EXTRACTS FROM HANSARD
------
PROCEEDINGS OF CANADA'S HOUSE OF COMMONS
The following extract has been taken from Hansard Records of Canada's House of Commons:
36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 118
Wednesday, September 20, 2000
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Discussions have taken place among all parties and the member for Calgary Southeast
concerning the taking of the division of Motion No. 160 scheduled at the conclusion of the
second hour of private members' business today. I believe there would be consent for the
following motion:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on M-160, all questions necessary to dispose of the
said motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday,
September 26, 2000, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the chief government whip to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 160 on behalf of my colleague from Calgary.
To many, this issue of sealing the 1911 census information forever does not seem like a very
important issue and think that maybe the House should spend its time in other areas, but it does
raise a concern for a number of people and several of my constituents who have contacted me.
A number of individuals in our society take great delight in seeking information about their
family history and look forward to the time when this information will be available to them so
they can have a better understanding of their roots in Canada. It was because of an individual
who was very concerned in 1906 and again in 1918 that this information could be used for
purposes that were not necessarily considered to be good purposes, that they felt for privacy they
needed to seal the records.
At that time it probably made sense but that was 85 years ago. Many of the laws on our books
have now become redundant. The concern for privacy and respecting the privacy of an individual
is a good one and should be considered, but when this information becomes of an age and is no
longer current that need for privacy disappears.
Most of the people who would have this information in the 1911 census would be 75 years or
older. Many of them are probably not even alive. The question of securing or protecting their
privacy becomes less of an issue, if an issue at all.
The intent of the motion is to make an allowance and to perhaps put a timeframe on when this
information would be made available, but certainly not to have all the census information from
the 1911 census lost forever. That certainly was the concern of some of my constituents who
contacted me on this issue. Their concern was that that information, even if they had to wait
another 20 years, should be available to the families for historical purposes.
When other countries had to deal with this issue they set a year beyond which the person
probably would not be living, although with today's technology it may be hard to put that to the
number of years. In Australia and France the census data is released after 100 years. Denmark is
saying that 65 years is adequate. The United Kingdom is making efforts to release its data after
100 years.
The precedents are being set internationally that maybe 100 years would be an adequate period of
time that any information on an individual, if they lived beyond 100 years, which is very
unlikely, at least for most of us, could not be used and harm that person.
With all due respect to an individual's privacy, there is a good cause for Motion No. 160 and for
the concern that historians and people who are researching their family histories have, that we set
a timeframe, perhaps 100 years. This law is actually 88 years old. Maybe that is time enough and
we should say that as of the year 2000 this information will be made available.
Nevertheless, the indication is, from other countries that have dealt with this issue, that 100 years
is adequate. In one case 65 years was considered adequate. I think Canada would be justified in
putting the timeframe at 90 or 100 years, or whatever, into this legislation and then to redraft it.
We do have a number of statutes in our country that need to be overhauled. I think this certainly
is one that has to be looked at and changed.
I think my hon. colleague is looking to all members of the House to support this motion, which
states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release
the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
I certainly, on his behalf, request that members of the House support his motion.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion raised
by the member for Calgary Southeast with respect to the release of the 1911 census records.
The transfer of census records to the National Archives for public access is a fairly complex
issue. The competing interests at issue here are both legitimate and important.
I would like to assure my colleagues that the minister responsible for Statistics Canada is well
aware of both sides of this debate. Although he recognizes the importance of historical and
genealogical research, the minister must also take into account the privacy concerns of all
Canadians.
In fact, my own private member's bill, Bill C-312, an act to amend the National Archives of
Canada Act and the Statistics Act, is an attempt to resolve this issue with a fair and balanced
approach.
It is for that reason that the minister took immediate steps and appointed an expert panel to
examine the legal, privacy and archival implications of providing access to historical census
records. The panel was asked to recommend an approach which balances the need to protect
personal privacy with the demand of genealogists and historians for access to historical census
records.
The panel submitted its report to the minister on June 30, 2000. The minister is now reviewing
the recommendations made by the panel and will be making the panel's report public in the near
future.
I am therefore encouraged by the minister's genuine interest and commitment to find a balanced
resolution. While he must carefully consider all sides of this issue, any decision taken must
respond to the concerns and desires of Canadians to research their personal and community roots.
The minister is working toward a resolution of the issue of public access to historical census
records.
Canada's census records up to and including the 1901 census are available to the public through
the National Archives. Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census
questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1996. Up to 1991 these records are on microfilm and
are available only to individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension
purposes, passports or any other related issues.
I believe that the members of the House understand the need for access to census records while at
the same time they are sensitive to the privacy concerns of Canadians.
In the spirit of co-operation, I would like to propose an amendment that would support the work
of all those involved reaching a workable solution to this issue. I therefore propose to amend the
motion and emphasize that the government should consider taking the necessary steps to release
the census records.
I think the member for Calgary Southeast will agree that this small change to his motion will
allow an opportunity to look at both sides of this issue. It also provides parliament with an
opportunity to vote in support of the motion.
Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word "take" after the word "should" and by
substituting therefor, the words "consider taking".
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion
No. 60 put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release
the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
I am actually a bit surprised at the brevity of the debate on the motion before us tonight, and I am
more than a bit surprised that the person who actually proposed the motion has chosen not to
speak to it at this time. I understand that he may be here for the five minute wrap up, but when
one puts a private member's bill forward, hopefully one would be a little more serious about it
than the five minute wrap up.
The motion addresses an issue that is very important to many Canadians. Many of us understand
it because we have been contacted by constituents, historians and genealogists.
While I understand surveys have shown that this issue is not one of which the general public is
aware, there is certainly a vocal outcry from many segments of Canadian society who understand
the implications of this motion and the problem it attempts to resolve.
Let me outline what exactly it is that needs to be addressed and what this motion we are debating
here today contemplates.
Statistics Canada conducts a census every five years, polling Canadians about such things as
their name, address, marital status, income, education and activities.
In the 2001 census, additional questions will be asked on languages spoken at home and at work,
birthplace of parents and religion. This information is considered confidential and is not made
available to other government departments, including the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
The problem is that until 1906 census information collected by Statistics Canada was kept
confidential for 92 years, after which time the information was provided to the National Archives
of Canada and available for public searches. This enabled family descendants, historians,
genealogists and any other interested persons to access records from censuses that were collected
at least 92 years previously.
In 1906, however, changes were made to the Privacy Act which stated that where other acts
provide specific protection to personal records, those acts must prevail. Since the Statistics Act
makes reference to the confidentiality of census information supplied by the individual
completing the census, legal opinion indicates that any census following 1901 cannot be released
to anyone other than the specified individual in the census. Moreover, no time limitation was
ever stipulated.
Hon. members can see the bind in which the government finds itself. What I find more
surprising, though, is the real lack of activity by the government to do anything about that bind
because there are certainly a couple of avenues that the government can take.
To go back to the 1911 census, which would have been made public in 2003 under the regulations in place prior to 1906, it is now considered private and confidential in perpetuity. Only with a change to legislation can this regulation be changed and access provided to historians, genealogists and descendants of people who filled out those original censuses.
The motion we are addressing today proposes such a change. It asks the government to take the
necessary steps to amend the regulations and allow the former practice of transferring census
information to the national archives following a period of 92 years. The federal government is
aware of this problem as there has been a concerted effort by genealogists to have this matter
brought to the attention of the public to facilitate the changes that would allow continued access
to these records.
Genealogists across the country like Muriel Davidson and historical societies have been in
contact with my office. There is a huge file on this issue. The need for it is obvious. If the
government has a bill in waiting it should have put it out first. This is something that we should
no longer continue to ignore.
The government responded to efforts made by individuals, historians and genealogists by
establishing in November 1999 the expert panel on access to historical census records chaired by
the president of Carleton University, Dr. Richard Van Loon. This panel was mandated to
examine the problem from the perspective of both historians and the general populace, to review
options and to report its findings by May 2000. May has come and gone. The panel subsequently
requested an extension, expecting to report by the early part of this summer. The early part of
this summer has come and gone.
Statistics Canada is now saying that the minister has the final report to review and it will be
released at his discretion. Those of us who are interested in the findings of the expert panel will
have to wait until the minister chooses to release its recommendations.
Certainly all of us would benefit from knowing the results of the panel's interpretation of release
of historical census information, particularly given the important discussion tonight on this
matter.
As part of the review of this topic the panel was asked to examine a couple of options regarding
possible remedies to allow access to census records. One option would see the 2001 census and
any future census transferred to the national archives after an established period of 92 years. The
second option would see a similar change made retroactively to allow access to the 1911 census
after 92 years. This second option entails breaking the promise of confidentiality made by the
government of the day to the people who completed the censuses since 1906.
I understand a number of concerns with respect to this matter, both from the perspective of
privacy and confidentiality and the need for historical access to information. As the past
president of the local New Ross Historical Society in Nova Scotia, I am fully aware of the
usefulness of census records when exploring and tracing family ties and compiling historical
snapshots of any particular moment of time.
It is interesting, and I think important, to look at the history of census taking in Canada.
According to a publication by Statistics Canada, Intendant Jean Talon ordered the first census in
1666 in New France. The basis of the door to door enumeration was to better prepare for the
development of the colony. The 3,215 colonists in the areas of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Cap-de-
la-Madeleine and Quebec participated. Until 1739 there were 36 censuses conducted under French rule.
With British occupation censuses became more intermittent until the British North America Act
of 1867. That act established the need for more regular, dependable data collection, which was
particularly important for regional population counts as the British North America Act set out
democratic representation based on population, a system still in place today.
As a Nova Scotian I also found it interesting to note that it was the 1767 census of Nova Scotia
that introduced questions on religion and origin.
The PC Party recognizes and supports the release of census information to the general public.
Not only does this information assist historians and genealogists but also everyday Canadians
can find out information about Canada's past.
Sure, there are other options available for historical searches but to cut off this important avenue
would be to ignore the past, and we all know that when we ignore the past we are unprepared for
the future.
A survey was conducted as part of the expert panel's review of access to historical censuses. The survey found that Canadians agree with having access to past census records particularly to enable families to trace their backgrounds. When the questions emphasized the fact that government would have to break its promise to keep the censuses confidential from 1906 onward there was less support.
However, if we think about why census records are useful and informative, it would be difficult to accept that although census taking began in Canada in 1666 there would be a complete void for a period of 92 years from 1911 to 2003. There would be no census information available. It makes sense to allow access to the historical censuses on the contingency basis that only after 92 years have passed will records be publicly available through the national archives.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have been contacted by a number of people concerned with the availability of census records. I have talked to constituents about this matter and publicly stated my support for initiatives to allow access to historical census records. I continue to advocate the position. The Canadian Alliance Party supports the motion before us today.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the hon. member
for South Shore who just spoke referred to the absence of a certain member from the House. I
believe that was out of order.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I was listening very carefully. The member for South Shore indicated
that a certain hon. member had not participated in the debate today, but he made no reference to
the presence or absence of the member. I was quite attentive to the fact that this was the tone of
the discussion.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. More than a year ago, the president of the
historical and genealogical society of my area, Mrs. Ouellet, made some representations to
ensure that this information would be made public.
I have asked myself some questions about the protection of personal information. I am
particularly sensitive to this whole issue since the Department of Human Resources Development
accidentally sent me some incorrect information about myself. I think there is a distinction to be
made between historical information collected through the 1911 census and protected ever since
then and the privacy issue.
I believe the motion put forward will help us reach a greater consensus in the House to let the
government know how important it is to make a decision as soon as possible and to take into
account all the various points of view.
From what I gather from the arguments I have heard in support of this motion, it seems that the
report submitted to the minister was quite favourable. I hope this means that the government is
considering providing access to this information in an appropriate way.
The Minister of Industry, who is responsible for this issue, will have to complete his work
quickly, because he has had this report in hand for some time now. He can make it public at the
same time that he announces the government's position.
As for the House, it would be interesting to say to all those history buffs, to all our historians, to all those who would find it useful, such as genealogists, that, yes, they can use the information
collected via this census.
Some said that in other countries, the data remain unavailable for 90 or 100 years. In the present
case, it is close to 90 years. I believe we have all the arguments in favour of public access to this
information, so that it can be used for historical purposes and so that this anomaly be corrected.
In the subsequent censuses, there was no provisions concerning the period after which the
information would be made available.
I would be very happy if we could allow people in our historical and genealogical societies to do
their job so that they can respond to requests made to them in that regard and if we could settle
this issue once and for all.
I have been in favour of the motion from the start. This is my personal position, and I will
probably support the amendment as well because I think it will create a larger consensus in the
House to send a clear message to the government. The time has come for the government to act
responsibly, make up its mind and state its position.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise
to debate the amendment to what is actually my motion. This motion seeks to have the government release the results of the 1911 census and by implication every census thereafter. I have spoken to the principle of the motion in the first hour of debate and will not reiterate. Rather I will address briefly the amendment brought before us by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
I note with some dismay the remarks of my itinerate colleague from South Shore who for some reason apparently supports the motion but saw some reason to criticize its mover for not having participated in the debate. I am here tonight to participate in the debate. I was here during the first hour and I was here at every stage in this debate. I think in private members' hour that kind of apparently petty partisanship is uncalled for. I am as partisan as anyone when it is called for, but certainly not when we are discussing matters of this nature. I found that regrettable.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre seeks to amend this motion by changing the words "the government should take" to "the government should consider taking". I object strenuously. Millions of Canadians have an interest in this matter although they may not yet realize it.
Certainly tens of thousands have a very acute interest in the passage of the motion. Genealogists,
archivists, librarians, researchers and historians through many personal and organized
representations to their representatives and to this place have asked for the government to release
the 1911 archives for the census of that year.
It was principally as a result of those representations that I brought forward the motion. I thought
these archivists, genealogists and so on had made a very reasonable case that the release of these
documents would be well within what would be very conventional and would not violate privacy
rights or undertakings on the part of the government.
I brought a motion which would suggest that the government should take this action. Let us be
honest and frank about it. This is how it works. Government members have been deluged with
mail on the issue like all other members from people concerned about the issue asking for the
release of these documents. It has become a political concern for them.
I suspect that many of these members have received dozens of letters and communications asking
for their support of this motion or action of this nature to be taken. It has become a small but not
insignificant political concern for them. Undoubtedly many of these members intended to vote in
favour of my motion that the government should take this action and release these census
documents.
I am sure this is what happened. The Minister of Industry is responsible for the oversight of
Statistics Canada and the archives. Undoubtedly his office realized that the motion could be
somewhat embarrassing for the government because he clearly had no intention of taking
decisive action on the matter.
Rather, the Minister of Industry appointed a committee to delay, a panel of experts, which is a
typical government procedure, to study the issue into the ground probably at least until after the
election so that my hon. colleagues opposite could tell all the genealogists and local historians in
their ridings not to worry in that the government was considering the matter and in the fullness of
time and at the earliest opportunity would release the archived documents.
No doubt they were planning to do that with the committee to delay. This motion comes along
and suddenly forces them, heaven forbid, to actually confront the issue, especially because it has
been deemed votable.
So the minister says that the government has to come up with some way to water this thing down
so that it is not obliged to take any sort of action at all, but instead can continue to delay the
release of these census documents and denude this as a political issue for the backbench
government members. That is exactly what has happened. Let us be grown-ups about this.
I strenuously object to the motion which would require that the government consider taking
action. The government can consider taking action on anything, anytime. This amendment
renders this motion meaningless.
I want to clearly put on the record that this will not serve as an adequate loincloth, if you will, for government members who hope to go back to their ridings and tell their constituents interested in
access to this important historical information that they voted in favour of this motion, that they
voted in favour of the release of these census documents. That is not true.
This is an disingenuous motion designed to cloud the issue for those with an interest in obtaining
these records. It is a somewhat underhanded effort on the part of the government to prevent the
House from actually reflecting the interests and concerns of their constituents. It is a very simple
matter, but the government and the minister want to maintain a stranglehold on this information.
He does not want the House, its members or, heaven forbid, his own members representing their
constituents deciding that this archival information should be released from the 1911 census. He
wants his department and his bureaucrats to be able to make this decision. That is why this
amendment has come forward from a government member tonight.
I just say to my colleagues opposite and everyone else that this completely dilutes the
meaningfulness of the motion. I would ask members to please vote against the amendment and
support the original motion which has stronger language and which creates at least a strong sense
of the House. Even if my motion passes unamended, it will not force the government to take
action. It will merely give a strong sense of the will of the House. That is what private members'
motions are intended for. Let us use that procedure properly. We get very few votable private
members' motions. Let us use this one to actually represent our constituents in a non-partisan
fashion. Instead of protecting the minister's hide and his committee to delay, let us vote against
the amendment and support the original motion, as no doubt most members would be inclined to do.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
I would like to move:
That any requested recorded divisions pertaining to the Business of Supply of Thursday 21
September, 2000 be deferred to the end of Government Orders, on Tuesday 26 September,
2000.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Calgary Southeast have the unanimous consent
of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to talk to this subject matter after the mover of the original motion. It does not give me
great pleasure that we now have an amendment which basically guts the motion. However, it
allows me to speak to this subject again. I previously spoke to it on April 10 and it would have
nullified my ability to speak tonight if that amendment had not occurred.
As explained by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, the mover of the original motion,
essentially what we have here is a circumstance where it is obvious that the Minister of Industry,
who is responsible for the census data and the Statistics Canada operations, does not want to
release this information for his own purposes.
There is much fuzziness around the issue and it has been exploited to the government's advantage
because of that. We are one of the jurisdictions in the western world without clear statutory rules
for when census information shall be released.
The most critical period of time in terms of mass emigration particularly from Europe to Canada
is the period 1910 to 1930. That is very important historical information for us. It is also very
important information for the country to the south of us, the United States.
Our set-up is diametrically different from the standpoint that the U.S. is getting ready to release
its 1930 census data next year. It has a 70 year rule. The motion does not propose a 70 year rule.
It proposes that the 1911 census data be released in 2003, which is 92 years. We can argue all
day about what is an appropriate length of time but we need clear statutory rules as to when
Canada will do that. The current situation is open to political manipulation.
The minister asked Statistics Canada to produce a report on what it thought about the whole
situation. The Statistics Canada report essentially stated that there was an everlasting promise to
keep the material secret. It has been able to make that statement without any documentation.
A review of all the statutes, proclamations, the Canada Gazette and newspaper clippings of the
day would indicate quite the contrary. The more one thinks about why Statistics Canada would
take such a position, the more one is led to the conclusion that Statistics Canada is actually in a
conflict of interest situation on this matter.
Very pervasive, invasive questions have been asked recently by Statistics Canada. There are
members of the public, including myself, who do not believe that the level of inquiry is
appropriate for census material. By using coercion, the threat of penalty and other measures, we
are told that we have to respond to the questions.
That accumulated data becomes a saleable commodity by Statistics Canada. It is in business with
this data. It does not want to threaten its ability to coerce the public into responding to those
questions. Therefore it has to hold out this guarantee, or at least favour that end of the spectrum.
I do not believe we should be giving any plausible credibility to its report. The motion is clear in
stating that nationally we have a vested interest in actually releasing our census data. We will
lose too much of our history if we do not do so. We will be out of step with other parts of the
western world. We will leave an unsatisfactory circumstance to be cleaned up later.
There is no better time than this year to clarify what the rules of census data collection are
because we are going into a census year next year. Let us deal with more than the 1911 census.
Let us deal with the 1911 census and subsequent ones, as well as the 2001 census.
This motion deals with the most immediate priority, the 1911 census. I urge everyone to reject
the amendment and to vote for the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until
Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
It being 7.12 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.12 p.m.)
|
