > > > > There can be no doubt that our cause is in deep trouble. Unless we are >very > > lucky, the government will continue to ram S-13 through Parliament just as > > fast as they can. Their fear, as Gordon has said, is that if they do not > > finish this off quickly, they will again face legal action, and, certainly > > as regards the 1911 Census, they would be almost certain to lose in a >court > > of law. > > So the most likely scenario is that no free debate on S-13 will be > > permitted in the House, and that the Liberal Party Whips will make sure >that > > Liberal MPs toe the party line, regardless of their personal feelings >about > > release after 92 years, which many have expressed in the CCC survey, and > > which are there for all to see on the Global Genealogy site. With the bill > > passed into law our chances of getting back to a more reasonable treatment > > of the interests of genealogists and historians, will be even slimmer than > > they have been during the last 5 years of up-hill sledding. > > So what do we do now? > > I agree that we should continue to inform our MPs about the genealogical > > catastrophe that would result from the passage of Bill S-13, and do > > everything that we can to persuade them to radically modify or oppose the > > bill. But, if that fails, as seems painfully likely, what then? > > I want to suggest that we start to seriously think of using the civil > > disobedience option. A few of us have been urging this course of action >for > > a long time, but our more level-headed colleagues have quite correctly > > insisted that it would be better to pursue our cause with reasoned debate > > through the channels provided by our democracy. But this has failed. The > > Senators in their wisdom seem to have overlooked the compelling evidence > > that most Canadians have no worries about confidentiality issues after 92 > > years have elapsed. They have been unduly respectful of the eccentric > > opinions of a very few mandarins. > > I would like to see us put our collective minds to the task of putting >real > > pressure on our opponents. But this will not be easy - nothing is. We will > > need to ask the following questions, and others which I hope the CCC > > listers will bring forward: > > 1. What form or forms would civil disobedience take? > > 2. Would genealogists have the stomach for a slug fest in the dirt? > > How much do genealogists really care about the loss of one of their > > greatest sources of information? > > 3. Our strength lies in our numbers, perhaps as high as half the > > population; how could we set about "mobilizing the masses"? > > > > Let us debate this vital issue. Under normal circumstances, I should say >no > > more until others have had the chance to express their opinions, but I am > > shortly to go into hospital for neurosurgery (not prefrontal lobotomy, let > > me say!) and I would like my views to be considered in this discussion. > > I think that the most effective attack would be on StatsCan. Much of the > > difficulty that we have encountered has been from this organization. They > > have cynically over-represented the need for "secrecy forever" as an > > ingredient for successful collection of census data. They seem to have a > > blind spot with regard to history, especially micro-history. They are > > vulnerable because they really do need the good will of Canadians to do > > their job. I realize that providing truthful information to the census > > enumerator is mandated by law, but there is a limit to the number of >people > > whom they could charge and punish. ( I see in the papers recently that no > > less than 20,000 people in the last census gave their religion as >"followers > > of the Jedi". This religion does not exist outside of the Star Wars >movies. > > For sure these people were not all challenged in court) What StatsCan >fears > > more than outright refusal to comply with the census laws is the provision > > of false data, especially false data that is hard to verify by other >means. > > We have the means to make the Canadian Census a much less reliable source >of > > data. > > Furthermore not all of the surveys carried out by StatsCan carry the force > > of law. I was looking through the StatsCan site the other day and I found >18 > > surveys with voluntary participation. Too many refusals to participate in > > these surveys would seriously weaken the validity of the results. > > If we do decide to follow this strategy we will have to work very hard to > > establish a network that allows us to get our message to all genealogists >in > > Canada, not just the few hundred that subscribe to CCC, or even the larger > > number that can be reliably reached by e-mail. > > Questions No.2 and 3 require reflection too. The census issue affects all > > Canadian genealogists to some degree, and yet perhaps some 150,000 people > > (at a high estimate) have been directly and actively involved in the >effort > > to free the census. A (very) low estimate for the number of genealogists >in > > the country is 2 million. Will we be able to move at least some of the >other > > 82% of genealogists? How would this be done? > > Let us all put our heads together to try to come up with some strategies > > that are do-able and that the withholders cannot simply shrug off. Let us > > do this quickly as time is running short. > > Courtesy and sweet reason are no longer good enough. We are at the very > > end. Only strong action will save the censuses. > > > > Bob > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/03

most communities have public libraries, plus cable access tv programming. also among us are ppl with connections to the historical/genealogical/heritage societies for their community, and/or province. some even have connections to local labour councils. all of these groups meet monthly. it would take a letter or scheduling a person to attend the meeting to give a presentation, explaining why we need the help of these various organizations. it's only mid may. we would need to have the various groups on board at least a month prior to labour day. october is heritage month if correctly recall. but, my concern is the census issue could be "resolved" before then, or even worse get put on hold or derailed by the federal election that will occur in 2004. the house of commons breaks for summer, if we aim for labour day, we could rally enough attention before they return to sitting in the fall. with cable access tv, one can approach the studio to do an interview locally, and access the memo boards to advertise a info meeting (free advertising)..or even the fact that it is national release the census day. many librarians support this issue, they should be able to convince their boards of directors to provide free meeting space and possibly allow a poster to be put up regarding release the census day. also don't forget museums..we just need to get in touch with any one who has a desire to preserve history or to recognise the contribution ordinary ppl made to this country. locking up the census hides the "unknown citizen" from history. prior to bmd registration becoming mandatory, the censuses may be the only record these ppl existed. as my grandmother always said..where there is a will there is a way. the point being are we willing to take this opportunity to get the msg out across canada with out leaving our home towns? roz On Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:14 PM, Lois Sparling [SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > I like this idea but can we pull it off? > > Lois Sparling > > Roz Griston wrote: > > >after, i posted yesterday, a thought crossed my mind. > > > >at town council meetings, mayors and council often declare "such and > > > >such" national month/week/day. token moves really, but the media > >attends these council meetings..ergo, it then brings the census issue > > > >home to small communities. > > > >if we could co-ordinate with various genealogical/historical and > >heritage societies to have them assist with a national release the > >census day. this could go across canada and hit every community. > > > >we would need someone in each community/and or province to either > >make > >a presentation to the town council, or at least send a letter to the > > > >town council requesting that the community recognize this date. the > >more exhuberant (sp) among us could get out and set up mall/shopping > > > >centre displays. complete with petitions, and information. > > > >we would need to pick a date and be organized to act upon that date. > > > >what's crossing my mind is labour day. it would give us the lead time > > > >(maybe, if the legislation doesn't go through by then.) > > > >furthermore, there are many labour councils (who hold labour day > >picnics/family gatherings) who may assist us. after all it was their > > > >ancestors blood, sweat and tears who went into organizing labour > >rights, and just pure and simple a more compassionate society. these > > > >ppl shouldn't be lost/forgotten because of beaucratic legislation. > > > >anyhow, something to think on. > >roz > > > > > >On Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:10 AM, Gordon A. Watts > >[SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > > > > > >>Greetings all. > >> > >>Following the posting of Bob Westbury's message regarding a > >> > >> > >discussion > > > > > >>of "civil disobedience" I feel some clarification is needed. > >> > >>Long time CCC listers will be aware that from time to time the > >>question of civil disobedience has come up, and that when it did I > >>have tended to discourage it. I am honestly not a large fan of > >>civil > >>disobedience -- not entirely because of legal implications, but > >>also > >>because of considerations regarding what could be done, and how it > >>could be implemented. Because we are so spread out across the > >>country it is difficult to coordinate any specific activity. > >> > >>Prior to Bob posting his message I had a two hour meeting with him > >>at > >>his home in Calgary. Included in our discussion was the > >>possibility > >>of civil disobedience and we had a good go-around regarding this. > >> In > >>the end run I agreed that Bob could post his message about civil > >>disobedience provided that he did so in the form of a question for > >>discussion purposes. This he has done. > >> > >>A discussion regarding civil disobedience need not entail only > >>those > >>items that are "against the law". As Lois has pointed out, > >>counseling others to break the law could have legal repercussions. > >> So far as I am aware discussing and questioning possibiltities > >> does > >>not. > >> > >>I would like to see a good discussion regarding any possibilities > >>to > >>bring our issue to the public. Something I would personally like > >>to > >>see is a picket line at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa that > >>would > >>bring to the attention of the media and the public what we are > >>trying > >>to accomplish, and the drawbacks to the conditions and restrictions > >>of S-13. On my trips to Ottawa I have seen similar activities > >>taking > >>place at the Parliament buildings. This is something, however, > >>that > >>would have to be organized and implemented by someone onsite in > >>Ottawa. It is not something that I could do from my location in > >>British Columbia. > >> > >>Others may have different ideas, but my personal feelings are that > >> > >> > >for > > > > > >>the time being, discussions regarding civil disobedience should be > >>restricted to the CCC list. > >> > >>Happy Hunting. > >> > >>Gordon > >> > >> > >>==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > >>How to unsubscribe from Digest 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. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > >Read Gordon A. Watts' column on Post 1901 Census issues at > > http://globalgazette.net > > > > > > > > > > << File: ATT00016.html >>

after, i posted yesterday, a thought crossed my mind. at town council meetings, mayors and council often declare "such and such" national month/week/day. token moves really, but the media attends these council meetings..ergo, it then brings the census issue home to small communities. if we could co-ordinate with various genealogical/historical and heritage societies to have them assist with a national release the census day. this could go across canada and hit every community. we would need someone in each community/and or province to either make a presentation to the town council, or at least send a letter to the town council requesting that the community recognize this date. the more exhuberant (sp) among us could get out and set up mall/shopping centre displays. complete with petitions, and information. we would need to pick a date and be organized to act upon that date. what's crossing my mind is labour day. it would give us the lead time (maybe, if the legislation doesn't go through by then.) furthermore, there are many labour councils (who hold labour day picnics/family gatherings) who may assist us. after all it was their ancestors blood, sweat and tears who went into organizing labour rights, and just pure and simple a more compassionate society. these ppl shouldn't be lost/forgotten because of beaucratic legislation. anyhow, something to think on. roz On Sunday, May 18, 2003 9:10 AM, Gordon A. Watts [SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > Greetings all. > > Following the posting of Bob Westbury's message regarding a discussion > of "civil disobedience" I feel some clarification is needed. > > Long time CCC listers will be aware that from time to time the > question of civil disobedience has come up, and that when it did I > have tended to discourage it. I am honestly not a large fan of civil > disobedience -- not entirely because of legal implications, but also > because of considerations regarding what could be done, and how it > could be implemented. Because we are so spread out across the > country it is difficult to coordinate any specific activity. > > Prior to Bob posting his message I had a two hour meeting with him at > his home in Calgary. Included in our discussion was the possibility > of civil disobedience and we had a good go-around regarding this. In > the end run I agreed that Bob could post his message about civil > disobedience provided that he did so in the form of a question for > discussion purposes. This he has done. > > A discussion regarding civil disobedience need not entail only those > items that are "against the law". As Lois has pointed out, > counseling others to break the law could have legal repercussions. > So far as I am aware discussing and questioning possibiltities does > not. > > I would like to see a good discussion regarding any possibilities to > bring our issue to the public. Something I would personally like to > see is a picket line at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa that would > bring to the attention of the media and the public what we are trying > to accomplish, and the drawbacks to the conditions and restrictions > of S-13. On my trips to Ottawa I have seen similar activities taking > place at the Parliament buildings. This is something, however, that > would have to be organized and implemented by someone onsite in > Ottawa. It is not something that I could do from my location in > British Columbia. > > Others may have different ideas, but my personal feelings are that for > the time being, discussions regarding civil disobedience should be > restricted to the CCC list. > > Happy Hunting. > > Gordon > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > How to unsubscribe from Digest 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. >

Another good letter Dennis. Thank you for posting it. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis King" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:08 AM Subject: [CCC] Letter to MP For the record this letter was sent yesterday by mail to Ottawa and by hand to the constituency office in Cowansville. Would any other residents in Brome-Missisquoi care to comment. I notice the name of Fred Vickerson from Mansonville Que, who is in the same riding and might have thoughts on this letter ??? If desired, respond to> [email protected] Mr Denis Paradis May 16, 2003 Suite 353, West Block House of Commons Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0A6 Dear Sir Subject: Census Records I know that things take time in Ottawa but there is a situation that requires some immediate and specific attention. I received on March 25th, 2003 your undated letter that was in reply to mine of January 9, 2003 on the issue of census records. Bill S-13 is working its way through the senate and will soon be in the House for debate and approval by the elected body of this nation. What the Senate appears unable or unlikely to do is accept to enact the amendments presented by the citizens of Canada. What the House of Commons must do therefore is listen to the people of Canada and make some specific changes to the bill before it is approved. Did you know that until bureaucratic interference the census of Canada and Canadians was delivered after 92 years to the National Archives?. Did you know that without any legal authority this was aborted by Bureaucratic interference? I remind you, that Bill C 312 to which you agreed in the 1st session of the 37 legislature, on or about September 26th, 2000 in Summery said "The enactment expressly authorizes the transfer of all census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada for permanent safekeeping. It gives access to the records to genealogists and other researchers 92 years after the census, subject to a privacy right it creates that allows individuals to object to the disclosure of personal information in the census records. I must state that to be allowed , means that one is permitted. Bill S-13 is trying to change that to mean that no one is allowed if permission is not given. Refer to clause #8, Informed Consent, which is an OPT-IN clause, not an OPT-OUT clause. This is the reverse of what was agreed to in Bill C-312. Clause #8 in Bill S-13 cannot be allowed to stand. Likewise the 20-Year nondisclosure clause is another one that does not meet with the original intent of Bill-C 312 in respect to the period of 92 years after the census. In effect it extends this another 20 years. This is Bureaucratic intervention by Statistics Canada. As such it is imperative that this clause be discarded and removed. As I stated in may letter to you of August 24, 2001 (which went unanswered) it is estimated that some 7,500,000 Canadians are involved in Genealogical research and as such depend heavily upon information provided in Census reports. Many thousands have signed petitions that have been sent to the Government requesting complete access to Census reports after 92 years and are counting heavily that the House will listen and act accordingly. Reports paid for by the citizens and reports completed by the citizens, those very same people that do not get the opportunity to vote for their senators but do have the proxy with respect to their député. The urgency of this matter can not be overstated. Sincerely Dennis King 32 Fielding Lac Brome, J0E-1V0 450-242-1474 c/c to Cowansville office:

Greetings all. Following the posting of Bob Westbury's message regarding a discussion of "civil disobedience" I feel some clarification is needed. Long time CCC listers will be aware that from time to time the question of civil disobedience has come up, and that when it did I have tended to discourage it. I am honestly not a large fan of civil disobedience -- not entirely because of legal implications, but also because of considerations regarding what could be done, and how it could be implemented. Because we are so spread out across the country it is difficult to coordinate any specific activity. Prior to Bob posting his message I had a two hour meeting with him at his home in Calgary. Included in our discussion was the possibility of civil disobedience and we had a good go-around regarding this. In the end run I agreed that Bob could post his message about civil disobedience provided that he did so in the form of a question for discussion purposes. This he has done. A discussion regarding civil disobedience need not entail only those items that are "against the law". As Lois has pointed out, counseling others to break the law could have legal repercussions. So far as I am aware discussing and questioning possibiltities does not. I would like to see a good discussion regarding any possibilities to bring our issue to the public. Something I would personally like to see is a picket line at the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa that would bring to the attention of the media and the public what we are trying to accomplish, and the drawbacks to the conditions and restrictions of S-13. On my trips to Ottawa I have seen similar activities taking place at the Parliament buildings. This is something, however, that would have to be organized and implemented by someone onsite in Ottawa. It is not something that I could do from my location in British Columbia. Others may have different ideas, but my personal feelings are that for the time being, discussions regarding civil disobedience should be restricted to the CCC list. Happy Hunting. Gordon

An excellent letter Juanita. I hope that others will post their letters as well. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "joseph macdonald" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:19 PM Subject: [CCC] To Hon Terry Stratton, Comment on you speech on May 15, 2003 Dear Honourable Terry Stratton, I read your speech contained in the Hansard Report for May 15, 2003. Statistics Act, 'Bill to Amend.' "It is not possible to recreate and to pretend that what happened back then in its historical context should be changed. History cannot be changed. The attitudes of the people from that time were what they were. I am convinced that confidentiality was important at that time, and that it was important for the reasons I cited above. We should pay respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect." Respect for whom, may I ask? I don't believe anyone is trying to recreate history, or change its historical context, but one man's interpretation of it taken out of context can greatly distort it. Do you really believe that it is paying respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect.? Hon. Stratton, your idea of respect and my idea of respect are definitely not the same. The Opening up of the West and the Head count of 1906. The Head count was compulsory (mandatory if you will) just as it is today minus the large intrusion of gov't into their 'privacy' that we have now. The Government of the day painted a pretty picture as they lured people from around the world to come and settle there. Many went, though not as many Canadians from the East as the government would have liked but a few went. They came from many nations and the tough and hardy pioneers struggled and survived. They learned how to be self sufficient, and quickly learned that the government wasn't there to give them the assistance they needed or that was promised. Those that weren't equipped for it, moved on to more developed areas, returned to their former homes or they perished. Maybe the only record of many of those Pioneers was the name on the 1911 census form. You mention Louis Riel, but no mention of any of the names of the hardy Pioneers of the West, the very people who built the west and deserve just as much respect as Louis Riel. We can find Louis Riel's name in history books, the names of the Pioneers are on census records. You use the SARS that struck Toronto, with the Flu epidemic of 1918. Remember that SARS, though it created a stir, and many people were scared and rightfully so. It was contained and kept within a hospital environment. It did not sweep across the country. The Flu epidemic swept across this country, and people were literally dying in droves. These very people, even with the dead and dying around them, did not run and hide or demand their 'privacy'. They cared for their families, loved one, neighbours, friends. They weren't depending on a government to see them through. Actually they didn't trust the government. All the government did for them would be slap a 'quarantine sign' on their door and be on their way. These people were a far closer knit society than what we have today. They depended on each other for their very survival, and they worked together as a family as a community, they buried their dead, and they wept and mourn their loses and they carried on. Do those that died deserve respect by being forgotten because they weren't the elite of society or elected representatives of the people? I think not Hon. Stratton, for somewhere in this country there is a child or grandchild, or even a great grandchild, who will find that name on the 1911 census and pay them the respect they rightly deserve. The name may not be important to you or me, but it will be to them. They will gleam from that sheet of paper, the parent they may never have known, or the grandfather, or great grandfather. He may have only been a dirt farmer, in the west that tilled the soil. A coal miner in the east who descended into the bowels of the earth. The fisherman that harvested the bounty of the seas and got pittance for it. He may have been so poor that he couldn't provide insurance for his family, because every cent went to support his family. Oh, yes, the government wanted to know if he had the insurance or not. He was special and is worth discovering for someone, for he was their father, their grandfather, their great grandfather. What really was the mood of the Nation after WWI? You apparently think that everyone wanted to crawl in a cubby-hole, protect their 'privacy' and shut out the world. I don't believe so. The people were more aware of who they were and what they could accomplish. WWI was the catalyst that made the common people aware they could take charge. They were tired of being made to feel second class citizens, slaves to industrialist, or to governments running their lives without them having some say in the matter. They wanted input. The common folk realized they could bring about the change only by entering the political arena themselves. The leaders amongst them stepped forward and answered the call, and the people supported them. When you want change, you don't go into hiding. They weren't the ones cowering behind wanting 'privacy and confidentiality', they were right out their demanding their rights as citizens of this country. They were demanding that their elective representatives truly and honestly represent them. If anyone was hiding behind 'confidentiality clauses' in the early 1900s it was those elected MPs and appointed Senators 'who were more interested in their own self-preservation' than they were in being representatives of the Canadian People. Your quote, " I believe we owe it to them to speak in that historical perspective and to try to understand from whence they came and why they made decisions they did at that time. It is important for us to never forget that in this chamber." Yes, Honourable Senator Stratton, we do owe it to them, as their sons and daughters and we owe it to our children and their children, to see that their names and memories are preserved, even if it only exists on a census record stored and preserved in the National Archives of Canada for those who want to discover their roots. It is important that the Senate chamber and the House of Commons, not forget those who made this country great, 'The Canadian People.' The names on the 1911 census are some of those Canadian People. Sincerely Juanita MacDonald Whycocomagh, N.S. ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census Issues at http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/ en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm

For the record this letter was sent yesterday by mail to Ottawa and by hand to the constituency office in Cowansville. Would any other residents in Brome-Missisquoi care to comment. I notice the name of Fred Vickerson from Mansonville Que, who is in the same riding and might have thoughts on this letter ??? If desired, respond to> [email protected] Mr Denis Paradis May 16, 2003 Suite 353, West Block House of Commons Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0A6 Dear Sir Subject: Census Records I know that things take time in Ottawa but there is a situation that requires some immediate and specific attention. I received on March 25th, 2003 your undated letter that was in reply to mine of January 9, 2003 on the issue of census records. Bill S-13 is working its way through the senate and will soon be in the House for debate and approval by the elected body of this nation. What the Senate appears unable or unlikely to do is accept to enact the amendments presented by the citizens of Canada. What the House of Commons must do therefore is listen to the people of Canada and make some specific changes to the bill before it is approved. Did you know that until bureaucratic interference the census of Canada and Canadians was delivered after 92 years to the National Archives?. Did you know that without any legal authority this was aborted by Bureaucratic interference? I remind you, that Bill C 312 to which you agreed in the 1st session of the 37 legislature, on or about September 26th, 2000 in Summery said "The enactment expressly authorizes the transfer of all census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada for permanent safekeeping. It gives access to the records to genealogists and other researchers 92 years after the census, subject to a privacy right it creates that allows individuals to object to the disclosure of personal information in the census records. I must state that to be allowed , means that one is permitted. Bill S-13 is trying to change that to mean that no one is allowed if permission is not given. Refer to clause #8, Informed Consent, which is an OPT-IN clause, not an OPT-OUT clause. This is the reverse of what was agreed to in Bill C-312. Clause #8 in Bill S-13 cannot be allowed to stand. Likewise the 20-Year nondisclosure clause is another one that does not meet with the original intent of Bill-C 312 in respect to the period of 92 years after the census. In effect it extends this another 20 years. This is Bureaucratic intervention by Statistics Canada. As such it is imperative that this clause be discarded and removed. As I stated in may letter to you of August 24, 2001 (which went unanswered) it is estimated that some 7,500,000 Canadians are involved in Genealogical research and as such depend heavily upon information provided in Census reports. Many thousands have signed petitions that have been sent to the Government requesting complete access to Census reports after 92 years and are counting heavily that the House will listen and act accordingly. Reports paid for by the citizens and reports completed by the citizens, those very same people that do not get the opportunity to vote for their senators but do have the proxy with respect to their député. The urgency of this matter can not be overstated. Sincerely Dennis King 32 Fielding Lac Brome, J0E-1V0 450-242-1474 c/c to Cowansville office: All outgoing mail has been scanned by NORTON anti virus. All outgoing mail has been scanned by NORTON anti virus.

Juanita You say the words we would say, if we could. I cannot tell you the joy I got when on the NY-CENSUS-LOOKUP Mail List, I received the information that showed my Grandfather, Grandmother and Father on the 1930 US Census. It was my Grandmother and Father's first appearance the US Census. My dad was born in Canada, my Grandmother in England, to Canada with her sister as British Home Children, and my Grandfather born in Brooklyn, NY and showed on the 1900 US Census. My father, mother, sister and I will appear on the 1940 census as a family. I truly hope I will still be here to see and add the information to the family tree. My brother will appear on the 1950 census. My Grandmother died when she was 50, my Grandfather at 53. They did not talk much about the early days. So I have to trace their track from Isle of Wight, Chelsea, London to Canada to US, back to Canada, back to the US. Due to 9/11, many states have decided to close records to the public as a "privacy issue". Thieves will be thieves and if they want information they will get it regardless of rules, regulations. The only people it inconveniences is the honest ones and the many family researchers. I have emailed your PM, Senators regarding the Post 1901 Census Release. My father had dual US and Canada and feel I have the right to express support of the release of the Canadian Census. I still have many cousins living in Ontario and spend some time in Canada when I can. I have sent email to Florida for the preservation of their State Library [it worked, as they listened] to the authorities in Beacon, Dutchess County, New York to save the "Old Poor House and Infirmary" and make it a site of Dutchess County Information and genealogical information. We are still working on it. So, thank you Juanita, Muriel, Gordon, Sen. Milne and the many people who take time to send petitions from all over the world to keep the census information available to ALL of us in our search. Patricia Corney, BHCD Quakertown, PA USA [email protected] Email scanned in and out by Norton 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: joseph macdonald To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 11:19 PM Subject: [CCC] To Hon Terry Stratton, Comment on you speech on May 15, 2003 Dear Honourable Terry Stratton, I read your speech contained in the Hansard Report for May 15, 2003. Statistics Act, 'Bill to Amend.' "It is not possible to recreate and to pretend that what happened back then in its historical context should be changed. History cannot be changed. The attitudes of the people from that time were what they were. I am convinced that confidentiality was important at that time, and that it was important for the reasons I cited above. We should pay respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect." Respect for whom, may I ask? I don't believe anyone is trying to recreate history, or change its historical context, but one man's interpretation of it taken out of context can greatly distort it. Do you really believe that it is paying respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect.? Hon. Stratton, your idea of respect and my idea of respect are definitely not the same. The Opening up of the West and the Head count of 1906. The Head count was compulsory (mandatory if you will) just as it is today minus the large intrusion of gov't into their 'privacy' that we have now. The Government of the day painted a pretty picture as they lured people from around the world to come and settle there. Many went, though not as many Canadians from the East as the government would have liked but a few went. They came from many nations and the tough and hardy pioneers struggled and survived. They learned how to be self sufficient, and quickly learned that the government wasn't there to give them the assistance they needed or that was promised. Those that weren't equipped for it, moved on to more developed areas, returned to their former homes or they perished. Maybe the only record of many of those Pioneers was the name on the 1911 census form. You mention Louis Riel, but no mention of any of the names of the hardy Pioneers of the West, the very people who built the west and deserve just as much respect as Louis Riel. We can find Louis Riel's name in history books, the names of the Pioneers are on census records. You use the SARS that struck Toronto, with the Flu epidemic of 1918. Remember that SARS, though it created a stir, and many people were scared and rightfully so. It was contained and kept within a hospital environment. It did not sweep across the country. The Flu epidemic swept across this country, and people were literally dying in droves. These very people, even with the dead and dying around them, did not run and hide or demand their 'privacy'. They cared for their families, loved one, neighbours, friends. They weren't depending on a government to see them through. Actually they didn't trust the government. All the government did for them would be slap a 'quarantine sign' on their door and be on their way. These people were a far closer knit society than what we have today. They depended on each other for their very survival, and they worked together as a family as a community, they buried their dead, and they wept and mourn their loses and they carried on. Do those that died deserve respect by being forgotten because they weren't the elite of society or elected representatives of the people? I think not Hon. Stratton, for somewhere in this country there is a child or grandchild, or even a great grandchild, who will find that name on the 1911 census and pay them the respect they rightly deserve. The name may not be important to you or me, but it will be to them. They will gleam from that sheet of paper, the parent they may never have known, or the grandfather, or great grandfather. He may have only been a dirt farmer, in the west that tilled the soil. A coal miner in the east who descended into the bowels of the earth. The fisherman that harvested the bounty of the seas and got pittance for it. He may have been so poor that he couldn't provide insurance for his family, because every cent went to support his family. Oh, yes, the government wanted to know if he had the insurance or not. He was special and is worth discovering for someone, for he was their father, their grandfather, their great grandfather. What really was the mood of the Nation after WWI? You apparently think that everyone wanted to crawl in a cubby-hole, protect their 'privacy' and shut out the world. I don't believe so. The people were more aware of who they were and what they could accomplish. WWI was the catalyst that made the common people aware they could take charge. They were tired of being made to feel second class citizens, slaves to industrialist, or to governments running their lives without them having some say in the matter. They wanted input. The common folk realized they could bring about the change only by entering the political arena themselves. The leaders amongst them stepped forward and answered the call, and the people supported them. When you want change, you don't go into hiding. They weren't the ones cowering behind wanting 'privacy and confidentiality', they were right out their demanding their rights as citizens of this country. They were demanding that their elective representatives truly and honestly represent them. If anyone was hiding behind 'confidentiality clauses' in the early 1900s it was those elected MPs and appointed Senators 'who were more interested in their own self-preservation' than they were in being representatives of the Canadian People. Your quote, " I believe we owe it to them to speak in that historical perspective and to try to understand from whence they came and why they made decisions they did at that time. It is important for us to never forget that in this chamber." Yes, Honourable Senator Stratton, we do owe it to them, as their sons and daughters and we owe it to our children and their children, to see that their names and memories are preserved, even if it only exists on a census record stored and preserved in the National Archives of Canada for those who want to discover their roots. It is important that the Senate chamber and the House of Commons, not forget those who made this country great, 'The Canadian People.' The names on the 1911 census are some of those Canadian People. Sincerely Juanita MacDonald Whycocomagh, N.S. ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census Issues at http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/ en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/2003

well said Juanita. I am searching for my husband's family members who should be on the 1911 Census. Most were too afraid to speak of where they came from after they arrived from the old country. They were terrified of reprisals from people associated with their country of origin. My only hope of finding where they came from may be the 1911 Census. Thanks Beth ----- Original Message ----- From: "joseph macdonald" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: [CCC] To Hon Terry Stratton, Comment on you speech on May 15, 2003 > Dear Honourable Terry Stratton, > > I read your speech contained in the Hansard Report for May 15, 2003. > Statistics Act, 'Bill to Amend.' > > "It is not possible to recreate and to pretend that what happened back > then in its historical context should be changed. History cannot be > changed. The attitudes of the people from that time were what they were. > I am convinced that confidentiality was important at that time, and that > it was important for the reasons I cited above. We should pay respect to > that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there > out of respect." Respect for whom, may I ask? > > I don't believe anyone is trying to recreate history, or change its > historical context, but one man's interpretation of it taken out of > context can greatly distort it. Do you really believe that it is paying > respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should > not go there out of respect.? Hon. Stratton, your idea of respect and my > idea of respect are definitely not the same. > > The Opening up of the West and the Head count of 1906. The Head count > was compulsory (mandatory if you will) just as it is today minus the > large intrusion of gov't into their 'privacy' that we have now. The > Government of the day painted a pretty picture as they lured people from > around the world to come and settle there. Many went, though not as many > Canadians from the East as the government would have liked but a few > went. They came from many nations and the tough and hardy pioneers > struggled and survived. They learned how to be self sufficient, and > quickly learned that the government wasn't there to give them the > assistance they needed or that was promised. Those that weren't equipped > for it, moved on to more developed areas, returned to their former homes > or they perished. Maybe the only record of many of those Pioneers was > the name on the 1911 census form. You mention Louis Riel, but no mention > of any of the names of the hardy Pioneers of the West, the very people > who built the west and deserve just as much respect as Louis Riel. We > can find Louis Riel's name in history books, the names of the Pioneers > are on census records. > > You use the SARS that struck Toronto, with the Flu epidemic of 1918. > Remember that SARS, though it created a stir, and many people were > scared and rightfully so. It was contained and kept within a hospital > environment. It did not sweep across the country. The Flu epidemic swept > across this country, and people were literally dying in droves. These > very people, even with the dead and dying around them, did not run and > hide or demand their 'privacy'. They cared for their families, loved > one, neighbours, friends. They weren't depending on a government to see > them through. Actually they didn't trust the government. All the > government did for them would be slap a 'quarantine sign' on their door > and be on their way. These people were a far closer knit society than > what we have today. They depended on each other for their very survival, > and they worked together as a family as a community, they buried their > dead, and they wept and mourn their loses and they carried on. Do those > that died deserve respect by being forgotten because they weren't the > elite of society or elected representatives of the people? > > I think not Hon. Stratton, for somewhere in this country there is a > child or grandchild, or even a great grandchild, who will find that name > on the 1911 census and pay them the respect they rightly deserve. The > name may not be important to you or me, but it will be to them. They > will gleam from that sheet of paper, the parent they may never have > known, or the grandfather, or great grandfather. He may have only been a > dirt farmer, in the west that tilled the soil. A coal miner in the east > who descended into the bowels of the earth. The fisherman that harvested > the bounty of the seas and got pittance for it. He may have been so poor > that he couldn't provide insurance for his family, because every cent > went to support his family. Oh, yes, the government wanted to know if he > had the insurance or not. He was special and is worth discovering for > someone, for he was their father, their grandfather, their great > grandfather. > > What really was the mood of the Nation after WWI? You apparently think > that everyone wanted to crawl in a cubby-hole, protect their 'privacy' > and shut out the world. I don't believe so. The people were more aware > of who they were and what they could accomplish. WWI was the catalyst > that made the common people aware they could take charge. They were > tired of being made to feel second class citizens, slaves to > industrialist, or to governments running their lives without them having > some say in the matter. They wanted input. The common folk realized they > could bring about the change only by entering the political arena > themselves. The leaders amongst them stepped forward and answered the > call, and the people supported them. When you want change, you don't go > into hiding. > > They weren't the ones cowering behind wanting 'privacy and > confidentiality', they were right out their demanding their rights as > citizens of this country. They were demanding that their elective > representatives truly and honestly represent them. If anyone was hiding > behind 'confidentiality clauses' in the early 1900s it was those elected > MPs and appointed Senators 'who were more interested in their own > self-preservation' than they were in being representatives of the > Canadian People. > > Your quote, " I believe we owe it to them to speak in that historical > perspective and to try to understand from whence they came and why they > made decisions they did at that time. It is important for us to never > forget that in this chamber." > > Yes, Honourable Senator Stratton, we do owe it to them, as their sons > and daughters and we owe it to our children and their children, to see > that their names and memories are preserved, even if it only exists on a > census record stored and preserved in the National Archives of Canada > for those who want to discover their roots. It is important that the > Senate chamber and the House of Commons, not forget those who made this > country great, 'The Canadian People.' The names on the 1911 census are > some of those Canadian People. > > Sincerely > Juanita MacDonald > Whycocomagh, N.S. > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census Issues at > http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/ > en français http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Index_f.htm >

Hi Juanita, Thanks for sending that URL along, also, that is a good letter to Terry Stratton, perhaps you should send him along some of the videos that you can buy from The History Channel, maybe if he sees it on screen he can finally come up with an informed opinion on how this country evovled, not because of government and his so called Chamber, but in spite of it. Regards Wayne Cook http://www.waynecook.com (A History Television Approved Site) and your Host for the Simcoe County Genweb page at http://www.waynecook.com/simcoe.shtml Wasaga Beach, Ontario, Canada 1. Historic Plaques of Ontario 1,044 Plaques online http://www.waynecook.com 2. The Canadian Query Boards at http://www.waynecook.com/bulletin.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "joseph macdonald" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 2:29 AM Subject: Re: [CCC] Post 1901 Census -- Third reading of S-13 continued > Hi Wayne, > > Have you read this on MP Murray Calder's website? It might interest those who > have yet to read it. Senator Lowell Murray refers to this as the Justice Dept's > 'Flip-Flop'. > > Government legal opinion said historic census should be released > > http://www.murraycalder.ca/issues/census/chaplin.htm >

Hello I actually think the Senators are hanging themselves in this S-13 debate series. In addition to all the "motherhood" talk about privacy rights for irrelevant issues, not one has gotten the facts straight, nor done their homework. First, the Justice Department legal opinion from last fall was a "real" opinion forced by the impending court case. The old "opinion" was informal and without examination of all of the law involved - out of context. The political complaints of the Senators in the debate are not likely to endear their cause to the Justice Department folks - especially since the Justice folks have an obligation to examine all of the law and the Senators do not seem to feel that they do. One telling aspect is the fact that so many of them have repeated Senator Milne's reference to the 25 year rule. She mentioned the number in an "I think" mode during the course of one discussion - illustrating one aspect of the principle of the existing laws to be considered. It is actually a "no more than 20 years after death" rule, but now these several Senators have repeated 25 years as though it IS the number - but completely out of context. It is such disregard for doing their homework, building cases on hyperbole, that actually weakens their case. In fact, it is almost amusing that these Senators also think that an amendment to the Statistics Act - with all the teeth hidden in the potential regulations - would stand up in court against the Charter, the Privacy, Information, Heritage et al Acts - the very foundations of the government. To openly say that these other laws "should" be changed, makes you wonder why they don't just get to that ... unless of course they know that such major law changes would make things really exciting. All of their talk about what the laws should be demonstrates that they know that they know better at some level. My question at this point is whether they actually know that the legal case is lost with or without S13, but perhaps view these debates as a way of presenting these "valiant" postures for "the good fight" - even if it is a Don Quixote windmill style. In any case, it appears that the Privacy Hawks are tearing S13 apart on the same issues - albeit for different reasons - flawed by who gets to make decisions on the future census forms and how to police the 20 year purgatory. I maintain my view of legal precedence in the existing law and for folks who haven't seen it yet, point to my brief slide presentation at http://bostonstates.rootsweb.com/S13ContravenesPrivacyAct.htm Curiously, the link I had for the S13 text is no longer working. Anyone have an update to http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/S-13/S-13_1/S-13_cover-E.html I'm not sure that civil disobedience is even necesary - although it has some appeal. I think that the same tens of thousands of folks who signed the petitions could file the information requests for every individual they think would be on the 1911 census and every individual that has died more than 20 years ago - put the job of filing the court case squarely where it belongs with the Privacy, Heritage and Information Ministers. I have a few hundred original issues of the Halifax newspapers from the 1870s and about 10 other newspapers from all over the provinces from the mid 1800s. I think I'll dig out a few choice examples of the every movement and activity of named individuals in those days. Unfortunately, I don't have 1911 Canada newspapers, but if any of you folks do, it might be worth copying off some clippings to illustrate exactly what folks thought was private in 1911 - not much :) They were worried about taxes and drafts! I did enjoy the Jedi statistics. However, one serious note on the idea of whether us US folks should be meddling in Canadian government issues (even if I do have about 3/4 Canadian ancestors over the last 400 years) - Dr Felligi has influenced the US and may in fact have had a strong hand in the 1978-1996 US Federal Model Bill that is being waved around these days by US federal agencies trying to influence state laws about vital records access. I always thought politics required a certain type of gene that I was missing - but like the weather, I could recognize the phenomena as part of nature. But somehow things do get done, so there have to be folks somewhere who actually know what they are doing. So I'll ask again if anyone knows who the legal beagles are in the legislative body and whether they are doing their homework. Off to Pittsburgh for the NGS conference in a few days. Sharon ===== Sharon Sergeant Ancestors and Ephemera http://GenealogyFair.com Bring Your Ancestors Home!

Dear Honourable Terry Stratton, I read your speech contained in the Hansard Report for May 15, 2003. Statistics Act, 'Bill to Amend.' "It is not possible to recreate and to pretend that what happened back then in its historical context should be changed. History cannot be changed. The attitudes of the people from that time were what they were. I am convinced that confidentiality was important at that time, and that it was important for the reasons I cited above. We should pay respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect." Respect for whom, may I ask? I don't believe anyone is trying to recreate history, or change its historical context, but one man's interpretation of it taken out of context can greatly distort it. Do you really believe that it is paying respect to that mentality, to that way of thinking, and thereby should not go there out of respect.? Hon. Stratton, your idea of respect and my idea of respect are definitely not the same. The Opening up of the West and the Head count of 1906. The Head count was compulsory (mandatory if you will) just as it is today minus the large intrusion of gov't into their 'privacy' that we have now. The Government of the day painted a pretty picture as they lured people from around the world to come and settle there. Many went, though not as many Canadians from the East as the government would have liked but a few went. They came from many nations and the tough and hardy pioneers struggled and survived. They learned how to be self sufficient, and quickly learned that the government wasn't there to give them the assistance they needed or that was promised. Those that weren't equipped for it, moved on to more developed areas, returned to their former homes or they perished. Maybe the only record of many of those Pioneers was the name on the 1911 census form. You mention Louis Riel, but no mention of any of the names of the hardy Pioneers of the West, the very people who built the west and deserve just as much respect as Louis Riel. We can find Louis Riel's name in history books, the names of the Pioneers are on census records. You use the SARS that struck Toronto, with the Flu epidemic of 1918. Remember that SARS, though it created a stir, and many people were scared and rightfully so. It was contained and kept within a hospital environment. It did not sweep across the country. The Flu epidemic swept across this country, and people were literally dying in droves. These very people, even with the dead and dying around them, did not run and hide or demand their 'privacy'. They cared for their families, loved one, neighbours, friends. They weren't depending on a government to see them through. Actually they didn't trust the government. All the government did for them would be slap a 'quarantine sign' on their door and be on their way. These people were a far closer knit society than what we have today. They depended on each other for their very survival, and they worked together as a family as a community, they buried their dead, and they wept and mourn their loses and they carried on. Do those that died deserve respect by being forgotten because they weren't the elite of society or elected representatives of the people? I think not Hon. Stratton, for somewhere in this country there is a child or grandchild, or even a great grandchild, who will find that name on the 1911 census and pay them the respect they rightly deserve. The name may not be important to you or me, but it will be to them. They will gleam from that sheet of paper, the parent they may never have known, or the grandfather, or great grandfather. He may have only been a dirt farmer, in the west that tilled the soil. A coal miner in the east who descended into the bowels of the earth. The fisherman that harvested the bounty of the seas and got pittance for it. He may have been so poor that he couldn't provide insurance for his family, because every cent went to support his family. Oh, yes, the government wanted to know if he had the insurance or not. He was special and is worth discovering for someone, for he was their father, their grandfather, their great grandfather. What really was the mood of the Nation after WWI? You apparently think that everyone wanted to crawl in a cubby-hole, protect their 'privacy' and shut out the world. I don't believe so. The people were more aware of who they were and what they could accomplish. WWI was the catalyst that made the common people aware they could take charge. They were tired of being made to feel second class citizens, slaves to industrialist, or to governments running their lives without them having some say in the matter. They wanted input. The common folk realized they could bring about the change only by entering the political arena themselves. The leaders amongst them stepped forward and answered the call, and the people supported them. When you want change, you don't go into hiding. They weren't the ones cowering behind wanting 'privacy and confidentiality', they were right out their demanding their rights as citizens of this country. They were demanding that their elective representatives truly and honestly represent them. If anyone was hiding behind 'confidentiality clauses' in the early 1900s it was those elected MPs and appointed Senators 'who were more interested in their own self-preservation' than they were in being representatives of the Canadian People. Your quote, " I believe we owe it to them to speak in that historical perspective and to try to understand from whence they came and why they made decisions they did at that time. It is important for us to never forget that in this chamber." Yes, Honourable Senator Stratton, we do owe it to them, as their sons and daughters and we owe it to our children and their children, to see that their names and memories are preserved, even if it only exists on a census record stored and preserved in the National Archives of Canada for those who want to discover their roots. It is important that the Senate chamber and the House of Commons, not forget those who made this country great, 'The Canadian People.' The names on the 1911 census are some of those Canadian People. Sincerely Juanita MacDonald Whycocomagh, N.S.

RETIREE'S JOURNALESE SPARKS 'RUDE' REMARK HACK RESPONDS IN HEADLINE STYLE "Why say in four 'graphs what you can say in two decks and a kicker?" quidnunc quips :{D ----- Original Message ----- From: "Muriel M. Davidson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [CCC] Why are we doing all this research? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rue_Dee" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:18 AM > Subject: Re: [CCC] Why are we doing all this research? > > Muriel, > Thank you so much for sharing such an articulate observation about > genealogy. > I find most of your messages to be a bit terse, if not downright rude, but > this is wonderful! > Rue > ==================== > Hello Rue:- > > As Gordon often tells me I "write in shorthand" - here is an explanation > of why my memos often seem terse. > I started in newspaper work at age 16, 62 years ago and like many > things, OLD HABITS are hard to break. > The printing trade gave way to proofreading, finally women's editor > and a columnist of our local paper. > A newspaper writer MUST include the gist of the memo in the first > two or three paragraphs, the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and HOW. > If paper space is limited, stories are cut from the bottom -- so if you > see a newspaper story cut off in the middle of a paragraph -- this is > the reason. > > However, I never mean to be rude -- not my nature -- except to list > administrators who dump me because I mention the word "census". > > I presume you are referring to my reply re "We are the story tellers" > -- YES, we must be that -- just in case census records are never > released in full. Many feel we should be ashamed our relatives > were in "poor houses" -- but these were the equivalent of the day > of our present nursing homes -- not because they were "short of > cash" -- but needed nursing care. [My grandfather had records of > monies paid for his uncle's care at Hillsview Acres, a new name for > the former Queens County Poor Farm or County Home, located > at Middlefield, Nova Scotia] > > Guess, either you or the rainy weather made me write in "longhand!" > > Muriel M. Davidson [email protected] > Co-Chair, Canada Census Committee

do we really need civil disobedience? last july, during a community event, john reynolds (my mp) was cruising by in a convertable car (in a parade of other celebs/dignitaries)..i loudly shouted..RELEASE THE POST 1901 CENSUSES. my spouse cringed, and ppl around me looked at me in shock and confusion..like what did i want released?? so i told them. not much of a slug fest in the mud, but reynolds did turn and look at me..and about a half a city block..knew i wanted something released...reynolds knew that too. he saw the heads turn..hehe..so wait for a public event..and shout it out. if the ratzenfratrzen little newspapers don't think we're note worthy enough to publish our letters or articles..become a town crier the next time you see your mp in public. roz On Saturday, May 17, 2003 3:59 PM, Robert C. Westbury [SMTP:[email protected]] wrote: > Esteemed Listers; Greetings! > > There can be no doubt that our cause is in deep trouble. Unless we > are very > lucky, the government will continue to ram S-13 through Parliament > just as > fast as they can. Their fear, as Gordon has said, is that if they do > not > finish this off quickly, they will again face legal action, and, > certainly > as regards the 1911 Census, they would be almost certain to lose in a > court > of law. > So the most likely scenario is that no free debate on S-13 will be > permitted in the House, and that the Liberal Party Whips will make > sure that > Liberal MPs toe the party line, regardless of their personal feelings > about > release after 92 years, which many have expressed in the CCC survey, > and > which are there for all to see on the Global Genealogy site. With the > bill > passed into law our chances of getting back to a more reasonable > treatment > of the interests of genealogists and historians, will be even slimmer > than > they have been during the last 5 years of up-hill sledding. > So what do we do now? > I agree that we should continue to inform our MPs about the > genealogical > catastrophe that would result from the passage of Bill S-13, and do > everything that we can to persuade them to radically modify or oppose > the > bill. But, if that fails, as seems painfully likely, what then? > I want to suggest that we start to seriously think of using the > civil > disobedience option. A few of us have been urging this course of > action for > a long time, but our more level-headed colleagues have quite > correctly > insisted that it would be better to pursue our cause with reasoned > debate > through the channels provided by our democracy. But this has failed. > The > Senators in their wisdom seem to have overlooked the compelling > evidence > that most Canadians have no worries about confidentiality issues after > 92 > years have elapsed. They have been unduly respectful of the eccentric > opinions of a very few mandarins. > I would like to see us put our collective minds to the task of > putting real > pressure on our opponents. But this will not be easy - nothing is. We > will > need to ask the following questions, and others which I hope the CCC > listers will bring forward: > 1. What form or forms would civil disobedience take? > 2. Would genealogists have the stomach for a slug fest in the > dirt? > How much do genealogists really care about the loss of one of their > greatest sources of information? > 3. Our strength lies in our numbers, perhaps as high as half the > population; how could we set about "mobilizing the masses"? > > Let us debate this vital issue. Under normal circumstances, I should > say no > more until others have had the chance to express their opinions, but I > am > shortly to go into hospital for neurosurgery (not prefrontal lobotomy, > let > me say!) and I would like my views to be considered in this > discussion. > I think that the most effective attack would be on StatsCan. Much of > the > difficulty that we have encountered has been from this organization. > They > have cynically over-represented the need for "secrecy forever" as an > ingredient for successful collection of census data. They seem to have > a > blind spot with regard to history, especially micro-history. They are > vulnerable because they really do need the good will of Canadians to > do > their job. I realize that providing truthful information to the > census > enumerator is mandated by law, but there is a limit to the number of > people > whom they could charge and punish. ( I see in the papers recently that > no > less than 20,000 people in the last census gave their religion as > "followers > of the Jedi". This religion does not exist outside of the Star Wars > movies. > For sure these people were not all challenged in court) What StatsCan > fears > more than outright refusal to comply with the census laws is the > provision > of false data, especially false data that is hard to verify by other > means. > We have the means to make the Canadian Census a much less reliable > source of > data. > Furthermore not all of the surveys carried out by StatsCan carry the > force > of law. I was looking through the StatsCan site the other day and I > found 18 > surveys with voluntary participation. Too many refusals to participate > in > these surveys would seriously weaken the validity of the results. > If we do decide to follow this strategy we will have to work very > hard to > establish a network that allows us to get our message to all > genealogists in > Canada, not just the few hundred that subscribe to CCC, or even the > larger > number that can be reliably reached by e-mail. > Questions No.2 and 3 require reflection too. The census issue affects > all > Canadian genealogists to some degree, and yet perhaps some 150,000 > people > (at a high estimate) have been directly and actively involved in the > effort > to free the census. A (very) low estimate for the number of > genealogists in > the country is 2 million. Will we be able to move at least some of the > other > 82% of genealogists? How would this be done? > Let us all put our heads together to try to come up with some > strategies > that are do-able and that the withholders cannot simply shrug off. > Let us > do this quickly as time is running short. > Courtesy and sweet reason are no longer good enough. We are at the > very > end. Only strong action will save the censuses. > > Bob > > > > > > > ==== 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. >

Esteemed Listers; Greetings! There can be no doubt that our cause is in deep trouble. Unless we are very lucky, the government will continue to ram S-13 through Parliament just as fast as they can. Their fear, as Gordon has said, is that if they do not finish this off quickly, they will again face legal action, and, certainly as regards the 1911 Census, they would be almost certain to lose in a court of law. So the most likely scenario is that no free debate on S-13 will be permitted in the House, and that the Liberal Party Whips will make sure that Liberal MPs toe the party line, regardless of their personal feelings about release after 92 years, which many have expressed in the CCC survey, and which are there for all to see on the Global Genealogy site. With the bill passed into law our chances of getting back to a more reasonable treatment of the interests of genealogists and historians, will be even slimmer than they have been during the last 5 years of up-hill sledding. So what do we do now? I agree that we should continue to inform our MPs about the genealogical catastrophe that would result from the passage of Bill S-13, and do everything that we can to persuade them to radically modify or oppose the bill. But, if that fails, as seems painfully likely, what then? I want to suggest that we start to seriously think of using the civil disobedience option. A few of us have been urging this course of action for a long time, but our more level-headed colleagues have quite correctly insisted that it would be better to pursue our cause with reasoned debate through the channels provided by our democracy. But this has failed. The Senators in their wisdom seem to have overlooked the compelling evidence that most Canadians have no worries about confidentiality issues after 92 years have elapsed. They have been unduly respectful of the eccentric opinions of a very few mandarins. I would like to see us put our collective minds to the task of putting real pressure on our opponents. But this will not be easy – nothing is. We will need to ask the following questions, and others which I hope the CCC listers will bring forward: 1. What form or forms would civil disobedience take? 2. Would genealogists have the stomach for a slug fest in the dirt? How much do genealogists really care about the loss of one of their greatest sources of information? 3. Our strength lies in our numbers, perhaps as high as half the population; how could we set about “mobilizing the masses”? Let us debate this vital issue. Under normal circumstances, I should say no more until others have had the chance to express their opinions, but I am shortly to go into hospital for neurosurgery (not prefrontal lobotomy, let me say!) and I would like my views to be considered in this discussion. I think that the most effective attack would be on StatsCan. Much of the difficulty that we have encountered has been from this organization. They have cynically over-represented the need for “secrecy forever” as an ingredient for successful collection of census data. They seem to have a blind spot with regard to history, especially micro-history. They are vulnerable because they really do need the good will of Canadians to do their job. I realize that providing truthful information to the census enumerator is mandated by law, but there is a limit to the number of people whom they could charge and punish. ( I see in the papers recently that no less than 20,000 people in the last census gave their religion as “followers of the Jedi”. This religion does not exist outside of the Star Wars movies. For sure these people were not all challenged in court) What StatsCan fears more than outright refusal to comply with the census laws is the provision of false data, especially false data that is hard to verify by other means. We have the means to make the Canadian Census a much less reliable source of data. Furthermore not all of the surveys carried out by StatsCan carry the force of law. I was looking through the StatsCan site the other day and I found 18 surveys with voluntary participation. Too many refusals to participate in these surveys would seriously weaken the validity of the results. If we do decide to follow this strategy we will have to work very hard to establish a network that allows us to get our message to all genealogists in Canada, not just the few hundred that subscribe to CCC, or even the larger number that can be reliably reached by e-mail. Questions No.2 and 3 require reflection too. The census issue affects all Canadian genealogists to some degree, and yet perhaps some 150,000 people (at a high estimate) have been directly and actively involved in the effort to free the census. A (very) low estimate for the number of genealogists in the country is 2 million. Will we be able to move at least some of the other 82% of genealogists? How would this be done? Let us all put our heads together to try to come up with some strategies that are do-able and that the withholders cannot simply shrug off. Let us do this quickly as time is running short. Courtesy and sweet reason are no longer good enough. We are at the very end. Only strong action will save the censuses. Bob

A few on this list know me, but most of you do not. Following my post of yesterday, I have exchanged personal e-mails with perhaps a half dozen or so of you over the last 24 hours, so some of you have read what I am about to say before. For the sake of the rest, I thought it might be useful to at least put my position into perspective relative to the CCC and what Gordon and others are trying to accomplish. First of all, I am an American, and not a "real Canadian" as most of you are. I am a retired U. S. Marine and now working as a civilian in our Department of Defense. That being said, allow me to also say that my father was born in Canada (Dawson, YT), and from his grandfather back through my Cann line, nearly everyone was Canadian, and English before that. For this and other reasons, I have always considered Canada "my second homeland," despite the fact that I have never had the opportunity to visit you folks up there. For largely this reason, I have remained "in the background" in your fight, because I do not think an American should be in the business of saying what others should or should not do with their own government. In my opinion, too many Americans do that around the world, and that is a major reason why many people dislike us. I do not have any wish to be "The Ugly American" of literature fame, so I have stayed in the background and followed the CCC activities from there. . . . . . until a statement was made about me on the list yesterday that I felt I had to comment on. Gordon and I have since (I hope) resolved that issue privately, and it is over. Though I have not been a subscriber to this list for very long, I have always been interested in the CCC and their goals, and I truly hope Gordon succeeds in what he is trying to do here. We are going through much the same thing down here in the U. S., except that in our case it is not so much a federal issue, but a state one, so we have to fight it one state at a time. Each time it ends in one state, it crops up again in another. Obviously, with the Census it is a federal issue, and the law there makes the census information available after 72 years (1930 has just been made public), so that is fairly reasonable. However, various state birth, death, and other such data is now being removed from public accessibility all over the country. This is rather long, and I apologize for that, but I did want to put things into perspective. As a List Administrator of six RootsWeb lists in Nova Scotia (and subscriber to numerous others), I have always tried to keep ads and other off-topic posts off of the lists, including repeated posts about the CCC and their efforts, despite the fact that I support the cause from the background. If I allow one group to do it, then I must allow another, and another, so I simply keep them all off unless clearly topical to my list. When I recently became aware of this list, I subscribed to it twice (in list and digest mode as well) because I do want to follow along if I can. I will not be a frequent contributor for reasons mentioned above, but I will be "lurking in the background" to keep abreast of things. My apologies to Gordon and all of you for the length of this, I have always talked too much :~), but I did want to put things into perspective before any further friction develops. If any of you feel the need to respond, please feel free to do so privately, unless you feel it is topical and would be of interest to the group. I cannot guarantee everyone a reply, but I do try to respond to any mail I get. Best wishes to all from a Canadian at heart in northern Virginia. David E. Cann [email protected]

Reading the Hansard reports from the debate re Bill S-13 is truly depressing. But not necessarily because I now sense that S-13 may never make it out of the Senate. Over a month ago it was a foregone conclusion that S-13 would be passed without any problem by the Senate, would go to the House and would be made into law there. There was great jubilation in some quarters. Now it seems that might not be the case as the Senate seems to have bought into the paranoia regarding privacy and security that has been introduced into every aspect of our lives since 9/11. How, 92 or 112 years after the census, releasing details on people should provide fuel for identity-theft or terrorism is quite beyond me. The really disturbing part of this whole exercise is the fact that the Senators who are debating this bill seem unable to stick to the subject: the release to Canadians of the historic census. The subject is not the SIN; it is not the gun registry; it is not student loans; it is not one's medical record. (Surely all Senators are old enough to realize that medical records are not private and are required by all sorts of organizations.... have you tried to obtain long-term medical-care insurance? If you do not permit access to all of your medical records you will be denied insurance. If you have a test scheduled by a physician for an unknown reason you will be denied insurance until that test is performed... even if there is a 1-year wait for a MRI which turns up nothing.) The Senators have mentioned almost every other Bill that has been passed in the 20th century that they now believe has defects, and they seem to think that they will be perceived as being great legislators if they come down really toughly on the historic census. If the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act need changes then let the government draft new legislation to amend those acts. In the meantime Bill S-13 is about the historic census and it would be great to see the Honourable Senators sticking to the subject and not bamboozling their fellow Senators, who may not be conversant with the subject, with extraneous arguments. It will undoubtedly be difficult for some Senators to separate Bill S-13 from all of the other Bills that mention confidentiality and privacy. Most of the Senators who have spoken through May 15 would not earn passing grades from any debating club, not even in elementary school! Norma