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 >