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 30
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker

---

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Statistics Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

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. Noël A. Kinsella (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to participate in the debate at second reading on Bill S-18, to amend the Statistics Act.

It is my intention to focus on the process rather than on the substance of the bill. The substance has been thoroughly examined, but, to date, the process has engendered a great deal of concern. In particular, I will briefly address concerns relating to the defamation of Senator Lynch-Staunton, the contempt brought upon this chamber, the breach of our privileges as senators, and the confusion or confounding of the role of the executive and the legislative function of Parliament.

The different roles played by the executive in Parliament have, I think, been aptly summarized by the maxim "government proposes; Parliament disposes." There is an exception in that individual parliamentarians are able to propose their own ideas for new laws or changes to existing laws in the form of public bills in the Senate or private members' bills in the other place. This is an exercise in which all honourable senators engage, to the good of the work of Parliament, in my opinion.

This exception has generally not been the source of significant confusion between the two functions, that is, government as a general proposer of legislation and the role of parliament to dispose of these proposed bills. In our experience, there has been a full understanding of the role of the legislative branch and the role of the executive and that, in part, is due to the stringent limitation on so-called backbench bills which forbids a proposal involving the expenditure of public funds.

Honourable senators, in the case of this Bill S-18, we all know that its genesis was the very hard work of the honourable senator who has moved second reading of the bill. That honourable senator proposed a series of similar bills in her capacity as an individual parliamentarian and worked assiduously on those bills. She was an able and ardent advocate for the cause of providing public access to the confidential information provided by Canadians to the census taker.

Something which has not previously been mentioned in this debate is that responding to the census questionnaire is not a voluntary undertaking on the part of Canadians. The government obtains this information under the threat of financial penalty and even incarceration. Section 31 of the Statistics Act reads as follows:

31. Every person who, without lawful excuse,

(a) refuses or neglects to answer, or wilfully answers falsely, any question requisite for obtaining any information sought in respect of the objects of this Act or pertinent thereto that has been asked of him by any person employed or deemed to be employed under this Act, or

(b) refuses or neglects to furnish any information or to fill in to the best of his knowledge and belief any schedule or form that the person has been required to fill in, and to return the same when and as required of him pursuant to this Act, or knowingly gives false or misleading information or practises any other deception thereunder

is, for every refusal or neglect, or false answer or deception, guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.

(1500)

In other words, honourable senators, Canadians must, under the pain of significant sanction, give the information that is asked of them by the census taker.

It is interesting that the Government of Canada, having bluntly invoked its criminal law powers to threaten Canadians who might be disinclined to provide the information and then having promised Canadians that the trade-off is that the information will not be divulged, now seems to be willing to abandon its half of that bargain, even with the proviso that it will delay the release of the data for a period of time. Clearly, one can logically ask will Canadians in future census responses risk the sanction to keep their information private?

I can readily understand that the Chief Statistician might have some concerns in this regard. It would not surprise me if the government next finds it necessary to increase the penalties to encourage Canadians to continue to provide accurate information in future censuses.

My colleague Senator Comeau spoke at some length about the value of a government promise and the effect of retroactive legislation. I do not propose to cover that ground again. However, I do hope that the committee that will study this bill will hear specific testimony and questions that will be put by the honourable members of that committee on this point.

Honourable senators, there is another issue that is yet to be explored, which is a relatively new field of data mining. Most of the support for this bill emanates from Canadians who have a good-faith desire to learn about their ancestors. I hope the committee will also give some consideration to the possibility that commercial interests might find the information of use, even though it might not be with respect to a direct application to people who are still living. The patterns established by our ancestors may still have relevance to us and to our descendents when it comes to various enterprises, not the least of which might be insurance companies who operate that industry on actuarial data.

Turning back to my concerns about the process and the advocacy of some for this government proposal, I have viewed with some alarm the misinformation being propagated about the process and about the intentions of some honourable senators. I am sure that all honourable senators understand that it is much easier to give wings to propaganda than it is to stop its circulation or to correct it once it has been released.

It was with some alarm that many honourable senators listened to Senator Lynch-Staunton's opening remarks on the subject, on December 2, 2004. Indeed, had it not been for the letter-writing campaign of intimidation in November, which raised a number of concerns in my mind and likely in the minds of other honourable senators, I expect this bill might have completed second reading prior to Christmas.

I wish to stress that I have no opposition whatsoever to seeing the usual thoughtful and comprehensive study of the issues that a Senate committee typically provides. That said, I do want to place on the record a number of corrections to the misinformation that has been in circulation and which continues to be thrust forward through emails and correspondence.

First, what is before us — what we are debating at second reading — is a government bill. Although the honourable senator who has moved second reading of this bill was chosen by the government to speak to it first, no doubt because of her previous work on this subject matter, it remains a government initiative. That means that the government may, at any time, introduce a motion to limit debate or to use other mechanisms falling under the rubric of closure. The Rules of the Senate, with which we in this chamber are only too familiar, provide the government with the tools it needs to ensure that the business of the government is not unduly delayed.

The notion that a few senators, whether Conservative, Liberal or independent, can delay this bill indefinitely is simply incorrect. Thus, when the assistant of the honourable senator who has moved second reading of this bill wrote that she needs your help and that "We can't do much from our end because Conservatives can tell us to go to hell without there being any consequences," he was in error. The fact is that the government had the power then, as it is a government bill, and has the power now to force this bill through, providing only that it has the support of half the senators voting. For those outside this chamber who may not keep track of such things, the government has held a substantial majority in the Senate for some time now.

Second, there was a claim that Senator Lynch-Staunton's absence meant that no progress could be made on the bill until he spoke. Honourable senators know that this chamber goes through the entire Order Paper every sitting day. We often choose not to speak to some items, but any senator who has not already spoken to a bill may take up any bill on any day and it makes no difference in whose name it stands. There is no requirement that it be held for a particular senator beyond the demands of courtesy and a desire to ensure that those who wish to speak to a subject are given an opportunity to do so. I am pleased to say that this is a chamber not just of sober second thought, but a chamber where proprieties are generally carefully observed.

There was also a claim that this bill was being improperly held up to obtain other considerations. I will not pursue this allegation further since I understand that an apology has already been proffered. I will reiterate that under our rules, the government has the means by which set its priorities and advance its legislative proposals within the demands of its agenda and its own timetable.

Honourable senators, without recapitulating the specifics of the allegations that are in circulation, I trust that we will not see a continuation of the orchestrated campaign of interference during the course of our further study of this bill. These efforts at intimidation, or attempted intimidation, which commenced prior to the Christmas break, are unlikely to have a favourable impact on any honourable senator irrespective of where they sit in this honourable house.

(1510)

Honourable senators, trust me: The senators who sit on this committee to do a detailed study of this bill, including clause-by-clause consideration, have an understanding that they will not be subjected to the abuse of thousands of emails and nasty telephone calls that made their way to this institution during second reading.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see no senator rising. Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Senators: Question!

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to adopt the motion?

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Milne, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.