Hi George. A boycott of census has been brought up on occasion by some of our active participants. It is something that might be considered but only as a last resort. It would be very difficult to organize enough people to have any appreciable effect. There are substantial penalties for refusal to participate in Census, including fines and imprisonment and most would not be willing to risk that. While the idea that if enough people did boycott, the government would not be able to enforce things, there is no guarantee that either enough would participate or that the laws would not be enforced. Realistically, it is unlikely that we would get a great deal of participation in a boycott. I choose to be optimistic and think the Expert Panel will recommend allowing access to Census. I am looking forward to seeing their report at the end of the month. Thank you for your interest and support. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: George Gouraud <ggouraud@direct.ca> To: <gordon_watts@telus.net> Sent: Monday, 12 June, 2000 4:07 PM Subject: Re:Census Mr Watts: As a VERY,VERY amateur genealogist, trying (so far in vain) to trace my family origins, I would like to have access to the 1911,1918 and 1921 census records. I don't know if anyone has thought of this angle before, but here goes. If I'm not mistaken, 2001 is a census year, so if the measures now under way to secure the release of these records fail, maybe we should organize a boycott of the upcoming census until such time as these prior records are released. If it were to be "advertised" far enough in advance, with enough people taking part, this might put some additional pressure on the Government to act to release these very important and personal records. Especially today, when any time you log on to just about any Internet or Web site or use an "Air Miles card, a "Store Discount" card or any kind of "Points" card, that site is gathering CURRENT information about you, I for I have no problem with my records being released after 92 years and I don't think that many other people would either. As I said, this is just a thought from an amateur. George Gouraud (ggouraud@ direct.ca

FYI -- My response to MP Paul Steckle Gordon ----------------------------------------- Mr. Paul Steckle, MP Huron-Bruce (Ontario) Dear Sir: This afternoon (12 June 2000) you had a telephone conversation with Mrs. Muriel M. Davidson of Brampton, Ontario. You followed up this conversation with an e-mail, the text of which is included at the end of this message. In the above-mentioned e-mail, you invited comments regarding it's contents. The purpose of my writing at this time then is to respond to your invitation. To begin with I might suggest that when constituents and others request your position on how you would vote on a Bill to allow access of Post 1901 Census records, they want to know your opinion. You would do well to respond with your own thoughts rather than recycling outdated information sheets circulated by Statistics Canada. By far the largest portion of your letter to Mrs. Davidson was quoted verbatim from information sheets produced by Dr. Ivan Fellegi and Statistics Canada at least a year ago. Much has changed since then. It is obvious from your letter that you have relied on, and accepted verbatim, virtually all statements issued by Statistics Canada, and have done little or no investigation of your own regarding the matter of Post 1901 Census. I would sincerely urge you to do some of your own investigation on this matter. You might be surprized at what you find. You began your letter by stating that "release of individual census records is explicitly prohibited, by law, for all censuses following 1901". I must inform you sir, that while this statement has been widely circulated by Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips, it is incorrect. Statistics Canada bases their position of non-disclosure on a number of legal opinions received from the Justice Department in 1985 or earlier. I would stress that these are only opinions and have not been tested in a court of law. I would stress also that these opinions were based on only one clause (Secrecy) contained in Instructions to Enumerators for the Census of 1906 and others. The legislation in 1905/1906 stated that the Instructions to Enumerators, as made up by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and approved by Order in Council, had "the force of law". There is every indication that the Secrecy clause was intended only to prevent Officers and Enumerators from disclosing, at the time of Census, contemporary name identified information. It did not state, nor did it imply, that information from Census would never be accessible by the Public. I would point out that the Instructions to Enumerators had other clauses that also had "the force of law". These included statements that Census "will have value as a record for historical use in tracing the origin and rise of future towns in the country", and would be used "for the purpose of future reference and comparison". Also "The Census is intended to be a permanent record, and it's schedules will be stored in the Archives of the Dominion", and "The Census is a permanent record, and it's schedules will be carefully preserved for future reference." Had the various legal advisors in the Justice Department considered all of the pertinent clauses in formulating their legal opinions on this matter, I have no doubt that the campaign to obtain access to Post 1901 Census records would never have been necessary. If all pertinent clauses had been considered, Census records would have continued to be released after 92 years as allowed in Regulations attached to the Privacy Act. Lawyers involved in our research have expressed the opinion that a court challenge to the position of Statistics Canada would very likely result in the release of Historic Census, at least up to the Census of 1916, and perhaps later as well. The first Statute pertaining to Census that had a clause relating to Secrecy was passed in 1918. The clauses of that Statute contained nothing that would prevent the transfer of Historic Census to the control of the National Archives. No statute up to the present day contains any clause that states Historic Census cannot be transferred to the National Archivist. The only thing that prevents the transfer of Historic Census to the control of the National Archivist is a policy of Statistics Canada based on a legal opinion - an opinion based on a mis-interpretation of only one clause of several, contained in Instructions to Enumerators, that should have been considered. Much has been made by Statistics Canada and the Privacy Commissioner regarding a "promise" or "explicit guarantee of indefinite confidentiality" supposedly made to the people of Canada by the government of Sir Wilfred Laurier in 1906. I have asked both Statistics Canada and Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips to "show me the promise". To date, neither has been able to do so. After a great deal of research by myself, and others, I can state unequivocally that the promise does not exist. A promise never made cannot be broken. I could go further here but it would only be repeating much of what was contained in my Submission to the Expert Panel on Access to Historic Census appointed by Industry Minister John Manley on 12 November 1999. I have attached to this message the files containing my written submission to the Expert Panel. Although I sent them to you, and all other MPs, attached to an email on 14 April 2000, it is obvious that you did not read them. I would encourage you to do so at this time. Should you so wish, I can send you a CD that accompanied my written submission. This CD contains a great deal more support documentation than was included within the written submission. If you can prove me wrong in anything that I have stated in my submission I invite you to do so. I would welcome any comments you might have regarding my submission. I can be reached by e-mail, by telephone at (604) 942-6889, by Fax at (604) 942-6843, or by mail at 1455 Delia Drive Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 2V9 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Text of letter from Paul Steckle, MP to Muriel M. Davidson 12 June 2000 Mrs. Davidson: I am writing further to our telephone conversation (in response to your e-mails), regarding the release of 1911 and subsequent census records to the National Archives of Canada. Please accept my appreciation for taking the time to write on this issue, and for providing me with the opportunity to comment. Before I begin, I should point out that the release of individual census records is explicitly prohibited, by law, for all censuses following 1901. Understandably, this has angered the many genealogists and researchers who had expected that the 1911 census records would be publicly available in 2003 (92 years after the taking of the census). Regrettably, there is a public perception that Statistics Canada has taken an arbitrary position in this matter and is circumventing the "standard 92 year rule" by its decision not to transfer the records. This is not the case. In fact, legislatively speaking, the agency's hands are tied. The Privacy Act is the legislation that provides for the transfer of records to the National Archives of Canada. It permits such transfers only if there are no other acts with a different or a stronger legislative protection. In other words, records can be transferred to the National Archives only if there are no provisions in another piece of legislation that prevents the said transfer. The records of censuses taken in 1901 and in prior years have been transferred to the National Archives of Canada for public access. This was possible (legal) because the legislation that was used to collect these census records did not contain any specific provisions that prohibited their transfer. In short, up to 1901, Census-takers were instructed to protect the confidentiality of the information (while collecting it), but these instructions did not have the force of law. Thus the information contained in these records is protected only by the Privacy Act which stipulates that National Archives of Canada can make these records available to the public 92 years after the taking of the census. Starting in 1906, (and in subsequent censuses) the legislation that gave the authority to collect census information contained statutory confidentiality provisions. These provisions are such that only the person named in the particular record may have access to his/her information. There is also no time limitation on the access. Essentially, even when the person is deceased, the provisions are still legally in effect. As a result of this, Statistics Canada cannot, without breaching the Statistics Act, transfer any census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and subsequent Statistics Acts to the National Archives of Canada. The fact that the United States and Britain both release census records is an issue of different legislation and, perhaps, of historical culture when it comes to the taking of a census. Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1986. These records have now been transferred from the actual questionnaires, to microfilm, and are available for access by the individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension and passport purposes. The destruction of the 1911 and later census records held on microfilm was never a consideration by Statistics Canada (although the paper questionnaires themselves have been destroyed in accordance with approvals given by the National Archives of Canada). As a result, Statistics Canada does not have the option, as has been suggested by some genealogists and researchers, of being able to filter out the more sensitive information from early census records since microfilm technology, unlike newer technology such as optical imaging, does not lend itself to severance. The original paper questionnaires would have been required for this. Like any law, the Statistics Act can also be amended to permit the release of individual records after 92 years. But, this is where an important principle of privacy protection comes into play: is it right to alter retroactively the conditions under which information was provided by Canadians? Should Parliament declare, in effect, as invalid the explicit guarantee of indefinite confidentiality that was promised to Canadians when the data in question were collected? Or should it perhaps consider the 92-year release rule for future censuses only? This issue, although seemingly cut-and-dry, is very complex. While there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical census records, there is also great value attached to the information that can be produced from current and future censuses. That information is and will be used for a multiplicity of purposes, many of which are requirements contained in various pieces of legislation to meet specific needs (for example; transfer payments to provinces and the determination of electoral boundaries). Canadian citizens have always demonstrated co-operation in providing personal information about themselves when asked to participate in a census, or in other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Some might say that the most important factor contributing to this co-operation is the unconditional guarantee given to respondents that the information they supply will be protected. Canada, for almost 100 years has been able to unconditionally guarantee the confidentiality of the information supplied in the census. Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could seriously jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable, timely information on which many users depend. This information is also a fundamental pillar of our democratic system, because it is one of the measures that electors use to evaluate the performance of their governments. With the aforementioned being said, I would respectfully request that you provide your comments on the above. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and, as such, I am interested in hearing any additional thoughts that you may have on this potentially precedent-setting matter. Please accept my appreciation, in advance, for your co-operation. Sincerely, Paul Steckle Paul Steckle, M.P. / député Huron-Bruce (Ontario) 251 Confederation / Confédération House of Commons / Chambre des communes Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 (613) 995-9848 phone (613) 995-6350 fax

Hello list, Therefore, we can fight for the right if someone is dying and there is proof that the D.N.A. that is amongst our ancestors will save us? Those wanting to search our roots and ancestors with a quest to LEARN THE HISTORY is totally forgotten due to the political ivory tower wording and power of "playing with words" and what it represents? Why do you have to worry about what your life in the future history books reads if it is not good? You are representing the Country and we must entrust the next generation (our children) in your care. Yet, you don't want to be proud of your achievements and such? Sir John A. MacDonald likely never thought of his "personal affairs" going down in history compared to his achievements as a Leader. No offence folks but money talks....the proof is in the pudding! I am very boiled over this and feel that if ANY of them undecided or against our cause, will encounter it at some point in time. I am sorry if this offends a few but after listening to these replies and the statements of some, I am disgusted that a "YES or NO" is such a tough question to answer. Lori-Ann Toledo, Ohio (Canadian born and bred, 36 years Ontario, Canada) ----- Original Message ----- From: Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:13 PM Subject: [CCC-L] Release of 1911 Census Records The following -- meaning NO -- was received after a pleasant phone chat with Paul Steckle. He invites comments -- I am certain he will receive them <Steckle.P@parl.gc.ca> Muriel <davidson3542@home.com> ===================================== Mrs. Davidson: I am writing further to our telephone conversation (in response to your e-mails), regarding the release of 1911 and subsequent census records to the National Archives of Canada. Please accept my appreciation for taking the time to write on this issue, and for providing me with the opportunity to comment. Before I begin, I should point out that the release of individual census records is explicitly prohibited, by law, for all censuses following 1901. Understandably, this has angered the many genealogists and researchers who had expected that the 1911 census records would be publicly available in 2003 (92 years after the taking of the census). Regrettably, there is a public perception that Statistics Canada has taken an arbitrary position in this matter and is circumventing the "standard 92 year rule" by its decision not to transfer the records. This is not the case. In fact, legislatively speaking, the agency's hands are tied. The Privacy Act is the legislation that provides for the transfer of records to the National Archives of Canada. It permits such transfers only if there are no other acts with a different or a stronger legislative protection. In other words, records can be transferred to the National Archives only if there are no provisions in another piece of legislation that prevents the said transfer. The records of censuses taken in 1901 and in prior years have been transferred to the National Archives of Canada for public access. This was possible (legal) because the legislation that was used to collect these census records did not contain any specific provisions that prohibited their transfer. In short, up to 1901, Census-takers were instructed to protect the confidentiality of the information (while collecting it), but these instructions did not have the force of law. Thus the information contained in these records is protected only by the Privacy Act which stipulates that National Archives of Canada can make these records available to the public 92 years after the taking of the census. Starting in 1906, (and in subsequent censuses) the legislation that gave the authority to collect census information contained statutory confidentiality provisions. These provisions are such that only the person named in the particular record may have access to his/her information. There is also no time limitation on the access. Essentially, even when the person is deceased, the provisions are still legally in effect. As a result of this, Statistics Canada cannot, without breaching the Statistics Act, transfer any census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and subsequent Statistics Acts to the National Archives of Canada. The fact that the United States and Britain both release census records is an issue of different legislation and, perhaps, of historical culture when it comes to the taking of a census. Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1986. These records have now been transferred from the actual questionnaires, to microfilm, and are available for access by the individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension and passport purposes. The destruction of the 1911 and later census records held on microfilm was never a consideration by Statistics Canada (although the paper questionnaires themselves have been destroyed in accordance with approvals given by the National Archives of Canada). As a result, Statistics Canada does not have the option, as has been suggested by some genealogists and researchers, of being able to filter out the more sensitive information from early census records since microfilm technology, unlike newer technology such as optical imaging, does not lend itself to severance. The original paper questionnaires would have been required for this. Like any law, the Statistics Act can also be amended to permit the release of individual records after 92 years. But, this is where an important principle of privacy protection comes into play: is it right to alter retroactively the conditions under which information was provided by Canadians? Should Parliament declare, in effect, as invalid the explicit guarantee of indefinite confidentiality that was promised to Canadians when the data in question were collected? Or should it perhaps consider the 92-year release rule for future censuses only? This issue, although seemingly cut-and-dry, is very complex. While there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical census records, there is also great value attached to the information that can be produced from current and future censuses. That information is and will be used for a multiplicity of purposes, many of which are requirements contained in various pieces of legislation to meet specific needs (for example; transfer payments to provinces and the determination of electoral boundaries). Canadian citizens have always demonstrated co-operation in providing personal information about themselves when asked to participate in a census, or in other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Some might say that the most important factor contributing to this co-operation is the unconditional guarantee given to respondents that the information they supply will be protected. Canada, for almost 100 years has been able to unconditionally guarantee the confidentiality of the information supplied in the census. Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could seriously jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable, timely information on which many users depend. This information is also a fundamental pillar of our democratic system, because it is one of the measures that electors use to evaluate the performance of their governments. With the aforementioned being said, I would respectfully request that you provide your comments on the above. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and, as such, I am interested in hearing any additional thoughts that you may have on this potentially precedent-setting matter. Please accept my appreciation, in advance, for your co-operation. Sincerely, Paul Steckle Paul Steckle, M.P. / député Huron-Bruce (Ontario) 251 Confederation / Confédération House of Commons / Chambre des communes Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 (613) 995-9848 phone (613) 995-6350 fax

The following -- meaning NO -- was received after a pleasant phone chat with Paul Steckle. He invites comments -- I am certain he will receive them <Steckle.P@parl.gc.ca> Muriel <davidson3542@home.com> ===================================== Mrs. Davidson: I am writing further to our telephone conversation (in response to your e-mails), regarding the release of 1911 and subsequent census records to the National Archives of Canada. Please accept my appreciation for taking the time to write on this issue, and for providing me with the opportunity to comment. Before I begin, I should point out that the release of individual census records is explicitly prohibited, by law, for all censuses following 1901. Understandably, this has angered the many genealogists and researchers who had expected that the 1911 census records would be publicly available in 2003 (92 years after the taking of the census). Regrettably, there is a public perception that Statistics Canada has taken an arbitrary position in this matter and is circumventing the "standard 92 year rule" by its decision not to transfer the records. This is not the case. In fact, legislatively speaking, the agency's hands are tied. The Privacy Act is the legislation that provides for the transfer of records to the National Archives of Canada. It permits such transfers only if there are no other acts with a different or a stronger legislative protection. In other words, records can be transferred to the National Archives only if there are no provisions in another piece of legislation that prevents the said transfer. The records of censuses taken in 1901 and in prior years have been transferred to the National Archives of Canada for public access. This was possible (legal) because the legislation that was used to collect these census records did not contain any specific provisions that prohibited their transfer. In short, up to 1901, Census-takers were instructed to protect the confidentiality of the information (while collecting it), but these instructions did not have the force of law. Thus the information contained in these records is protected only by the Privacy Act which stipulates that National Archives of Canada can make these records available to the public 92 years after the taking of the census. Starting in 1906, (and in subsequent censuses) the legislation that gave the authority to collect census information contained statutory confidentiality provisions. These provisions are such that only the person named in the particular record may have access to his/her information. There is also no time limitation on the access. Essentially, even when the person is deceased, the provisions are still legally in effect. As a result of this, Statistics Canada cannot, without breaching the Statistics Act, transfer any census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and subsequent Statistics Acts to the National Archives of Canada. The fact that the United States and Britain both release census records is an issue of different legislation and, perhaps, of historical culture when it comes to the taking of a census. Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1986. These records have now been transferred from the actual questionnaires, to microfilm, and are available for access by the individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension and passport purposes. The destruction of the 1911 and later census records held on microfilm was never a consideration by Statistics Canada (although the paper questionnaires themselves have been destroyed in accordance with approvals given by the National Archives of Canada). As a result, Statistics Canada does not have the option, as has been suggested by some genealogists and researchers, of being able to filter out the more sensitive information from early census records since microfilm technology, unlike newer technology such as optical imaging, does not lend itself to severance. The original paper questionnaires would have been required for this. Like any law, the Statistics Act can also be amended to permit the release of individual records after 92 years. But, this is where an important principle of privacy protection comes into play: is it right to alter retroactively the conditions under which information was provided by Canadians? Should Parliament declare, in effect, as invalid the explicit guarantee of indefinite confidentiality that was promised to Canadians when the data in question were collected? Or should it perhaps consider the 92-year release rule for future censuses only? This issue, although seemingly cut-and-dry, is very complex. While there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical census records, there is also great value attached to the information that can be produced from current and future censuses. That information is and will be used for a multiplicity of purposes, many of which are requirements contained in various pieces of legislation to meet specific needs (for example; transfer payments to provinces and the determination of electoral boundaries). Canadian citizens have always demonstrated co-operation in providing personal information about themselves when asked to participate in a census, or in other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Some might say that the most important factor contributing to this co-operation is the unconditional guarantee given to respondents that the information they supply will be protected. Canada, for almost 100 years has been able to unconditionally guarantee the confidentiality of the information supplied in the census. Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could seriously jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable, timely information on which many users depend. This information is also a fundamental pillar of our democratic system, because it is one of the measures that electors use to evaluate the performance of their governments. With the aforementioned being said, I would respectfully request that you provide your comments on the above. I don't pretend to have all of the answers and, as such, I am interested in hearing any additional thoughts that you may have on this potentially precedent-setting matter. Please accept my appreciation, in advance, for your co-operation. Sincerely, Paul Steckle Paul Steckle, M.P. / député Huron-Bruce (Ontario) 251 Confederation / Confédération House of Commons / Chambre des communes Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 (613) 995-9848 phone (613) 995-6350 fax

Dear List, It is obvious that our elected representatives who :" who sit on the fence" with this issue - must do the same with other issues as well., do they not have an opinion - or are they to afraid to voice it. Not what they were elected to do. It is easy to sit on a fence. Much more difficult - to take the big step and "Take a Stand" one way or the other - al least then we will know where our vote will go next time. Unfortunately - there are still not enough if any media response to this campaign. which means that there are very few people - really aware of what the situation is all about or that it exists at all.. I have not even received the courtesy of a negative response from anyone that I have contacted. Perhaps more educated - and persuasive letters are what are needed. I have not re subscribed to some of the magazines that I usually subscribe to. My letters are of no importance to them - and I have found that I can survive without their publications. One small step - The Following was sent from Cindi' Howells Genealogy site - re U.S. Census. http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/news/body_frame.html Stella At 10:08 PM 6/12/00 -0400, you wrote: >Hello list, >Therefore, we can fight for the right if someone is dying >and there is proof that the D.N.A. that is amongst our >ancestors will save us? >Those wanting to search our roots and ancestors with a quest >to LEARN THE HISTORY is totally forgotten due to the >political ivory tower wording and power of "playing with >words" and what it represents? >Why do you have to worry about what your life in the future >history books reads if it is not good? You are representing >the Country and we must entrust the next generation (our >children) in your care. Yet, you don't want to be proud of >your achievements and such? >Sir John A. MacDonald likely never thought of his "personal >affairs" going down in history compared to his achievements >as a Leader. >No offence folks but money talks....the proof is in the >pudding! I am very boiled over this and feel that if ANY >of them undecided or against our cause, will encounter it at >some point in time. > >I am sorry if this offends a few but after listening to >these replies and the statements of some, I am disgusted >that a "YES or NO" is such a tough question to answer. >Lori-Ann >Toledo, Ohio >(Canadian born and bred, 36 years Ontario, Canada) > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> >To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 9:13 PM >Subject: [CCC-L] Release of 1911 Census Records > > >The following -- meaning NO -- was received after a pleasant >phone >chat with Paul Steckle. He invites comments -- I am certain >he will >receive them <Steckle.P@parl.gc.ca> >Muriel <davidson3542@home.com> >===================================== >Mrs. Davidson: > >I am writing further to our telephone conversation (in >response to your >e-mails), regarding the release of 1911 and subsequent >census records to >the National Archives of Canada. Please accept my >appreciation for >taking the time to write on this issue, and for providing me >with the >opportunity to comment. > >Before I begin, I should point out that the release of >individual census >records is explicitly prohibited, by law, for all censuses >following >1901. >Understandably, this has angered the many genealogists and >researchers >who >had expected that the 1911 census records would be publicly >available in >2003 (92 years after the taking of the census). >Regrettably, there is a >public perception that Statistics Canada has taken an >arbitrary position >in >this matter and is circumventing the "standard 92 year rule" >by its >decision >not to transfer the records. This is not the case. In >fact, >legislatively >speaking, the agency's hands are tied. The Privacy Act is >the >legislation >that provides for the transfer of records to the National >Archives of >Canada. It permits such transfers only if there are no >other acts with >a >different or a stronger legislative protection. In other >words, records >can >be transferred to the National Archives only if there are no >provisions >in >another piece of legislation that prevents the said >transfer. > >The records of censuses taken in 1901 and in prior years >have been >transferred to the National Archives of Canada for public >access. This >was >possible (legal) because the legislation that was used to >collect these >census records did not contain any specific provisions that >prohibited >their >transfer. In short, up to 1901, Census-takers were >instructed to >protect >the confidentiality of the information (while collecting >it), but these >instructions did not have the force of law. Thus the >information >contained >in these records is protected only by the Privacy Act which >stipulates >that >National Archives of Canada can make these records available >to the >public >92 years after the taking of the census. > >Starting in 1906, (and in subsequent censuses) the >legislation that gave >the >authority to collect census information contained statutory >confidentiality >provisions. These provisions are such that only the person >named in the >particular record may have access to his/her information. >There is also >no >time limitation on the access. Essentially, even when the >person is >deceased, the provisions are still legally in effect. As a >result of >this, >Statistics Canada cannot, without breaching the Statistics >Act, transfer >any >census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and >subsequent >Statistics Acts to the National Archives of Canada. The >fact that the >United States and Britain both release census records is an >issue of >different legislation and, perhaps, of historical culture >when it comes >to >the taking of a census. > >Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns >of census >questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1986. These >records have now >been >transferred from the actual questionnaires, to microfilm, >and are >available >for access by the individual respondents who need to confirm >birth dates >for >pension and passport purposes. The destruction of the 1911 >and later >census >records held on microfilm was never a consideration by >Statistics Canada >(although the paper questionnaires themselves have been >destroyed in >accordance with approvals given by the National Archives of >Canada). As >a >result, Statistics Canada does not have the option, as has >been >suggested by >some genealogists and researchers, of being able to filter >out the more >sensitive information from early census records since >microfilm >technology, >unlike newer technology such as optical imaging, does not >lend itself to >severance. The original paper questionnaires would have >been required >for >this. > >Like any law, the Statistics Act can also be amended to >permit the >release >of individual records after 92 years. But, this is where an >important >principle of privacy protection comes into play: is it right >to alter >retroactively the conditions under which information was >provided by >Canadians? Should Parliament declare, in effect, as invalid >the >explicit >guarantee of indefinite confidentiality that was promised to >Canadians >when >the data in question were collected? Or should it perhaps >consider the >92-year release rule for future censuses only? > >This issue, although seemingly cut-and-dry, is very complex. >While >there is >undeniably great value attached to nominative historical >census records, >there is also great value attached to the information that >can be >produced >from current and future censuses. That information is and >will be used >for >a multiplicity of purposes, many of which are requirements >contained in >various pieces of legislation to meet specific needs (for >example; >transfer >payments to provinces and the determination of electoral >boundaries). >Canadian citizens have always demonstrated co-operation in >providing >personal information about themselves when asked to >participate in a >census, >or in other surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Some >might say that >the >most important factor contributing to this co-operation is >the >unconditional >guarantee given to respondents that the information they >supply will be >protected. Canada, for almost 100 years has been able to >unconditionally >guarantee the confidentiality of the information supplied in >the census. > >Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past >could have a >negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future >censuses >and >surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could >seriously >jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to carry out its >national mandate >of >producing reliable, timely information on which many users >depend. This >information is also a fundamental pillar of our democratic >system, >because >it is one of the measures that electors use to evaluate the >performance >of >their governments. > >With the aforementioned being said, I would respectfully >request that >you >provide your comments on the above. I don't pretend to have >all of the >answers and, as such, I am interested in hearing any >additional thoughts >that you may have on this potentially precedent-setting >matter. > >Please accept my appreciation, in advance, for your >co-operation. > >Sincerely, > >Paul Steckle >Paul Steckle, M.P. / député >Huron-Bruce (Ontario) > >251 Confederation / Confédération >House of Commons / Chambre des communes >Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0A6 >(613) 995-9848 phone >(613) 995-6350 fax >

----- Original Message ----- From: "Elley, Reed - M.P." <Elley.R@parl.gc.ca> To: "'Frank McKERRY'" <mckerry@home.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 6:31 AM Subject: RE: 1901 census release Dear Mr. McKerry: Thank you for your letter of June 9, 2000 regarding public access to records from the 1911 Census. Since I also have an interest in genealogy, I recognize that public access to these records is very important to those who conduct research. I have passed on my concerns as well as those of other constituents to the Minister Responsible for Statistics Canada, the Hon. John Manley. It is hoped that the Minister will respond to the public out-cry and introduce adequate legislation to permit the release of these census records to the National Archives for public access. On November 12, 1999, Mr. Manley, announced in a press release, the creation of an Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records. The Mandate of this Panel was to study all the implications of releasing historical census records and to report to the Minister by May 31, 2000. At this time, the report is being translated and printed and I was informed by the Minister's office that it would be released at the end of this month. I am looking forward to reading their findings and recommendations. I can assure you that, as the Official Opposition, we will keep abreast of the situation and we will also keep the Minister very aware of what Canadians think in this instance. Again, thank you for writing. Sincerely, Reed Elley, MP -----Original Message----- From: Frank McKERRY [mailto:mckerry@home.com] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:07 AM To: Elley.R@parl.gc.ca Subject: 1901 census release It is noted that you are undecided on how to vote on this bill. Many of your constituents want this bill passed and urge you to vote yes. This information is very important to those wishing to trace their family roots and create a family tree. Please vote yes

BILL S-15, An ACT to amend the STATISTICS ACT and the NATIONAL ARCHIVES of CANADA ACT (census records) On February 17, 2000 I spoke to the principles of my private member's bill, S-15 which opened the debate for its second reading in the Senate of Canada. The debate is currently adjourned in the name of the Honourable Janis Johnson, Senator (PC) but several Senators from both sides of the Chamber intend to speak to the Bill. Once all Senators who wish to speak to the bill have done so, I will exercise my right of reply and move that the bill be referred to a Senate Committee for study. I have chosen the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology which is chaired by the Honourable Michael Kirby, Senator (Lib). I am optimistic that the bill will be referred to the Committee by June 2000, shortly after which the Committee will be able to hold hearings on the bill. My commitment to the census release stems from my extensive experience as a family historian. In tracing my own family's genealogy, I realized what an indispensable resource the census data is. I feel strongly that this information should remain available to Canadians who are committed to exploring their roots. =========================== For further information re Senator Lorna Milne, check http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html or http://sen.parl.gc.ca/lmilne Senator Lorna Milne is also a member of Halton-Peel OGS. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Brampton, Ontario

To Dennis Mill, MP:- Many thanks for writing -- your BLUE ? will be changed as you have replied. However, I will leave it up to Gordon Watts to see if he gives you a YES, NO or a piece of FENCE . Could we have a plain YES (in favor) or NO (not in favor) Many voters are waiting for the answers - family historians. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> "Mills, Dennis - M.P." wrote: > Dear Mrs Davidson: > Thank you for your letter. I understand where you are coming from and I > have been in touch with both the office of the Hon.John Manley and the > Privacy Commissioner conveying the views of my constituents who want access > to the census before 1901 in their search for information on their > ancestors. However, we want to make sure that everything is done within the > guideliens of the privacy laws. > >

Hi Bob:- Does this mean YES or NO??????? Personally, I hate sitting on fences!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Brampton Centre riding "Speller, Bob - M.P." wrote: > I continue to pursue a workable > solution that will be acceptable > to all parties concerned. > > Yours sincerely, > > Bob Speller, M.P. > Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant > > -----Original Message----- > From: Muriel M. Davidson [mailto:davidson3542@home.com] > Sent: June 12, 2000 12:19 AM > To: Speller.B@parl.gc.ca; davidson3542@home.com; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca; > Calder.M@parl.gc.ca; Lorna Milne : SEN > Subject: I Believe There Must Be GOLD in ONTARIO > > Good Morning Bob:- > > I am looking at that stupid ? beside your name on the > Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. > http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm > The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" > > Personally, I would like to see ONTARIO, where I live, > have all Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning > YES -- when the scoreboard is published prior to the next > election -- it is being updated now. > > At present 73 of the 101 ONTARIO Members of Parliament > have NOT answered any letters!!! > > QUESTION:- Will YOU, as an elected Member of Parliament > support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of > Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census records > to the National Archives? > > WILL YOU VOTE FOR US -- YOUR CONSTITUENTS?? > > Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's > Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate > of C-484. > The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation > needed for release. > > Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release > of census records -- let's get rid of that ? > > Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> > Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

To Todd Ryan:- Many thanks for replying on behalf of Norman Doyle, MP. I have been in contact with all Members of Parliament who have not sifnified YES or No -- as I love Newfoundland, and all the people there, I am happy his answer is YES. The Newfoundland researchers are fortunate their census is open to 1935, and the 1945 records are being processed. These are very interesting and beneficial to many. Again, many thanks Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> "Doyle, Norman - M.P." wrote: > Good Morning Muriel M. Davidson: > > I have been asked to reply to your E-Mail inquiry regarding Mr. > Norman Doyle's response/position to your question if he will support the > bills and motions presented in the House of Commons for release of Post-1901 > Canadian Census records to the National Archives. > > Mr. Doyle has relayed a message to me to inform you that he will > support you in this effort. > > Sincerely, > > Todd Ryan > Member's Administrative Assistant > PC Whip's Office > Mr. Norman Doyle, M.P. > Room 449-D, Centre Block > Phone # : (613) 996-7269 > Fax # : (613) 992-2178 > E-Mail : Doylen@parl.gc.ca > > -----Original Message----- > From: Muriel M. Davidson [mailto:davidson3542@home.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 11:32 AM > To: Doyle.N@parl.gc.ca; davidson3542@home.com; hearnl@parl.gc.ca > Subject: We Want GOLD in NEWFOUNDLAND, please!!! > > Hi Norman:- > > I am looking at that stupid ? beside your names on the > Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. > http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm > The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" > > We also have an UNKNOWN -- does not reply - no e-mail > address posted as yet. > > Personally, I would like to see Newfoundland have all > Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning YES -- > when the scoreboard is published prior to the next election. > > QUESTION:- Will You, as an elected Member of Parliament > support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of > Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census > records to the National Archives? > > Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's > Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate > of C-484. > The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation > needed for release. > > Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release > of census records -- let's get rid of that ? > > Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> > Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

To Eugene Bellemare:- Many thanks for your reply -- at least you answered. To assist you, could you complete this small form and return:- Name:- Riding:- In favor of Census support: Not in favor of census support: Please remember -- family genealogists are VOTERS and you have many in your riding. To send a snail mail reply, Muriel M. Davidson/25 Crestview Ave.,/Brampton/ON/L6W 2R8 As a CPAC watcher, many of us know there must be time to reply to mail. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> "Bellemare, Eugène - député" wrote: > Ottawa, June 12th, 2000 > > Muriel M. Davidson [mailto:davidson3542@home.com] > > Dear Ms. Davidson: > > This is to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. In order to manage the ever > increasing amount of correspondence I receive through the e-mail, I only > respond to those who provide me with their mailing address and who reside in > the riding of Carleton-Gloucester. > > Thank you for taking the time to write to me. > > Sincerely, > > Eugène Bellemare, MP > Carleton-Gloucester > -----Message d'origine----- > De: Muriel M. Davidson [mailto:davidson3542@home.com] > Date: dimanche, 11 juin, 2000 23:19 > À: Bellemare.E@parl.gc.ca; davidson3542@home.com; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca; > Calder.M@parl.gc.ca; Lorna Milne : SEN > Objet: I Believe There Must Be GOLD in ONTARIO > > Good Morning Eugene:- > > I am looking at that stupid ? beside your names on the > Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. > http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm > The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" > > Personally, I would like to see ONTARIO, where I live, > have all Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning > YES -- when the scoreboard is published prior to the next > election -- it is being updated now. > > At present 73 of the 101 ONTARIO Members of Parliament > have NOT answered any letters!!! > > QUESTION:- Will YOU, as an elected Member of Parliament > support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of > Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census records > to the National Archives? > > Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's > Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate > of C-484. > The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation > needed for release. > > Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release > of census records -- let's get rid of that ? > > Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> > Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

DEar Mr. Paul DeVillers:- ONE big question:- WHO makes the law that YOU can only respond to people who live in your riding? WE, the people of Ontario, helped elect you -- not just the ones in your riding -- the Scoreboard will be published prior to the next election and even YOUR constituents might be family historians, genealogists -- we do not always look at tombstones -- we use census records AND we are VOTERS. My riding is Brampton Centre -- MP is Sarkis Assadourian, who has had the foresight to support census records release -- IF ALLOWED! My address: 25 Crestview Avenue, Brampton, Ontario L6W 2R8 Looking forward to a reply -- you are an Ontario Member of Parliament. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> "DeVillers, Paul - M.P." wrote: > Dear Ms. Davidson, > Please provide us with your home address. We can only respond to > people who live in our riding. > Office of Paul DeVillers, M.P. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De: Muriel M. Davidson [mailto:davidson3542@home.com] > Date: 11 juin, 2000 23:37 > À: Devillers.P@parl.gc.ca; davidson3542@home.com; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca; > Calder.M@parl.gc.ca; Lorna Milne : SEN > Objet: I Believe There Must Be GOLD in ONTARIO > > Good Morning Paul:- > > I am looking at that stupid ? beside your names on the > Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. > http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm > The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" > > Personally, I would like to see ONTARIO, where I live, > have all Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning > YES -- when the scoreboard is published prior to the next > election -- it is being updated now. > > At present 73 of the 101 ONTARIO Members of Parliament > have NOT answered any letters!!! > > QUESTION:- Will YOU, as an elected Member of Parliament > support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of > Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census records > to the National Archives? > > Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's > Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate > of C-484. > The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation > needed for release. > > Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release > of census records -- let's get rid of that ? > > Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> > Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

Right On Muriel!!!!!!! Such a powerful source sits in Ontario...a major Province. Thanks for being our voice! I cannot believe the numbers...amazing! Lori-Ann Ryan Carse ----- Original Message ----- From: Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 11:59 PM Subject: [CCC-L] I Believe There Must Be GOLD in ONTARIO > Good Morning to The Hon. Maria Minna:- > > I am looking at that stupid ? beside your names on the > Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. > http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm > The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" > > Personally, I would like to see ONTARIO, where I live, > have all Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning > YES -- when the scoreboard is published prior to the next > election -- it is being updated now. > > At present 73 of the 101 ONTARIO Members of Parliament > have NOT answered any letters!!! > > QUESTION:- Will YOU, as an elected Member of Parliament > support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of > Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census records > to the National Archives? > > WILL YOU VOTE FOR US -- YOUR CONSTITUENTS?? > > Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's > Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate > of C-484. > The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation > needed for release. > > Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release > of census records -- let's get rid of that ? > > Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> > Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html > >

Good Morning to The Hon. Maria Minna:- I am looking at that stupid ? beside your names on the Scoreboard for Members of Parliament re census. http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm The ? stands for "Ones who did not reply to letters" Personally, I would like to see ONTARIO, where I live, have all Members of Parliament with GOLD ticks - meaning YES -- when the scoreboard is published prior to the next election -- it is being updated now. At present 73 of the 101 ONTARIO Members of Parliament have NOT answered any letters!!! QUESTION:- Will YOU, as an elected Member of Parliament support ALL Bills and Motions presented in the House of Commons for release of Post-1901 Canadian census records to the National Archives? WILL YOU VOTE FOR US -- YOUR CONSTITUENTS?? Presently we have Murray Calder's Bill C-484, Jason Kenney's Motion M-160, and Senator Lorna Milne has S-15, duplicate of C-484. The census records are safe at National Archives - legislation needed for release. Will you send me a short note telling me you agree to release of census records -- let's get rid of that ? Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Print and read THE MYTHS OF CENSUS by Gordon Watts http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html

To all:- During the past few days, working with the Scoreboard standings, plus the provincial list at the government site I have posted lists of ALL Members of Parliament with either G (GOLD) - YES / X - NO /F - Fence / ? - Never Replied. Many of us have written to all 301 Members -- some have already received Form A letters -- "forwarded to John Manley", and gives me a reason WHY he/she is doing that. One who did that to me and to others was The Right Hon. Jean Chretien, our Prime Minister -- I have posted the most recent letter I sent to him -- this gave me many responses. I was good -- only forwarded several to Gordon Watts. A Word of Explanation:- To hopefully obtain a YES answer from Mr. Chretien, I signed myself as "Canadian Census Campaign Chairman". Honestly, I feel we do not have a chairman -- we each work at what we do best -- I have always been a printer and a newspaper person -- that is how I accomplish so much. NOW YOU HAVE YOUR LISTS:- These will be re-posted -- will YOU use them? If required, I will post a sample memo -- I did not send to the ones with a GOLD mark, except The Hon. Deborah Grey, Leader of the Opposition (Interim). [Playing politics????} Miss Grey has said YES so I congratulated her, reminded her the Scoreboard would be published. Hopefully she might get more of the Party members to reply to us. QUEBEC posed a problem, as a requested transcription was not given and I did not like to rely on myself. One of our committee members has returned from Scotland, ready to get going -- likely on Quebec members. Please forward any answers you might receive to Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Copy in Gordon Watts <gordon_watts@telus.net> [Will save me having to do it!!!] Keep bugging them -- we do not have the Expert Panel report as yet, BUT we have the following:- Murray Calder's Bill C-484 Jason Kenney's Motion M-160 Senator Lorna Milne's Senate Bill S-15, duplicate of C-484 There are possibly several others, but I am sure of these. Let them know the updated Scoreboard will be published. Contact me if you missed a list, please. Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canadian Census Committee member

To the Right Hon. Jean Chretien:- I am looking at the Canadian Census Committee MPs Scoreboard as I type this -- noting that you still have a piece of GREEN FENCE beside your name. Check:- http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm All memos sent to you receive a standard reply -- "forwarded to John Manley, Minister of Industry" -- it is YOUR opinion writers wish to hear when they ask about release of post-1901 census. By now, John Manley's office must be overflowing as Members of Parliament, as you do, use this excuse and send more pieces of paper to him. Canadians elected the Members of Parliament and HOPE he/she will be ALLOWED to speak as they feel their constituents would like them to do. A prime example of this is Bill C-11. Many Canadians have become CPAC watchers, the internet is a swift mode of transportation for any messages. Opinions are passed from coast to coast daily, re the House of Commons. We do this as a defence system -- our elected ones are not allowed to speak for themselves! Mr. Chretien, how will YOU vote re Bill C-484 - if YES, that will change your Fence-Sitters GREEN Fence to a GOLD tick mark. Also, the Scoreboard is being published before the next election. Please answer honestly from YOUR office -- there is no need to send more paper to John Manley's office! I often wonder if he has an office plus a huge storage place!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canadian Census Committee chairman Brampton Centre riding.

you tell him muriel..i'm another one of his forwarded to mr. manley victims. roz -----Original Message----- From: Muriel M. Davidson [SMTP:davidson3542@home.com] Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:14 PM To: CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [CCC-L] Some Things Mystify Me!! To the Right Hon. Jean Chretien:- I am looking at the Canadian Census Committee MPs Scoreboard as I type this -- noting that you still have a piece of GREEN FENCE beside your name. Check:- http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm All memos sent to you receive a standard reply -- "forwarded to John Manley, Minister of Industry" -- it is YOUR opinion writers wish to hear when they ask about release of post-1901 census. By now, John Manley's office must be overflowing as Members of Parliament, as you do, use this excuse and send more pieces of paper to him. Canadians elected the Members of Parliament and HOPE he/she will be ALLOWED to speak as they feel their constituents would like them to do. A prime example of this is Bill C-11. Many Canadians have become CPAC watchers, the internet is a swift mode of transportation for any messages. Opinions are passed from coast to coast daily, re the House of Commons. We do this as a defence system -- our elected ones are not allowed to speak for themselves! Mr. Chretien, how will YOU vote re Bill C-484 - if YES, that will change your Fence-Sitters GREEN Fence to a GOLD tick mark. Also, the Scoreboard is being published before the next election. Please answer honestly from YOUR office -- there is no need to send more paper to John Manley's office! I often wonder if he has an office plus a huge storage place!!! Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> Canadian Census Committee chairman Brampton Centre riding.

MAY BE TRANSLATED AND FORWARDED To all who wish release of Post-1901 Census Records:- Please refer to Part #1 for message -- Answers to be forwarded to jeannine.ouellet@sympatico.ca (French) davidson3542@home.com (English) Addresses: http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html ===================================== QUEBEC (Total 75) ? - Mr. Price, David.................Compton--Stanstead ? - Mr. Proulx, Marcel.............Hull--Aylmer F - The Hon. Robillard, Lucienne..Westmount--Ville-Marie ? - Mr. Rocheleau, Yves........Trois-Rivières ? - Mr. Saada, Jacques........Brossard--La Prairie ? - Mr. Sauvageau, Benoît..Repentigny ? - Ms. St-Hilaire, Caroline....Longueuil ? - Ms. St-Jacques, Diane....Shefford ? - Mr. St-Julien, Guy.............Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik ? - Ms. Thibeault, Yolande..Saint-Lambert ? - Mr. Tremblay, Stéphan...Lac-Saint-Jean ? - Mrs. Tremblay, Suzanne..Rimouski--Mitis ? - Mr. Turp, Daniel.................Beauharnois--Salaberry ? - Ms. Venne, Pierrette........Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert

To all who wish release of Post-1901 Census Records:- Please refer to Part #1 for message -- Answers to be forwarded to jeannine.ouellet@sympatico.ca (French) davidson3542@home.com (English) Addresses: http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> ===================================== QUEBEC (Total 75) ? - Ms. Gagnon, Christiane....Québec ? - Mr. Gauthier, Michel..........Roberval ? - Ms. Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne...Jonquière ? - Mr. Godin, Maurice............Châteauguay ? - Ms. Guay, Monique...........Laurentides ? - Mr. Guimond, Michel........Beauport - Montmorency - Côte-de-Beaupré - Île-d'Orléans ? - Mr. Harvey, André............Chicoutimi ? - Ms. Jennings, Marlene.....Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine ? - Ms. Lalonde, Francine......Mercier ? - Mr. Laurin, René.................Joliette ? - Mr. Lavigne, Raymond.... Verdun--Saint-Henri ? - Mr. Lebel, Ghislain............. Chambly ? - Mr. Lefebvre, Réjean........Champlain F - Mr. Lincoln, Clifford............Lac-Saint-Louis ? - Mr. Loubier, Yvan..............Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot ? - Mr. Marceau, Richard......Charlesbourg ? - Mr. Marchand, Jean-Paul..Québec East ? - The Hon. Martin, Paul.......LaSalle--Émard ? - Mr. Ménard, Réal...............Hochelaga--Maisonneuve ? - Mr. Mercier, Paul................Terrebonne--Blainville ? - The Hon. Normand, Gilbert...Bellechasse--Etchemins- -Montmagny--L'Islet ? - Mr. Paradis, Denis..............Brome--Missisquoi ? - Mr. Patry, Bernard.............Pierrefonds--Dollard ? - Mr. Perron, Gilles-A. ..........Rivière-des-Mille-Îles F - The Hon. Pettigrew, Pierre..Papineau--Saint-Denis ? - Ms. Picard, Pauline............Drummond ? - Mr. Plamondon, Louis.......Bas-Richelieu- -Nicolet--Bécancour

-- MAY BE TRANSLATED AND FORWARDED -- To all who wish release of Post-1901 Census Records:- Please refer to Part #1 for message -- Answers to be forwarded to jeannine.ouellet@sympatico.ca (French) davidson3542@home.com (English) Addresses: http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/index6.htm Muriel M. Davidson <davidson3542@home.com> ==================================== QUEBEC (Total 75) ? - The Hon. Cauchon, Martin..Outremont ? - Mr. Charbonneau, Yvon......Anjou- -Rivière-des-Prairies F - The Right Hon. Chrétien, Jean..Saint-Maurice ? - Mr. Chrétien, Jean-Guy.......Frontenac--Mégantic ? - The Hon. Coderre, Denis......Bourassa ? - Mr. Cotler, Irwin......................Mount Royal ? - Mr. Crête, Paul........................Kamouraska- -Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques ? - Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine..Laval Centre ? - Mr. de Savoye, Pierre..........Portneuf ? - Ms. Debien, Maud...............Laval East ? - Mr. Desrochers, Odina........Lotbinière ? - The Hon. Dion, Stéphane.. Saint-Laurent--Cartierville ? - Mr. Discepola, Nick............. Vaudreuil--Soulanges ? - Mr. Drouin, Claude.............Beauce ? - Mr. Dubé, Antoine....Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière ? - Mr. Duceppe, Gilles...........Laurier--Sainte-Marie ? - Mr. Dumas, Maurice...Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel ? - Ms. Folco, Raymonde......Laval West ? - Mr. Fournier, Ghislain........Manicouagan ? - The Hon. Gagliano, Alfonso L. ..Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel