français

EXTRACTS FROM HANSARD
-----
PROCEEDINGS OF CANADA'S SENATE

The following extracts have been taken from Hansard Records
of Canada's Senate for the 38th Parliament of Canada:

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 38th Parliament,
Volume 142, Issue 21
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker

---

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Statistics Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier- Cool, for the second reading of Bill S-18, to amend the Statistics Act.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, this must be my day to complain. Before speaking to the bill itself, I want to draw the attention of honourable senators to a number of e-mails that I received last week — nearly 200 of them at last count — while I was away on official business. They obviously form part of a well-organized campaign in support of the bill, which by itself is perfectly acceptable, but in this case they included a certain form of hysteria based on deliberate misinformation which is not at all to the credit of some of Bill S-18's more ardent supporters.

Let me read a sampling. I am sure that those who signed these e-mails did so in good faith, so in all due respect for their being obviously mislead, I will not name them.

From Revelstoke, I got the following message:

I discovered you took the adjournment of the debate of Bill S-8 —

— meaning Bill S-18 —

— and I understand that means no progress can be made on the bill until you speak and that you did not intend to speak on the bill until the government promises to hold hearings on a private senator's bill that you have not even introduced yet.

[Translation]

I have another that comes from Quebec.

I also learned that you intend to delay your speech until the government promises to hold hearings on a private bill that you intend to introduce in the Senate yourself.

[English]

There is one that does not say where it comes from, but it is a Sympatico e-mail, so it is Canadian, although I also got quite a few from the United States.

Please change your stance on speaking about Bill S-18. The delay which you are proposing is unacceptable to the genealogical community. You are suggesting a wait until after hearings on a bill which has not even be introduced by Senator Stratton.

Here is the most colourful one, I think. This one is from Calgary:

Senator Lorna Milne, working with Minister Emerson, presented Bill S-18 to the Senate where it has become "stuck" due to the political shenanigans of Senator Lynch- Staunton, who is attempting, it seems, to grind his own axe and hold Bill S-18 hostage until a proposed bill by himself has been heard. No one seems to know the theme of the proposed bill.

Well, I certainly do not.

Here are the facts. Senator Comeau spoke to this bill as opposition critic on November 17. The debate was then adjourned with unanimous consent. The following day I left, as a member of the Prime Minister's official party, for South America and Africa, returning Sunday, November 28. I was ready to speak yesterday, but the Senate adjourned at 3 p.m. because of President Bush's visit. There has been no deliberate delay in speaking on my part. I certainly know nothing about a private senator's bill that I supposedly have not introduced yet, and even less about one that could be related to Bill S-18.

What is to be deplored most about this experience is that untruths were widely disseminated not only to bring discredit on a member of the Senate but, more regrettably, to urge well- intentioned individuals to react with anger and frustration on the basis of falsehoods spread by what I will charitably term as one or more warped minds. I trust that those responsible for such boorish behaviour will at least have the decency to apologize to those they so deliberately deceived.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Lynch-Staunton: To get back to the bill, the arguments put forward by the mover of Bill S-18 and by Senator Comeau in rebuttal are equally impressive. One cannot deny the need for historians and genealogists to have as complete information as possible in researching their works, and one cannot but be impressed by certain provisions in Bill S-18 in terms of time and access to what is now classified as confidential.

Canadians are constantly assured that such information sought by the government is confidential and is to remain that way. Let me cite in particular what was on the last page of the most recent census long form. The heading was "The law protects what you tell us." It reads:

The confidentiality of your census questionnaire is protected by law. All Statistics Canada employees have taken an oath of secrecy. Your personal census information cannot be given to anyone outside Statistics Canada — not the police, not another government department, not another person. This is your right.

Your census questionnaire will be retained in accordance with legislative requirements and will be stored securely. You can ask to see information you gave about yourself on your 2001 Census questionnaire after November 2001.

This debate brings to mind the one in 1964 when the Pearson government introduced a social insurance number, known as SIN, which Canadians were assured would be restricted to Unemployment Insurance, as it was called then, and the Canada and Quebec pension plans.

(1530)

Despite all the assurances at the time that a SIN would be used exclusively in those areas, its use was eventually extended to tax returns in 1967. In 1976, the Income Tax Act was amended to require anyone cashing in a Canada savings bond to provide a SIN, thereby allowing banks and other financial institutions access to what was to be information limited exclusively to government use.

Today, the use of a SIN is not only widespread amongst many government departments, following many legislative changes but it is also an essential tool in the private sector for a number of purposes such as credit checks and employer file numbers. For all intents and purposes, what was intended for very narrow, confidential use is now as public as one's telephone number. Those who still believe that privacy is something to be guarded jealously can only deplore the evolution of the SIN over the last 40 years. So, once burned, twice shy. Who today can guarantee that the 92- and 112-year rules contained in Bill S-18 will be maintained in perpetuity? Who can guarantee that those who, during future censuses, do not consent to disclosure will have their choice respected in perpetuity? The answer is no one, as future parliaments cannot be bound by their predecessors, no matter how well-intentioned, as was the case with the issuance of the social insurance number.

In conclusion, I hope that this dilemma, respecting the needs of historians and genealogists versus a pledge of privacy, can be resolved during committee hearings when all sides can be given the time to be heard before taking a final decision. I, for one, will try to keep an open mind until then, although I must admit, at this stage, that I find Senator Comeau's argument most persuasive.

Hon. Lorna Milne: I would most sincerely apologize to Senator Lynch-Staunton if any incorrect information whatsoever was transmitted in my name. I also want to correct one impression that he may have left with some honourable senators concerning the 112-year rule which is no longer in the bill.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I accept that correction and the apology. I would hope that, if I forward Senator Milne all of the e-mails containing insulting remarks that I have received in this connection she will advise all of those who wrote to me of the correction and apologize on her own behalf.

On motion of Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.