Post 1901 Census Project Site Sponsored by:
Everything for The Family Historian!
1-800-361-5168 Bookstore Website
Copyright © GlobalGenealogy.com Inc. 1995-2008
français
EXTRACTS FROM HANSARD
-----
PROCEEDINGS OF CANADA'S SENATE:The following extract has been taken from Hansard Records of Canada's Senate:
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 139, Issue 89
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Statistics Act National Archives of Canada Act
Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Lorna Milne moved the third reading of Bill S-12, to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census records).
She said: Honourable senators, it is with some frustration and concern that I rise this afternoon, once again, to implore you to pass this bill on third reading. If Bill S-12 is passed, individual census records for the 1906 and subsequent censuses will be released to the public through the National Archives after a 92-year waiting period, and our historic Canadian practice will continue in line with that of the rest of the westernized world. It has taken over three years and the written support of more than 20,000 Canadians to get the bill to this stage. Those dedicated Canadians - genealogists, historians, medical researchers and families - are counting on you to unlock a substantial part of Canadian history by passing this bill.
I want to ensure that each senator knows exactly what this bill does. I will also explain to you why I passionately believe that Statistics Canada's Chief Statistician, Ivan Fellegi, should have released the records long ago. You will also hear that the legal effect of this bill is to tell Statistics Canada explicitly to take steps that it is already legally and morally required to do.
From the outset, I want honourable senators to know that this is not the course of action that I would have preferred to take. This is a question about how Canada will record its history. It is a decision that deserves the leadership and the attention of the government. There is nothing I would like more than to have the government announce that it will take the necessary steps to best balance the interests of all concerned. I still hope that this issue will be taken out of my hands. In the meantime, I feel the issue must be properly debated and addressed in both Houses of Parliament, whether or not the government will take the lead.
While the issues surrounding the release of individual census records are profound, the nuts and bolts of Bill S-12 are straightforward. The first section of the bill amends the Statistics Act by ordering Statistics Canada to preserve and store individual census records for all censuses that it takes and then to transfer control of the records to the National Archives no more than 30 years after the census date.
The second part of the bill sets out a scheme under the National Archives of Canada Act to allow for the release of that information. The National Archivist is given the power to release individual census records to the public 92 years after the date of the census. Any person who does not want their personal information released may register such a request with the National Archivist at any time during the last year before the release of the information.
Finally, the National Archivist is given the power to set up whatever specific rules and terms for the release that he believes are best.
Honourable senators, this issue first came to my attention in the fall of 1998 in what I thought was a fairly innocuous newsletter that I received from the Upper Ottawa Valley Genealogical Society, of which I was a member. The newsletter raised a small red flag about a decision by Statistics Canada not to release the 1906 census returns after the standard 92-year waiting period. The newsletter noted that for many years, historians and genealogists had used individual census returns for research purposes and that this essential source of information was about to be shut off.
My first reaction was a mild concern. As a genealogist, I knew full well that census records are vital for the research of families and that to lose that source of information would cripple historic research in this country. I have used census records in my own research many times, and I have spent hours peering at blurred and scratched images on microfilm to find the critical missing links in my analysis. Census records can only be described as mountainous haystacks of microfilm full of millions of golden needles. One cannot measure their importance to Canadian history; they are invaluable.
This mild concern was tempered by my instincts as a parliamentarian. This seems, at first glance, to be a classic example of a government oversight, just a hiccup in the workings of government. It simply appeared that one section of a law had been misinterpreted and that the error could easily be corrected. I believed then, as I still do today, that this problem could be corrected by the government introducing a bill that explicitly sets out the relationship between Statistics Canada and the National Archives as to the census records. From a policy perspective, the cabinet should be the body to take the lead in clearly defining this relationship.
What I could not anticipate was, first, the lack of motivation on the part of the government to deal with how Canada will record its history, and, second, the complete and utter intransigence and inflexibility of the present Chief Statistician, Dr. Ivan Fellegi.
I must take the time to detail the responses of the government and Dr. Fellegi, in order to explain to you why I believe that without further action by Minister Rock there is no choice but to pass this private senator's bill. This bill should pass immediately, as there are no reasonable barriers to release individual census returns in our historic manner.
While the position taken by Statistics Canada is untenable, it is at least clear. From the outset, Dr. Fellegi has argued that the instructions given to census takers in 1906 clearly stated that Statistics Canada employees were prohibited from releasing census information. In his opinion, this constituted a perpetual promise of absolute secrecy on all Statistics Canada employees from then on. Furthermore, Dr. Fellegi argues that in 1918 the Statistics Act was amended to specifically provide for the secrecy of census information. On that basis, Statistics Canada has steadfastly refused to release the 1906 census returns, and has indicated that no other returns will ever be disclosed.
I was not convinced that the explanation provided by Statistics Canada was rational or even correct. I looked at the documentation that was provided to me, and I did a great deal of research on my own. I concluded that, at best, the legislation was unclear. There certainly was never a clear policy decision made by Parliament that would prevent the census returns from being kept as a historic record in the National Archives. All of the references to privacy were made in the context of regulations to cover the country's concerns at the time the census was taken. In fact, the same 1906 regulations that called for secrecy by the census takers of the time also announced that the documents would be stored in the archives, which were then completely public. No decision was ever made to end access to census information. Furthermore, in 1906, when the census was taken, Canadians had access to census information dating back as far as the 1666 census taken in New France by Louis XIV. If Parliament had intended to eliminate this source of historic research, it would have done so explicitly. This did not happen. Canadians deserve clear laws that outline how the government will record the nation's history. Since I concluded that the law is vague, I introduced Bill S-15, the first incarnation of this present bill, to explicitly delineate the relationship between census information and the National Archives. Since introducing that bill in December 1999, I have been flooded with letters, e-mails and tens of thousands of petitions, a fact that all senators are well aware of by now. The debate that followed led Minister John Manley, the minister in charge of Statistics Canada at that time, to appoint an expert panel to research the issue. I thought it was leading to a compromise solution that seemed to bring Statistics Canada and the Privacy Commissioner on board.
The expert panel appointed by Minister Manley included former Supreme Court Justice Gerard La Forest and the Honourable Lorna Marsden - who is well known to most honourable senators, judging by the number of times I am called her name. The analysis and recommendations that were provided in the panel's report were crystal clear. It stated that there is no legal impediment to releasing the census information, even without amending current laws. Specifically, the panel said, and I quote:
...we are persuaded that the perpetual confidentiality was not likely either assumed or intended by lawmakers....While we find the legal situation ambiguous, we find no convincing evidence that Parliament intended to create perpetual confidentiality. In its conclusions, the panel recommended the immediate release of the 1906 census, and the release of the 1911 census in due course. Finally, the panel noted that for all censuses taken after 1918 there should be legislation put into place "for greater clarity" to allow the release of information.
While the expert panel was doing the work that led to the release of its report in December 2000, at Minister Manley's request I was working with the National Archivist, the Privacy Commissioner, the Access to Information Commissioner and Dr. Fellegi to come up with a compromise solution. In August 2000, an agreement was cobbled together. Unfortunately, that agreement was heavily bureaucratic. It involved peer reviews of research projects and the signing of a waiver form every time a researcher wanted to review reels of census film. It left ownership of the census in the hands of Statistics Canada, not the National Archives. The compromise left doubt about the breadth of access that genealogical researchers would have to the census information. It received my grudging support and the rather qualified support of the National Archivist simply because it got something accomplished. Any person willing to cut through some red tape would be allowed to complete their research. At the time, I believed that Dr. Fellegi had made a move, and that move was better than nothing. I left that meeting in August 2000, confident that the government and Statistics Canada would take steps to get the ball rolling on a compromise.
In September 2000, Parliament was dissolved and along with it went the compromise solution and my hopes for government legislation.
After the election, Dr. Fellegi was no longer interested in following through with a compromise solution and announced that the issue needed more study to determine what Canadians really thought. As a result, I reintroduced my bill, which is now before the Senate. For months, I did not hear one word out of Dr. Fellegi, and it was not until this bill was before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, that he finally resurfaced. That resurfacing lasted only long enough for him to say that he would be out of the country and that he would send his deputy to testify at the committee. During the hearings, the Assistant Chief Statistician, Michael Sheridan, announced that Statistics Canada would be holding town hall meetings and focus groups on the issue of the release of census information, and implored the Senate to defeat this bill and allow Statistics Canada to go about its own affairs.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Milne: I was somewhat surprised to hear this announcement. I certainly had not heard about any town hall meetings or focus groups beforehand, nor had any of the members of the expert panel who studied this issue or any of the members of the Census Canada Committee that had been campaigning for the release of the information.
The town hall meetings were conducted fairly and properly by Environics Research this past December and January. These sessions were held in 10 cities across Canada; 157 people took part. Even by Olympic standards, the score was decisive: 151 people argued for the release of census records; 6 argued against it.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Milne: Fully 96 per cent of those participating in the hearings called for the release of the records. Even a figure skating judge could see that Canadians want the records released. One privacy expert, Mr. Murray Long, co-author of the Canadian Law Privacy Handbook, supported the release of post-1901 census records in his presentation to the town hall meetings. Mr. Long said:
In the case of the 1906 and the 1911 census information, I am satisfied that there is no privacy or confidentiality issue that would stand in the way of the release of this information to the National Archives and to the public.
I note that Environics Canada specifically invited Mr. Long to take part in the town hall meetings as an expert on privacy. Even those who were invited to express the opposing view agreed that the information should be released.
Honourable senators, we do not yet know what happened in the focus groups that were commissioned by Statistics Canada, but the information that resulted went, I assume, to Statistics Canada and has not been released. However, the documents that Statistics Canada used to tender the contract suggest that the feedback from the focus groups may be deeply flawed. In those documents, Statistics Canada made the following three assertions:
1. An important change occurred starting with the 1906 census. Indefinite confidentiality protection of identifiable census records was promised to Canadians when census information was collected from them.
Wrong.
2. To release the 1906 or subsequent census records at this time would mean changing retroactively the conditions under which information was provided by Canadians.
Wrong.
3. Even when a person is deceased, the provisions are still in effect.
Honourable senators, none of these three assertions have ever been accepted by Canada's historical, genealogical or legal communities. To the extent that the focus groups were based on this false information, the process will not add anything to the debate on this important issue.
The announcement of the town hall meetings caused quite a stir, but it was nothing compared to the land mine that the Social Affairs Committee unearthed as a result of the requests for information that it made as part of its study of Bill S-12. The committee asked that Statistics Canada provide to it copies of the legal opinions that it has been relying on to prevent the release of the 1906 census. Those opinions show that Statistics Canada has been told that in order to comply with the law as it exists today, they must release the 1906 census records. Furthermore, the documents show that Statistics Canada has been intentionally disregarding the will of Parliament by withholding this crucial component of Canadian history.
I wish to take a moment to share with honourable senators some of the legal advice that Statistics Canada has received on this issue. The bulk of the legal opinions were written by the Department of Justice for Statistics Canada. In a report to Statistics Canada in August 2000, Ms Ann Chaplin of the Department of Justice was quite clear in her conclusions. She said:
...it is difficult to reconcile the existence of provisions dealing with the transfer of historic information in the NACA - - the National Archives of Canada Act -- and the release of census information under the Privacy Regulations with the notion that post-1918 census information must remain forever in the custody of Statistics Canada.
She goes on to note:
The rational approach to the various pieces of legislation at play here seems to be one which would prohibit census workers from giving anyone access to individual returns but which would allow census information to be transferred to the Archives and, after 92 years, released in accordance with the Privacy Regulations.
Statistics Canada has had this legal advice, and they have refused to act on it.
The key difference between the legal analysis of August 2000 and those of the other reports that date as far back as 1979 is the consideration of the provisions that referred to the census as a permanent record to be deposited in the National Archives. All 10 analyses found that the regulations for the 1906 census and the 1911 census have the force of law today and that under the Interpretation Act those regulations were still in effect. It is only the most recent report of August 2000, however, that includes an analysis of those statutes and regulations that suggest that Parliament's intent was to have the census information stored in the National Archives. The only conclusion that I can draw from that fact is that the legal authors of the earlier reports did not find, or were not told, of that important section of the regulations. As such, one cannot conclude that the pre-2000 legal opinions are relevant, as they are not based on all of the relevant regulations. The only complete legal analysis that has been undertaken advises Statistics Canada to release the 1906 and the 1911 census information.
The legal reports also show that as early as May 1981, more than 20 years ago, Dr. Ivan Fellegi was informed by the Department of Justice in that year that Statistics Canada should release the 1906 census and the 1911 census. In fact, while debate on the new Privacy Act was ongoing in the House of Commons, Dr. Fellegi was briefed on the impact that the legislation would have on the release of census information. Dr. Fellegi was told:
The bill is designed to give greater access to government records and the government has taken the position that the spirit and intent should be followed by government departments....By not relying on section 19 of the Access to Information Act, and giving full weight to the permissive exceptions in section 8 of the Privacy Act, Statistics Canada would be showing the utmost good faith in carrying out the will of Parliament.
There can be no doubt that Statistics Canada was informed that once the principles of the new Privacy Act were enshrined in law, it should follow them by allowing for the release of the census.
After analyzing the 10 different opinions, I have no doubt that the individual census returns for 1906 and 1911 should be released to the public. There is no credible legal opinion that has been released by Statistics Canada that can justify withholding these records from the National Archivist. As the National Archivist has already made a request for the records, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Statistics Canada is breaking the law by failing to release the information. Bill S-12 attempts to bring the matter to a head and to force Statistics Canada to comply with the laws of the land.
Honourable senators, notwithstanding all of the legal reports and the different interpretations of what kind of guarantees were given to Canadians in 1906 and subsequent years, the overriding issue in this bill is this: How will Canada record its history? The lives of Canada's politicians, entertainers, scientists and sports heroes, like our own Senator Mahovlich, are all well documented. I believe, though, that Canada's history is about all of us - ordinary people. Each Canadian has contributed in his or her own way to make this country great, and past Canadians' contributions are no less important simply because they were not famous. The only record that we have of all Canadians in their family groups is the census. It is crucial that the National Archives have access to these records so that it can fulfil its responsibility to record the history of Canadians.
Honourable senators, there are two places where the institutional memory of this country is kept: one is the National Archives and the other is this place. I know that all honourable senators believe that even though we may not share the media spotlight with our colleagues in the other place, we still make vital contributions to the greatest debates of our time.
I implore all honourable senators to reflect on how our collective institutional memory enhances Canada's public life.
Honourable senators, I hope you will see that all this bill asks is that you give individual Canadians the same safeguarded spot in Canada's institutional memory, and indeed, in our country's history, by transferring the only record that exists of Canada's families to our National Archives.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): If I may, I have one question, and depending on the answer, a comment. Did I understand Senator Milne to say that in her bill all information given in censuses will be made public after a certain period of time? Is that correct?
Senator Milne: That is correct. Information will be made public after 92 years.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, that bothers me because the long form continues to grow and to ask for more and more information of a delicate nature, shall we say, such as sexual orientation, certain financial information and other information that I do not think is essential to genealogists and historians for whom the honourable senator is pleading. Second, on the long, as on the short form, the word "confidential" appears repeatedly. I have always assumed that meant perpetual confidentiality. Nowhere does it say on either the short form or long form of the last census that confidentiality will be limited or that Parliament reserves the right to intervene and challenge it, or, in effect, erase it.
I have trouble with Senator Milne's bill. First, there is more and more information being given in the census that is far beyond the traditional census of name, address, number of children, and so forth. Second, the word "confidentiality" appears on the forms. Senator Milne's bill will, in effect, negate that "confidentiality. "
That would make some of us less enthusiastic to complete parts of the long form, knowing that eventually embarrassing or delicate information will be made public to the possible embarrassment of family members, no matter how many years later that information is released.
Senator Milne: If the honourable senator has posed that as a question, I would be delighted to respond.
Senator Lynch-Staunton is quite right. Statistics Canada now asks very intrusive questions. They are probably not any more intrusive than is already released to private companies through your credit card. They are certainly not any more intrusive than that released by the law of the land when a will is probated and made public. Every single penny that a person owned and passed on is always made public.
Any transaction that has to deal with land transfer is made public at record offices in the country. Information regarding the size of a mortgage on your house, when you paid it, to whom you paid it and when you finally paid it off is also available. The questions on the census were basically unchanged until the long forms and the short forms were created in the 1960s. The 1961 census information would not be released until 2053. I strongly suspect that long before the year 2053 there will be further census bills that will deal with that issue.
I am basically concerned at this point with the census records that were taken and written in a ledger. When the census changed to being an individual form for each household, it became a much different matter, and it will require a different solution. That is a long time in the future.
The census records about which I am concerned for release contain the names of family after family written line after line in an old ledger. These are the ones that I believe should be released and should continue to be released in our historic fashion. If we took this retrogressive step to make census information secret forever, Canada would be the only country in the westernized democracies of the world to take such a step. Every other democratic country in the world is moving in the other direction to make their records available. The people of the country have bought and paid for the census. They own the right to ensure that they remain in the public record and that that information is eventually opened to the public.
Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, when I fill out the census questions that I am asked, I fill them all out to the best of my ability because I think that that information is important to Statistics Canada to make important decisions on behalf of Canadians.
To date, I have been given the impression, from what I read in the instructions and from the assurances provided by census takers who come to my home, that this was confidential information not to be made public.
I have just heard Senator Milne make the case that the census information should be made public because it is a taxpayer-funded operation. This is not the impression to date that I have been given either by the forms or by the census takers. I was listening carefully as the honourable senator was going through the bill. As I understand it, we could only object to the release of information in the year of the release of the census. That is, we could only object in 92 years.
Why not amend the bill in order that people who wish to provide this information to Statistics Canada could indicate on the form that they object and do not want the information to be made public. Provide people the option to put on the form right now that their census information not be made public. Otherwise, the promise that the government made at the time of the census, and has been making to all of us over all the years of our filling out census forms, becomes absolutely worthless. It is a paper promise allowing that since Senator Milne wants this information to be made public, the promise that this will be kept confidential is to be lost.
I am suggesting to you that Senator Milne's bill should be amended so that those of us who object can say to the government, "No, this information is to be kept confidential. We do not wish this information to be made public."
Senator Milne: Honourable senators, I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Comeau has said. I am not a legal drafter. I have done the best that I could in an effort, I think as I have told honourable senators, deliberately to force the government's hand. I believe that this matter is so important that the government should be bringing in a government bill. This should not be left to a private member's bill, either in the House of Commons or in the Senate.
This is an important issue. It should be properly debated. The bill should be properly drafted and developed.
However, the honourable senator spoke of a promise that is given to Canadians of confidentiality. That never, ever was mentioned on any of the census takers' information that I have come across up until the time that the individual form was introduced. That was the first point at which a person had a form in hand to be read. Before that it was always someone sitting down at your kitchen table writing things down. They never volunteered that information unless they were specifically asked. They were, themselves, sworn to secrecy so that they would not go down the street and tell your business to your neighbours. The original intent, I am sure, of the secrecy provisions was to ensure that the census takers of the time did not go discussing your private business up and down the road with all of your neighbours. That confidentiality provision was not intended to be, I believe quite firmly, in perpetuity. That was why the 92-year provision came in. Confidentiality is provided for in the Privacy Act and in the Access to Information Act.
Honourable senators, it is important that this issue be debated here.
Senator Comeau: Agreed.
Senator Milne: It is very important that this issue be debated in the House of Commons and I am hoping that the government will act as it should. This is an issue that is of vast importance to the future of Canada. It is an issue of importance to how we record our history and how that history is seen in the future. It should not be up to a private member of either House of this great place to have to bring in this kind of bill. However, due to the lack of action by the government I am doing so. I ask honourable senators to pass this bill so that we can get it to the House of Commons so it can be debated on the floor of the House of Commons. This is very important.
Senator Comeau: I was told last week that there is a form being passed around at this time of year that is supposed to be completed by the end of February. It deals with the revenues and expenses of Canadians over the past year so that Census Canada can provide advice to government on buying trends and so on. I was approached by a local constituent in regard to filling out the form, and whether he was required to fill it out, and I advised him that he absolutely should fill it out because it is important for Canada to be able to have this kind of information to make proper decisions.
If Bill S-12 were to pass, I would seriously reconsider the type of advice that I give to Canadians on this important information that is being requested from Canadians. I am concerned about the kind of confidentiality that is being offered to Canadians if, with passage of this bill, the government can unilaterally go back and retroactively break promises made back in those days. I have read the legislation. It is quite clear that the undertaking was that this information would not be made public. I invite honourable senators to read the legislation because that is quite clear.
If we are now telling Canadians that it is unclear, they are all dead now so they cannot complain and we can break the promise now because these Canadians are dead, then that is not the way we should be conducting our census. We must be very careful what we do with this. Breaking a promise retroactively can hurt us in the future for collecting proper information because Canadians will simply not want to provide any information. I would be among those Canadians who would not provide the information if an undertaking made to me by my government were to be broken in the future.
Senator Milne: Statistics Canada is constantly doing surveys. My bill applies only to the census information. The survey is now done every five years - back then it was every 10 - and it identifies every single family and every single person in Canada. I am not concerned about all these studies that are done in between the statistical compilations that they are constantly doing.
Senator Comeau: I am.
Senator Milne: I agree with the honourable senator that Statistics Canada is probably one of the finest statistics organizations in the world. It has a wonderful reputation. I do not for one single minute wish to interfere with people answering those questions. It is important that Canadians do so. In the past, there has never once been a complaint about the release of historic census information.
Senator Comeau: They are all dead.
Senator Milne: In the United States, where the information is released after 70 years, and Great Britain, not one complaint has been received over all these years. Canadians deserve to have their history kept.
Hon. Joan Fraser: First, I should like to congratulate Senator Milne for her extraordinary tenacity on this matter, and her very impressive work. As I have been listening to the questions put to her, it has occurred to me to think about the case of Great Britain. The questions that are being raised go to serious issues of confidentiality and intrusiveness. I suspect it would probably be fairly true to suggest that the British are as cherishing of their private lives as any people anywhere, certainly in the Western world. Yet the British census results recently went up on the Internet for anyone, not just someone who went to the national archives, not just a citizen of Britain, to look up. Apparently it has been a wild success. There have been enormous numbers of requests for information.
I am wondering if the honourable Senator knows what kind of debate might have preceded that decision on the part of the British statistical authorities and whether there was any objection to it, or did the privacy-loving British just say it was a wonderful thing to do?
Senator Milne: I thank the honourable senator for her question. I must say that I am not aware of the debate that went on in the United Kingdom. The British release their results after 100 years, always have done so, and intend to carry on in that fashion. This information has been released in the form of microfilm. They have taken it one step further and put the information on the Internet. The British were expecting, I believe, something like 1 million hits a day. Just to make absolutely certain that they had enough background capacity built into the system, the system was set up to deal with 1.5 million hits a day. They have been getting 30 million hits a day. That means that 30 million people are looking for their ancestors in Britain in one day. The site was overwhelmed and had to be closed down. The British are redoing the entire site, which will soon be open again to handle 30 million requests a day.
Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: My question follows on the comments of Senator Comeau and Senator Fraser.
I am somewhat bothered that we have a contract with the dead, you might say. I was interested in the honourable senator's answer that most people are interested in their ancestors. The large number of hits to the site might indicate that everyone is interested in the other guy's ancestors; you never know. I do not know what they will do with the information.
The fact of the matter is that I believe, as Senator Comeau said, and I wanted to ask Senator Milne this question, there is an implied contract at least. As you say, 90 years is a long time even for a senator to wait to complain. Was there an amendment suggested to your committee that the present Senate could be split into two - those things you want people to learn about 90 years from now and those things you did not want people to learn about 90 years from now? In that way, the contract would be more or less honoured in the way Senator Comeau has suggested.
Senator Milne: I strongly suspect that what the honourable senator means is the long form versus the short form. Every long form - and I have been praying to get a long form and have never yet received one - contains the same questions at the beginning. I suspect that long before 92 years after the first long forms came out there will be some sort of provision made that the rest of those questions will be removed. It would not bother me a bit.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Senator Milne spoke about the lists and the ledgers. I imagine these were handwritten. Can the honourable senator tell us whether the confidentiality aspect was given to those people at that time? If that is the only group my honourable friend is really concerned about, why not restrict it to that group?
Senator Milne: I am not sure which group Senator St. Germain is speaking of. The writing was always done by the census takers, not by the person giving the information. They sat down at the kitchen table and the census taker asked the questions and filled in the form. The census takers were specifically told to ensure that their handwriting was legible because this information would be stored in the National Archives of Canada. That is all I am asking.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, before proposing the adjournment of this debate, I should like to make a few comments. I share Senator Fraser's admiration for Senator Milne's tenacity on this matter. I am glad to see that the issue is coming to a head here in the Senate. I will not delay it unduly, but I will return to the third reading debate in due course.
I trust that Senator Milne will respect and understand the concern of people, not only on this side of the chamber but elsewhere in the country, that this bill goes far beyond what is necessary for its stated purposes and, in my view, far beyond what is desirable in terms of public policy. I will return to this matter later.
Reference has been made to the practice in other countries. Senator Fraser raised the question of what is done in the United Kingdom. I cannot enlighten her in that regard. I can tell her, however, that Australia, our sister country in the Commonwealth, a country we both know, having visited there together last spring, provides exactly what Senator Comeau was talking about earlier - that is, a consent form on the census form through which the person being enumerated may sign off that he or she has no objections to the release in due time of the personal information contained therein.
It is not my responsibility to defend the Chief Statistician, Mr. Fellegi. That will be the responsibility of the government. Nevertheless, he is an able and respected senior public servant and, as Senator Milne has properly noted, he runs an agency that is admired and respected all over the world.
Senator Milne has delivered quite an indictment of Mr. Fellegi, questioning his good faith, if not his integrity. I simply want to flag that factor for the benefit of honourable senators. I believe that Mr. Fellegi must be given an opportunity to reply to the statements made in this third reading debate by Senator Milne about him, and we should consider how that should be done. We may want to spend some time in Committee of the Whole in order to give him the opportunity to reply, if he wishes, to her allegations.
A number of points came up in the interesting questions and replies from several honourable senators. Apropos the reference by both the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Comeau to whether a promise of confidentiality is perpetual, eternal, et cetera, or whether it is just a temporary matter, the Privacy Commissioner had something to say about that when he appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Referring exactly to the point that Senator Comeau and Senator Lynch-Staunton raised, he said:
Senator Milne also appears to agree with the expert panel on access to historical census records that the promise of confidentiality can be disregarded because, in the words of the panel, words like "perpetual," "eternal" or "forever" were used neither in the legislation nor in the more colloquial instruction to enumerators and are never found in the debates. What this amounts to is saying that a promise should be assumed to be temporary unless it is specified to be permanent. I consider this premise to be untenable in both law and common sense. A promise is perpetual unless it is specified not to be. No system of contracts - and what we are talking about is a contract between the government and the governed - could survive without this basic principle.
Somewhat later in his testimony, Mr. Radwanski said:
Most importantly...this bill would make a mockery of the principle of consent, imputing consent retroactively where it cannot possibly be considered to have been given either implicitly or explicitly.
That is one of the points that Senator Lynch-Staunton raised.
I will stop there, honourable senators, because I think that gives you something of the flavour of the testimony before the Social Affairs Committee when it considered this bill.
My friend Senator Milne referred to various views, and I believe I followed her carefully, but she made no mention at all of the testimony of Mr. Radwanski. I presume that she was waiting for me or some other senator on this side to do so, and we will, of course, oblige her.
Before I sit down, I should mention, apropos the statement I made when I began - namely, that this goes well beyond what is necessary for the stated purposes of the bill - that the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Statistician of Canada have signed off on a compromise proposal. As the commissioner observed in his testimony, this bill goes well beyond that.
My view is that we should not pass this bill as it stands, but I, for one, am very open to a compromise proposal of the kind to which Mr. Radwanski referred.
Honourable senators, I will continue my remarks on another day.
On motion of Senator Murray, debate adjourned.
