Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 12 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 9, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-13, to amend the Statistics Act, met this day at 3:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Marjory LeBreton (Deputy Chair) in the Chair
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Today we will hear a witness on Bill S-13, to amend the Statistics Act. Our witness hardly needs an introduction. We see him on television frequently these days. I would invite Mr. Radwanski, the Privacy Commissioner, to make a statement.
Mr. George Radwanski, Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee. It is always a pleasure to do so.
I would like to say at the outset that of the privacy issues that are before us these days, this one is not the most pressing or the most fundamental. However, it does raise a deeply troubling issue, namely, whether Canadians can trust the word of their government.
This bill, if passed, will violate a promise repeatedly made to Canadians by successive governments and eliminate existing privacy rights retroactively.
The legislative summary of this bill states that:
This enactment removes a legal ambiguity in relation to access to census records taken between 1910 and 2003.
In my view, that statement is not accurate. It is true that the regulations governing the censuses taken between 1910 and 1918 were inconsistent. The regulations required census officials to ``keep inviolate the secrecy of the information gathered.'' They also indicated that the census records were to be entered into the National Archives.
What is even more telling is the instruction in the regulations that, ``the facts and statistics of the census may not be used except for statistical compilations, and positive assurance should be given on this point if a fear is entertained by any person that they may be used for taxation or any other object.''
Clearly, the fact that the government of the day was capable of contradicting itself does not mean that the instruction about confidentiality was ambiguous. There is nothing ambiguous about the language that I just read to you. There is no reason for assuming that the government was any less serious about the promise of confidentiality than it was about the intent to enter the census records in the archives.
The consequences of breaking the promise of confidentiality are more serious than the consequences of failing to put the material in the archives.
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. Even the expert panel on access to historical census records acknowledged this.
Since 1971, when Statistics Canada began sending forms directly to respondents rather than using enumerators, respondents have been explicitly told in writing that their information will remain confidential. This bill thus breaks a promise of confidentiality made to Canadians.
Canadians were asked to reveal personal information to census takers and were led to believe that it would be kept confidential. Now, after the fact, the government is preparing to say that it did not really mean what it promised.
Breaking the promise of confidentiality made to Canadians could seriously erode public trust in undertakings made by the Government of Canada. Some people might say that the promise of confidentiality will still hold for 92 years after the census. However, the rest of us might well wonder. 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?
It is important to bear in mind that census information is collected under compulsion. Failure to answer the intrusive questions of census takers is an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. The promise that the information would be kept confidential softened that compulsion and made it more palatable to Canadians.
The bill seems to take as its premise that this conflict between privacy and research is an all-or-nothing situation where one side has to win and privacy has to lose. It need not be that way.
The chief statistician and my predecessor, Mr.Phillips, crafted a reasonable compromise. The mandate of Statistics Canada would be extended to support genealogical and historical research. Access would be limited to peer reviewed historical research and to individuals wishing to conduct genealogical research on their families. Access to historical census by authorized individuals would be unrestricted but include only basic information. Name, address, marital status and birthplace could be removed from the census record and made public. I supported that compromise.
Another point that needs to be made is that this bill makes access to census records collected in 2006 or later subject to the consent of ``the person to whom the information relates.'' This is certainly better than anything else in the bill, but even it may be seriously flawed, in my view.
Census respondents normally provide information regarding their households. I would expect that every person in the household would have the right to give or withhold consent. There is no place in the 21st century for handing over privacy rights to the so-called ``head of the household.'' Indeed, given issues such as genetics, consent could appropriately be broader because information about oneself could also be information about one's children, one's siblings and more distant relatives.
I have just been told that there is an amendment under consideration that would make this requirement for consent, an opt-out consent, and that, of course, is even worse. Certainly in all sensitive privacy matters, I and my office, have long held the view that only opt-in consent is meaningful. However, I should not get too bogged down on this, because I have great difficulties with the entire bill.
I and my office, have been supportive of the work of Statistics Canada. Many concerned Canadians have asked for advice time and again about how and whether to respond to intrusive questions in the census and in other Statistics Canada surveys. We have always been able to assure them that the government has undertaken to respect the 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.
I am at your disposal for questions.
Senator Morin: Thank you, Mr. Radwanski, for your comments. They are extremely pertinent.
Were you consulted at any point regarding this bill before today? Did you have the opportunity to express these very important points before today?
Mr. Radwanski: I am trying to remember if we were formally consulted. My recollection is that we were not, but certainly my view was made publicly known from the outset. There were some discussions.
I would have to refresh my memory but it was well known that I supported the compromise position and that I would oppose any legislation to make this information available in an unrestricted form.
Senator Morin: We were told the bill itself is a compromise. Do you support the bill as a compromise?
Mr. Radwanski: No, I support the compromise position worked out by my predecessor and Statistics Canada — and I guess the Archives — that called for permitting access to census data by individuals wishing to conduct genealogical research on their own families. It also permitted access to this data by bona fide historians doing peer-reviewed historical research.
The information was to nominally remain in the custody of Statistics Canada. The individuals who had permission would be deemed to be employees of Statistics Canada for this purpose, and would be bound by the confidentiality rules.
Senator Morin: Therefore, this information could not be published or rendered public, or even rendered available to other members of the family. It would be only for personal use.
Mr. Radwanski: It would have been possible to circulate it within the family, but it could not have been used in other ways.
Senator Morin: It could not have been published, for example, in a scientific document if the information would be identified.
Mr. Radwanski: That was the second category. Bona fide historians could publish some of this information if it was peer-reviewed research.
Senator Morin: Even if it was identified?
Mr. Radwanski: Yes.
Senator Morin: Could it be published in spite of the fact these individuals did not give authorization at the time? The 1911 census included a clear statement that this information was to be kept secret. There was actually a promise to the population that it would be used only for statistical compilations. This is from the 1911 census. Do you feel, in spite of that, that this could have been made available and published? For example, in either the 1911 or the 1916 census, there is mention of the members of the family who are dumb. This could be made available to a historian writing a scholarly paper on a famous politician who was found to be dumb at an earlier age.
Mr. Radwanski: If you want me to say that I loved that approach too, I can only say that I did not. That was already a compromise, recognizing two particular interests: that of history and historians in very specific circumstances of bona fide historical research; and the right of families to research their own family history. It would have been an element of breach of commitment.
Senator Morin: It would have.
Mr. Radwanski: I am not going to revisit whether it was brilliant or not. It had been worked out and I was willing to support it. The alternative would have been to bring us to the kind of bill that is before the committee now, which is far more open-ended, much less restricted and far worse.
In all these matters of privacy, one deals with a balance. My predecessors and I are ombudsmen. We do not have the power to order or prevent something from happening. One tries to work out the best possible solution among competing interests, and try to protect privacy as much as the realities of the situation will allow.
This goes, in my mind, way beyond what is necessary or justified.
Senator Morin: If this bill gets through, and is adopted in the House of Commons, what do you think the consequences will be?
Mr. Radwanski: I think the consequence, as I said in my statement, senator, is that real doubt will have been cast on whether the formal word of the government of Canada on matters of privacy and confidentiality can be believed.
Next time there is a census, or a really intrusive questionnaire by Health Canada, such as some of their health surveys, people will call my office and ask, ``Is it safe from a privacy point of view to answer this? Why are they asking me these questions?'' and so forth. In the case of a census, we say, ``The law says you have to answer, but you are promised confidentiality; and I can tell you that Statistics Canada has a very good record of protecting information. If you are promised confidentiality it will be kept.''
In all honestly I will no longer be able to say that to people. If they ask me, I will have to say, ``Look, there is a promise of confidentiality, but it was changed once and it could be changed again in any number of ways. You will have to reach your own conclusions as the whether you are willing to provide certain information or not.''
Senator Morin: Do you think that might affect future censuses?
Mr. Radwanski: There is no question. If people cannot trust that confidential information will remain confidential, they will lie. Wouldn't you? It is common sense.
Senator Morin: I would like your opinion on the two amendments. One deals with the 1911 and 1916 censuses. As I told you earlier, there was information given to the census takers—
The Deputy Chairman: We had the amendments at the last committee meeting but we had not distributed them today. I would ask to have them distributed now.
Senator Morin: I thought we had them. I certainly heard discussion of them.
The Deputy Chairman: We had that at the last meeting. We will redistribute them today. While I have the microphone, Mr.Ivan Fellegi, Chief Statician, is in the room and he would be prepared to come to the table if senators have questions for him.
Senator Morin: As soon as you get the amendments, Mr. Radwanski, I would like to have your opinion on them.
Mr. Radwanski: I will do my best, but my usual practice would be not to comment on draft legislation that I have not had an opportunity to analyze and have my staff review.
Senator Morin: Let us forget about the amendments and let me ask you two questions instead. Should the censuses conducted in 1911 and 1916 be treated any differently from the one conducted in 1906, which has already been released? The reason they are treated differently in the legislation is that instructions were given to the census workers, as I told you earlier, that this information had to be kept secret; and promises were made to the population that it would be used only for statistical compilations. This is the reason they are different in the legislation from the census of 1906. That is my first question.
My second question refers to your objection to the fact that one person could give consent for the rest of the family. I realize that is a serious objection. How do you feel about the opting-out clause? If nothing were written on the form, it would indicate that the whole family were consenting. What would your opinion be on this? I know you are opposed to it; but perhaps for the clarification of the committee, you could extend your opinion on the opting-out consent.
Mr. Radwanski: I would be happy to do that. Let me deal with that matter first.
As a general principle, I think any privacy expert or privacy advocate would tell you that, for several reasons, opting out is very poor privacy when you are dealing with information that is at all sensitive. First, people do not necessarily read everything on a form or even notice it. Second, in principle, if you start from the premise that our personal information is ours, then people need positive permission to do anything with it other than what is immediately being provided for.
To say, ``Well, if you do not object, we can use it,'' is a bit like saying, ``Unless you tell me that I cannot drive away in your car, I can.'' It does not work that way in principle. Therefore, I think opting-out consent would be totally inappropriate on any matter that involves personal information other than the most casual and least sensitive. On the other question, I have not made a profound study of the different census years, but I would be astonished if there has been any census in which people felt they were providing this information and it would not be confidential. Somebody would have to persuade me that people were actually told that, at some future point, this might be broadly shared.
Absent that, I think that, setting aside technicalities, turns of language and documents they never saw, people's understanding has been that this was statistical information and would not be used in any nominative way pertaining to them. I think the distinctions about years are technical and artificial.
Senator Milne: I believe a letter has just come to Senator Kirby that should be read into the record at this point. I have just had it handed to me. It is from the Information Commissioner of Canada.
Since I do not think anybody has had an opportunity to see it, I will read it into the record. Then the clerk can copy it and hand it around to people.
The Deputy Chairman: May I see the letter? Perhaps we should table it, but that may be inappropriate.
Senator Morin: Is this a question to Mr. Radwanski?
Senator Milne: I have all kinds of questions.
Senator Morin: No, is the letter the basis of a question to Mr. Radwanski? We have a witness.
The Deputy Chairman: Did you want to read the letter and get the witness's response to it?
Senator Milne: Yes.
It says:
Dear Mr.Kirby:
As you know, I was unable to appear before your committee on February 27, 2003 as I was out of the country. My Deputy Commissioner, Alan Leadbeater, gave evidence to your committee on Bill S-13 on a panel of witnesses which included the Chief Statistician and the National Archivist.
My purpose in writing is to reinforce this point: if the proposed consent provision is the price to pay for opening past census records to research use, then it is too high a price to pay.
The historical database represented by census responses constitutes a developing, growing, database of vital interest to the nation. It would be unprecedented and unacceptable to degrade its usefulness to future generations by the inevitable incompleteness that will result if even a small percentage of Canadians withhold consent.
The fact that it is a legal obligation to complete the census, is testimony to the importance to the nation of this database. If Canadians have no choice when it comes to completion of census forms, they should have no ability to choose, by withholding consent, to impair forever legitimate public use of future census data. I cannot accept that all census records pre-dating 2006 will be open in the future but not subsequent census dates.
I, therefore, urge your Committee to reject the consentprovision for post-2006 census records and, instead, to treat future census records in the same manner proposed by Bill S-13 for past census records.
We should copy that and ensure Mr. Radwanski has a copy of it. If you can remember my question, Mr.Radwanski, could you respond?
Mr. Radwanski: I get the general drift. It will not be the first or last time that I disagree with the Information Commissioner on the meaning or the importance of privacy rights in Canada.
Senator Murray: Or their existence.
Mr. Radwanski: Yes, or the existence of privacy rights in Canada. He starts from a premise that a census is nominative data about Canadians. A census is statistical data about Canadians.
Senator Milne: It is both.
Mr. Radwanski: It has never been supposed to be information about people that they think will be used, except in a statistical sense. I do not want to debate that with you ad infinitum; however, that has been my sense. It is, however, a side issue, because I am opposed to this whole piece of proposed legislation anyway. I would not want to appear to be backing away from this by getting bogged down on questions of consent.
Perhaps this committee might have some luck in explaining to the Information Commissioner that personal information about us belongs to us. It is a fundamental principle of privacy rights and privacy law, recognized in every civilized country, that information about us should only be collected, used or disclosed with our consent and only for the purposes for which consent was given. In the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPED, it says that, even with consent, it should only be for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate under the circumstances.
There may be those in this country who are not impressed by the fact that privacy is a fundamental human right, recognized not only in Canadian law but also in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that that right is not meaningful, except in terms of the concept of consent. I am not among those who hold that view; I regard consent as crucial.
I might add that this issue of impeding research and so forth would not be a problem if we were not going in this direction, but rather in the direction of the compromise solution.
Senator Milne: Mr. Radwanski, you are undoubtedly aware, because I have told you in the past, that the compromise solution at which your predecessor arrived was due to a longstanding evolution in his own position. He began, when I first came to the Senate, with a trash and burn approach to the Census of Canada.
By the time he arrived at the compromise solution, he had gone a long way. I understood that you agreed with him and that you would support his position at that point.
Mr. Radwanski: I did not agree with him.
Senator Milne: Your position has not evolved since then, as his was evolving. I think it behooves you to think about that.
Mr. Radwanski: That is fair, senator, and if you would like to wait another five years, I will be happy to let you know if my position has evolved as his did.
Senator Milne: I will be glad to question your report at that point.
Mr. Radwanski: If this committee were willing to hold off on this bill for five years, we can talk further.
Senator Milne: Pardon me, but I think it is important that senators realize that, under the 1901 census, an enumerator was not permitted to show schedules to any other person, make or keep a copy of them, or answer any other question. There is another section, in the same instructions to the census takers, that points out the census is intended to be a permanent record and its schedules will be stored in the Archives of the Dominion. At that time, I believe everything that was in the Archives of the Dominion was eventually made public.
The 1901 census has been out since 1993 and there has not been a single complaint about invasion of privacy in that regard.
There have not been, I believe, any problems with the diminution of Canadian confidence in Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada enjoys one of the highest reputations in the world for statistics-taking and the fact that the 1901 census was released, as was every previous census was also released after 92years, has never taken away from their reputation.
The 1906 census is now out and identical wording of the same two instructions to census takers is in the instructions for the 1906 census. In the 1911 census, not yet released, instructions to officers and commissioners contains identical wording. In 1918, of course, the act changed and therefore the situation changed.
It is important to realize that Statistics Canada has an unassailable reputation. Releasing the records 92 years after the fact has been demonstrated never to have had any effect on the taking of a census, and I do not believe it will in the future.
Mr. Radwanski: Is that a question?
Senator Milne: Senators are allowed to make statements.
Mr. Radwanski: I am trying to figure out to which aspects I should try to respond.
First, each subsequent census has become more detailed in terms of the kind of information sought which, of course, raises the sensitivity exponentially as we go forward. The early censuses were quite basic.
Second, falling back on my experience as a journalist in the old days when I ran a newspaper, 100-year-olds did not write a lot of letters to the editor complaining about this and that. Therefore, I am not sure that the lack of complaints from 90-plus-year-olds or 100-year-olds is evidence of acceptance. I am also not certain that it is okay for the Government of Canada to break its word so long as no one complains.
When I speak of the concern about degrading credibility, I am not speaking only of the credibility of Statistics Canada, although it would be adversely affected — and I can imagine no one in a better position to know whether things are of concern to Statistics Canada than the Chief Statistician, and he is very concerned. Therefore, I do not easily accept the suggestion that it would have no effect on the credibility of Statistics Canada, but my point more broadly is that this would do nothing good for the credibility of the Government of Canada as a whole. If government undertakings of confidentiality are subject to review, we have a real problem.
We keep coming back to the issue of instructions to census takers and so forth. I would have to be persuaded that there is evidence that people who answered questions knew or were told that at some future time this information could be made widely available. I have not seen such evidence. I am told that there was nothing in the newspapers of the time that indicated that people were being told that the information would be confidential for a while but would eventually be made public. That would be informative. Ambiguities in instructions to census takers and such technical details do not go to the core of the issue, with all due respect, senator.
You and I do not agree on this point. I do not mean to fight with you about it.
Senator Milne: We will never agree on this point, Mr. Radwanski.
I point out to senators that this is a government bill supported by the government. It has been spoken to by the head of Statistics Canada, who also supports the bill. I will leave it at that.
The Deputy Chairman: The head of Statistics Canada is in the room. He may want to come to the table at some point if he has a comment to make.
Senator Murray: I think Mr.Radwanski knows that I fully share his concerns. He is right that there is no ambiguity in the wording of the various regulations and in the statutes that are relevant here. Contradiction exists in a couple of key legal opinions produced by the Department of Justice. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that they made a 360-degree turn at one point. I think it is also fair to say that the turnaround in the legal opinion is what drove the process that led to this compromise bill.
It is not for me to speak for the government or how it felt about it, but it was clear that perhaps it thought a bill of this kind was the lesser evil, or the better solution, rather than protracted litigation, the results of which they could not foresee, so they came up with this bill.
As Senator Milne has pointed out, it is the result of quite a careful compromise among the National Archivist, the Chief Statistician— both of whom spoke here at our last meeting— and perhaps some others. Your own role in the matter, by the way, is covered in the questions and answers put out by the government with this bill. Question No. 6 is: Does the Privacy Commissioner support the change in legislation? The answer was: The Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on the issue of the release of historical census and we are grateful for his helpful advice regarding safeguarding personal information.
In previous lives I have drafted non-answers like that, and I have even given a few like that. I hope you will be glad to know that they are grateful for your helpful advice.
Mr. Radwanski: I have been told that before.
Senator Murray: I am quite sensitive to the dilemma that not only the government but also Statistics Canada, the National Archivist and others faced on this issue once they received amended legal advice, and this bill is what they have produced. That is what led me to support the bill at second reading as an honourable compromise, and I would still support it. I have not recently examined the other compromise position that was worked out by you or your predecessor, although I examined it at the time. I take for granted that it fell off the table at some point in the negotiations.
I do not really have a question on this. I simply, by way of explanation, say that because the various parties that I thought had a proper and legitimate interest in the matter had come to an agreement that preserved what they regard as their essential principles, and because I was sensitive to their wish to avoid the worst by way of litigation, I thereby supported and continue to support the bill.
Mr. Radwanski: Senator, I first must differ with one point, that being that all the parties with an interest in this came to an agreement. The institutional parties, perhaps, did, but I do not know that the other party also affected, which is the general public of Canada, had an opportunity to come to an agreement. That is one concern.
I have either forgotten or was not aware that the Chief Statistician was supportive of this bill. It disappoints me because it raises precisely the spectre that he was concerned about it in the past.
I still come back to asking myself why we are presented with this bill. As I understand it, there are two issues. One is genealogical research.
Senator Milne: And historical and legal.
Mr. Radwanski: Yes, and historical research.
In my view, the compromise position, which at the time seemed to be supported by all the relevant parties, and which went much less far than this, addressed both, I thought, in a very reasonable way.
Senator Morin: Could you repeat the compromise?
Mr. Radwanski: Yes. I have a copy with me if the clerk wants it.
Senator Morin: May we have it now?
Mr. Radwanski: Do you want me to read the whole thing?
Senator Morin: No, we will have it photocopied.
Mr. Radwanski: I do not want to do it an injustice by being too superficial about it. Basically, it said that individuals wishing to do genealogical research about their families could do so. The information would remain nominally held by Statistics Canada, although it would be physically at the National Archives. Individuals could register to conduct genealogical research on their families. They would have to sign confidentiality undertakings. They would, in effect, deemed to be employees of Statistics Canada, and therefore be subject to the Statistics Act in terms of having to obey confidentiality. They could do research on their families to their hearts' content.
The information would likewise be available to historians doing bone fide peer-reviewed historical research. A variety of safeguards and provisions were built in.
Senator Morin: After how many years could a person access the information?
Mr. Radwanski: To be truthful, I would have to look back at that, but I think that it was 92 years.
Senator Milne: It was after 92 years.
Mr. Radwanski: To me, that was a fair and reasonable—
Senator Morin: Including after 2006?
Mr. Radwanski: That would be the plan henceforth.
I thought it was a fair and reasonable compromise. It addressed the issues with which we are ostensibly concerned, genealogy and history.
Why we have to go to something so much more far-reaching, with far fewer safeguards, is simply not clear to me. That is my response to Senator Murray's comment about supporting this bill out of some sense of need.
Draft legislation could have been crafted around the compromise which would achieve the goal and been much more privacy sensitive.
Senator Roche: My questions concern the amendments. I feel it is unfair to ask Mr.Radwanski about those, because he has already indicated that he is hesitant to give a professional view of these amendments, although he is here in a professional capacity.
I am interested in finding a manner of bridging the bill, as it exists, with the compromise that Mr.Radwanski has just elaborated on, which I have not read. Mr.Radwanski, is it possible to build a bridge between the bill, as it now exists, and the compromise that you described that was not accepted? Do these amendments build that bridge? If you do not want to answer the question of whether the amendments build a bridge, can you describe how a bridge could be built between the bill, as it now exists, and the compromise that would be acceptable to you, sir?
Mr. Radwanski: I would have to study the bill in detail very carefully to be able to do that.
I am not sure the ability to bridge would be as easy as returning to the amendment approach. For instance, when we say that, beginning 112 years after the census was taken, anyone would have unrestricted access to the past censuses, which is in this bill, how do you bridge unrestricted access with a promise of perpetual confidentiality? I do not think that you can bridge it. Frankly, it opens this information to data mining and God knows what. I do not think that it can be bridged.
It is based on a different concept. One was a restrictive concept. This is an expansive concept. It is a very different philosophical approach to what is being pursued. Likewise, the opening up of information to anyone 92 years after the census in the post-2006 censuses changes the nature of the census process.
Senator Roche: My second question relates to the amendments.
Mr. Radwanski: You could ask me about the general thrust of them, but I cannot study them adequately in the time available to respond in detail.
Senator Roche: I understand. Madam Chair, I will reserve my other comments until we get into discussion of the bill.
Senator Kinsella: Commissioner, the discussion of the last few moments really concerns me because, when we begin to talk about negotiating or compromising a human right, I am always fearful that the substantive right comes out the loser.
I want to go back to the fundamental principle. Is it not so that under the Statistics Act the citizen is compelled, in the public interest, to give up to the state certain private information and certain elements of his or her privacy? The sacred undertaking is that that is held private. It is collected by the state, and the citizen is required to give that information because the state or Parliament has concluded that it is in the public interest of Canada.
The rationale for this bill speaks not to public interest but, rather, private interest. Therefore, from a standpoint of the privacy right, how do you analyze the balance between what is done and the limitation?
There is the section 1 Charter approach to provide limitations to the right of privacy in a free and democratic society when done in the public interest, as opposed to what is proposed here of diminishing that right in the private interest.
Mr. Radwanski: That is an excellent question. Certainly, there is no question about the reasonableness in general of collecting census information in the public interest for statistical purposes.
Some of those private interests can also be, in an aggregated fashion, a societal interests. It is worth taking that into account. For instance, one could certainly make the argument that history is a societal interest, a public interest. You could make the argument that the right of individuals to know about their own families has elements of a societal interest and a public interest. People knowing their own origins may in some instances hold, potentially, a public health interest, as I have said. If individuals know certain things about their families, it may help them.
One falls back to saying that privacy is a fundamental and crucial right. It is not an absolute right. It is not unreasonable to try to interpret it to achieve good purposes without harming privacy inherently.
I have no great difficulty saying that genuine historians, subject to certain clear safeguards, could have access to this information after 92 years. They will not be distilling detailed personal information about the average man in the street. They will not be doing it for narrow commercial purposes, or to blackmail anyone. I have no great difficulty with that.
I know that there is a strong and growing interest in genealogy. I do not think any great harm arises from people being able, after a certain amount of time, 92 years, to research their own families, as long as they are constrained about what they can do with incidental information that they gather.
I am desperately uncomfortable with that philosophically. I am uncomfortable when those two interests, for reasons that I do not fully understand, are expanded or used as a Trojan Horse for much broader legislation, which I do not find necessary. That is where I would draw the balance.
Senator Kinsella: Is it your assessment that Bill S-13 might meet the general principles of the test you have described when it starts off, but when you go through it in detail, it goes way beyond what would be reasonable?
Mr. Radwanski: Or what is necessary to achieve those purposes.
Senator Kinsella: A little earlier in your testimony, you made reference to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its articulation of the right of privacy. I believe you will find the right to privacy also in the International Human Rights Covenants. While many would argue the universal declaration is part and parcel of the customary international human rights law, there is no doubt at all that the covenants are part of the treaty law that binds Canada. Since 1976, Canada has ratified those covenants. Therefore, do you think that Bill S-13, if adopted, would place Canada in the embarrassing situation of a communication being filed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through the optional protocol, and Canada being found not in compliance with the obligation to protect privacy rights?
Mr. Radwanski: It is an excellent question, senator. However, I will, with greatest respect, decline to answer it, only because I do not want to give legal advice on something that my office and I have not studied. It certainly is a very legitimate question, but I would be going outside the range of what I know for certain if I tried to answer.
Senator Kinsella: Since you have been the Privacy Commissioner, have you received very many complaints that touch on this issue in a general way?
Mr. Radwanski: I have not received complaints in the formal sense of anyone asking me to investigate anything. I have received, as I would guess some members of this committee have, quite a load of correspondence from irate genealogists calling me and my position a threat to their right to know about their families. These are letters written with a striking internal similarity to each other. I have received calls and some letters from people expressing concern about this principle of the government breaking its word; but I would not say the numbers have been high, apart from this orchestrated campaign on the genealogy side.
Senator Kinsella: Did you receive many complaints from Canadians who say, for example, under the Employment Insurance Act, there has been a breach of their privacy because of information they have provided; or that their privacy has been breached through information that the government has under the law that authorizes the issuance of passports?
Mr. Radwanski: The crux of our work is to investigate complaints that information has been somehow improperly used or disclosed. I would have to say, on balance, speaking very broadly, the government is good and improving at not improperly disclosing information in its possession. However, it does happen; and when it does happen, it is a very serious matter.
It is also true that there are a great many instances where people feel that their information was improperly used or disclosed when, in fact, it turns out to have been within the law. The Privacy Act is quite broad in terms of what departments can do with program authority, and there are very broad provisions for information sharing. However, if the question is, ``Are people often affronted by how their information is used or disclosed?'' the answer would be, ``Yes, in considerable numbers.''
Senator Léger: The bills that we are studying now — or anything that goes on in the government — I imagine are things for today and tomorrow, not yesterday. With the speed things are going in 2003, by the time it is 2095, it will seem like 920 years have passed instead of 92, things are going so fast.
My question is: Does this apply only to the census? Today, information is being collected everywhere. Radio Shack wants to know everything about my life. The hospitals can reveal how my mother and father died, even if I do not do it. Does this only apply to census information, or are we dealing with something larger?
Mr. Radwanski: No. First, when you talk about Radio Shack and so forth, as I am sure you know, there is a new privacy law governing the private sector that is being phased in. It is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPED Act, which started coming into effect in 2001. Right now, it covers federal works and undertakings, banking, transportation, broadcasting and telecommunications. Next January, it will apply to the whole private sector across Canada, except where provinces have passed substantially similar laws of their own, and then the similar provincial law will apply.
This law, as I said, has very clear privacy protection principles, namely, that no one in the private sector, in the commercial sector, can collect, use or disclose personal information about you without your consent. It can collect, use or disclose it only for the purposes for which you gave consent. Even with consent, it can only collect, use or disclose information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances. That prevents coerced consent. You have the right to see the information that is held about you and correct inaccuracies, and there is oversight and redress through my office.
When this bill is fully in effect — and there are similar provincial laws that apply to the provincial sector, the health sector, for instance — it will not be so easy for private interests to disclose information about you without your permission. In fact, it will be very difficult indeed.
Senator Léger: Would it be illegal?
Mr. Radwanski: Yes, if it were disclosed without your consent, it would be illegal. It would be violating the PIPED Act. That is subject to the oversight of myself and my office, and there are sanctions attached.
Senator Léger: You mentioned that you had been a journalist. Of course, no one wrote letters to the editor when my grandfather was around in 1901. In fact, my grandfather could not even write, and he was not alone in that. However, I can only imagine the almost impossible task of retaining control today. I am not saying we should not do anything, but the reality is that sometimes we think ``small.''
Mr. Radwanski: If I understand correctly what you are saying, I would agree with you in this sense. I have said, since I took on this position, that I believe that privacy will be the defining issue of this decade. I was saying that even before September11. I was saying that because as long as information about us was in paper records and scattered all over the place, someone would have to go to a great deal of trouble to systematically invade the privacy of any one of us by collecting a lot of information.
Now, with information technology, surveillance technologies, et cetera, the balance has changed. We, as individuals and as a society, have to go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that what should be private remains private. That is, I guess, the kind of thing we are discussing today.
Senator Milne: Since Mr. Radwanski has emphasized that the government should not be breaking promises ever, even 92 years after a promise was not made in the first place, I believe it also should not break the promise that was made in the regulations about the taking of those censuses. These matters should be stored in the Archives of the Dominion and should be there for future reference. In 1931 and 1941, the term is explicitly ``for future reference.'' It was always the intention of the Government of Canada that these records would eventually be made public. That is what this bill attempts to do, and I urge senators to support it.
Mr. Radwanski: I do not know if I should respond to an urging, rather than a question. I would have said that the compromise position proposal would have met that rather nicely. The data would have been physically deposited at the National Archives and it would have been available for future reference by people doing genealogical research on their families and by historians. Setting aside the other commitment, I do not see in that language any requirement that it be thrown open indiscriminately. There are ways, even if one wanted to meet that, that would be met without going as far as this legislation.
I will digress for a moment. This is very interesting. I see the excellent attendance at this table, senators. I see an almost full committee room, talking about the release of census data and about important precedent.
I reflect on the very important issues that I raised in my annual report this year, particularly about some of the post- September 11 security measures and the current atmosphere. I issued a statement about one of them today; mercifully, we have been able to resolve the CCRA database issue in a satisfactory way with the CCRA.
I wish we could pay this much attention to the huge privacy issues we are facing now, which will transform our whole society if we are not careful, and not just become bogged down in something that I think could be resolved in a similar fashion. If we are going a little broad afield with questions, I have indulged in going a bit afield with the answer.
The Deputy Chairman: I would say you were allowed, Mr.Radwanski.
Senator Murray: I cannot forbear to follow up Senator Léger's comment about commercial information with a simple comment and move on.
A couple of Parliaments ago, we passed a bill relating to personal information collected for commercial purposes. It was not a bad bill in all; however, something went through there that would permit the release, 20 years after your death, of personal information collected for commercial purposes in the private sector. I think that is outrageous and, if it is the last thing I do, I will get an amendment to that bill some day.
We have discussed this subject before and we should discuss it again when you come to the Senate, which is whether we should not be thinking about enshrining a right to privacy in the Charter of Rights. I know that is a taller order. Your predecessor, and perhaps you too, have been in favour of that. I think we should consider it very seriously.
Mr. Radwanski: I have not, senator. I have been concerned about not creating a kind of two-track or two-level system of privacy protection in Canada. I think we have a good developing regime of privacy law with the Privacy Act and the private sector law. If, in addition to that, you had a generalized Charter protection, my concern would be that, first of all, as we have encountered on some privacy issues already, only those with considerable resources could use that. Others would use the existing laws to which I referred. The danger is that you could end up with serious inconsistencies in what the courts find on the one hand and the attempt to apply on the other. It would not necessarily do so, but I am not persuaded that the effect would be to strengthen day-to-day privacy protection.
I am interested in what the courts are doing in terms of some of their current rulings on privacy. I saw in The Toronto Star today that the Chief Justice made remarks in a CBC broadcast speaking to the importance of not excessively sacrificing liberties in the name of security, post-September 11. I am not unhopeful that, as things stand, there will be increasing recognition of privacy by the courts as a Charter right that is already readable into the current provisions.
Senator Murray: One of the things we would not have had to do if we had a privacy right in the Charter is exempt journalistic activity from the ambit of the privacy bill we passed a couple of Parliaments ago. The Charter rights would be there, alongside the rights to free speech that journalists would invoke in a given case.
However, Mr. Radwanski, looking at the previous compromise, which seems to have fallen off the table and the compromise that is reflected in Bill S-13, could you point the committee to the substantive differences there? We have the bill and we also have a pretty good description of what the draft regulations will look like under Bill S-13. I have a copy here of what is called a draft for consultation purposes. However, it is the application that would authorize somebody to do historical research, or those persons authorized to approve historical research. That kind of thing is available to the committee, and I presume to the public.
Can you point us to the main differences between this proposal and Bill S-13?
Mr. Radwanski: In a general sense, the one difference is the throwing wide open after 102 years. There is nothing like that here. That is a huge difference. There are far more restrictions and safeguards in the proposal. However, Dr.Fellegi just whispered in my ear that he would be able to summarize the differences. He has lived with this more closely than I have, so perhaps we can ask him to explain.
The scope, safeguards and confidentiality undertakings are different. When you speak of regulation, I am of the general view that, when we are dealing with important matters of rights, I would rather see key provisions spelled out in law, rather than in regulation. Regulations are extraordinarily easy to change without the kind of debate we are witnessing here.
Senator Murray: I agree; however, it is a step forward when they provide them in draft form before the bill goes through.
Mr. Radwanski: It is only a step forward if they do not amend them six months later in a similar debate.
Senator Morin: Commissioner, I would like to come back to the parallel between the August 2000 compromise and the bill. In effect, both of them are compromises. The August 2000 one has the advantage of simplicity, because only the information dealing with family genealogical history or historical research validated by peer review will be released after 92 years. It is very simple.
The bill we have before us is extremely complex in the 92-year, 112-year release to the family and to the general public. There is, as you have said, a very imperfect consent form that does not exist under the August2000 compromise.
Both of them are compromises and I think you agreed to that earlier when you stated that there will be some identification information that might get out under historical research. I personally think that one has the advantage of simplicity.
What is the point of releasing this information to the general public when the only two issues are genealogical research and historical research?
Mr. Radwanski: I agree on the latter point entirely. It is not only a matter of degree. Releasing to the general public is a vastly different matter than releasing for only two narrow purposes, both carefully circumscribed to prevent inappropriate uses, particularly as we look into electronic means. If all this information becomes electronically available in one way or another, there is data-mining potential, although I do not know what it could be used for. I know that personal information of this kind should not be flung open precisely because we do not know how it could be used.
To be totally candid with you, I did not particularly like the earlier approach that I endorsed. I do not particularly like this whole issue. I did not want to reopen something that, through a great deal of effort, had been worked out by my predecessor and others. I thought it appropriate that, after all the thought and work that went into this, it was better to leave well enough alone than to reopen it and risk a worse outcome— something like this bill. Therefore, I decided to sign on, albeit not as an enthusiastic supporter, merely to get it off the table. If one is going to do this, I believe that the least intrusive and most circumscribed way is the best. That approach was minimalist. This one I find maximalist, so I prefer the earlier approach.
Those of you who take an interest in these things know that there are issues on which I have dug in and have regarded it as my duty to mount a campaign to raise awareness, to lead the debate and to muster all the support I could. I do not put this issue in that category, not because it is not important but because one has to choose one's battles and there are other issues — other than the issue of the government's word, which I think is important — that will affect our lives much more dramatically and directly than this. Therefore, I will not go on a crusade about this, but it does concern me very much.
Senator Cordy: I want to return to something that is still not clear in my mind, that being the differences between the law that governed the 1906 census and the law that governed the 1911 and the 1916 censuses. As you mentioned earlier, we have all received great volumes of information on this bill from individual stakeholders.
I received a letter from the co-chair of the Canada Census Committee. That letter reads, in part, as follows:
...the 1911 and 1916 records that were taken under the same legislative statute and similar instructions to enumerators as was the 1906 census that has been made available without restrictions or conditions of any kind. In releasing the 1906 records without restriction the government has conceded that existing legislation allows them to do so. There is no valid reason why the 1911 and 1916 censuses should be treated any differently.
What are the differences? If the instructions to the enumerators were similar in 1906, 1911 and 1916, and the censuses were conducted under the same legislative statute, why is there a problem with 1911 and 1916 not being treated in a similar fashion?
Mr. Radwanski: That presupposes that the government was right to release the 1906 census, which would not necessarily be my view or the view of those concerned about privacy implications.
I have not found it helpful to immerse myself too deeply in these technical issues of nuances of language between the two. I believe that on any census that has been taken people believed that they were providing confidential information for narrow statistical census purposes and that the information about them would in no way find its way outside.
No one has ever persuaded me, regardless of various nuances, that the exercise of the census was ever presented to Canadians as other than a statistical exercise in which their personal privacy would be safeguarded. Had it been otherwise, we would have seen controversy at the time when people were asked to answer these questions. The absence of such a controversy suggests to me that at all these times people believed this was a relatively harmless and neutral thing to be doing.
I am afraid I cannot be helpful on the legal nuances because I have not studied them.
The Deputy Chairman: The Chief Statistician would like to come to the table, with the indulgence of senators, to make a short statement and comment on some of the responses to the questions he has heard.
Thank you, Mr. Radwanski, for your appearance before us.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr.Fellegi, please keep your remarks as brief as possible.
Dr. Ivan P. Fellegi, Chief Statistician, Statistics Canada: My comments are prompted by the discussions and the possibility of clarifying some of the points that were raised.
The first question I should like to address is the difference between the compromise to which the Privacy Commissioner reluctantly agreed and the compromise that Bill S-13 incorporates.
The original compromise reached between the Privacy Commissioner and Statistics Canada, albeit not with the National Archivist, involved access after 92 years for genealogical purpose— meaning restricted basic tombstone information— to one's own family, for genealogical purposes, with no release beyond the family and, for historical research, access after 92 years for peer-reviewed research proposals.
In some ways, Bill S-13 goes beyond the compromise in two directions. In any compromise, there is give and take. One cannot push in one direction only. One needs to maintain the essential balance that is a compromise.
The second compromise gave ground on the release side by saying that after 112 years access is unrestricted while for historical research it need not be fully peer reviewed. It is on the basis of one credible reference person saying that something has public merit. The regulations outline the kinds of reference persons who can say such. It is not what academics would call a full peer review. That is the ground that was given on the release direction.
The other side, however, concerns future censuses — and as Chief Statistician, I am particularly concerned about that one; I want to maintain the cooperation of the Canadian public — that there would be meaningful informed consent. Frankly, I do not consider opt-out a meaningful consent, particularly when one takes into account the kinds of circumstance in which families respond to census questions. They do not necessarily read the small print, and if they do not respond, it does not necessarily mean that they agree.
Should that ever become a major public issue, as any newspaper could potentially make it a major issue, the credibility of Statistics Canada to maintain confidentiality would be at question. I have been around for 36 years, and I have taken many censuses; I know that the census is a unique instrument. I will come back to that.
That is the difference between the two comprises. There was ground given on the access side and ground given on the protection side. On the protection side, it is informed consent for future censuses. On the release side, it is the 112- year and beyondunrestricted access. In the period of 98 years to 112 years, it is not peer-reviewed for historical research but on the basis of the say of some competent people. That is the difference between the two compromises.
My major point is that the census is a unique instrument. It is unique because it is compulsory. There is no option for responding. On the other hand, it is different from any other personal information. When Canadians give their information to their physicians, it is in their interest to do so. They get something personally out of it: They get treatment. In terms of providing information to an insurance company, Canadians have the option of deciding whether they want the insurance badly enough to give the information to the insurance company. If not, they will not provide the personal information.
The census is different. We do not give anything of value to that person. We can only promise them confidentiality. Let us not muck around with it. It is sacred. It is the basis of the social contract. On the one hand, we force you to respond. On the other hand, you do not get anything back from us except the promise of confidentiality.
My third point is that many references have been made to the excellent reputation of Statistics Canada. I am very proud of that, and I have worked my life to achieve that reputation. I have devoted my life to it.
I implore you to take my word: We can lose trust on this issue. We may not lose our professional reputation as being very competent, but if people do not trust us with their personal information, we are out of business. That does not matter. The information that we provide will not be available. That does matter.
My last point is that it is very easy to argue on the basis of principles. I could easily defend not giving any ground whatsoever on confidentiality issue, protect it forever, do not compromise. Intellectually, it is easy to defend that argument. It is much more difficult to defend intellectually a compromise. However, I fully support this compromise, because I realize the value of offsetting public goods, even though I am responsible for only one of those two public goods— statistical information. I am not responsible for the other one, but I am a public servant, and I understand the value of offsetting public goods. I fully endorse this compromise.
The amendments on the table violate the compromise in a fundamental way. I would urge you to vote against it.
Senator Roche: Thank you for your statement, Mr.Fellegi.
In many respects, this issue comes down to a question of trust. The witness who preceded you this afternoon said that he feared that the consequences of this bill would cast real doubt on the formal word of the government concerning privacy. He feared that it would affect future censuses.
Are you concerned about the integrity of future censuses if this bill passes?
Mr. Fellegi: 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.
Senator Roche: I get the impression that you are rather uncomfortable going this far in respect of the issue of trust.
Mr. Fellegi: I support this bill. I convinced myself that this was—
Senator Murray: It was necessary. Speak to that point. The compromise was made necessary by the evolution of government legal opinion.
Mr. Fellegi: There are conflicting legal opinions in terms of the past censuses. That, of course, concerns me. It concerns me much more how Canadians will react to whatever we do. I am confident that this bill has the right balance.
The Deputy Chairman: You do not support the amendments?
Mr. Fellegi: I certainly do not support the amendments. In fact, I plead that they should not be passed.
Senator Roche: Under the bill itself, without amendments, would I, as a Canadian citizen, compelled to participant in the next census, have reason to not the trust the Government of Canada with the information that I will give them?
Mr. Fellegi: No. I am talking about the census, not the broader question of general trust in government. For future censuses, there would be a question about whether the respondent agrees that 92 years after the census date the information could be made public. If the answer were ``yes,'' it would be made public. If the answer were ``no,'' it would not be made public. That is a simple message to sell in the 20 seconds that we might have to either gain or lose the cooperation of a household during the census.
Senator Roche: I would have no legitimate reason to say, as a Canadian citizen, ``I do not trust the Canadian government because they invoked Bill S-13.''
Mr. Fellegi: I would certainly say you would not.
Senator Kinsella: Just so that it is clear in my mind, would you be more comfortable as Chief Statistician if there were no bill? Is your fallback position that you certainly do not want these proposed amendments but that, as a matter of practicality, under all of the circumstances and the totality of the machinery of government, et cetera, you are able to support Bill S-13?
Mr. Fellegi: No, it is more than that. We do need a clarification because there are conflicting legal opinions. As I said, the issue is not legal in my mind. At the heart of it, it is really about doing the right thing and about how we protect the future of census taking in Canada.
However, at the same time, one cannot ignore that there are conflicting legal opinions. In fact, it might well be that the legal opinion would say, everything considered, censuses should be released after 92 years without restrictions. That may well be what the courts decide.
Certainly, the latest legal opinion we have from the Department of Justice says that is the better opinion. They flip- flopped, as Senator Murray said. I should not say flip-flopped; they changed their mind. That is legitimate. As additional information becomes available, people do change their minds. At any rate, their latest view is that, as things stand now, from a purely legal perspective, the census may not be fully protected after 92 years. Some clarification is needed.
Senator Kinsella: This would not have been the kind of proposal that Statistics Canada would have initiated. However, having been initiated, is this particular model one that you can live with?
Mr. Fellegi: If I put had blinders on and had just looked at what is right for Statistics Canada, this is not the bill I would have come up with. However, I hasten to add, I do believe in the real world. There are other goods than statistical confidentiality, and those other goods — genealogical and historical research — have validity. Therefore, it is not a lukewarm endorsement. I fully endorse this bill as it stands, as what I think is a reasonable compromise.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Dr.Fellegi, for coming to the table for your testimony.
Senator Murray: For those of you who are not avid readers, as I am, of the Cape Breton Post, you should go to their Web site. This morning, there was a report that a Canadian citizen living in Cape Breton was fined by the courts for refusing to fill in the short census form. When the judge asked the Cape Bretoner why he did not fill in the form, and reminded him that he was breaking the law, the individual replied: ``They already have that information.'' He said, ``They keep coming to me from various parts of the government, and I keep giving it to them, and I said `enough is enough', so I refused to fill in the short form.'' Whereupon, he was fined a couple of hundred dollars and away he went.
Let me review the bidding for a moment. We have had two unsuccessful private member's bills on this subject, sponsored by Senator Milne. Five years passed, as she reminded us at second reading. There were seven months of negotiation, a compromise about which we have heard today, brokered, to his credit, by the Minister of Industry, by the government. Among the parties to that compromise were Senator Milne, speaking for the many people who share her concerns on these issues, the Chief Statistician and Statistics Canada, the National Archives, and perhaps others in the government. The bill was brought in.
I supported the bill at second reading and continue to support it. Once the compromise was announced and the bill was in the public domain, various people came forward, seeking to get more out of the exercise and wanting to improve the bill from their perspective. There is nothing surprising about that, nor anything wrong with it.
There is not even anything wrong with an honourable senator bringing forward amendments to the bill. That is her right. However, I think that any amendment to this bill must meet the test of the compromise and agreement among those parties. I cannot imagine that the government or a senior minister in the government would agree, having done the deal, to any change that was opposed by one or other of the parties to the agreement.
That is not the way to conduct business. I think the government knows that.
You see what I am leading up to. I know there are two amendments in circulation. To put it mildly, we would need more time to reflect if we are forced to deal with those amendments. On the other hand, I am prepared to see this bill reported without amendment. It was a government bill, sponsored for the government in the Senate by Senator Milne. I am prepared to see it reported without amendment and go right to third reading and Royal Assent as quickly as can be. I will put my feelings to the test by making a motion to that effect. If, on the other hand, we are into amendments, then there will be a fight here, ultimately. There will certainly be a fight in the Senate about it.
We will be back to square one as far as I am concerned, because the consensus will have unravelled. Let me put my conviction to the test and move, unusually for an opposition senator, that Bill S-13 be reported without amendment.
Senator Morin: Can I second it?
The Deputy Chairman: It is not necessary.
Honourable senators, it has been moved by the Honourable Senator Murray that the committee dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-13, to amend the Statistics Act, and refer it back unamended to the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Now we will have discussion.
Senator Morin: I should like to totally support what Senator Murray just said. The government does not support those amendments. The bill itself is a compromise. It is not perfect, I have many issues with it; however, as it is a compromise of all parties, I fully support the bill.
As it is a compromise to which all parties agreed, I also do not think there should be any amendments.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Senator Morin.
Senator Kinsella: I do not like the bill. There are many things I do not like in it. I did not like the idea of compromising the right to privacy, but I listened to the Privacy Commissioner very carefully and, more important, the testimony this afternoon of the Chief Statistician. He impressed me with his testimony, to the effect that Bill S-13, as before us unamended, would not harm the public interest in terms of the work of Statistics Canada. Therefore, I would support Senator Murray's motion.
Senator Roche: I have been somewhat nervous about the bill itself. I thought Senator Murray's eloquent appraisal of the situation here, as he reviewed the bidding, as he put it, was very useful. He conveyed much of my thinking, so I will not repeat the arguments, except to associate myself with what Senator Murray said. Bringing myself to join a consensus for passage of the bill unamended is difficult for me, but I will do it. However, I would absolutely oppose the amendments I have seen drafted, and I fervently hope that the motion by Senator Murray will carry.
Senator Fraser: I have two points to make. First, I believe that if any senator wishes to move an amendment, that senator should have the right to do so. Therefore, I would support that senator's right even if I wholeheartedly disagreed with the amendments and planned to vote against them. In the event, if we come to vote on the amendments that have been circulated, I will vote for them because I believe that they faithfully reflect what I understood to be the intention of the government and of this bill in the first place.
Committee members know that I have not been a member of this committee, but I have been following this issue. Practically the first speech I made in the Senate was on this matter. My only problem with the bill as it would stand amended, if it were to be amended, is that is it still does not go far enough. I would take a far more sweeping approach to the opening of the records, but that is not on the table before us, and I would not presume to intrude into the proceedings and move such an amendment. That would be altogether wrong.
I do, however, believe that, if a senator wishes to move an amendment, that senator should be able to do so.
Senator Murray: Not only do I not disagree with that, I do not think that my motion should preclude a senator from moving an amendment if he or she wants to do so. Indeed, when I am in the Chair, I take the position that it takes leave to dispense with clause-by-clause, as is my belief. However, I wanted to put to the test my view that, ultimately, we should report this bill without amendment.
Senator Cordy: Hearing a former Leader of the Government in the Senate who is now in opposition say that he has moved the immediate passage of a government bill makes it extremely tempting to say, ``Let's forget the amendments.'' However, I will not be doing that for a number of reasons.
I asked the Privacy Commissioner today to tell me the difference between the 1906 census and 1911 and 1916 censuses. Senator Milne had raised this earlier and I still did not understand it. In response to me, the Privacy Commissioner said that he did not bother with those kinds of things and just does not like giving out more information. I am interested in this. He was here to talk about the bill. Perhaps he did not know about the amendment, but he certainly knows about what happened with the 1906 census and whether there were differences between the two. I assumed from what he said that he does not bother about those things because there is no difference, which is the information I received in correspondence from people who are very interested in receiving genealogical information.
On the second amendment with regard to opting versus opting out, my preference would be that there be nothing whatsoever other than an indicator that this information will be released to the public in 92 years. I believe that would be sufficient but, as a compromise, I would be willing to go with an opting-out clause rather than an opting-in clause.
Senator Murray: For clarification, would Senator Cordy reassure me and the committee that she is not speaking for the government on this matter?
Senator Cordy: I am speaking for myself.
Senator Murray: Thank you. As far as the government is concerned, it honours the compromise that was achieved and is reflected in Bill S-13.
Senator Cordy: The amendments are my amendments.
Senator Murray: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Léger: I understand that private interests are protected and public interests will not have a right to the information. I have not studied the amendments. Senator Murray said there would be a fight. I am tired of fights.
It is very difficult for me to know what to do. I understand that Bill S-13 is complete. I have not studied the amendments, although perhaps I should have. However, can we not simplify things?
The Deputy Chairman: There is a motion on the floor from Senator Murray to pass the bill without amendment.
Senator Cook: Senator Milne wishes to speak to this. I have been in the Senate for five years, and throughout that time she has faithfully put this vision forward. I hear that a compromise has been reached with this bill. I hear Senator Murray saying that there is an element of risk that this will all go down the drain if the next step is taken.
Senator Milne: I am the sponsor of the bill and, as such, I have a responsibility to support the government position on it. The government position at this time is that it will accept no amendments.
The Deputy Chairman: I will repeat the motion that we will now vote on.
It is moved by Senator Murray that the committee dispense with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-13, to amend the Statistics Act.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Will those who support Senator Murray's motion please raise your hands?
Senator Milne: Is Senator Kinsella on the committee? I am not.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Kinsella is on the committee.
Will those opposed to the motion please raise your hands?
Senator Murray's motion is carried.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that I report Bill S-13 at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: The motion is carried.
The committee adjourned.