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 46
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker

---

Orders of the Day

Statistics Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Motion in Amendment—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the third reading of Bill S-18, to amend the Statistics Act;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Comeau, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cochrane, that Bill S-18 be not now read a third time but that it be amended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing line 8, with the following:

"between 1910 and 1918 is no longer subject to".

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I should like to speak to the amendment and, in general terms, to the bill itself.

When questioned by Senator Comeau at the committee that was holding hearings on this bill on February 24 as to why the Chief Statistician supported Bill S-18 after being the one whose signature on census forms assured respondents of confidentiality, Mr. Ivan Fellegi replied:

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.

(1530)

Justice has a bad habit of tailoring opinions to suit its client. Anyone who remembers the Pearson bill and the Airbus affair amongst other Department of Justice embarrassments, to put it mildly, is better off relying on his or her own judgment, which is why I ask colleagues to do so as I introduce a number of firm government pledges of confidentiality made over many decades and which this government, with Bill S-18, is shamelessly urging that they be repealed.

No Department of Justice opinion can contradict the obvious meaning of what has been pledged since 1918 when an act respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was passed. Subsection 15(1) states:

No individual return, and no part of an individual return, made, and no answer to any question put, for the purposes of this Act, shall, without the previous consent in writing of the person or of the owner for the time being of the undertaking in relation to which the return or answer was made or given, be published, nor, except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act, shall any person not engaged in connection with the Census be permitted to see any such individual return or any such part of any individual return.

The 1931 Proclamation of the Census, published in the Canada Gazette, contains the following paragraph:

The sole purpose of the Census is to secure general statistical information regarding the population, agriculture, and trade of the country, and information is required from individuals only to permit the completion of such general statistics. The Census cannot be used in connection with taxation, with military or jury service, with the compulsion of school attendance, with the regulation of immigration or with the enforcement of any national, state or municipal law or by-law. For the due protection of the rights and interests of the persons furnishing information, every officer, agent or other person employed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is bound by oath under a heavy penalty to keep inviolate the information entered on the schedule or forms.

Following the 1941 census, page 17 of the statisticians' report under the heading, "Secrecy of the Census," states: "The answers given by the individual to census questions are in every instance held absolutely confidential." It more or less goes on to the sentiments that I quoted earlier.

Regulation 31 has the reference, "Secrecy of census information provided for" and it reads as follows:

Every officer or other person employed as census commissioners, census enumerator, or any other capacity under the Statistics Act is required to keep inviolate the secrecy of the information gathered from the public and entered on the schedules or forms. An enumerator is not permitted to show his schedules to any other person, nor to make or keep a copy of them, nor to answer any questions respecting there contents, directly or indirectly; and the same obligation of secrecy is imposed upon commissioners and other officers of the outside service, as well as upon every officer, clerk or other employee of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics at Ottawa. The custody of census and other statistical records pertains solely to the Bureau, the Act expressly stating that no individual report or return shall be published or divulged. Moreover, no officer or employee of the bureau is permitted to make a search among the records for information relating to an individual return, except for purposes of verification under the Act. The facts and statistics of the census may not be used except for statistical compilations.

Since 1918, there have been repeated pledges of confidentiality and secrecy.

Under the heading at the top of the page for the 1941 Census of Agriculture, in bold print we see the following: "The information on this report will not be used as a basis for taxation, nor communicated to any assessor or other government department."

In 1948 An Act respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was passed with pretty much the same language with respect to secrecy provisions.

In 1971 an answer booklet was published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and one question was: "How do I know that the information that I give to the Census Representatives is kept confidential?" The answer in the booklet stated: "The census is required by law to keep all the information it gathers strictly confidential." This is a government document repeating the same pledge that has been made since 1918 respecting information given through the census. It goes on to state:

Records of the census questionnaire are kept under lock and key by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. They can only be searched for a person when he submits an application to obtain verification of facts concerning himself alone, such as his age for old age pension benefits.

Therefore, the only person entitled to seek out information on a census form is the person who filled out the form. The same 1971 booklet claims that, "Census records are not exchanged with any other government agency." It goes on to state: "Similarly, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics may not divulge any individual census statistics to government departments or agencies at any level, or to any non-government agency, or to any individual or private concern."

On the census form in 1971, over the signature of the Dominion Statistician, is the following paragraph:

The Census of Canada is taken under the authority of the Statistics Act, which requires everyone to provide the information requested. The same Act guarantees that information you provided about yourself in the census questionnaire will be kept secret and used only to produce statistics. It ensures that no one will know what answers you gave except for DBS employees and they are subject to legal penalties if they disclose personal census information to anyone else. No other individual and no other government department is permitted access to your census questionnaire.

In 1981, the census form had the following on the cover:

The information you have given will be kept confidential and used only for the production of statistics. No one will see the answers you give except for persons sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act. These persons are subject to prosecution and legal penalties if they disclose personal census information.

In effect, Bill S-18 wants Parliament to cancel and abrogate all those pledges made for over 80 years by Parliament.

Finally, in the last census form in 2001, a heading states, "The Law Protects What You Tell Us" and then we see the following paragraphs:

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 it 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 the information you gave about yourself on your 2001 Census questionnaire after November 2001.

Since 1918 there has been a pattern of confidentiality, privacy, no access to the information except to those allowed under the act and the individual who filled out the form.

From 2006 onward, according to Bill S-18, there will be an opt-in clause. That means that the respondent, to agree that the information may be released after 92 years, will have so indicate. If there is no indication, then the information would be kept in confidence in perpetuity, so it says right now. Leaving it up to the respondent to decide is the right thing to do, as in the case of being listed on the National Register of Electors. When we receive our income tax form, there is a provision to indicate whether or not we want to have our name added to the National Register of Electors by ticking off a box saying yes or a box saying no. An explanatory note comes with the form and provides information on what it means to say yes, which means that you will be on the list, and what it means if you say no, which means that you will not be on the list. There is no editorial comment or suggestion as to the government's preference. You do not lose your right to vote by ticking no or not ticking at all. It just says that by saying no the information regarding your address may not be as up-to-date as it should be, and information on the election may not reach you. The option is left to the individual on his income tax form to say yes to be on the list, and if the answer is no, you are not on the list.

(1540)

In the case of the next census questionnaires, there will be this opt-in clause, which by itself is an excellent idea. Yesterday, I quoted a press release and Senator Milne feigned ignorance of it, so I have brought a copy of it dated November 2, 2004, entitled "Government of Canada Introduces Legislation to Enable Access to Historical Census Records." At the bottom of the page it reads:

Statistics Canada in conjunction with Library and Archives Canada, will, as part of the 2006 Census public communications campaign, encourage Canadians to allow further access to their census records to preserve Canada's history for future generations.

In other words, the government is ready to embark on a one-sided campaign to promote access without allowing the case for the other side. To me, it is unheard of to allow confidentiality and at the same time to promote its disadvantages. Think of this: The government says to Parliament, "Give the individual the choice, but at the same time we will tell the individual that there is an advantage to going one way. That same individual, however, will not be told what the disadvantages are."

Remember that the long form requires detailed financial information, including some which the respondent submits on his income tax return. Personal tax information is confidential. Its availability is strictly limited by the Income Tax Act. These limitations will, with Bill S-18, become meaningless as the census questionnaire becomes more intrusive in seeking out information of a personal and confidential nature. What is protected in one government department will be made public by another. The income tax return by itself is protected, as far as revealing information, by the Income Tax Act. It is all specified as to whom it may be available. A lot of the information we put in our income tax return is asked for in the long form for the census questionnaire, and that information, which is protected under one act, will be made available under Bill S-18.

I suppose that we cannot decide today how such concerns will turn out, honourable senators, but we must reconfirm what has been repeatedly pledged in the past — the secrecy and confidentiality of the census returns. By supporting Senator Comeau's amendment, we will honour these commitments and not break faith with those to whom they were made.

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, I would like to ask a question relating to the issue of the confidentiality of the census taker and how it relates to the bill.

About 10 years ago I filled out the long form of the census. A few days later, I received a call from my neighbour across the street on our island. She said, "I have your long form in front of me, and you never answered one question." I asked, "What is the question?" She said, "You did not answer if you were an Aboriginal." I said, "Karen, you know I am Irish. I am not Aboriginal. Why have you got my form?" That was the long form with all the financial detail. She said, "It was sent to me by the census taker to check for accuracy." She lives across the street. I have no way of knowing who else she told, but it is a matter of fact that her husband was bidding to rebuild my dock. His estimate for the work doubled after that, $8,000 to $16,000.

How will that situation be addressed in this new bill? There was a total breach of confidentiality when my form was sent somewhere and then sent to my neighbour, who did correct my omission about my Irish roots. How will this bill address this confidentiality issue?

The Hon. the Speaker: This information came to me late. The 15 minutes allocated to Senator Lynch-Staunton have expired, so perhaps we should deal with that first.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The bill does not touch on that issue, which is not, unfortunately, peculiar to Senator Carney's situation.

The Hon. the Speaker: Does Senator Lynch-Staunton wish to ask for additional time?

Hon. Bill Rompkey (Deputy Leader of the Government): Senator Stratton is suggesting five minutes and I would concur.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Carney knows that this is not a situation peculiar to her. It has been an ongoing problem where the long form, particularly in rural areas, is put in the hands of a neighbour to compile and collect. Many a time there has been a peek at it, and it has gone back to the respondent, completely against the law. Neighbours being what they are, unfortunately that cannot be addressed in the law and certainly not in Bill S-18.

What Bill S-18 will allow is that not only does your local enumerator have the information, but it will now be made public to the rest of us.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: When I was a member of Parliament, I was often asked to help individuals with forms, which I did. I found it quite rewarding because it gave me a chance to meet with constituents. It is the kind of work I have kept up in my role as a senator. I have helped people out when they have received forms because they have placed a certain amount of trust in me. Over the years, I have helped people with the long form especially. They have said to me, "I am being asked to provide a lot of personal information on this form. Do you think I should respond?" I always replied yes. It says right on the form that this information is confidential. They trusted me to help them with it, but when it reaches government, just like income tax returns, the information cannot be divulged. The information is to be used for statistical purposes to help the government plan and map out strategies and prepare public policy.

Now I will have to face those individuals the next time I am asked to help out with the long form. When I am asked if this information is confidential, I will have to say no because Parliament has decided in its wisdom that we can break promises. Mr. Fellegi himself has indicated that he will break the promise. We ourselves, as parliamentarians, have decided that our promises are no longer of any value. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what we should be telling Canadians? The promise on this piece of paper is no longer worth the signature that is written on it. That being the case, would this not create the kind of bad information that government does not need? Government needs proper information to create statistics that will be useful for government planners. What is my honourable friend's view in that regard?

(1550)

Senator Lynch-Staunton: If the authority to divulge the information is worded in such a fashion that the individual understands it clearly and can so indicate, there is no problem. If the government accepts the fact that if you do not so indicate, then the information will not be revealed, then that is fine. I do not think that will cause difficulty.

However, this act will be up for review after two censuses. Perhaps at that time, depending on the responses, the government may be convinced that, if enough people say that the information can be made available, that should apply to everyone. However, that is a matter for those who will be responsible for the census 10 years from now.

If the information consisted only of name, address, age, even religion, sex and such, I would have no problem; that information is available in many places. What bothers me is that more and more of the information being requested on the long form is intrusive and personal. People are asked to disclose their sexual orientation, their employment records, their income, and details about their children. It is very personal information. It may be information that you do not want anyone to see now or even 92 years from now, for whatever reason — perhaps shame, I do not know. However, you have the right to decide on how your own personal information should be distributed, whether or not made public.

I have a feeling that, over the years, the long form will get longer and become more intrusive; and nobody is challenging that. Originally, the census was a statistical compilation; now it has become a socioeconomic one. It is endless and it is intrusive. It is wrong.

If nothing else, we should at least insist that it remain confidential. Certainly, those who filled out the forms in the past on the basis that they were guaranteed secrecy and confidentiality should have that pledge honoured. This bill takes that pledge away as it makes meaningless the word of a government whose commitments made in the past in fact last as long as the person who made them. After that you are on your own.

To answer Senator Comeau's question, if the wording on the form is what you and I and others would like to see, then I do not think there is any problem about that information being divulged in the future. What worries me — and Senator Comeau's amendment will correct that — is, will this chamber accept that information guaranteed to be kept confidential in the past may now be revealed?

[Translation]

Hon. Madeleine Plamondon: Honourable senators, I ask that the debate be adjourned in my name.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: It is not a debatable motion, but did you have a question, Senator Rompkey?

Senator Rompkey: Will Senator Plamondon be able to speak today? This matter has been before the Senate for some time now. I do not want to preclude her from speaking, but I would like to hear from her today.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: On a point of order, I object to that statement. The bill may have been around a long time but third reading only started yesterday.

[Translation]

Senator Plamondon: Honourable senators, there have been new developments since Senator Lynch-Staunton delivered his speech, and I would like to speak to this item tomorrow.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: I will put the motion. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Plamondon, seconded by the Honourable Senator Trenholme Counsell, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Motion agreed to.