français

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

The following extracts have been taken from Hansard Records
of Canada's Senate for the 37th Parliament of Canada:

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 140, Issue 56
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker

---

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Statistics Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, for the third reading of Bill S-13, to amend the Statistics Act.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, most of us in this chamber have probably, at one time or another, filled out a census form. To set the stage for my remarks, I should like to read some comments that have been written on the census form.

The first page of the census form states:

As Canada's national statistics agency, Statistics Canada uses census data for producing statistical tables, analytical reports and for selecting samples or following up responses for some of our surveys. These uses are strictly for statistical purposes and no one outside the agency can have access to your identifiable information.

By law, Statistics Canada must take a census every five years and every household must fill in a census form. Also, by law, Statistics Canada must protect the confidentiality of the personal information you provide. Our employees, including census takers, are personally liable to fines or imprisonment should they break the confidentiality of your information.

This form is signed by Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada.

Further down the form, it says, "Confidential when completed.''

The last page of the census states:

The law protects what you tell us.

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.

These statements are made on the census form that I am sure all of us, at one time or another, have completed. This language leaves very little room for interpretation. It promises confidentiality.

Employees of Census Canada are personally liable to fines or imprisonment should they break the confidentiality of your information on this form. The purpose of this bill, Bill S-13, is to break the promise of confidentiality made by our predecessors.

Proponents of the bill argue that those who responded 92 years ago have raised no complaints. There is little doubt that most are probably dead or too old to follow this debate, but it is rather a disrespectful argument to be making.

The Chief Statistician has finally given up the good fight to maintain the confidentiality provisions of the census. This is understandable. The government has tabled a bill to break the promise, and Justice lawyers have reversed their legal advice and now apparently suggest that the confidentiality promise might not stand up in court.

Honourable senators, there are no voters in cemeteries. Therefore, Ministers Allan Rock and Sheila Copps issued a press release in support of breaking the promise. What else could the Chief Statistician do?

Given that reality, the Chief Statistician is trying to salvage whatever he can to maintain some kind of credibility in the census. He hopes that the withholding consent provision that extends confidentiality to 112 years might encourage Canadians to keep faith in the credibility of the census. In my view, he is whistling past the graveyard.

Let me remind senators that the Chief Statistician's concern is not with the impact on our image as parliamentarians breaking our promise; his concern is with the impact that this will have on the integrity of census data.

Similarly, the Privacy Commissioner has problems with this bill but, unlike the Chief Statistician, his concern is not with the negative consequences of broken promises but, rather, the impact on the privacy of Canadians.

It is, therefore, up to this chamber to assess the consequences of breaking our legislative promises to Canadians. We wonder why Canadians do not trust parliamentarians.

Would we not somehow feel violated if our doctor suddenly decided that our private medical files are to be opened to the public? Would we not feel violated if our lawyer started breaking client confidentiality, or priests started breaking the silence of the confessional?

Why should we hold ourselves to a lesser standard of trust than doctors, father confessors and lawyers? Why should we accept that our promise is only as good as the current group sitting here? Why should it be that our promises are not worth the paper on which they are written? Why should that be?

The premise is that your privacy dies with you, but this bill goes way beyond breaking promises made to the dead. In fact, this bill breaks the promises to Canadians who are alive today, because it breaks the promise made to all Canadians living today who have ever filled out a census return. The bill provides only for withholding consent to future census returns to 112 years. However, even this withholding consent option is worthless if we establish the principles that parliamentarians can break promises at will and simply retroactively break the consent provision in the future.

Lawyers from the Department of Justice are now of the view that the legislated promises of confidentiality might be broken by the courts. This is the same group of lawyers who supported the government position in the Pearson bill that would have taken away citizens' rights to their day in court. It is the very same group of lawyers who joined Allan Rock on an eight-year political vendetta against the former Prime Minister.

Honourable senators, should we roll over and accept their opinion that the courts can break our parliamentary promises? Is this the pitiful excuse we offer for the breach of trust? Are we, as parliamentarians, ready to accept that the judges are so powerful that they can break our word?

Will we say, "The judges made us do it''? I would suggest not.

I read the confidentiality declarations earlier. There is no room for doubt. If Justice lawyers now suggest that the wording in the act was not sufficiently clear, then let us make it so. Let us not hide behind the fear that the courts might misinterpret the meaning of confidentiality and cower under their watchful gaze.

If senators want to break the promise, do not blame the courts. Do it out of conviction.

For those who may not have reviewed the testimony at committee, allow me to quote a few comments made by some experts. I refer first to Mr. George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. He said:

This bill, if passed, will violate a promise repeatedly made to Canadians by successive governments and eliminate existing privacy rights retroactively.

For censuses taken after 1918, there is neither ambiguity nor inconsistency. The 1918 Statistics Act stated explicitly that the material would be kept confidential. That prohibition has been repeated in every Statistics Act since.

Breaking the promise of confidentiality made to Canadians could seriously erode public trust in undertakings made by the Government of Canada... If a commitment made in perpetuity can, in fact, be broken after 92 years, what makes 92 years such a magic number? Might a future government, next time, break promises after 50 years or 25 years or 10 years?

In referring to Canadians, he said:

We have always been able to assure them that the government has undertaken to respect of confidentiality of their answers and that Statistics Canada has a very good history of protecting confidential information.

We will not be able to give any more such assurance in the future if this bill, as it is presented, is passed.

If people cannot trust that confidential information will remain confidential they will lie. Wouldn't you? It is common sense.

I believe that privacy will be the defining issue of this decade.

These are statements made by the Privacy Commissioner. Let me refer to Mr. Fellegi, Chief Statistician. He said:

Would I be more comfortable as Chief Statistician if the promise of confidentiality was protected forever? Of course, I would.

The compromise goes as far as I dare to go. No one knows how the public will react. However, what I do know is that trust is a very fragile commodity. This is as far as I dare to go. Am I concerned? Yes, I am.

Honourable senators, I am not making up these remarks. They are all on the record, and you may check them should you choose to do so. It is in the testimony of the committee. These are the professionals. These are the recommendations and comments that they made.

Where will our disregard for privacy end? Which files will be opened next? Will it be student loan applications? Will it be application information for immigration, EI benefits, passports, jobs, firearms or pardons? Where will it end?

The fact that legislation is needed to break the promise is evidence that the promise was, in fact, made. The government needs our approval. To absolve itself from breaking the promise, the government needs Parliament's permission. The government might well be open to libel if it did not have this permission from us.

Honourable senators, I can understand that some may not share my passion for keeping legislative promises. The release of private and confidential information, in their view, may be more important than keeping our word. However, I should like to remind honourable senators that statistical information is only as good as the information that is gathered. I fear that many Canadians, when they become aware of this bill, will provide information as worthless as our promises. If our guarantees are false, can we not expect false responses? I would urge honourable senators to carefully consider the consequences.

It is true that a well-orchestrated lobby has been mounted to seek your support. Little opposition has been shown to this bill. I wonder how the media and Canadians will react when they eventually find out what is at stake here? What will happen when Canadians learn that this is not only breaking a promise made to dead people but also breaking a promise made to the living? Will they accept and forgive?

We can reject this bill and still provide access to legitimate users. A compromise had been made whereby access would be given to families of deceased census respondents and responsible historians. This compromise was rejected by those involved in the process. It was all or nothing. It resulted in this bill.

I would urge all honourable senators to consider seriously what is at stake here and to vote to reject this bill.

On motion of Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.