Greetings All. Debate on Senator Lorna Milne's Bill S-15 continued in the Senate on 4 May 2000. The Hon. Joan Fraser spoke in favour of the Bill. While happy to see her support access to Historic Census, she suggests after a longer period than the 92 years currently allowed in the Privacy Act, and I personally would not like to see that happen. I have included in this message the extract from Hansard containing Senator Fraser's speech. If you look carefully you might see a name you recognize. <]:-) Happy Hunting. Gordon ------------------------------------- Statistics Act National Archives of Canada Act Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, for the second reading of Bill S-15, to amend the Statistics Act and the National Archives of Canada Act (census records).-(Honourable Senator LeBreton). Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, I should like to say a few words about Bill S-15, if you will bear with me. I shall bear in mind that the hour is late. I should like first to congratulate Senator Milne for her indefatigable work in this valuable cause. When she began with an inquiry in the last session of Parliament, I think some of us thought that she was talking about something fairly obscure, something that was of interest to a few Canadians, but not really of general importance. Now we know better. This bill addresses what threatens to create a serious gap in Canada's historical record - the policy of Statistics Canada that individual census records from all censuses from 1911 on must remain secret in perpetuity. Statistics Canada believes that this policy is grounded in law and in a promise made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906. Given that belief, Statistics Canada is correct in refusing to make the individual census returns available to researchers, unless instructed to do otherwise by Parliament. There is room for some argument about whether Statistics Canada's belief is correct. I was particularly interested to read a brief by Gordon A. Watts, of Port Coquitlam, B.C., that was submitted to the Minister of Industry's expert panel on the release of historic census records. Mr. Watts has done a careful search of all the parliamentary debates in 1905 and 1906 relating to statistics and the census. He has been unable to discover any place where Sir Wilfrid in fact made this famous promise to Canadians. Indeed, Mr. Watts says there was no debate at all about privacy, confidentiality or secrecy relating to information regarding identifiable individuals - no debate at all. There was a major debate in 1905 about the new act respecting the census and statistics, but it did not, he says, touch upon secrecy. What actually happened, apparently, was that secrecy was imposed at that time not by legislation or by a prime ministerial commitment to Parliament but by regulation. The regulations were drawn up by the then minister of agriculture, Sydney Fisher and, under the terms of the act, acquired the force of law. As is so often the case now, as then, there was no debate in Parliament about these regulations. In a later revision of the actual legislation in 1918, they were incorporated into the law itself, presumably because by that time they had become accustomed to practice. Indeed, in practice, the Dominion census had been providing confidentiality for individual returns ever since Confederation, which in 1905 was still fairly recent history, well within the lifetime of most parliamentarians. However, the question of perpetuity does not seem to have been addressed, and that is what concerns us today. [Translation] In fact, Mr. Watts suggests that the famous secrecy surrounding individual records may have been imposed almost by accident or, in any case, as a simple corollary to the rule that corporate records had to be protected, because companies obviously did not want their competitors to have access to details about their operations. I cannot say what Minister Fisher had in mind when these regulations were adopted. However, we can easily conclude, upon reading the instructions given to the employees of what was to become Statistics Canada, that the fundamental point was to reassure Canadians that their records could not be used by other government departments. We could not then and we cannot now use these records for income tax purposes, military service, immigration and so on. This is of course essential for any census in a free and democratic society. However, to say that we can never use these records, even generations later, for legitimate research purposes, seems to me to be going rather far, too far. [English] Even if it is true that Parliament originally intended the records to remain secret forever, it is the job of each succeeding Parliament to reassess past policies in light of present needs. Parliament today has the right to change a decision made by Parliament in the past, even a decision made after lengthy and full debate. When the original decision in question was made by simple regulation, not debated at the time, there is even more reason to revisit it now, nearly a century later. Senator Milne's bill offers a neat solution by having Statistics Canada transfer the individual returns to the national archives, which would, 92 years after each census, then make them available for research in proper archival terms. Ninety-two years is the period that was applied for the release of individual returns in all censuses before 1911, so it has the virtue of consistency. As I suggested here last year, however, I think we should perhaps consider lengthening that term slightly, now that so many people are living well into their nineties. I think it would be appropriate to have a 100-year term or perhaps even a little more. Clearly, we do not wish to invade the privacy of persons who are still alive. The basic principle that these records should become available at some point is, in my view, indisputable. They are simply too important as historical records. They are useful for genealogists like Senator Milne, but also for historians, social scientists and even for some physical scientists such as biologists. (1720) The information they provide is literally irreplaceable, not available from other sources, or not available in this detailed, comprehensive form. Other major countries have considered this dilemma, this need to reconcile the need for privacy with the need for good historical records, and they have concluded that, after a suitable period of secrecy, the individual returns should be made available. Australia and the United States, for example, have both reached that conclusion. I believe that Canada should do likewise. The expert panel is expected to report by the end of this month. I hope it will make appropriate recommendations to end this policy of perpetual secrecy, and if it does make those recommendations, perhaps the government will act accordingly and rapidly. If not, however, Senator Milne's bill is here to ensure that the right thing will in fact be done, and I am more than pleased to support it. On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Johnson, debate adjourned.