Post 1901 Census in Canada -- Sample letters

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:

Hon. Madeleine Plamondon: Honourable senators, I wanted to speak to Bill S-18 out of conviction and duty. My intention is to make a non-partisan speech. My aim is to draw attention to the perception of the government's role and public expectations of parliamentarians.

In my opinion, this bill seeks to renege on a promise made to our grandparents. If we betray our grandparents, our grandchildren will betray us.

Canadians want a strong government, able to withstand attacks from all sides, that will protect their rights. Even in these difficult times when public confidence in politicians is at an all-time low, Canadians want to hear that they can rely on their government to protect them.

Numerous polls confirm this fact. Canadians do not have a very high opinion of politicians. Breaking a promise will not improve this perception.

The following are some poll results. An Ipsos-Reid poll on the most trustworthy professions ranked politicians, on a national scale, behind used car salesmen.

Another poll by Elections Canada, a non-partisan agency, of people who did not vote in the 2000 federal election showed that one of the main reasons people do not trust politicians was broken promises. If we want to find a way to get Canadians to vote, we must begin by earning their trust. Breaching a confidentiality clause will not help.

A recent Environics Research poll, as reported by CBC News, showed that 75 per cent of respondents said they did not count on promises made by politicians.

Politics in Review showed that only 25.4 per cent of young people voted in 2000. One of the reasons was the large number of broken promises. Census forms are more than just promises. Passing Bill S-18 would set the stage for breaching a confidentiality clause.

There is still more to consider in Bill S-18. This bill is flawed because it contains contradictions. The contradiction is this.

Bill S-18 proposes the disclosure after 92 years, without request for consent, of the census returns from 1918 to 2001 inclusive. However, consent will be necessary after 2001.

In fact, this same bill proposes to include in the 2006 form, which is the next census, a consent clause to offer a choice to citizens. That is known as "opting in."

How can the same bill presume consent for censuses prior to 2001 and, on the other hand, recognize that consent is required for the next census? Is it to appease public opinion for a period of time?

It is this troubling fact that prompts me to intervene in the debate today. The former Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Philips, insisted that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the persons involved when information was to be disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected. He emphasized that the census questionnaires were increasingly intrusive and that respect for privacy represented a public right that was greatly valued in our society.

The fact the present commissioner has given her support to this bill does not impress me at all. Canada has a good reputation on the international level. I have participated in international meetings about privacy and Canada is respected. I am afraid there will be a loss of respect if the OECD guidelines that were established for the private sector are not observed by the government itself.

The guidelines specify that personal data should at all times be obtained with the consent of the data subject; that data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and be accurate, complete and up-to-date; that the purposes for which data are collected should be specified in advance; that the re-use of data for new purposes should not be permitted without the consent of the person concerned or without authorization; that data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards; that practices related to the collection, storage and use of data should be transparent and provide for the right of access; and that the data controller should be accountable for complying with measures to protect data.

Of course, these are voluntary measures. They do not have the force of law; but they reflect a commitment made on the honour of Canadians

The right to privacy is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, Canada ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Convention in 1976.

The comments of a great defender of privacy, former Supreme Court Justice LaForest, who was a frequent source of inspiration to me before I came to the Senate, have been quoted as favourable to this bill. I am not certain that if he were on the bench in the Supreme Court his judgment, which is much more than a comment, would not have taken account of the confidentiality clause that is contained in the census form.

Other questions should also be raised. Is the information that the government plans to collect and make available true? Has the census taker correctly recorded the information? Is there a risk of loss of reputation, for example, by grandparents in terms of their grandchildren?

Has anyone considered the possibility that people responding to the census give answers that do not reflect reality? In 2001, in Australia, people were asked: Do you give your consent for the disclosure of this information? Of those who were interviewed for the census, 31.9 per cent refused to give their consent.

In conclusion, I will leave you with some questions to which you can find your own answers, but I will give mine. Does this bill reinforce citizen protection? No.

In the context of a minority government, is it appropriate to decrease protection of privacy? That is up to us to decide.

Historians will benefit, it seems. I have not seen any historians up in arms, and I wonder which ones these would be.

Might there be other lobbies that we have never mentioned? I am thinking for instance of certain religious groups which attach a great deal of importance to genealogy.

Does Bill S-18 open the door to other amendments to this legislation? Yes. Who can say that, sometime down the line, with respect to the clauses in the bill having to do with the information contained in the returns of each census of population, the 92 years will not be cut back to 50, then 20 and 10? When one realizes that the government has gone back on its commitment once, what is there to stop this from continuing to happen?

If Bill S-18 proposes a consent form for the next census, while not respecting the confidentiality clause in past censuses, can we believe in the value of that consent, which strikes me as cosmetic, under the circumstances?

If Bill S-18 becomes law, will people be able to refuse to fill out their census forms? At the moment, there is a $500 fine or three months prison sentence if they do not complete the form, because there is every assurance that the answers given will remain confidential. But will we have a choice?

At the present time, there are four mandatory Statistics Canada questionnaires, and the rest are optional. Will all of them meet the same fate, eventually?

The Senate is a place for reflection, discussion and proposals. Let us ensure that it deserves respect by respecting a commitment that has been given, the promise of confidentiality.

If we betray the commitment given to our grandparents, our grandchildren will do the same with the commitments the government is now making to us.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I appreciate the remarks by Senator Plamondon. Census data will no longer be confidential because many of these people are dead or else very old. If they are dead, they will not object and those who are now very old will not object either because they have other things to do, such as looking after their health. The proposal has been made that, since there is no opposition from these people, why not open the documents? Is this a good argument?

Senator Plamondon: A principle is not negotiable. A principle is a word given; confidentiality. If we are going to start from scratch and ask for consent on the next census forms, let us do that.

We do it with the income tax forms. We cannot go back on our word on the pretext that people are dead or too old to notice what is going on. Reneging like that would be the same as saying that any time we cannot intervene, we can break our word. People want to believe in the government. It is true that politicians are not held in high esteem, but people have a need to believe in the government. In my opinion, one way to encourage that trust is to not break promises and not try to do later what one does not have the courage or initiative to do at some other time.

Senator Comeau: The media have paid little attention to the debate we have had in the Senate. That is par for the course. They rarely follow Senate debates.

What will the reaction be, in light of the comments you just made about the Canadian public's lack of respect, when politicians come in just above used-car salesmen. We can almost predict the reaction of the media when people learn that we are passing a bill betraying a promise our predecessors made for all those years. Can you imagine the media's reaction to the image we are projecting by adopting a bill that will break a promise we made for all those years? Do you expect a very strong reaction?

Senator Plamondon: The reaction of the media depends on priorities or breaking news. And, when we vote on a bill, that is not what we should base our decision on. It should be based on the merits of the bill. I think that the media may be interested in this aspect of the bill as yet another in a series of broken promises. They will say that we adopted this legislation and that we went back on our word. This hurts Canada not only domestically but also internationally.

Canada defends privacy protection in various forums. It would go back on the confidentiality clause and simply ignore it! I do not think Canada should do this.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Moore, seconded by the Honourable Senator Furey, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker: I will put the question. Those in favour of the motion to adjourn will please say "yea."

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion to adjourn will please say "nay."

Hon. Jack Austin (Leader of the Government): I would like to speak on third reading.

The Hon. the Speaker: We have to dispose, first of all, of Senator Moore's motion to adjourn. I see two senators rising and am obliged to call in the senators. We will have a one-hour bell, unless it is agreed otherwise by the whips. For clarity, the one-hour bell will have us return for the vote at 4:40 p.m.

Adams	LeBreton
Andreychuk	Lynch-Staunton
Atkins	Mahovlich
Banks	Meighen
Buchanan	Moore
Carney	Oliver
Comeau	Plamondon
Corbin	Prud'homme
Di Nino	Rivest
Eyton	Stollery
Forrestall	Stratton—23
Kinsella

Austin	Lapointe
Bacon	Léger
Carstairs	Losier-Cool
Chaput	Mercer
Christensen	Milne
Cook	Munson
Day	Pearson
Fairbairn	Pépin
Fitzpatrick	Poulin
Fraser	Robichaud
Furey	Rompkey
Harb	Smith—25
Hubley

Senator Moore: The Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated that he wishes to speak, so I will defer to him.

Senator Austin: Honourable senators, I rose to say that I wanted to speak on third reading and on the amendment, and immediately after that Senator Moore rose to move adjournment of the debate. That, I understand, is not a debatable motion, so we had a vote.

Hon. Terry Stratton (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): It was the other way around.

Senator Austin: You have looked at the record? Perhaps the Speaker can correct me when he looks at the record.

Having resolved that question, honourable senators, I wanted to speak to the principle that has been addressed by Senator Plamondon and by others in this chamber. The principle that a government policy announced to the public is firm and immutable for all time is not a good principle of public policy. Governments, of course, want to keep their undertakings, and they should keep their undertakings.

Senator Austin: Any change to an undertaking has to be made with great care and made only under circumstances in which there is a predominant public policy that demands the change. That is the axiom on which all governments must act. There is no such thing as the dead hand of the past controlling every action of this generation or of another generation. It is imperative in every government of any democratic kind that changes will take place.

Honourable senators may recall President Bush — not the present President Bush, but the previous President Bush — undertaking during his election campaign in his first term not to raise taxes in the United States.

Senator Austin: Senator Lynch-Staunton, give me a chance to make my case here, and then you can say everything you want to say afterward.

I will go back to President Bush the first, who said to the American people, first of all, "Read my lips: There will be no change in taxation in my term of office."

Senator Austin: Then he had to change that undertaking and permit the rise of taxes in the United States because the changes in economic circumstances in the U.S. economy demanded that he act to adapt to the changing needs of public policy.

Honourable senators, there are many examples from many cases, but I think the point is simply made and I think it is understandable. There are times when, as much as we would like to keep a promise, to do so would cost the public more than not to do so. To govern is to choose. To govern is to make decisions in the public interest at the time you make them.

There is no relevance, as Senator Plamondon has correctly said, in our taking this decision to what the media may say about politicians. The media will say what the media wants to say. What we have to do is govern as we see the interest of the public to govern.

Honourable senators, this legislation has been before us for a long time in one form or another. It has been debated fully in every way, shape and form. This is a government bill. The government and the bill initiated here by the government is proposing to this chamber that there is a public interest in making information available 92 years after it is provided by Canadian individuals. The government has listened to arguments in this chamber and has proposed less than was originally requested.

I believe that we must give acknowledgement to people who study Canadians, our demography, the make-up of Canadian society and where we came from so that we know where we should go in terms of the public policy choices that have to be made.

This may seem idle to some, but public policy is based on facts. Public policy is based on analysis of who we are, where we have been and what we have chosen to do, and this bill will assist in that. I am not arguing that this bill is the causa causans of all public policy to come, but it will assist Canadians in the debate of the needs of our society and where we want to go and, in so doing, will assist government in making choices.

Honourable senators, we have been at this a long time. I would very much like to see this bill finally passed out of this chamber and over to the other place where they can debate all the issues that have been debated here. They can give due consideration to this proposed legislation at whatever speed they decide.

Honourable senators, I would ask you to allow this matter to be disposed of today.

Senator Plamondon: Honourable senators, I agree that the government has the right to change its mind, but not retroactively. I would agree to asking for consent on census forms from now on, but I do not agree to going back on the word that the government gave Canadians for previous censuses. I only wanted to indicate that nuance.

Senator Austin: I understand the argument of Senator Plamondon. However, the data for the last 90 to 100 years is relevant to public policy-making now. To be deprived of that data is to diminish our ability to analyze Canadian society and understand what the direction of Canadian society should be. I understand that we disagree.

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators, I am not going to commit myself in words right now to the amendment or to the main motion, although when I spoke to this matter when Senator Milne's bill was before the Senate I indicated support, because I have, in the course of my many years, done genealogical research on my family.

The resources available for tracing our ancestry are wonderful. Everyone wants to know where they came from. I understand the need to do this properly and to keep one's word. I do not want to get into that at this time. Before going any further, I want to explain why I voted for the adjournment motion.

His Honour was still putting the matter to a vote and, in my eyes, the process was not yet finished when an honourable senator rose to indicate that he wanted to speak at third reading. I do not remember exactly whether Senator Moore had indicated that he wanted to adjourn the debate before, after or at the same time.

I have already voted for similar motions in the past for this reason. Parliament is a place where one expresses one's point of view to the best of one's knowledge and conscience. When one of my colleagues from either side of this chamber wants to adjourn a debate on a non-urgent matter, I do not see why we would not grant him the courtesy of allowing him to speak. I therefore voted in favour of Senator Moore's right to speak. He is an intelligent man, a man of experience. He followed the debate closely and I imagine that he wants to provide new insights. He wants to build on the arguments that were presented to us. That is the role of this House. I believe the senator has the right to be heard.

I have voted in favour of his right to speak and I want to hear what he has to say. I wanted to explain why I took this position earlier this afternoon.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I lose the opportunity to do so, I should clarify what I, as presiding officer, saw and did in the context of both Senator Austin's and Senator Corbin's concerns.

I saw Senator Moore indicate he wished the floor, and I returned to him following an exchange in the house. As Senator Austin is the leader of one of the parties, had I seen him rise I would have recognized him on a priority basis, as I would recognize the Leader of the Opposition. However, I did not see Senator Austin rise until after I had indicated a mover and seconder and was in the process of asking whether there was agreement of the house.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators I wish to participate in the debate on the motion in amendment, that being the item now before us. Senator Austin drew to the attention of the Senate the importance of public policy development being based on the best data available to public policy-makers. That is obviously in the public interest. Surely, the whole intent of the first Statistics Act was that data would be gathered in the public interest — not in any private interest — to make it possible for the Government of Canada to study demographics and other factors of social and economic life so that the government could formulate the best possible policies in the interests of the country.

The amendment we are debating will protect the ability of the government to continue to collect census data, and it will protect individual rights. People will now know that individual data will no longer be as it was in the past — only available to the public sector, to the government, for the purpose that it was intended. From the beginning, the various statistics acts and amendments there to have always been based on a promise that personal data would not be shared. People will know that the data can be used in the public sector for policy development, but it is not available for private purposes. Even certain branches of the Crown corporation of the Government of Canada will not have access, because they are explicitly excluded. Income tax data is a specific example in that not all of those engaged in the development of public policy in the public interest from the various sectors of the various ministries will have access. Therefore, what came before us, and we all know the history of this bill, has to be one of the most poorly handled pieces of public legislation that has come by this chamber in a long time. I will not repeat that history. The fact is that the majority of amendments to the Statistics Act that occurred in the past occurred upon the promotion of a measure by a majority government. A majority government at that point in time continued that commitment. They made that promise that the data that people had to make available under serious sanctions would be used only in the public interest, not for private interest. These days, people do make these observations about government not keeping promises. I agree with Senator Austin when he says that we have to look at things in the here and now, but the here and now that we are involved in is a minority government in an era when there are questions as to whether you can trust governments and politicians. It is very unfortunate that that kind of perception is out there. Very often the media attempts to perpetuate this myth, because I believe it to be a myth. I have yet to encounter a person, whether at the provincial federal or indeed the municipal level, engaged in public affairs who does not do so from the very best of intentions and motives. I have yet to meet a federal member of either House of Parliament laying awake at night trying to see whether they can come up with schemes to do ill to the people of Canada.

Members of Parliament, no matter which chamber, simply do not do that. It does not serve the country well to have those kinds of perceptions perpetrated and spread around by members of the media.

The point that I underscore is that there is a real distinction between data for public policy development reasons and data based on promises that have been made. It is not there, and should not be for purposes of private interests.

Honourable senators, this amendment is a solid one and I urge your support for it.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I support this bill and I oppose the amendment. I have supported this bill in one form or another for six and a half years, if memory serves. The point is not my personal support. The point is that the substance of this bill has been before this chamber for that long.

I cannot think of anything else that has been debated, studied, voted upon, debated again, studied again, voted upon again to the extent of this measure. The legislation has been negotiated carefully with all interested parties. It has been the subject of expert examination and commentary for a very long time.

Honourable senators, I would be surprised if there is a new argument to be made, and I strongly urge that we get on with it.

Senator Cools: I am very curious. Senator Fraser just said, and I have heard this time and time again, that there is no need to spend any time seriously looking at the issues because the interested parties have been consulted. I am wondering, do the interested parties in these questions ever include Members of Parliament? Are Members of Parliament interested parties in any of these debates? From what I can see, the attitude of the government is the less debate in this place, the better, and the less time spent on these questions, the better. For that matter, if that is the position of the government, maybe they should just close the place down, and expose the situation for what it really is. You can hardly call these chambers debating chambers. As a matter of fact, I would contend that you can barely call these institutions Parliament any longer because it just seems that the entire system, both Houses of Parliament are enslaved to the Prime Minister and to the government.

I want to put on the record that I strenuously object to this notion that everybody out there has an interest, except Members of Parliament. I strongly object to people who will not debate. This is a debating chamber. As far as I am concerned, the duty of members of Parliament and senators is to ensure that every single question is answered and that every single member's concern is addressed. As far as I am concerned, the night is young. Let the debate continue.

Senator Moore: I want to make it clear that my motivation in seeking the adjournment earlier was to have an opportunity to prepare my remarks. I do not want to give some kind of rambling dissertation here. Some statements and information came out yesterday and today that I think is important to the whole issue. I want an opportunity to reflect on that, to put my remarks together and to speak in a coherent fashion. Therefore I am urging that honourable senators support me and permit the debate to be adjourned.

The Hon. the Speaker: Our proceedings do not allow another motion to adjourn the debate unless there has been an intervening proceeding and there has not. We are at the point of hearing senators who may wish to speak or dealing with the question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Our rules provide for adjournment of the debate. We have adjourned the debate. It was voted on. I have consulted with the table in anticipation of this question.

The Hon. the Speaker: On the amendment, and speaking is not an intervening event that permits the matter to be adjourned again. An intervening event is defined in Beauchesne's as something which is entered into the journals and simply speaking to the motion does not involve an entry in the journals, I am told. That being the case, we are on the amendment and either it will be spoken to or dealt with in another way, namely voted upon.

Senator Cools: Perhaps then I could take a shot at moving the adjournment of the debate. I have not paid much attention to this particular bill, and perhaps I should have. I too would like an opportunity to look at this matter, anything that could provoke this sort of a contention. As I said before, I just walked into the chamber. I heard there was some excitement so I came running in. I could move the adjournment.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is not a question of who makes the motion to adjourn; it is that the motion to adjourn is not in order, the Senate having spoken on the matter of adjournment in a standing vote.

Senator Cools: Perhaps, Your Honour, you could inform me as to precisely what it was that the chamber expresses opinion of, because my understanding is that motions of adjournment are motions of the individual who is moving them. I am quite happy to be wrong. Perhaps, His Honour could inform me on what happened or inform the chamber?

The Hon. the Speaker: We are trying to keep it as clear and straightforward as possible, as least I am. As I have indicated and I will repeat, the chamber has voted on whether or not debate be adjourned. The motion to adjourn was lost. We are on the amendment of Senator Comeau.

It is appropriate to speak at this time but if no one stands to speak — I am simply dealing with what is immediately before me — the next step is to deal with the matter before us. Someone either speaks, or we deal with the question.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: To clarify, I have been given advice that yes, indeed, you are absolutely right. The motion to adjourn was defeated, so either we speak or we vote. If we vote and we vote in favour, we return to the main motion and immediately an event having taken place, anybody can move the adjournment. That would be right. I am ready to vote and we will see what we do on third reading.

The Hon. the Speaker: I will put the question, on the motion in amendment of Senator Comeau, all those in favour of the motion in amendment will please say "yea."

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion in amendment will please say "nay."

The Hon. the Speaker: It is proposed by the whips that the bell ring for 15 minutes before vote, but I do require consent of the Senate.

Andreychuk	Kinsella
Atkins	LeBreton
Buchanan	Lynch-Staunton
Comeau	Meighen
Cools	Oliver
Di Nino	Plamondon
Eyton	Prud'homme
Forrestall	Rivest
Johnson	Stratton—19
Keon

Adams	Lapointe
Austin	Lavigne
Bacon	Léger
Banks	Losier-Cool
Biron	Mahovlich
Carstairs	Mercer
Chaput	Milne
Christensen	Moore
Cook	Munson
Day	Pearson
De Bané	Pépin
Fairbairn	Poulin
Fitzpatrick	Robichaud
Fraser	Rompkey
Furey	Stollery
Harb	Trenholme Counsell
Hubley	Watt—34

Orders of the Day

Statistics Act

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