Hi Roz. Writing to our wonderful Ms. Copps would likely not accomplish anything. She is notorious for not responding to her mail, and when she does respond is very adept in the "politician's two-step", waltzing around the issues. In my own case it took several follow up letters and email to get a response from one of her lackeys, which was basically "Stop bothering us, we will no longer communicate with you on this issue" (i.e.. census and how she would vote). That resulted in another letter to the lace, copied to Ms. Copps, Senator Milne and our PM. I suggested to the PM that Ms. Copps might want to consider whom she gives responsibility to, and that he might want to reconsider whom he appointed as Minister for Heritage. The eventual response from the PM was that my concern was noted and thanks for writing. I doubt that Ms. Copps ever saw my letter. Gordon ----- Original Message ----- From: Roz Griston <r_griston@dccnet.com> To: <CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, 07 May, 2000 11:21 PM Subject: RE: [CCC-L] Fw: Census & other geneal. research people need to release policy and regulations are not legislation. i get the feeling that ms. bunting was a stickler for policy. a letter to the board of directors or management of the museum/archives should be issued..sorry, i would have called ms bunting on her "professional" aka beaucratic attitude..and sought to speak to her supervisior. completely rediculous that this fellow and other users of the the napanee services were made to jump thru such hoops! funding is tight for heritage..and ms shelia copps most likely deserves a letter too..to loosen the purse strings. it is sad that someone should travel so far..and be faced with that experience. roz -----Original Message----- From: Gordon A. WATTS [SMTP:gordon_watts@telus.net] Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 10:15 PM To: CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [CCC-L] Fw: Census & other geneal. research Greetings All. Strictly speaking the message following does not fall within the parameters of this list, however it serves as an example of what can happen when bureaucracy and regulation are carried to extremes. If Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips has his way, photocopies of anything to do with genealogy or history that mentioned someone's name will be a thing of the past. The message was sent to Muriel Davidson and forwarded to myself. I felt it worthy of passing on to the list. Happy Hunting. Gordon ------------------------------------------ "J. Douglas Leith" wrote: 6 May 2000 Muriel, Thanks much for your attention and replies to my difficulties in contributing my wish that the Census data remain available to the public. It is much appreciated! For what it's worth, I digress below on some events that reinforce my concern about the directions being taken to hinder census access. Please forgive me if it is too long. My wife and I just got back yesterday from a short trip to Adolphustown, Ontario, and the Loyalist Cultural Centre there. Kathy Staples was our B&B host as well as the manager of the Centre and its very good Archives, and we browsed its records and found lots of interesting family-type information. However, we later visited the museum and archives in Napanee, where we found things a bit different. The librarian there (Jennifer Bunting?) was clearly very experienced and knowledgable, and I quickly saw her as an agent of the Government more than a facilitator for searchers (although she was that, too). In order to photocopy anything, one must fill out (including our name, address, and phone number) a tedious one-page request form and give that to her. She then telephones to the receptionist downstairs to say we are cleared to obtain a photocopy. We take the book downstairs to the receptionist, who has to ask us just what to photocopy and then makes them herself and takes payment (at about $1 per page!). We then go back upstairs and resume our research. The procedure for obtaining a copy of an archived photograph is even more difficult: we fill out the one-page request form, give it to the librarian, who sends it somewhere else. At some future date, "somewhere else" is supposed to mail it to us along with a bill for their fees and no doubt also postage. I didn't ask the costs, but I suppose it will be pretty stiff. The librarian spoke several times to other customers about restrictions on giving information to searchers, and appeared to take a hard line on the subject. At one point I was looking for some info on Queen Elizabeth, and was told that British history "is not part of our mandate", which is why they have nothing about England or Great Britain in the library. That seems inappropriate to me. Canada has a long history of association with England, and English history is properly a part of Canadian history. It's like German immigrants who try to erase their German origins from memory. In a way, I cannot fault her for taking a strict government view of her job. She serves as curator and steward of resources, and I suppose her job depends finally on living within the regulations. But it did make doing research in those archives much harder and slower and more expensive. I found myself feeling sorry for her, that she is in a position where she must always keep "privacy regulations" in mind first, and only then think of serving those looking for family information. It reminded me of what life might be like if viewing census records were to become even more restricted than now. I would never complain to Ms. Bunting about her behavior. I imagine that she is forced into it by government regulations, and that she would be much happier with fewer of them. But it was unexpected and disappointing to feel hindered in doing research there. Our inability to make photocopies ourselves, and the time-consuming and expensive procedure for obtaining photocopies if needed, was a bit frustrating! So, after our trip to "Greater Napanee", I'm doubly supportive of your efforts to keep the census available! Sincerely, and good luck, John Douglas Leith 162 Islington Road Auburndale, MA 02466-1012 jdleith@compuserve.com