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 22
Thursday, December 2, 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. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to comment briefly on Senator Lynch-Staunton's speech of yesterday with respect to the e-mails that have been forthcoming from those in favour of the bill and the misinformation contained in them — not all of them, but a significant number of them. Not only did Senator Lynch-Staunton receive those e-mails, but I did as well. The honourable senator has a right to be a little upset because he knew nothing about the fact that there may or may not have been another private member's bill tabled. He has a right to be upset and shocked at that kind of behaviour. On the other hand, I was just disappointed. I understood where it was coming from.

I want to begin by identifying myself with the statements made previously in this debate by Senator Comeau, who I believe gave an excellent speech with respect to this bill.

I am fundamentally opposed to this bill at this stage. What does this short bill mean? It has only two clauses. Having been introduced by Senator Milne as a private senator's bill a few Parliaments ago, it now comes before us as a government bill. It allows for the release of historic census records, without condition, 92 years after the date of the census. It also contains provisions to authorize Statistics Canada to seek permission from Canadians to deposit their individual census records at the National Archives building of Canada for further research purposes.

The issue of confidentiality of census information was canvassed in two legal opinions alluded to by Senator Milne in her speech in support of this bill. As I understand it, it was on the basis of these legal opinions that the results of the 1906 census records were released to the National Archives. This bill is designed to allow release of data from 1911 to 2001 to the National Archivist on the ninety-second anniversary of each census. The National Archivist is then given permission to grant access to this information. However, as Senator Comeau has pointed out, this, despite the legal opinion, seems to be quite a departure from the present law and the confidentiality clauses contained in the census forms filled out by Canadians from 1911 to the present.

Section 17 of the Statistics Act as presently written indicates that there is a "prohibition against divulging information," and section 18 states that information given on the census form is deemed to be privileged.

Looking at the census form, it seems clear, at least to a non-lawyer like myself, that a statement relating to Statistics Canada and stating that "no one outside the agency can have access to your identifiable information" means no one gets the information, with no time limit on that undertaking. The form goes on to say "confidential when completed" and "confidentiality of your census questionnaire is protected by law," which again seems fairly straightforward. It does not say, "protected by law until the law is changed" or "confidential until we say different." No, those who have filled out these forms were comforted and guided by the fact that they believed that the completed forms would be kept secret — perhaps used in a generic way to help government track down trends in society, but not in a way that would result in its public release.

If the government wanted to make this information public, they should change the law now, but change it for future census years and future census forms. One of the greatest hallmarks of law is that it is to be predictable and non-retroactive. This legislation breaks both of these conventions. It brings unpredictability to bear on a subject of immense personal privacy. It also changes the law in such a way as to have a retroactive effect.

We have all argued in this chamber against this type of legislation in the past, and we should take a stand against it again in relation to Bill S-18: no retroactivity.

Bill S-18 also retroactively breaches one's entitlement to the protection of privacy. Those who filled out these forms, even those who did so 92 years ago, before we ever talked about the crystallization of a right to privacy, believed their information should not be divulged. We in this chamber should respect the understanding of those who in 1911 filled out census forms.

Senator Comeau asked: Are there consequences for breaking promises made long ago? I believe there are. We are continually told that those who are involved in politics are held in low esteem by the public. We are also told of public apathy at election time. What type of examples are we setting for the public at large if we can so easily ignore promises made to fill out these forms so many years ago?

We, as legislators in Canada's national Parliament, hold our power and authority as a sacred trust given to us by the people of Canada. If we are to exercise that trust in such a way as to violate rights set out so long ago, I believe we are actually breaking that trust as we act to take away rights, the rights of privacy and confidentiality, and that we are feeling this apathy and disrespect for politics which is so rampant in Canada today.

Honourable senators, this is not a good bill and should not pass this chamber. I look forward to our committee discussions, which I believe should focus on our duty to uphold promises made long ago in an effort to ensure that rights conferred are not taken away.

In closing, I look at this bill particularly in light of today's world. We have all kinds of information on the importance and the significance of individual privacy, as reflected in Senator Oliver's bill on controlling spam and other bills coming forward to protect individual privacy, and yet Bill S-18, totally disregards promises made to maintain that privacy. That is wrong.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have listened carefully to the debate and will be adding my comments next week.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.