franηais

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 55
Tuesday, May 13, 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. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I think that Senator Comeau, last week, touched on the greatest weakness of this bill, which is that it violates a pledge made to Canadians that information given through the census was to remain confidential and secret in perpetuity. To quote from the long form, on the last page after the person has answered all the questions, there it is, in large letters: "The law protects what you tell us. 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.''

The argument against that is that the information that would be allowed through this bill would not be given out, except in specified cases, for another 92 years from the date of the census, and without restriction, for another 112 years. The argument is this: Will a person really care whether information given in confidence, which can be argued for the most part of a routine nature, is made public 112 years later? I say yes. I will try to convince senators, before voting to support this bill, that my arguments deserve at least a little reflection.

There is a clause in this bill which allows that from 2006 on — at the time of the next census — information given in that census and in those that follow can be made public if the person signing the questionnaire gives consent. I think that is very good except for one flaw — the same census questionnaire applies to more than one person, sometimes to dozens of people. The questionnaire is quite clear regarding who to include in the questionnaire, such as people who are away or absent — like students or spouses working abroad — whose legal address is where the questions are being asked on one particular day. How is one to get the approval of, say, 20 people in one household, 14 of whom are away? How can one get them all to agree or disagree that personal information can be released or not released if they are not there the day that the questions are being asked? I asked if there were regulations covering this aspect and, so far, I am not aware that it has been covered.

I want to mention some of the questions asked in the long form because every new long form becomes more and more intrusive. At one time, the census was strictly a nose count — name, address, age, sex, number of children, marital status, et cetera — basic public information. Now we are going a lot further.

There is, for instance, the relationship between two persons, including whether a common-law partnership refers to two people of the opposite sex or of the same sex who live together as a couple. Some people may not want that information known — whether now or 112 years from now — whatever their common- law status.

There are other questions, such as those concerning household activities. This may sound amusing, but I wonder what the value of this information is to the census people. They want to know how many hours a person spent doing the following activities: unpaid housework; looking after one or more of this person's own children without pay; providing unpaid care assistance to one or more seniors.

What is the point of all this information and how will it be interpreted once it is made public, whether 112 years from now or whenever?

On page 12 of the long form this question is asked: Could this person have started a job last week had one been available? What kind of a question is that? What is the value of that question? Could this person, that is, the person replying, have started a job last week had one been available? That is close to a question like: Do you still beat your wife? What is the value of that? I find that intrusive and none of the government's business, ever.

Page 16 is devoted entirely to income. Most Canadians declare their income on tax returns, which are considered confidential. The same information regarding employment, self-employment income, income from government, other income, dividends and interest is asked for on the census form in similar detail. Whereas, as far as I know, our tax returns remain confidential forever, the same, or nearly the same, information on the census form will be made available in due course. Why this morbid curiosity? Why not be satisfied with what a census is all about? Some will say, "Historians need to know.'' Only snoopy historians need to know. I do not think that some of this information should ever be made public, unless the individual giving it agrees.

On page 17, this question is asked: Who pays the rent or mortgage, taxes, electricity for this dwelling? Whose business is that? Why would the government want to know whether I pay the rent or my wife pays the rent or my father-in-law pays the mortgage? What does it matter? Perhaps there are families making their children's mortgage payments and they do not want anyone to know this is taking place. "All right,'' the answer is, "they will not know for another 112 years.'' That may be so at present, but what I am afraid may well happen is that this is only the thin edge of the wedge.

I refer to the experience that we have had since the social insurance number was introduced. It was put in place in 1964. There was a great deal of debate in the House at the time. Mr. Diefenbaker himself was very concerned that this number would be applicable eventually to all sorts of activities, both government and non-government, which were not even considered at the time the SIN was being proposed. It was to be restricted to UI, which is now EI, and the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. That is all. The House was assured that it is all it would be used for.

Only a few years later, in 1967, the Income Tax Act was amended so that your social insurance number had to be put on your tax return. Eventually, that was applied to all sorts of other government activities and functions, at both the federal and provincial levels, and then eventually at the municipal level. The law was also changed so that anytime a tax slip for a dividend cheque or interest payment is received, your social insurance number must appear on it. That was never the intention at the beginning.

It certainly was not the intention, although it is not disallowed, unfortunately, for the private sector to ask for that number. No matter where you go now, whatever application form you get, you are asked for your social insurance number. Very few will say that giving it is optional. You do not have to give it.

Senator Comeau: But they do not have to lend money to you either.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is right.

I raise that point because, in 1964, Parliament was assured that the social insurance number would be used for limited and specific purposes. Now we see it is a free-for-all. We may as well make it public. We may as well advertise it. I suggest the same will happen with this bill. Eventually, if it is passed in this form, someone will have the bright idea of saying, "Look, we cannot afford to wait another 90 years for this information. Let us change the law and bring it back to 50 years, 25 years or 10 years.'' Eventually, they will say, "Let us make it all public,'' unless the person does not want to allow the information to be released. Even then, is that any guarantee that the information will not be made public?

I am also concerned that the long form questions are becoming more intrusive, more personal and, I believe, more irrelevant. I know there is an argument that governments and others can trace demographic and social factors from census results, thus allowing various policies to be tailored for the long term. That is what it says in theory. Whether in fact that is true, I somehow doubt it.

Passing this bill will violate a pledge made that census information never be made public. Second, there is no question that passing the bill will lead to a discussion of accelerating the release of the information. Perhaps this will even be suggested in the form of an amendment. Third, more and more intrusive questions of a personal nature are being asked on the long form, and they should never be made public. For all these reasons, in particular the first one, I urge honourable senators not to support this bill.

Hon. Yves Morin: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a question of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton.

My question concerns two issues. One issue concerns the disclosure of information, and I follow Senator Lynch-Staunton in that regard. I strongly believe that information in the census should not be disclosed at whatever time. One of the strengths of our census is that it is confidential and will remain confidential. If there are any indications that it will not remain confidential, then people will stop giving confidential information.

Where I do not follow the honourable senator is in the matter of the census being more extensive in its questions. We know, for example, that issues like the social determinants of health are becoming extremely important. Statistics Canada has taken a leading role in the world relating to issues such as economic development, the social network, housing, education and so forth with the health status of a given population. As a matter of fact, these non-medical social determinants of health are more important than health care delivery, hospitals, physicians and so forth.

I realize that people are asked if they are working or not, but this is an important issue as far as public health is concerned.

Does the honourable senator agree that non-disclosure of the census is important, but the fact that more and more questions are being asked bears some relation to health and to the economic development of our country? I might say that Statistics Canada is one of the leading organizations among OECD countries.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: If the information were to be kept as a collective bit of information rather than an individual bit of information, then I might agree with Senator Morin. However, we will now see that what is collected for millions of people as a whole, broken down by age and region but still very impersonal, will become personal information, rather than a conclusion based on information that remains impersonal and confidential.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, has Senator Lynch- Staunton had an opportunity to read the new legal opinion, if I may call it that, of the Department of Justice on this matter and to appreciate the fact that absent this bill, with the restrictions it imposes on access, Statistics Canada will be seriously exposed to a situation in which litigation would probably succeed in opening personal information in the census in an unrestricted way?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I have not seen that legal opinion or the one that preceded it, apparently, which stated the contrary; however, having had experience with Department of Justice opinions, I am somewhat cynical of them. I am thinking particularly of the Pearson bill and others that came to us with the full support of the Department of Justice.

So, no, I have not seen the opinion; however, even if it says what it says, is that risk worth taking?

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: On the question of legal advice from the Department of Justice, if the Department of Justice is suggesting that it might not survive a court challenge, does this not suggest that we should enforce the confidentiality or bring an amendment to the current legislation that would enforce the confidentiality rather than giving in and saying, "Since the Department of Justice is saying that this will not survive a court challenge, let's give in and throw the books open''?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I could not agree more with the honourable senator. We see that the government is not hesitant in the budget implementation bill to put in retroactive legislation. If that principle applies there, it can apply in this case also.

On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.