français

The following is an extract of the unrevised transcripts of the 24 February 2005 hearings of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. During this hearing Bill S-18 - An Act to Amend the Statistics Act was considered and was subsequently referred back to the Senate without amendment.

Being an unrevised transcript this page shows the text in the language that those speaking used at the time. When the French language was used I have added a rough, machine translation of the French language. The translation reflects what was said in the paragraph preceding it, and is shown in RED text. The translations, being machine generated, may have some differences from an official translation, and do not form a part of the original document.

At such time as the official revised transcripts are available these pages will be revised to provide them, in both official languages.

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS,
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EVIDENCE

OTTAWA, Thursday, February 24, 2005

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-18, to amend the Statistics Act, met this day at 11 a.m. to give consideration to the bill. Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the chair.

The Chairman: It is 11:05 a.m., so I will start. We have before us today Bill S-18 again. The number is different; the substance is forever the same. That is the advantage, Dr. Fellegi, when we are dealing with the old things that the old things never change, they all just stay the same, but get a little older.

We are back to Bill S-18 once more with an act to amend the Statistics Act. We have before us Dr. Fellegi, the Chief Statistician of Canada. Welcome back again. We have our new Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart. This is your first appearance before us, am I right?

Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner: Last year I think I appeared before this committee on amendments to the Health Act.

The Chairman: That is exactly right. I know you have given us an opening statement. Because the committee has more than a modest amount of familiarity with this Bill in its previous incarnations, I will be delighted if you will be mercifully short. I will now turn to Dr. Fellegi and then Ms. Stoddart.

Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada: Thank you, senator. This Bill may be old, but it is not like an old soldier, fading away. It really does need to be dealt with because there is a census coming up. The ambiguity that is the characteristic of the current legal situation really needs to be resolved prior to the census, so that we can communicate to Canadians the conditions under which the next census will be taken and their responses can be given accordingly.

I will simplify my opening statement and make just a few points. First of all, how does this Bill differ from the one that was in front of you? It is in two main respects. In principle it is really very similar. In its broad outline it is very similar. Two provisions have changed.

One was the previous Bill had a clause that, for historical past censuses had a period of 92 years to 112 years in which the treatment of historical census records and public access to them was different from what it was to be under that Bill after 112 years. One hundred twelve years after the event, 92 to 112 years, so I am talking about past census. There were some conditions of the access. Those conditions under this Bill are now removed. Under this Bill, all historic census records, 92 years after the event would be made accessible to the public without restriction.

That is one change.

There is no change whatsoever with respect to future censuses. To me that is a very important provision. Informed consent is at the heart of the decision that people will make with respect to the eventual, that is 92 years after the next few censuses, 92 years after the event. They will be made access to the public, if they consent that it should be. That is because we cannot go back and ask people in past censuses, but we can do so for the future. Informed consent can be from now on, but it could not be retroactively.

The last way in which there is a difference between this Bill and what you had before you before is the review by Parliament after the next two censuses. We have some experience with the Bill. We can see how it works, what problems may arise and they can be reviewed.

That is the first point, first general point.

The second category of points I wanted to make is to emphasize that like the first Bill, this is a compromise. There are conflicting interests that needed to be reconciled and I think they were successfully reconciled. First of all, we have to keep in mind that a census is a statistical undertaking and statistical undertakings depend on public trust. I was terribly anxious and still am and I am convinced if this Bill does it, that the public trust in Statistics Canada and confidentiality promise needs to be preserved for everybody's sake. We would not have it for statistical purposes or genealogical or historical purposes if people do not trust us to give the information in confidence to Statistics Canada. That is the first interest.

The second interest is historians, genealogists and those who want to have access. Their interests are also well looked after in this compromise. There is public access provided by the 92 years after the event for all past historical census records, unrestricted. There is a change there from the previous version, as I mentioned.

Second, the trust element that I mentioned serves everybody else, historians, and so on, because it continues to make the census both available for the future and reliable.

Third, the built-in review will enable everybody to look forward and find and make changes after the next two censuses if there are problems with either the consent provisions or how it is administered or whatever.

Last, but not least, I have committed previously and I still am committed to work with all stakeholders to give effect and encourage Canadians to declare themselves in favour of sharing their census records, 92 years after the event.

I deeply believe in privacy and I think this compromise provides for safe guards in that respect. It provides for a positive choice, not a negative choice. People have to say yes, I agree. If they do not say anything, their information will not be released 92 years later. In other words, if it is blank, we take the answer as no. They can change their mind between the census date and 92 years later at any time and we will give effect to those changes. Finally, the review provisions built into the act would provide an opportunity to make changes should it be necessary for administration or the provisions in this act.

It is as good as it can be, given the conflicting interests. It is a reasonable attempt and I certainly fully support and urge that the legal ambiguity be removed before the next census.

(French follows, Ms. Stoddard, Nous aimerions attirer...)

(après anglais)

Mme Jennifer Stoddard, commissaire à la protection de la vie privée : Nous aimerions attirer votre attention sur deux points pour l'étude du projet de loi S-18. Premièrement, nous appuyons l'initiative de rendre publics les dossiers de recensement après 92 ans. Après plusieurs vérifications à l'échelle internationale, nous avons jugé que cette période constituait une norme appropriée et raisonnable pour le Canada. Elle représente une juste moyenne par rapport à celle d'autres pays qui varie de plus longue à plus courte. Nous reconnaissons le fait que les renseignements doivent demeurer personnels pour une période donnée seulement puisque à maints égards, leurs dimensions publique et historique peuvent s'avérer utiles pour les citoyens.

Ms. Jennifer Stoddard, Privacy Commissioner: We would like to draw your attention to two points for the study of bill S-18. Firstly, we support the initiative to make public the files of census after 92 years. After several checks on an international scale, we judged that this period constituted a suitable and reasonable standard for Canada. It represents an average right compared to that of other countries which varies from longer to shorter. We recognize the fact that the information must remain personal for a period only given that in many ways, their public and historical information can prove to be useful for the citizens.

(Following French, Ms. Stoddart continuing.)

The second point is the issue over the consent provisions. In our prepared statement, we referred to the Minister of Industry and Commerce talking about Canadians having the right to decide for themselves if they want their personal census records to be made publicly available in the future. This is a very noble and appropriate concept. Of course, consent is central to our notion of privacy. We applaud the fact, given that the censuses are increasingly moving to asking questions that are, perhaps, increasingly personal, that we build in a consent provision.

We point out in our remarks that engineering a consent provision in the context of administering a census to millions of Canadians is a challenge. We raise some of the issues involved in that, and we tell you in our statement of the work that we have done with Statistics Canada over the last months in order to ensure that the consent provisions are appropriately presented to Canadians so that the consent is as strong as it can be in the circumstances of administering a census to a large segment, if not literally all of the population. We refer you to Census Canada for the details of how best to do that, as they are the experts in building census questionnaires, and so on.

In closing, honourable senators, I would say that we support this bill. We urge you to go ahead with this. This matter has been much debated, I understand, and there is a certain importance in bringing the debate to a close. We are given the challenge of making the census questionnaire conform in the practical experience conform to the principle of informed consent. We are encouraged by the fact that there will be a review after this census, there will be a review after the other census and we have an ongoing working relationship with Statistics Canada in order to try to make the consent provisions as strong as possible within the census context.

The Chairman: I would like to ask Dr. Fellegi one question and then I will turn to Senator Comeau. As I understand it, the timing on getting this bill through makes a difference to you in the sense that you cannot print the census questionnaires for this year until this is finished. Am I correct on that? Can you explain to me what the linkage is between this bill and the census?

Mr. Fellegi: It is not so much the printing. The key issue is to clarify the legal regime under which the census will be taken before Canadians are asked to fill that in.

Senator Comeau: A great amount of pressure has been placed on me to back down on some of the concerns that I have expressed on this bill. My patriotism has been questioned, my motivations have been questioned, and a number of other things have been questioned. However, what I have been trying to do all along is my job. I have a responsibility, as an opposition member, to uphold the trust that was placed in me when I was placed in this position. One of those responsibilities was to look at the limitations of government policy and to point these out to the best of my ability. Therefore, I approach the subject from that matter.

The first question would be to Dr. Fellegi. Your name, Dr. Fellegi, is all over the document. I have the census form here, but it is all over the document. I will not read the whole thing, but it does say that these census forms are to develop plans for education, for daycare, for producing statistical tables, and so on. It goes on to state that 'these uses are strictly for statistical purposes and no one outside the agency can have access to your identifiable information.' I will not read the rest, but it also goes on to say that 'by law, Statistics Canada must protect the confidentiality of the personal information you provide. Our employees, including census takers, are personally liable to fines or imprisonment should they break the confidentiality of the information.' It is signed by you, the Chief Statistician of Canada.

If you look at the 1918 secrecy provisions of the Census Act, there is no question that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. I do not think I need to repeat them to you. You probably know them quite well. How can you then turn around and come back before us here this morning, after those promises that have you have made that you would keep those provisions and say there is a legal ambiguity. There is no legal ambiguity, sir. It is there in the bill. What is ambiguous about 'no person other than a person employed or deemed to be employed under this act and sworn to section 6 shall be permitted to examine any identifiable individual return made for the purposes of this act?'

Mr. Fellegi: Perhaps I may make a half serious comment to begin with. My signature was not on the 1918 census, although at one point I said jokingly that I had been Chief Statistician since Confederation.

Senator Comeau: I will accept that.

Mr. Fellegi: I shared your view and I acted on that belief. That was the advice we had received from the Department of Justice until some years ago, although I do not remember the exact date that it was changed. I received a clear change of perspective from the Department of Justice.

Senator Comeau: This is the same Department of Justice that pursued a former Prime Minister for eight years and, finally at the end of eight years, turned around and said that it had made a mistake. This is the same Department of Justice that went after the Pearson group -- an individual group -- with a law that would have taken away their right to access the courts to protect them.

Mr. Fellegi: It was not only the Department of Justice. We had a blue ribbon panel appointed by the minister and its members were non-political.

Senator Comeau: Their ruling was for the time up to the 1918 census, if I recall. They said that if the minister wanted a change in public policy, he would have to bring in a law to change this public policy, because the law said no.

Mr. Fellegi: It was their view that there was probably no legal ambiguity at all until 1918 and that following 1918, there was a legal ambiguity, which they advised should be resolved by means of an amendment.

Senator Comeau: Do you deeply believe, that the promise signed by you on these census forms, which I read to you, was ambiguous as to the meaning of the law?

Mr. Fellegi: No. I certainly believed at the time when I made those statements and signed my name to them that the law provided no ambiguity. That was my belief. I was clearly wrong and I am not a lawyer. I was advised by very knowledgeable people, not only in the Department of Justice but on the blue ribbon panel appointed by then Minister Manley, that there was probably no ambiguity; that probably we should just release data prior to 1918; and that for the years from 1918 on, there is an ambiguity that would be best resolved by an amendment.

Senator Comeau: I will not dwell on that any longer. Having made that unambiguous promise, which, I believe you repeat two or three times in the statistics document, you say that if someone does not respond to the document, they can face a penalty -- be thrown in jail or be fined, although I am not certain of the exact words. Mr. Fellegi, you will have to go back to Canadians and say that through all of the years that Canadians were filling out the census forms and reading your promise, that that promise was not worth the paper it was written on because we have now changed that promise. This is the new promise we now make to you, whatever that might be. This confidentiality is only as good as that provided by the next batch of politicians that come along and break this 92-year promise and make it a 50-year or 25-year promise because Parliament can do what it wants to do.

The Chairman: Senator Comeau, I cannot resist saying this with some humour but given all our effort to get Bill S-18 before the house, no other Parliament would want to become bogged down in this mess again.

Senator Comeau: That is easy for you to say right now.

The Chairman: I understand that, but I could not resist, given all the time we have spent on it.

Mr. Fellegi: I can only say that when I signed my name to that promise, as did all my predecessors, not all of them did so in good conscience and with the full understanding of the law as they understood it and as they were advised to understand it at the time. The fact remains that they were wrong. There is an ambiguity that they were not aware of.

Senator Comeau: That is akin to confessing sins to a priest under an ambiguous confessional rule to not repeat what he has heard and then the priest says that the Pope has changed his mind and wants to let it all hang out and the priest can tell the world everything that he has heard.

There is a certain trust that must be established between the one who wants the information, explaining the purpose and that it will be confidential, and the one who responds. What you are doing today, sir, is saying that even though you promised, you were wrong all those years, having been told by some lawyers.

Mr. Fellegi: Senator, we are all subject to the law and we can only do the best job that we can with our understanding of that law. If this bill were not brought forward or if it were not passed in some form, then there would be a high probability that this case would go before the courts that would make a ruling, which might or might not have the same balance that we are trying to achieve.

Senator Comeau: That is fine and I have no problem with that. If the law is ambiguous such that the law says this can be released after 92 years, then by all means, take it to court. I believe in the decision of the court. I submit to you that there is nothing ambiguous in this bill. Our predecessors were not ...

Mr. Fellegi: ... very knowledgeable experts, and I cannot engage in that discussion because I am not a lawyer.

Senator Comeau: Fine. We will see what kind of promise you make from now on. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Ms. Stoddart. In your testimony, you refer to the ambiguity in the document. Do you believe that there is ambiguity in the law and in what the Chief Statistician wrote down as promises of confidentiality?

Ms. Stoddart: Honourable senator, I am not familiar with the particular document you quoted and that Dr. Fellegi and you discussed.

Senator Comeau: You should have read it prior to making a comment on it. I refer to the census forms.

Ms. Stoddart: Yes, I have read that. In my remarks, honourable senator, I was referring to Bill S-18, the matter now before us. I was drawing to the honourable senator's attention the operational challenge of obtaining consent from Canadians. That is our contribution to this particular initiative.

Senator Comeau: Senator Milne had indicated some weeks ago that your office had advised her that you supported the bill. Is that correct?

Ms. Stoddart: I do not know who communicated with Senator Milne, but I have ...

Senator Milne: Mr. Chairman, if I may add something.

The Chairman: I will allow the witness to finish her comment.

Ms. Stoddart: I have been examining this bill for several months. We have examined it, we support the principle, we support the bill and we support the principle of consent. We, as specialists in the protection of personal information, want to draw the Senate's attention to the issue of how the consent is obtained. It is this that we have been discussing with Statistics Canada for the last month.

Senator Comeau: Do you support the bill?

Ms. Stoddart: We support the bill.

Senator Comeau: The bill says that a promise was made that the documents would not be released, as in Dr. Fellegi's promises. This bill says that the information can be released after 92 years. What makes it such? I believe you said in your comments that "cela devient historique après 92 ans." Why does it become historical after 92 years? Why is that the magic number? Why is it not 50 or 25 years? At what point would you say that a document that was not to be released would become releasable?

Ms. Stoddart: That is obviously an arbitrary date.

Senator Comeau: You are the Privacy Commissioner. You are telling us that a document that was confidential can be released after 92 years. I would like your opinion. You are our privacy person.

Ms. Stoddart: I said in my remarks that we looked at the various studies that have being prepared in preparation for this Bill, notably the Blue Ribbon Committee Report. We were persuaded by the fact that if you look at international standards for determining when personal information becomes public in a census context, if I remember correctly, it ranges from about 70 to 100 years.

Senator Comeau: Which jurisdictions did you look at?

Ms. Stoddart: In the Blue Ribbon Committee document, I believe it was the United States, Great Britain, and possibly Australia and New Zealand.

Senator Comeau: You are aware that the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia, do have a limitation right in the act itself. In other words, when someone signs the statistics forms, and puts in the information, there is a date in there. I forget just what the dates are in the case of the U.S., but people when they knowingly fill in the form know there is a limitation. It is in their laws and on their forms, this will be released in X number of years. In Canada that is not the case.

Ms. Stoddart: My understanding, Honourable Senator, is because of the problems of the Canadian censuses and the difficulty in interpreting the release dates of the censuses after 1918, that Bill S-18 is an attempt to do just that, to set a standard date, and to move to a system in which, when Canadians give their personal information, they consent to give it, and they understand clearly the conditions on which, and the time period in which it will be made public. That is my understanding of what this Bill attempts to do and that is why we support it.

Senator Comeau: That is fine, if henceforth the Bill says from now on this will be released after 92 years, if you provide consent. What about those between 1918 and 2004 who did it under the provisions that it would be kept secret? What about those people? I am one of them, who did do my census and sign, quite patriotically as we are supposed to. I wrote in the information to the best of my ability, and truthful information, which is what Mr. Fellegi was looking for, but from 1918 to 2004, that can be released in 92 years. The promise that was made to me as a Canadian is being broken by this bill.

Are you as Privacy Commissioner concerned about that?

Ms. Stoddart: I am concerned by that, Senator Comeau, but in being concerned you have to look at what is the remedy to these kinds of concerns, and what are a whole series of public issues that have to be weighed.

We seem to have some kind of anomaly in that there was a clearer process for the release of censuses up to a certain time, and then we kind of hit the situation that seemed to be unforeseen. That is my understanding of the situation. The legislator did not foresee this and so all of a sudden we came into this grey area in which, through a series of different legislative initiatives, the issue of what date any ultimate release would be contemplated and the information it would give to Canadians was not addressed.

This is the debate that I gather has been going on for several years now.

Senator Comeau: I submit to you, with all due respect, Madam Privacy Commissioner that it was addressed. It was either our predecessors in 1918 forgot to put in a best-before date or they did it on purpose. I do not know what their motivation was, but it was addressed. Basically, it says these will not be released. It was a secret; it was to be kept by our Chief Statistician, forever. Basically, that is what it was.

Whether it was a mistake or not, let me continue. Now you are telling us that it was grey. Reread the document, Madam Privacy Commissioner, and I stress the word privacy. You are the top official of the land on this subject.

Let us continue then. If you say that there are grey areas and areas like that, and that it can be released even though a promise was made, at what point does a document become releasable? Why 92 years? If, for example, in these troubled times, since 9/11 -- God forbid -- a 9/11 were to happen in Canada, and there is a clamour for information, can you imagine the amount of information the security forces could access through these census forms with people's nationality, ethnic origin, and religious origin? You are basically saying 92 years is fine. What about someone else who comes along and says ten years is fine? Where do you fit here, Madam Privacy Commissioner?

Ms. Stoddart: I said in conjunction with the 92 year standard that Canada has gone one step further, and has added the dimension of consent, which, as I recall, not all societies give their citizens, so that what is interesting about the project before you, not only does it suggest a clear principle, a temporal limit for the release of personal information, it introduces the notion of consent for release.

Senator Comeau: Is the consent promise then as good as Mr. Fellegi's promise that we have been having over the years, that it is only as good as the current batch of parliamentarians on the Hill?

Secondly, the question of consent, all of these forms over the years and in the future, obviously, are signed by one individual, especially if an individual, the head of the family, prepares and signs the form on behalf of other family members, and has signed on behalf of other family members. What about the privacy of these individuals, who never even got the opportunity to even know what the head of the family had indicated on the forms?

Ms. Stoddart: Exactly, honourable senator, and that is what I mention in my remarks. The question of operationalization, putting into operation these consent provisions, is a challenging question and we have raised these issues with the Statistics Canada. They have made, I think, one change to the form because of the very issue that you are raising. I think historically, censuses, first of all, the legal concept of head of family was extant, in family law this concept has been replaced by other concepts, so who can answer for whom is a question now in a society of equality rights to which we pay more attention.

The census questionnaire technique has to adapt to this. Who can legally consent for me? One important change has already been made. I believe there are indications, for example, if you cannot leave it blank, or if you have not obtained the consent of other people, and then of course there is the question of minor children who anyway find themselves on census forms without consenting and so on, that these are being addressed.

We are in new territory, I would think.

Senator Comeau: You are our Privacy Commissioner and we depend on you. From what I am hearing I am not all that secure.

Mr. Fellegi: May I add something?

Senator Comeau: Sure.

Mr. Fellegi: I think the point is a very important point, the issue of how we get and how we ensure consent. We try to build the maximum security into that process by the following steps. First of all, our proposed wording of the instruction to complete this particular question about the consent says the following: "The Statistics Act guarantees the confidentiality of your census information. Only if you mark yes to this question will your personal information be made public 92 years after the 2006 census. If you mark no or leave the answer blank, your personal information will never be made publicly available. If you are answering on behalf of other people, please consult each person." Next the question asks: "Does this person agree?" It is not whether you agree on his behalf, but whether this person to whom the information relates agrees.

Senator Comeau: That is whistling past the graveyard.

Mr. Fellegi: I do not believe so, but this is a matter of, obviously, honest opinion differences.

The last safeguard is that a person who believes consent was given on his or her behalf that he or she does not share can change it, any time between the time of the census and 92 years later. We are undertaking in public to make a commitment to change that provision. If that provision is changed from negative to positive or from blank to positive or in any direction, or from positive to negative, that is the one that will be given effect 92 years after the census date.

Senator Callbeck: I just have a brief question on the consent provision. There must be other countries that use this. Is the rate of people that would consent to allowing the information to be public high or low? What are the figures from other countries?

Mr. Fellegi: As the Privacy Commissioner mentioned, in this respect Canada is going beyond what most other countries are doing. Most other countries do not have the informed consent provision. There is an informed consent provision in New Zealand, I think, and in Australia. The rate of consent is somewhere in the 60 per cent range.

However, that is without the kind of cooperation and publicity that we are undertaking to provide, working hand in hand with the National Archivist and his office.

In the Canadian context, I really do expect that the consent rate will be much higher. We have been successful in getting Canadians to consent to share their health information, which is a great deal more sensitive, not just with Statistics Canada itself under the confidentiality provisions but with provincial ministries of health, in over 90 per cent of the cases where we attempted to get such consent. As I say, this is in a context that relates to much more confidential information. We do not have experience, but I am confident that the rate will be high.

Senator Callbeck: I have another brief comment. I see where the expert panel on access to historical census records that was established for the ministry in 1999 did not recommend individual consent be sought for future releases of records. Why was that?

Mr. Fellegi: I do not remember that part of the report, frankly. I take your word for it. I am not debating the point. I just do not remember that aspect of their report.

Certainly, a great deal of water flowed under the bridge since the time that report was written, with a great deal of discussion and a great attempt to find compromises. Like any compromise -- and I made that same comment when I was here in connection with Bill S-13 -- it cannot be defended on first principles, because competing interests have to be squared and we were trying to satisfy a variety of interests in putting forward this bill.

Senator Trenholme Counsell: I certainly have questions and concerns about the issues of privacy and consent.

Mr. Fellegi, you just said that you have had good success with health records, with people giving permission for the release of information. Would that be adult by adult by adult, each person signing?

Mr. Fellegi: Yes, it would be, in the case of the health information.

Senator Trenholme Counsell: This is clearly very different. One person is signing this form for all members of the household. I do not understand why there would not be a requirement for adults to sign individually. If you have a household with "X" number of adults in it, is it appropriate or is it right under the law for one person to sign that for other adults? I do not think I have ever heard of anything like that. I am not a lawyer and I am new to this committee, but I cannot see how in law one person can sign for others.

I think that there should be some provision that dependent children would have a chance to at some point sign. The only thing that I question is the legality and appropriateness of this. You have just indicated the situation with respect to health records, but I do not think it is same. Someone cannot sign for me about my health records as long as I have my own ability to sign for myself.

Mr. Fellegi: I was answering a different question.

Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is the principle. You used that as an example.

Mr. Fellegi: I was trying to make a different point using an example. The point I was the making was why I believe that consent will be given by a high proportion of Canadians. That is because, in a different and much more sensitive context, we succeed in getting that kind of high rate.

Yours is a different point. Your point is why we do not seek individual consent from everyone. Just logistically, it would be exceptionally difficult. The census form is completed typically by one person in the household. It does not pass from person to person. If a household decides that is how it wants to deal with it, it can certainly do so. Logistically, it would be a very dangerous process to have to ask everyone to sign on his or her behalf. It is a relatively simple form for most people, in effect. There are only a small number of questions. Most people get the short census form, which is a simple form. It would be really artificial for someone to go around and collect information individually about the age of a daughter or a wife, and whether or not that person signs for himself or herself that this information can be released. Ultimately, that person can change his or her mind. That is something to be emphasized. If consent was given by someone else and that person did not ask the person concerned, despite that being explicitly required in the questionnaire, if the wrong answer is entered on behalf of the person, that person can change his or her mind. We will give effect to that.

Senator Trenholme Counsell: May I follow up by asking about the long form? It is a while since I have filled one in. I have in the past. Give me one or two important examples in the long form where we could have controversy, where someone might object. What kinds of questions are on the long form? Do they concern relationships to the person, for instance?

Mr. Fellegi: There are a large number of questions on the long form, from relationship to education to income to religion. A great deal of information is on the long form.

Senator Trenholme Counsell: My point is that every adult should have the right to sign that.

Senator Milne: I have a very short question, since Mr. Fellegi has answered my question already when he was speaking to Senator Comeau, about how Statistics Canada would satisfy Ms. Stoddart's concerns about the administration of the census being consistent with the consent provisions in Bill S-18.

I want to make the point that in the early census forms, it not only said that the census taker should keep everything private but also, through specific instructions, that all inquiries in the schedules should be in ink of good quality and that every name, figure, word or mark should be clear and legible. If the schedule cannot be read or if the entries are made with poor quality ink or in pencil or if they are blurred or blotted the work of the enumerator may be wholly wasted. The census is intended to be a permanent record and its schedules will be stored in the Archives of the Dominion.

At that time in history, everything that was stored in the Archives of the Dominion eventually became public. I think that that is a countervailing argument to what Senator Comeau was making.

(French follows -- Le sénateur Pépin : Si j'ai bien compris...)

(après anglais)

Le sénateur Pépin: Si j'ai bien compris, car je suis nouvelle dans ce dossier, est-ce que vous pouvez nous dire si les engagements pris par le gouvernement au niveau de la confidentialité peuvent être changés en cours de route? On dit que, à partir de 2006, les Canadiens vous avoir la possibilité de permettent ou non l'usage public de leur dossier personnel après 92 ans. Comme on ne peut pas prévoir l'avenir, est-ce que ce que le projet de loi S-18, actuellement, nous apporte comme changement est rassurant, pour le futur, au niveau de la confidentialité?

Senator Pépin: If I understood, because I am new in this file, can you say to us if the commitments entered into by the government on the level of the confidentiality can be changed in the course of road? It is said that, after 2006, Canadians have the possibility to allow or not the public use of their personal file after 92 years. As one cannot envisage the future, what bill S-18, currently brings us as change is reassuring, for the future, on the level of the confidentiality?

Mme Stoddart : En fait oui, madame le sénateur; je crois que cette loi est assez innovatrice et place le Canada, comme l'a dit le Dr Felligi, très en avance sur les normes internationales pour la cueillette de données pour les recensements. Elle innove en donnant aux Canadiens, à partir de sa mise en vigueur, un contrôle assez important sur le renseignement personnel à l'avenir, incluant la possibilité de refuser à tout jamais la publication de ces données.

Mrs. Stoddart: In fact yes, Madam Senator; I believe that this law is rather innovating and places Canada, like Dr. Felligi said, in advance of some of the international standards for the gathering of data for the censuses. It innovates while giving Canadians, starting from its coming into force, a rather important control on personal information in the future, including the possibility of refusing forever the publication of these data.

Le sénateur Pépin : C'est parfait, j'avais besoin de savoir cela.

Senator Pépin: It is perfect, I needed to know that.

Le sénateur Gill : Une toute petite question. Est-ce que vous savez à partir de quand on a commencé à faire des recensements auprès des premières nations?

Senator Gill: A very small question. Do you know from when one started to make censuses of the first nations?

M. Fellegi : Les premières nations font partie du recensement et en ont toujours fait partie.

Mr. Fellegi: The first nations form part of the census and always formed part of it.

Le sénateur Gill : Vous êtes sûr? Je ne me souviens pas avoir vu de recensement dans ma communauté avant il y a une dizaine d'années. Peut-être que c'était fait auprès du ministère des Affaires indiennes.

Senator Gill: You are sure? I do not remember having seen census in my community before the past ten years. Perhaps that it was done by the ministry for the Indian Affairs.

M. Fellegi : Nous comptons les premières nations. Depuis quand, je ne sais pas.

Mr. Fellegi: We count the first nations. Since when, I do not know.

Le sénateur Gill : Cela se fait maintenant, mais cela ne s'est pas toujours fait. Ce que je voulais savoir, c'est où vous preniez les renseignements avant que cela se fasse dans les communautés - probablement au ministère des Affaires indiennes.

Senator Gill: That is done now, but that was not always done. What I wanted to know, it is where you took the information before that is done in the communities - probably with the ministry for the Indian Affairs.

M. Fellegi: Je pensais que cela avait toujours été le cas, mais si vous me dites que non, je ne peux pas vous répondre.

Mr. Fellegi: I thought that that had always been the case, but if you say to me that it is not, I cannot answer you.

Le sénateur Gill : On va s'en reparler.

Senator Gill: I will speak again about it.

(Chair : That is an interesting question…)

(anglais suit)

(Following French by Le sénateur Gill : On va s'en reparler.)

The Chairman: That is an interesting question. Mr. Fellegi, could you send a note to Senator Gill?

Mr. Fellegi: Yes, I will do that.

The Chairman: Seeing no more questions, I suggest we proceed to clause-by-clause. Does anyone wish to propose an amendment?

Senator Comeau: Yes, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill S-18 be amended on page 1, clause 1, by replacing line 8 with the following: "Between 1910 and 1918 is no longer subject to". I raise this to follow up on the comments of the Privacy Commissioner. There are good elements in the bill, such that henceforth the availability of the Canadian census would be more in line with what other countries are doing in terms of releasing their census information after a certain number of years. This amendment would allow the keeping of the promise made over the years to all Canadians that signed the forms between 1918 and 2004. It would allow Mr. Fellegi to keep his promise and those of his predecessors. It would eliminate a potential breach of the facts that we have had over all these years. From then on, the census forms would be released with, of course, the consent provisions, which are not quite what they should be, given that the head of the family signs on behalf of the individuals. At least it keeps the promise made between 1918 and 2004. That is my amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Comeau. I suggest that we deal with the amendment when we come to clause 1 in our consideration. Is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause?

Senator Milne: So moved.

The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: That moves us to clause 1 and a vote on Senator Comeau's amendment. Senator Milne, do you wish to respond?

Senator Milne: I would strongly urge the committee to vote against this amendment because it would, in effect, mean that no census between 1918 and 2004 would ever be released.

The Chairman: I call the vote on Senator Comeau's amendment. Those in favour of the amendment, please say, yea.

Senator Comeau: Yea.

The Chairman: Those opposed, please say, nay.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Chairman: I declare the amendment defeated. Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Comeau: On division.

The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Is it agreed that the bill be adopted?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Comeau: On division.

The Chairman: Adopted on division. Thank you, senators. Bill S-18 will be reported back to the Senate without amendment.

The committee adjourned.