Patti -- Many decisions and battles are won with the elections, and we should let OUR Member of Parliament know of this -- it is ?heartening? to read Paul Martin's attitude re bureaucrats -- BUT would this happen? Muriel M. Davidson ----- Original Message ----- From: "pmcgr" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 5:21 PM Subject: [CCC] Re: next steps > Hello all, > > This is a little premature, since we don't know what will happen to the Bill > once it gets to the House, but I suggest if we are still not satisfied, we > make it an election issue. Every candidate who wants our vote should be > questioned by each one of us over and over again. The question should be > posed at town halls, coffee parties and candidates' debates. Maybe then even > the press will take notice that this is an issue of great importance to a > lot of Canadians as well as those with Canadian ancestry. (I am presently > doing some census research for a client in Australia.) These candidates > should be made aware that a vote for them depends on how they respond. It's > too bad we can't have some influence to get the question asked at one of the > Liberal leadership debates - although the way they like to avoid making real > statements means we may not get anything near a concrete response. > > By the way, my e-mail letter to Paul Martin which I sent over a week ago has > still not been read (or deleted). I am going to print it off and mail a hard > copy as well. I know Gordon, Muriel and Senator Milne got copies, but I am > not sure I posted it to the list. I am including it below. Apologies if this > is a duplication. > > Patty > > ************************** > > Mr. Paul Martin > Member of Parliament > House of Commons > Ottawa > K1A 0A6 > > > Dear Mr. Martin, > > I was with great interest that I read the account in the Ottawa Citizen of > your speech at the Crossing Boundaries Conference last week. You mentioned > that "the public service is not an 'alternative legislature' and should > stick to consulting Canadians on policy, but leave the decision-making to > MPs." > > Your remarks reminded me of the continuing struggle we have had over the > release of the post 1901 census records. The 1906 records have now finally > been released to the public - 5 years after the date at which the law > required it. The struggle to get these records released eventually came > about because those in favour won a legal battle - one many of us have felt > all along was unnecessary; and was only required because of determined > resistance from a public servant -Dr Ivan Fellegi of StatsCan - who refers > to a commitment to privacy that he claims exists, but which he has never > been able to produce as evidence. A simple position might be taken that he > flaunted the laws of Canada with impunity for 5 years and continues to do > so. > > I am heartened to see your comments on 'reining in' bureaucrats who overstep > their boundaries and venture into the making of policy decisions and I hope > this means that you are in favour of unrestricted access to census records > after the 92 year withholding period as has been the case for the last 235 > years. However, to my knowledge, you have never clearly stated where you > stand on this issue. The census scorecard at > http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/Score4.htm#PQ shows you as undecided. I > am therefore asking you as someone seeking the leadership of the Liberal > Party of Canada and as someone who could be our next Prime Minister, to > state clearly where you stand on this issue. I believe you owe it to the > citizens of this country. > > There is currently a government Bill S-13 which is at 3rd reading in the > Senate, and I wish to request your support for some amendments to that bill > when / if it reaches Parliament. This Bill puts forward a plan for release > of post-1906 census records, however, the Bill as presently proposed > contains serious flaws which will restrict the very access genealogists and > historians are seeking both now and more seriously, into the future. > Unfortunately, the Senate avoided the best opportunity to review the Bill > when the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology > returned the Bill to the Senate without considering any amendments or > reviewing the clauses in any detail. Perhaps some amendments will be > proposed from the Senate floor, but if not, I hope you will support the > wishes of the people on this matter. > > There are 3 particular situations that need to be addressed in amendments: > > 1 -- Clause 8 (the "informed consent" clause for future Censuses) needs to > be removed. Failing removal of Clause 8, it must be changed to be an > OPT-OUT provision rather than OPT-IN. The problem is that Clause 8 would > require me to decide now if the information on my Census form should be made > public 92 or more years from now, and requires me to make that decision for > my dependents as well, with no apparent way for any of them to change it > when they reach major age. By making it Opt-In, the assumption is that you > want the information hidden even if you say nothing. (Imagine if we ran our > elections that way - assuming that all the citizens who didn't vote, were in > support of the government!) Since census records have been made public, > there has never been a reported complaint in the USA, Canada or Great > Britain (that's at least 1 billion Census forms). Neither Great Britain > nor the USA have an informed consent question on their forms - nonetheless > their records are released on schedule and in entirety. > > 2 -- The 1911 and 1916 Census records need to be released without > restriction, on the same basis as those for 1906 (and 235 years of earlier > records) have been previously released. There seems no basis for NOT doing > this since the legislative situation in 1911 and 1916 were identical to > 1906. The 1911 census records, based on the 92 year law, are due to be > released this summer. > > 3 -- The additional "20-year non-disclosure clause" and the "undertaking" > also need to be removed. This refers to an additional waiting period > allowing full access but only partial disclosure which effectively makes > unfettered access to the Canadian Census available only after 112 years! > The similar period in the USA is 72 years, again, without any complaints so > far. > > These 3 requests, and other areas of concern with S-13, are covered in much > greater depth (and eloquence) in the submission to the Senate committee by > Mr. Gordon Watts, viewable at: > > http://globalgenealogy.com/Census/S13written.htm. > > I remind you that what we seek is exactly the same unrestricted access to > records after 1901 that is currently available for those records up to and > including 1901. Please let me know where you stand on this issue. You can > respond to me at the address above or electronically, if you prefer, at > [email protected] > > Thank you for your time, I await your reply, > > Patricia McGregor > > > > > > ==== CANADA-CENSUS-CAMPAIGN Mailing List ==== > How to unsubscribe from Digest Mode. Send a message to > [email protected] that contains > (in the Subject line and body of the message) the command > -- unsubscribe -- and no additional text. > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 5/13/03