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