i wouldn't count on stockwell day doing any great and sincere communicating. he announced he will not partake in the media scrums outside the house. that he will communicate only by press release. this to me indicates the man does not think on his feet and that his politics and personna are pure propaganda machine. very slick. i wonder how well he is connected with the owners of our national newspapers. if he's well connected we will see his press releases get in the news..if not..the editors/journalists will just scoff at him.. roz -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS [SMTP:gordon_watts@telus.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 7:48 PM To: CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [CCC-L] Re: How will you vote? Greetings All. Do we have a subscriber on this list in Mr. Williams' constituency of St. Albert, Saskatchewan? If so perhaps they might get a response from this MP. Stockwell Day, new leader of the Canadian Alliance, of which Mr. Williams is a member, has been quoted as advocating greater communications in government, including those between MPs and their constituents. It is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Williams does not appear to subscribe to this policy. One might wonder if he even sees his messages. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Williams, John - Riding 2" <WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca> To: <gordon_watts@telus.net> Sent: Thursday, 21 September, 2000 2:00 PM Subject: RE: How will you vote? Thank you for your email Mr. Watts - I'm sorry that you found my response to your question unfavourable. However, we will not participate in this endeavour. Regards, Debra Bain -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS To: Williams, John - Riding 2 Sent: 9/17/00 3:26 PM Subject: Re: How will you vote? Dear Ms. Bain While admittedly somewhat delayed in responding, I find I must express my disappointment in your response to my email of 16 June 2000. I would hardly call a request to respond to one question of interest to Mr. Williams constituents a Survey". The refusal to respond to that one question gives the impression that Mr. Williams (or his office staff) cares little for the opinions and questions of his constituents and the people of Canada. One might wonder on what basis Mr. Williams was elected. It seems to me that it would have taken no more effort to give a FOR or AGAINST answer to the question asked than to respond in the manner you did. With that in mind, I would once again ask of Mr. Williams the question: Would you, as an elected Member of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada, vote FOR or AGAINST a Bill supporting release to the Public, of Post 1901 Census Records, 92 years after collection? This is an issue that holds great importance to an estimated 7.5 million Canadians searching for their ancestral roots - for their heritage in Canada. I look forward to receiving Mr. Williams positive response to this question. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net <mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net> Canada Census Committee 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 Tel (604) 942-6889 Fax (604) 942-6843 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Williams, John - Riding 2" < WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca <mailto:WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca> > To: < gordon_watts@telus.net <mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2000 8:54 AM Subject: RE: How will you vote? Good Morning Mr. Watts, Please be advised that, as a matter of general office policy, we do not respond to surveys. We will therefore not be participating in thisendeavour. Yours truly, Debra Bain, Manager Constituency Affairs -----Original Message----- From: Williams, John - Riding 1 To: Williams, John - Riding 2 Sent: 6/16/00 2:45 PM Subject: FW: How will you vote? gordon_watts@telus.net -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS [mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 12:31 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: How will you vote? I send greetings to all Members of Parliament. In the past year or so, all Members of Parliament have been sent numerous e-mail and letters requesting an answer to the question of how they would vote on a Bill that would allow public access to Post 1901 Census records as allowed by Regulations attached to the current Privacy Act. Responses have been varied as detailed below: * NO response * Your concerns have been noted and directed to the Minister responsible * Your concerns have been directed to Statistics Canada * Please send your full mailing address to receive a reply * Mr/Mrs/Ms MP does not respond to questions from outside their constituency * Enclosed find information detailing why Census records cannot be accessed * There is no Bill before the House to vote on * It would be immoral for Parliament to retroactively break a promise given to the people by the government of Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1906 * The law explicitly prohibits access to Census records after 1901 After a great deal of research I can state unequivocally that: * The "promise" of never ending confidentiality of Census records promoted by Statistics Canada does not exist. Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips have been asked to provide documentary evidence re: the existence of this "promise". To date they have been unable to do so. There is no evidence whatsoever that respondents to Census of 1906 and later were told about this non-existent "promise". I have asked Statistics Canada and Bruce Phillips to prove me wrong -- if they are able. * There is no law that "explicitly prohibits" access to Census records after 1901. There are no clauses in any Statute, from the date of Confederation to the present, that would prevent transfer of Historic Census to the National Archives of Canada to be placed under the control of the National Archivist. There is no law that would prevent the subsequent release to the public as per Regulations attached to the current Privacy Act. * What prevents the transfer of Census to the National Archives is a policy of Statistics Canada -- a policy based on untried legal opinions that consider only one clause of several contained in Instructions to Enumerators for the Census of 1906 that had been given the "force of law". These legal opinions consider only the clause titled "Secrecy" while ignoring other pertinent clauses in these same Instructions, also having the "force of law", that state that Census had value for historical purposes, would be stored in the National Archives, and would be available for future research. Your constituents, in writing to ask how you would vote on a Bill to allow access to Post 1901 Census are well aware of the position of Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips. They are well aware that an Expert Panel to study Access to Historic Census has been appointed by Industry Minister John Manley. They await the recommendations of this Expert Panel, originally due 31 May 2000 and now delayed until the end of June 2000. They are confident that the report of the Expert Panel will come down in favour of allowing access to Historic Census records. Your constituents voted for you, presumably because they felt that you were a reasonably intelligent, rational, thinking individual, capable of formulating opinions and making decisions. As such, they are seeking an answer from you, on how you would vote on a Bill to allow access to Historic Census records. In all likelihood they have already expressed their concerns to Statistics Canada and Industry Minister John Manley directly and do not seek to have their MP duplicate what they have already done. On 2 June 2000, Liberal MP Murray Calder presented Private Member's Bill C-484 for first reading and printing. This Bill is identical to Bill S-15 presented to the Senate by Senator Lorna Milne on 16 December 1999, and currently in second reading in that House. These Bills would amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act. They expressly authorize the transfer of all census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada for permanent safekeeping. They give access to the records to genealogists and other researchers 92 years after the census, subject to a privacy right they create that allows individuals to object to the disclosure of personal information in the census records. Jason Kenney's Motion M-160, presented to the House 13 October 1999 urges the government to take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003. Mr. Kenney's Motion was deemed a votable item with debate limited to three hours. To date, two of those three hours of debate have taken place. Bearing in mind the Bills of Mr. Calder and Ms. Milne, and the Motion of Mr. Kenney, I would again ask of you the following question: "Would you, as an elected Member of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada, vote FOR or AGAINST a Bill supporting release to the Public, of Post 1901 Census Records, 92 years after collection?" I would respectfully request a direct answer dealing specifically with the question. Your response will be recorded in your correspondence log on the Post 1901 Census Project website located at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census This website includes a "Scoreboard" listing all MPs and showing how they responded to, or neglected to respond to, the question above. I invite you to visit this website and check the position we show for you. As I am the person responsible for updating this website, should you find anything about yourself with which you disagree, please advise me directly. For those Members of Parliament who have already given us a direct answer to the question posed above I extend my heartfelt thanks. For those who have given a non-committal response, or who have not bothered to respond to our question I would respectfully request that you answer it at this time. On 24 April 2000 I sent to you an e-mail with the files constituting my written submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census attached. Titled "The Myths of Census", this submission is the result of several months of dedicated research and details proof of what I have stated above. I urge you to read this submission to verify my statements. I would extend to you the same invitation I gave to Statistics Canada and the Privacy Commissioner -- "If you can prove me wrong, please do so." If my e-mail of 24 April 2000, and the attached files, have gone astray I would be quite happy to resend them to you. I have compiled a CD containing much more support documentation than that contained in my written submission. I would be happy to send a copy of this CD on request. Should you have any questions or comments regarding my Submission to the Expert Panel, or to this message, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. I can be reached by e-mail, by telephone at (604) 942-6889, by Fax at (604) 942-6843, or by Canada Post at 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 To the francophone Members of Parliament I extend my apologies for not having a translation of this message. I regrettably neither speak nor read the French language. Sincerely, Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm

To readers:- Go to: <http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census> Scroll down to "Other Sites" -- click on Genetically Inherited Diseases This was a submission from myself, with assistance from all listed there, (some names have been withheld) to the Expert Panel -- mailed in April, 2000. The Recommendations are my own -- will be anxious to learn if any will be accepted for the future. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>..............................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Recommendations --A question to be added (or substituted) to the 2001 census questions, asking for people to list known Genetically Inheritable Diseases with a YES or NO. Reason: The present question, " deaf, dumb, blind, insane" and others have been criticized by many. Instead, should I find a YES to any one of these, it would be treated as an answer to a possibly previously unexplained medical condition. --At present children being adopted are received in basically the WYSIWYG -- What You See Is What You Get -- manner and adoption system. Complete medical history of both father and mother (if possible), blood types, known genetically inheritable diseases, should be part of the adoption process. Names of real parents, locality of birth are NOT part of a medical history. --Census records of people in institutions of long term care:- Back in 1901 and 1911, also earlier, many family members were admitted to "poor farms", county homes or insane asylums. To my knowledge, there are no census records of these members of a family -- they were locked away as if they never existed. Mental illness seems to be a taboo subject - but one that needs diagnosis. NOTE:- I have learned SOME institutions provided records, others did not.

To all:- Many have asked what I meant by THE MYTHS OF CENSUS, available for printing (minus copyright material) at the following URL:- http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html or http://www.waynecook.com/simcoe.shtml There are SIX main MYTHS OF CENSUS:- 1. There was a PROMISE made by the government of Sir Wilfred Laurier that confidentiality of Census was FOREVER. 2. Respondents to Census were TOLD about this PROMISE. 3. The Census of 1906 was the first in which Rules and Regulations relating to Census and Statistics were subject to the "force of law". The process by which secrecy of name- identifiable Census records coming under the "force of law" was a deliberate, well thought out result of the legislative process. 4. Release of name-identifiable information in the distant future was a reason for confidentiality concerns of respondents to Census. 5. A MAJOR INTENT of early Census legislation was to ensure that Schedules of Census containing name-identified information would NEVER be available for future historical or genealogical research. 6. Without confidentiality that lasts forever, respondents will be reluctant to fill out Census or will not respond truthfully. ========================================= A personal note or two:- Years ago, my grandfather listed all answers he gave on various census records, told me they would be available for me in later years. He was a proud, family type of man -- wish he would be here to add his two cents' worth today! My aunt was born in 1902, still hale and hearty -- lives in a nursing home in Liverpool, Nova Scotia. She told me she can remember the excitement her parents enjoyed filling out the first Canadian census records -- for them -- they came from Maine in 1909. Her comment to me today was "The politicians have it all wrong". An invitation to everyone:- Print the researched data that Gordon Watts found and his reasons for above six MYTHS OF CENSUS - study it -- then contact your elected Member of Parliament. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canadian Census Committee

Greetings All. Senator Lorna Milne's Bill S-15 completed second reading and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on 19 September 2000. Gordon

Greetings All. In my email regarding MP John Williams I referred to his constituency as St. Albert, Saskatchewan. I goofed. The constituency is in Alberta. Sorry about that. Gordon

Greetings All. FYI Gordon ----------------------------------- Dear Mr. Epp. I am writing in regards to your email of 20 September 2000 sent to Muriel M. Davidson. I must state at the outset that it is a genuine pleasure to hear a politician such as yourself remark that "I am YOUR representative and therefore it would be much more useful for YOU to tell me how YOU would like me to vote!" In many communications with all 301 Members of Parliament over the past 2-1/2 years this is the FIRST time an MP has responded in this manner. Your colleague from St. Albert, John Williams would do well to take a lesson from you. He, unlike yourself, appears to have a "closed door" policy, at least so far as responding to questions relating to Post 1901 Census is concerned. I am pleased that you have stated your support for Jason Kenney's Motion M-160, and thus by association for allowing access to all Historic Census. I note however that you have some reservations in that you comment "Originally, the census information was gathered with a commitment of confidentiality." You further state "there is still the dilemma of 'how long do you wait until it is okay to break your promise?'" and that you "struggle a bit with that conundrum." Allow me to ease your mind, and permit you to vote in favour of allowing access to historic census with a clear conscience. To begin with, the " commitment of confidentiality" to which you refer was a directive in Instructions to Commissioners and Enumerators of Census that they were not allowed to divulge information from Census to anyone else, in particular to any other government departments. While the census forms may have had a statement regarding confidentiality, there was no statement then, nor on any form since that time, that confidentiality would last forever. The "promise" of never ending confidentiality to which you refer did not exist in 1905, does not exist now, and has not existed at any time in between. Several months of concentrated research by myself, and others, found no evidence that the promise so often touted by Statistics Canada as having been made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906 ever happened. There is nothing in Hansard, the Canada Gazette, Proclamations of the Governor in Council, or any newspaper that indicates that any such "promise" was ever made, much less conveyed in any manner to the people of Canada. I have, on a number of occasions, asked of both Statistics Canada and former Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips to "show me the promise". They have been asked for documentary proof that the "promise" exists. They have been asked to prove me wrong in stating that "the promise does not exist." To date, they have been unable to do so. I could go on further here, however my submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census, titled "The Myths of Census" explains the situation quite well. The files for my submission were sent to all MPs by email attachment on 24 May 2000. For your convenience, in case they have gone astray, I have attached them to this message as well. I urge you to read my submission. Should you have any questions or comments regarding it I would be more than happy to hear them. In doing my research I compiled a great deal of support information, most of which I have placed on a CD-ROM. At your request I would be happy to send you a copy of this CD-ROM. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Port Coquitlam, BC Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm "Epp, Ken - Personal" wrote: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:17 PM Ottawa Ms Muriel M. Davidson: Thanks for your e-mail which I received on the 18th. ________________________________________________ Here is what you wrote: Q: Will YOU support Jason Kenney's Motion M-160? A: Either YES or NO, please. Now, my response: ====================== First, I think we have it backwards! I am YOUR representative and therefore it would be much more useful for YOU to tell me how YOU would like me to vote! I hope that you will still do that! At the present time, I am inclined to vote for the motion. This is based on the fact that I have received a number of submissions from constituents (and others around the country) who are urging us to support this Bill. I have received very few (if any -- I don't remember getting even one) asking me to continue to block these records. I am sure you know the dilemma. Originally, the census information was gathered with a commitment of confidentiality. Now it is clear that by the year 2003, there will be very few people left who gave information in the 1911 census, but there is still the dilemma of "how long do you wait until it is okay to break your promise?" I struggle a bit with that conundrum. However, as many people have pointed out, the information would now be very useful to many people who are doing research, both historical and genealogical. What harm can possibly be done by releasing the information for people whose descendants now want to know? So there you are. I have answered according to your spec. If the vote were held today, I would vote YES. Does that agree with your position? I would really like to know. Now, just a little further to the situation. This bill was debated this evening. In fact, the debate just ended about ten minutes ago. The Liberals moved an amendment which basically does nothing. It will allow the Liberals to vote in favour of the amendment, thereby changing Jason Kenney's motion -- in fact it effectively neutralizes the motion. So they will vote in favour of the amendment and then they will vote in favour of the amended and demasculated motion. That way they don't need to vote on a controversial issue. After all, they don't want to alienate anyone with an election coming up soon. (Am I sounding too cynical?) I better quit. Thanks for writing. Please e-mail me back. If you use eppk@parl.gc.ca it will come to my assistant; if you use eppk9@parl.gc.ca, that will come directly to my computer, and you will have my personal response. Sincerely, Ken Epp, MP Elk Island

Greetings All. Do we have a subscriber on this list in Mr. Williams' constituency of St. Albert, Saskatchewan? If so perhaps they might get a response from this MP. Stockwell Day, new leader of the Canadian Alliance, of which Mr. Williams is a member, has been quoted as advocating greater communications in government, including those between MPs and their constituents. It is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Williams does not appear to subscribe to this policy. One might wonder if he even sees his messages. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Williams, John - Riding 2" <WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca> To: <gordon_watts@telus.net> Sent: Thursday, 21 September, 2000 2:00 PM Subject: RE: How will you vote? Thank you for your email Mr. Watts - I'm sorry that you found my response to your question unfavourable. However, we will not participate in this endeavour. Regards, Debra Bain -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS To: Williams, John - Riding 2 Sent: 9/17/00 3:26 PM Subject: Re: How will you vote? Dear Ms. Bain While admittedly somewhat delayed in responding, I find I must express my disappointment in your response to my email of 16 June 2000. I would hardly call a request to respond to one question of interest to Mr. Williams constituents a Survey". The refusal to respond to that one question gives the impression that Mr. Williams (or his office staff) cares little for the opinions and questions of his constituents and the people of Canada. One might wonder on what basis Mr. Williams was elected. It seems to me that it would have taken no more effort to give a FOR or AGAINST answer to the question asked than to respond in the manner you did. With that in mind, I would once again ask of Mr. Williams the question: Would you, as an elected Member of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada, vote FOR or AGAINST a Bill supporting release to the Public, of Post 1901 Census Records, 92 years after collection? This is an issue that holds great importance to an estimated 7.5 million Canadians searching for their ancestral roots - for their heritage in Canada. I look forward to receiving Mr. Williams positive response to this question. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net <mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net> Canada Census Committee 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 Tel (604) 942-6889 Fax (604) 942-6843 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Williams, John - Riding 2" < WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca <mailto:WilliJ2@parl.gc.ca> > To: < gordon_watts@telus.net <mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2000 8:54 AM Subject: RE: How will you vote? Good Morning Mr. Watts, Please be advised that, as a matter of general office policy, we do not respond to surveys. We will therefore not be participating in thisendeavour. Yours truly, Debra Bain, Manager Constituency Affairs -----Original Message----- From: Williams, John - Riding 1 To: Williams, John - Riding 2 Sent: 6/16/00 2:45 PM Subject: FW: How will you vote? gordon_watts@telus.net -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS [mailto:gordon_watts@telus.net] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 12:31 AM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: How will you vote? I send greetings to all Members of Parliament. In the past year or so, all Members of Parliament have been sent numerous e-mail and letters requesting an answer to the question of how they would vote on a Bill that would allow public access to Post 1901 Census records as allowed by Regulations attached to the current Privacy Act. Responses have been varied as detailed below: * NO response * Your concerns have been noted and directed to the Minister responsible * Your concerns have been directed to Statistics Canada * Please send your full mailing address to receive a reply * Mr/Mrs/Ms MP does not respond to questions from outside their constituency * Enclosed find information detailing why Census records cannot be accessed * There is no Bill before the House to vote on * It would be immoral for Parliament to retroactively break a promise given to the people by the government of Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1906 * The law explicitly prohibits access to Census records after 1901 After a great deal of research I can state unequivocally that: * The "promise" of never ending confidentiality of Census records promoted by Statistics Canada does not exist. Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips have been asked to provide documentary evidence re: the existence of this "promise". To date they have been unable to do so. There is no evidence whatsoever that respondents to Census of 1906 and later were told about this non-existent "promise". I have asked Statistics Canada and Bruce Phillips to prove me wrong -- if they are able. * There is no law that "explicitly prohibits" access to Census records after 1901. There are no clauses in any Statute, from the date of Confederation to the present, that would prevent transfer of Historic Census to the National Archives of Canada to be placed under the control of the National Archivist. There is no law that would prevent the subsequent release to the public as per Regulations attached to the current Privacy Act. * What prevents the transfer of Census to the National Archives is a policy of Statistics Canada -- a policy based on untried legal opinions that consider only one clause of several contained in Instructions to Enumerators for the Census of 1906 that had been given the "force of law". These legal opinions consider only the clause titled "Secrecy" while ignoring other pertinent clauses in these same Instructions, also having the "force of law", that state that Census had value for historical purposes, would be stored in the National Archives, and would be available for future research. Your constituents, in writing to ask how you would vote on a Bill to allow access to Post 1901 Census are well aware of the position of Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips. They are well aware that an Expert Panel to study Access to Historic Census has been appointed by Industry Minister John Manley. They await the recommendations of this Expert Panel, originally due 31 May 2000 and now delayed until the end of June 2000. They are confident that the report of the Expert Panel will come down in favour of allowing access to Historic Census records. Your constituents voted for you, presumably because they felt that you were a reasonably intelligent, rational, thinking individual, capable of formulating opinions and making decisions. As such, they are seeking an answer from you, on how you would vote on a Bill to allow access to Historic Census records. In all likelihood they have already expressed their concerns to Statistics Canada and Industry Minister John Manley directly and do not seek to have their MP duplicate what they have already done. On 2 June 2000, Liberal MP Murray Calder presented Private Member's Bill C-484 for first reading and printing. This Bill is identical to Bill S-15 presented to the Senate by Senator Lorna Milne on 16 December 1999, and currently in second reading in that House. These Bills would amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act. They expressly authorize the transfer of all census records from Statistics Canada to the National Archives of Canada for permanent safekeeping. They give access to the records to genealogists and other researchers 92 years after the census, subject to a privacy right they create that allows individuals to object to the disclosure of personal information in the census records. Jason Kenney's Motion M-160, presented to the House 13 October 1999 urges the government to take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003. Mr. Kenney's Motion was deemed a votable item with debate limited to three hours. To date, two of those three hours of debate have taken place. Bearing in mind the Bills of Mr. Calder and Ms. Milne, and the Motion of Mr. Kenney, I would again ask of you the following question: "Would you, as an elected Member of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada, vote FOR or AGAINST a Bill supporting release to the Public, of Post 1901 Census Records, 92 years after collection?" I would respectfully request a direct answer dealing specifically with the question. Your response will be recorded in your correspondence log on the Post 1901 Census Project website located at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census This website includes a "Scoreboard" listing all MPs and showing how they responded to, or neglected to respond to, the question above. I invite you to visit this website and check the position we show for you. As I am the person responsible for updating this website, should you find anything about yourself with which you disagree, please advise me directly. For those Members of Parliament who have already given us a direct answer to the question posed above I extend my heartfelt thanks. For those who have given a non-committal response, or who have not bothered to respond to our question I would respectfully request that you answer it at this time. On 24 April 2000 I sent to you an e-mail with the files constituting my written submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census attached. Titled "The Myths of Census", this submission is the result of several months of dedicated research and details proof of what I have stated above. I urge you to read this submission to verify my statements. I would extend to you the same invitation I gave to Statistics Canada and the Privacy Commissioner -- "If you can prove me wrong, please do so." If my e-mail of 24 April 2000, and the attached files, have gone astray I would be quite happy to resend them to you. I have compiled a CD containing much more support documentation than that contained in my written submission. I would be happy to send a copy of this CD on request. Should you have any questions or comments regarding my Submission to the Expert Panel, or to this message, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. I can be reached by e-mail, by telephone at (604) 942-6889, by Fax at (604) 942-6843, or by Canada Post at 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 To the francophone Members of Parliament I extend my apologies for not having a translation of this message. I regrettably neither speak nor read the French language. Sincerely, Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm

To all who have received copies of their personal files:- The following was received from a member of the Canada Census Committee -- should there be any questions, please reply to me, and I will forward queries - with private answer. It was noted the HRDC Minister, Hon. Jane Stewart stated "many personal items were expunged from the files" -- these items could have fallen into the hands of the wrong people, so hope all will understand. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee =================================== [Portion taken from letter of explanation] I suggest that if a researcher wants to learn these (personal information), he or she should obtain a copy of the Privacy Act and read through its provisions. (available online and from libraries) If, for any good and sufficient reason, a person believes that the department or agency is withholding personal information about them or is in any other way dissatisfied with the handling of his/her request for personal information, then a right of complaint is provided for in Section 29 of the Privacy Act. Section 30 of that Act indicates that a complaint shall be made to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in writing unless the Privacy Commissioner authorizes otherwise. To put it briefly, if a person believes, after having submitted a request under the Privacy Act, that the department or agency is withholding material or is otherwise not acting in accordance with the Act, then he/she has a right of complaint to the Privacy Commissioner (Mr. Bruce Phillips) who will have his staff investigate the matter. Mr. Phillips office may be contacated by snail mail at: The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 112 Kent Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 1H3. Their telephone number is (613) 995-2410.

To Suzanne Cobb Executive Assistant Many thanks for replying to my letter, requesting an answer re release of Post-1901 Canadian Census Records. Question: Did the Honourable Gilbert Normand SEE my letter, or are you one of the UN-elected assistants who answer for the Member of Parliament. We have had many assistants who have done this -- we would have preferred an answer with HIS name, instead of yours. At least you did not forward my letter to John Manley -- we are getting extremely tired of waiting while Mr. Manley "sits" on the Report of the Expert Panel. In future, please ask the ELECTED Member of Parliament for an answer. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm NOTE:- The Hon. Gilbert Normand keeps his BLUE ??? as his assistant did not ask for his personal answer. (Quebec) ======================================== CorrespondenceNormand@ic.gc.ca wrote: > Muriel M. Davidson > (davidson3542@home.com) > > Dear Ms. Davidson: > > On behalf of the Honourable Gilbert Normand, I would like to thank > you for your letter of September 5, 2000, concerning census records release. > Mr. Normand appreciates receiving your views. I regret the delay in > replying to you. > > However, as the matter you have raised in your letter falls under > the purview of Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada, I have > taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your correspondence to his office > for consideration. > > Yours truly, > > Suzanne Cobb > Executive Assistant > > c.c. Office of Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi

To Lovers of Census Records:- While the Members of Parliament are wondering whether we should or should not be able to view OUR Canadian census records for 1911 and hopefully later, it is a treat to visit Newfoundland's Grand Bank Site. There are varied topics on many of the district lists -- some have census records up to 1945, some only 1935. These are online and well done. Don Tate has a special message he posted -- as follows, so if you need to reply, please do so. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> --------------------- To All: This message is a request to all of you who make use of the information found on the Newfoundland's Grand Bank Site. I would appreciate it, if all of you who respond, please send your messages directly to me privately, rather than through this list. Send them to: Don Tate DTATE03@CFL.RR.COM (That is Dtate zero three @ cfl . rr. com) If you, as a user of the information found on the NGB site, had the opportunity to make one change that you felt would make the information more usable, What would that be???????? This could be additional types of information, layout of the pages, ease of finding your way around the site or anything else that you feel would make the site better and more friendly to use. Thanks to all of you who use the site on a daily basis. Please remember to e-mail me directly rather than through this list. Don Tate -- Don Tate Home of the Newfoundland 1921 Census material http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Heritage/NGB/

To all:- We sincerely hope, if you have not already, find out if you can access the Public Affairs Channel -- the usual CPAC Channel is 70, but often we find it on another station as well. Many of us who have been working long hours to try to obtain release of the Post-1901 Canadian Census Records, tuned in to hopefully hear a full hour of debate -- it was short by 13 minutes!! Gerald Keddy, MP, South Shore, Nova Scotia will receive my "blessing" for mentioning my name -- I will see him when Down Home! However, I have worked hard with long hours -- and with only one goal in view, the successful release of the 1911 (and later) census records. Mr. Crete, MP, spoke very well and although his speech was translated, I feel he is a member of one of Jeannine Ouellet's many groups in Quebec. Family history is a big topic there - with both genealogical and historical societies. Some of John Duncan's speech sounded familiar -- he definitely has read Gordon Watts' THE MYTHS OF CENSUS, as certain phrases were used. Many thanks, John, for a great speech. A disappointment was the governmentally slanted speech by Mac Harb. He had Bill C-312, and should that be revived, it is hoped there be a "killer" amendment, such as he made. Jason Kenney's original Motion M-160 should have been allowed to progress as it has in the past -- without Liberal government interference. Personally, we know the speech Jason Kenney made was not the one he had planned but he did his best and we can only hope for the best. To quote John Duncan: The vote should be on the ORIGINAL motion. References were made to the progress of the census campaign -- some of us are proud of our work -- John Manley was forced to appoint an Expert Panel in November, 1999, eight months after we started the campaign in March, 1999. We have accomplished a great deal. I received a personal e-mail from Dr. Pamela White in April, 2000, stating their work was finished. Translation had to be done, both French and English needed for governmental documents. We expected the Report of the Expert Panel by May 31, 2000 - someone stopped it, and these are my personal feelings. Again, by June 30th, NO Report! We did learn by August that John Manley was reading and discussing the report -- but it has still not been allowed!!! WHY????? During the various speeches on M-160, there was mention of the number of years between census releases in various countries. United States will be releasing the 1930 census, United Kingdom will be online!!! I will gladly accept the records 92 years after being taken - if necessary. There could be people listed on the 1911 census alive in 2003 -- my aunt is now 98 -- she wishes to know if she is listed on a Canadian census. PLEASE ask YOUR Member of Parliament to vote YES in favour of Jason Kenney's Motion M-160. You have every right to do this. Looking forward to next Tuesday's vote -- hope it is positive, Jason! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm [See how YOUR Member of Parliament is rated]

Mac Harb - MP Dear Mr. Harb. On CPAC this afternoon I watched with interest your speech regarding Jason Kenney's Motion M-160. I was gratified to see you reaffirm your support for allowing access to historic census. I was, however, somewhat disappointed to see the mover of Bill C-312, a Bill intended to allow that access, propose an amendment to M-160 that would effectively nullify the intent of that motion. One cannot help but feel that the Motion to Amend was an orchestrated attempt to delay the necessity of the Liberal government from taking action on the concerns of an estimated 7.5 million Canadians that seek access to Historic Census in order to find their ancestry. It is to be hoped that on voting, the amendment will be defeated, and the main motion as originally worded, will be passed. Industry Minister John Manley has had on his desk since 30 June 2000 the Report of the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census. He did not view this report until six weeks following receipt of it. Despite several requests that he immediately release this Report to the Public, he has yet to do so and has given no indication as to when he intends to do so. What is he hiding? Rather than move amendments, the result of which would be to dilute the intent of M-160, your efforts might be better directed to efforts to have Mr. Manley release the Report of the Expert Panel. We thank you for your support for access to historic census, but not for your motion to amend Motion M-160. Sincerely Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Canada Census Committee Port Coquitlam, BC Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm

Val Meridith - MP Dear Ms. Meridith On CPAC this afternoon I watched with interest your speech regarding Jason Kenney's Motion M160. While gratified to note your support of this motion, and therefore your support for allowing access to all Post 1901 Census records, I was somewhat disappointed with your several references to allowing this access 100 years following collection. I am sure that you are aware that Regulations attached to the Privacy Act currently allow access to personal information from census to be transferred to the National Archives, and subsequently allowed access by the public, 92 years after collection. Assuming the age of majority at the time of collection of the 1911 Census to be 21 years, as it was until relatively recently, an adult enumerated at that time would be a minimum of 113 years old 92 years after collection. If the time after collection of a census were increased to 100 years, that age would be 121. While admittedly the longevity of man has been increasing, I think it unlikely there are many citizens living at the age of 113, let alone 121. For a child being enumerated at that time, basically the only information regarding them recorded would be that they existed, and their relationship to the head of family. While many of those seeking access to historic census would like to see a period shorter than 92 years following collection before release, our campaign would be happy to see this remain as it is. Certainly most of us would be unhappy to see that period increase. If memory serves correctly, you made reference to England TRYING to release the 1901 census after 100 years. Please be advised that for as long as I can remember (at the age of 58) England has released their census after 100 years. What is different at this time is that the intent of the Public Record Office is for the full census of 1901 to be placed online and accessible via the Internet. Canada could learn from England in this matter. Thank you for your support of M-160 and subsequently for allowing access to all Historic Census. Sincerely Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Port Coquitlam, BC Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm

Hi Jacqui. The vote on M-160 was postponed, by mutual agreement of the different parties, until next Tuesday. We did not learn about this until late last night. What you missed near the beginning of the debate was Mac Harb introducing an amendment to the motion that would effectively neutralize the motion. The end result, if the motion were passed, would be to change the motion to read "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should CONSIDER TAKING all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003." The capitalized words would replace the word TAKE. As you can see, the amendment if passed would considerably dilute the intention of the original motion. It is to be hoped that the amendment will fail, and the original motion will pass. An unfortunate effect of this motion to amend is that it forced Jason Kenny to speak against the amendment rather than speaking to the original motion as was intended. Next Tuesday, the voting will take place first on the amendment, and then on the amended, or original motion, depending on whether or not the amendment is passed. Hope this answered your question. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: "jacquies mail" <jacnex@home.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 20 September, 2000 4:35 PM Subject: [CCC-L] What Happened Hello Everyone, OK, I watched CPAC, even recorded it since I had to miss some, since at 3:30pm PST I pick my daughter up from the bus stop, I heard some of the debate, and then some point of order was brought up and then the Chamber ajourned for the day. Wasn't there suppose to be a vote, what exactly did I miss. I will say this, our MP's may not be responding to us, but Muriel and Gordon, I do say the two of you especially are getting to them. So let us take heart and carry on the fight. A Very Confused (Though This Is My Usual State) Jacquie Nex jacnex@home.com

To Ken Epp:- I listened to the entire debate -- the Liberal amendment, I believe, was deliberately "planted" (now who is being cynical?). It definitely changed the context of Jason Kenney's Motion M-160, and it is our hope the amendment is turned down, the motion passed. Wait until I see Gerald Keddy!! I knew he would mention my name, as I am from the South Shore -- he has done a great deal for the area so I forgive him. Ken -- I will be watching the voting on Tuesday, September 26, and we know you will be supporting Jason's original motion. As for the report of the Expert Panel -- it must be comfortable to sit on -- John Manley has kept it far too long for private reading. Contact either Gordon Watts or myself any time - also go to http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census Mr. Watts has been working long hours -- he will be able to save Members of Parliament many hours with one site to visit. It may not be in your original/native language -- but both French and English. More changes coming. Many thanks, Ken!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canada Census Committee ----------------------------------------- "Epp, Ken - Personal" wrote: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 7:17 pm Ottawa Ms Muriel M. Davidson: Thanks for your e-mail which I received on the 18th. ________________________________________________ Here is what you wrote: Q: Will YOU support Jason Kenney's Motion M-160? A: Either YES or NO, please. Now, my response: ====================== First, I think we have it backwards! I am YOUR representative and therefore it would be much more useful for YOU to tell me how YOU would like me to vote! I hope that you will still do that! At the present time, I am inclined to vote for the motion. This is based on the fact that I have received a number of submissions from constituents (and others around the country) who are urging us to support this Bill. I have received very few (if any--I don't remember getting even one) asking me to continue to block these records. I am sure you know the dilemma. Originally, the census information was gathered with a commitment of confidentiality. Now it is clear that by the year 2003, there will be very few people left who gave information in the 1911 census, but there is still the dilemma of "how long do you wait until it is okay to break your promise?" I struggle a bit with that conundrum. However, as many people have pointed out, the information would now be very useful to many people who are doing research, both historical and geneological. What harm can possibly be done by releasing the information for people whose descendants now want to know? So there you are. I have answered according to your spec. If the vote were held today, I would vote YES. Does that agree with your position? I would really like to know. Now, just a little further to the situation. This bill was debated this evening. In fact, the debate just ended about ten minutes ago. The Liberals moved an amendment which basically does nothing. It will allow the Liberals to vote in favour of the amendment, thereby changing Jason Kenney's motion -- in fact it effectively neutralizes the motion. So they will vote in favour of the amendment and then they will vote in favour of the amended and demasculated motion. That way they don't need to vote on a controversial issue. After all, they don't want to alienate anyone with an election coming up soon. (Am I sounding too cynical?) I better quit. Thanks for writing. Please e-mail me back. If you use eppk@parl.gc.ca it will come to my assistant; if you use eppk9@parl.gc.ca, that will come directly to my computer, and you will have my personal response. Sincerely, Ken Epp, MP Elk Island

Greetings All. FYI Gordon ================================ Ms. Aileen Carroll, MP Attention: Mary Ellen Torobin I am writing at this time regarding two pieces of email correspondence originating from your office. The first being that sent to Muriel M. Davidson, and the second being sent to Melville R. Andress. The text of these two messages is copied below. Insofar as your response to Ms. Davidson is concerned, it is indeed unfortunate that you chose your wording in such a cavalier manner. While it may not have been your intention to appear arrogant in your reply, it certainly reads that way to me. Regarding the inference that you are "responsible only to Mrs. Carroll's constituents concerning responding to individual questions and requests." Do you really find it easier to respond to non-constituents in this manner, rather than to simply answer the question asked? Would it have taken a great deal more effort to respond either positively or negatively to the Question: Would you vote for or against a Bill to allow access to Post 1901 Census records, starting with the Census of 1906? I think not. Surely Mrs. Carroll, being a rational, thinking, individual, has a definitive opinion regarding this question. Her constituents wish to know what that opinion is. Regarding your response to Mr. Andress. It has the appearance of being a form letter, and I note that you could not be bothered to personalize the salutation by using his name, simply stating "Dear Constituent". It may interest you to know that he is not, in fact, a constituent of Mrs. Carroll. >From your reference to the Environics Research Focus Group study relating to Historic Census (although not by name), it is obvious to me that you have not read the report of this study but have relied solely upon media reports that sensationalized one statement of that report while ignoring the rest of it. The original Focus Group surveys consisted of a maximum of 72 persons, divided in to six groups of 10 to 12 participants. The majority of these participants had no previous knowledge regarding Access to Census. They were first told there was a "promise" of never-ending confidentiality, and then asked if that "promise" should be broken. I would suggest to you that on any given subject, if a group of people having no previous knowledge regarding that subject, were advised there had been a "promise" made (whether or not, in fact, there had been), and were then asked if that "promise" should be broken, the majority of answers would be negative. Statistics Canada, and former Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips have been asked on a number of occasions to produce documented evidence of the "promise" they contend was made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1905/06. They have been asked to prove me wrong in stating that "The Promise Does Not Exist". To date they have been unable to do so. I would advise you that the complete report of this survey, including the Focus Group survey, and two National Omnibus surveys, is now available online on the website of Statistics Canada as a downloadable .PDF file. To make things easier for you, this link http://www.statcan.ca/english/census96/public.pdf will download the file for you. I urge you to study this survey report with care. You will find that contrary to your statement that "There is in fact little support for releasing the historical data", the two national surveys indicate that the majority of Canadians do, in fact, support allowing access to Historic Census records. Statistics Canada, not getting the response they wanted in the first national survey, in order to elicit a pre-determined negative response manipulated the questions in the second survey by unduly stressing the unproved "promise" and "guarantees of never-ending confidentiality." The responses to the second survey were not, in fact, negative. They were only less positive than responses of the first survey. On 24 May 2000, the files for my submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census, titled "The Myths of Census" were sent to you. I urge you to read this submission. Should you no longer have the files I would be more than happy to resend them. While the report of the Expert Panel has been on Industry Minister John Manley's desk since 30 June 2000, he has yet to release this report to the Public. We hope that he will do so soon. I am not a constituent of Mrs. Carroll. I would, however, respectfully request a one line response giving a definitive answer to the question above. That answer will be added to her correspondence log on the MPs Scoreboard located at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census so that her constituents might be aware of her position. Thank you. Gordon A. WATTS gordon_watts@telus.net Canada Census Committee 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 Tel (604) 942-6889 Fax (604) 942-6843 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm 09/19/2000 - email from office of MP Aileen Carroll to Muriel M. Davidson. Carroll, Aileen - Assistant 1" wrote: Ms. Davidson, We realize this issue has a Canada-wide interest range, but we are responsible only to Mrs. Carroll's constituents concerning responding to individual questions and requests. This is the way the system works. Please try your own M.P. Mary Ellen Torobin Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P., Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford 06/28/2000 - apparent form letter from office of MP Aileen Carroll to Melville R. Andress. Dear Constituent, Thank you for your letter on the issue of release of census data. This matter has been a subject of concern for family history researchers for some time. As you know, Statistics Canada is prohibiting from disclosing census returns filed in 1906 and later. A Private Members' Bill is in the system to amend the privacy legislation, but Statistics Canada has undertaken its own study to ascertain the support among Canadians for incorporating the researchers' and historians' request in government legislation. Although the study has not yet been officially released, early indications are that the study found people objected to retroactively changing legislation to allow disclosure of individual answers. There is in fact little support for releasing the historical data. Most participants felt that the government made a promise of confidentiality and that this should be respected. People who answered those censuses believed their answers would be confidential, and thus it would be a breach to release the information. However, there are yet arguments to be studied on both sides, and I will ensure that your request is seen by Mrs. Carroll for her consideration. Sincerely, Mary Ellen Torobin, Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P. M. Aileen Carroll, M.P., Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford.

Hello Everyone, OK, I watched CPAC, even recorded it since I had to miss some, since at 3:30pm PST I pick my daughter up from the bus stop, I heard some of the debate, and then some point of order was brought up and then the Chamber ajourned for the day. Wasn't there suppose to be a vote, what exactly did I miss. I will say this, our MP's may not be responding to us, but Muriel and Gordon, I do say the two of you especially are getting to them. So let us take heart and carry on the fight. A Very Confused (Though This Is My Usual State) Jacquie Nex jacnex@home.com

Dear Assistant 1:- We have had many, many assistants replying on behalf of the ELECTED Members of Parliament -- the assistants give their opinion, only. Very often, we have learned the Member of Parliament has never even been shown or told about any message. The Canada Census Committee is a volunteer group of dedicated men and women, working for ALL of Canada and release of the census. I am certain Mr. Watts will assign Ms. Carroll one huge RED X -- meaning NO -- because of your comment "this is how the system works". Should Ms. Carroll be allowed to read her own mail, and comment on same, we will be happy to hear from her. Also, your subject heading is misspelled!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> "Carroll, Aileen - Assistant 1" wrote: > Ms. Davidson, > > We realize this issue has a Canada-wide interest range, but we are > responsible only to Mrs. Carroll's constituents concerning responding to > individual questions and requests.This is the way the system works. Please > try your own M.P. > > Mary Ellen Torobin > Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P., > Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford

Hi all, A fellow lister sent me this information which I think may be useful to the Canadian searchers. I hope you are just as amazed as I was! Wow! Happy hunting, Lori-Ann MARRIAGE page 260 CCH Canadian Family Law Guide [1999] "Marriage Acts have been enacted in all nine common law provinces and in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The Solemnization of marriage in Quebec is dealt with in the Civil Code of Quebec." "[1010] CAPACITY In order to contract a valid marriage, a person must have the 'capacity' to do so; that is, a person must have a legal right to enter into the marital relationship. Notwithstanding the jurisdiction of Parliament to legislate in respect of capacity, or the essential validity of marriage, the field has largely been left to be filled by provincial and territorial legislatures. In many cases, resort must be had to the common law." "[1015] Age The minimum age requirement at common law, has, for most practical purposes, been supplanted by provincial legislation. At common law, derived from ecclesiastical law, the marriage less than seven years was void. The age of consent was generally considered to be 12 years for a girl and 14 for a boy (see the Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law, Part II, 'Marriage', 1970 pp.36-38) In Ontario, the Marriage Act, provides, at subsection 5(1), that a person 'who is of the age of majority' may lawfully obtain a license or be married under authority of the publication of banns. Subsections 5(2), et seq., effectively prohibit the marriage of a minor, except where he or she is at least 16 years of age and has the consent, in writing, of his or her parent(s) or guardian(s). Where the required consent cannot be reasonably obtained, an application may be made in accordance with section 6 for an order dispensing consent. Such an order dispensing with consent was granted in Re Fox, [1973] 1 O.R. 146 (Co. Ct.). The Court found that the consent of the father to the marriage of his 16 year old dau ghter was being 'unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld'. In Alberta, the marriage of a female who is under the age of 16 may lawfully take place, provided that she is either pregnant or the mother of a living child, subsection 16(2) of the Marriage Act. Parental consent, or its equivalent, is required ..." REPORT ON FAMILY LAW ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION PART II MARRIAGE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [1970] page 36 "(c) Age for Capacity to Marry At common law a valid marriage could be contracted if the female had reached the age of twelve and the male had reached the age of fourteen years. (85) This rule originated as a presumption of the canon law as to the age at which a marriage might be consummated, a presumption rebut table on the facts at any given age. (86) As applied by common law, the presumptive nature of the rule ceased and the age of marriage was fixed and certain. The canon law further required that the parties should have reached an age of rational consent, which it settled at seven years. Below this age marriage was, at canon law, impossible, a purported union resulting in a matrimonium non existens. It seems that this additional requirement of the canon law did not find acceptance at common law. Coke said that he would gave dower regardless of the late husband's age at marriage 'albeit he were but 4 years old'. (87) Apparently the betrothal or attempted betrothal of children who were less than seven years old occurred not infrequently. (88) Comyns (89) stated without qualification that by common law persons might marry at any age, but more recently, it has been asserted that a marriage before the English Age of Marriage Act 1929, (90) attempted under the age of seven years, was void ipso jurs. (91) Such a question is not likely to arise for a decision today. If it were so, it might be noted that the factors which formerly motivated infant marriages either are not persuasive or do not exist. (92) A marriage where a party under the age was not devoid of all effect, but it was inchoate and imperfect. (93) It was open to either of the parties to affirm or avoid the marriage on the party under the age of matrimonial consent attaining this age. Such election could not be made before this occurred, but, once affirmed, the marriage thereafter became irrevocably binding. If the parties wished to affirm the marriage no new ceremony was necessary; it was sufficient evidence of affirmation if, for example, the parties continued to live together. The power to make laws with regard to marriage and divorce is distributed between the Parliament of Canada and the Provincial ... " ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --- (85) Kenn's Case (1606), 7 Co. Rep, 42b; Arnold v. Earle (1758), 2 Lee. 529; R. V Gordon (1803), Russ. And Ry. 48; Pugh v. Pugh, [1951] P. 482; R. V. Ball [1857], 18 U.C.Q.B. 287; Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R., (2d) 404; Mouton v. Mouton, [1942], W.N. (N.S.W.) 49; Re An Infant [1963], 6 F.L.R. 12. And see D'Anvers Translation of Rolle's Abridgement, Vol. I, 700; Co. Litt. 79; Comyas Digest, Baron and Femme (5th ed. 1822) 215. (86) Pollack and Maitland, The History of English Law [1959] Vol. 2, at pp. 390 and 391; Jackson, The Formation and Anulment of Marriage [11951], at pp. 19 and 20. (87) Co. Litt, 33a. Also, Jackson, ep. Cil. Supra, note 86 at p. 20 "In practice, however, the temperal law seems widely to have ignored the doctrine that marriages under hte age of seven were absolutely void and non-existant". (88) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. 391. (89) Comyns, op. Cit. Suopra, note 85, at p. 215. (90) 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 36; now new section 2 of the Marriage Act, 1949, 12, 13, &14 Geo. 6, c. 76. (91) Rayden, Practicer and Law of Divorce (9th ed, 1964), at p. 79. See also Cartwright and Lovekin, The Law and Practice of Divorce in Canada (3rd ed., 1962), at p. 62, "At common law no person under the age of seven could contract marriage". (92) Pollack and Maitland, op. Cit. Supra, note 86, at p. 391. (93) Co. Litt. 79; B1. Comm., Vol. 1, at pp. 435 and 436; Comyns, op. Cit. Supra, note 85, at p. 215. But see Hlliatt and Sugden v. Gurr [1812], 2 Phill. Ecc. 16, at p. 19 per Sir John Nicholl; "...civil liberties, such as ... want of age ... make the contract void ab initiv, not merely void able ... ". Page 37 " ... Legislatures. By Section 91 (26) of the British North America Act, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over 'Marriage and Divorce' is assigned to the Parliament of Canada. By section 92 (12) exclusive legislation jurisdiction in relation to 'The Solemnization of marriage in the Provinces' as assigned to the Provincial Legislatures. In the case of Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, the Privy Council decided that this head of power operates by way of exception to the powers conferred by section 91 (26) (94) On the subject of solemnization, The Marriage Act of Ontario is therefore to be construed as 'exhaustive'. (95) The supreme Court of Canada has recognized the distinction between the formalities of the ceremony of marriage and the status or capacity required to contract marriage. (96) Formalities fall within the head of 'solemnization of marriage' which includes not only the ceremony itself, but also the various steps leading to it. Provincial legislation relating thereto is intra vives. The question of capacity to marry, however, is an area outside provincial legislature competence. A consideration of the pertinent case law dealing with provincial legislation in this area (97) indicates that provincial enactment's may not effect, and will not be construed to effect the capacity of a person to marry. The result is that while provincial legislation may validly require certain conditions to be fulfilled before the marriage may be solemnized, failure to comply with these formal requirements will not result in invalidity of the marriage unless the legislation specifically requires this penalty for non-compliance. (98) For these reasons, the provisions of The Marriage Act of Ontario which deal with the matter of age for solemnization of marriage can not be construed as affecting the capacity of persons to marry. In addition, they are directed at issuers of licenses and solemnizes of marriages rather than the parties themselves, and the invalidity is a prescribed consequence of failure to comply with the requirements. It therefore does not appear that the marriage entered in the provisions of the Act would be void. Indeed, in cases where the parties were acting in good faith, the marriage might be saved explicitly by section 46 of the Act. In any event, where the capacity of the parties is concerned, in the absence of federal legislation the common law must govern. Thus, if to prevent illegitimacy of offspring, a license is issued to a female person under twelve ... ". ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --- (94) [1912] A.C. 330, at p.887 per Viscount Haldane, L.C. See also Laskin, Canadian Constitutional Law (2nd ed 1960), at p. 978. (95) Alspector v. Alspector, [1957] O.R., 454, at p. 462 (96) Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] S.C.R. 72; Neison v. Underwood [1936] S.C.R. 635; see also Re Marriage Legislation in Canada, [1912] A.C. 380, and Gilham v. Steele [1953] 2 D.L.R. 89. (97) Hobson v. Gray [1958], 13 D.L.R. (2nd) 404 (Alta, S.C.); Ross v. MacQueen [1948] 2 D.L.R. 536 (Alta. S.C.); and Colvin v. Colvin [1952] 3 D.L.R., S10 (B.C.S.C.) (98) See e.g., Kerr v. Kerr and Attorney General for Ontario [1934] S.C.R. 72, where the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Constitutional validity of s. 17 (1) of the Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1927 c. 81, which prescibed the prior consent of a parent or guardian to the marriage of a minor as a condition precedent to a valid marriage. The contents required were characterized as essential elements in the ceremony itself, rather than as matters related to capacity. The decision also upheld the validity of those provisions of the Marriage Act declaring that marriages solemnized in the absence of the required consents were deemed to be void". Sunshine, Rainbows & Smiles Always :o) http://www.dreamwater.com/larc/LarcLandindex.html

To Mary Ellen Torobin:- Aileen Carroll, M.P. may not know it -- but the Post-1901 Canadian Census Release problem is Canada-wide -- not just her little bit of Ontario. There are many who feel this way -- and if should be the necessity, I can see what 301 Bills for release of Post-1901 census would do -- totally disrupt the government. Check <http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census> Go to Other Sites -- you will be able to read the various Bills by just clicking on the number -- we have made it easy for you. NO, I am not one of Ms. Carroll's constituents -- but I am CANADIAN!!! This is what she should remember! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> 25 Crestview Avenue, Brampton, ON L6W 2R8 1-905-451-3542 Brampton Centre Riding! "Carroll, Aileen - Assistant 1" wrote: > Ms. Davidson, > Please send your post office address, in order that we can identify you as a > constituent of Mrs. Carroll. > > Mary Ellen Torobin > Aide to Aileen Carroll, M.P., > Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford