Industry Committee on Aug. 27th, 2010

[Dave Rutherford]

I will, if nobody else wants to step up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Rutherford.

[Dave Rutherford]

I'm not sure what you mean, Mr. Masse, about privacy concerns. Do you mean violations in which your information would have been given?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes. I mean you and your family being exposed to loss of personal privacy.

[Dave Rutherford]

I guess, philosophically, if I give information to StatsCan, they admit they sell it to private business. Right?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, as a lump.

[Dave Rutherford]

So if I don't want to give my information to private business, can I philosophically say, “No, I don't want to give it to Statistics Canada”?

What is a violation of privacy?

Again, the woman from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Ms. Vonn, just a moment ago suggested that privacy is their number one concern, except that when it comes to the census, that's okay. I don't understand that logic either.

Mr. Masse, I have not seen a categoric example of someone's privacy being violated by giving it to StatsCan, but if I don't want it to go to a certain business or have it sold—I give it up freely and they sell it—philosophically I have a problem with that. Maybe if they would pay me for it I'd be more inclined voluntarily.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

When Minister Clement was here—and I've gone over his testimony—he said in a response to Mr. Garneau: That was a government decision. There's no question about that. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. We've worked with StatsCan over the months to implement that kind of decision, to make sure that the data that is collected is usable and reliable for the purposes for which it was intended.

The key point to this testimony is the fact that he says he was working with Statistics Canada for a number of months. That would mean that the House of Commons was still in session at that time. So the knowledge and the machinery to change this was actually taking place prior to the recess of the House of Commons.

I'd like to hear, in your opinion—I want opinions—why it is that there has been no legislation tabled to this committee, despite us having actually a very shallow amount of legislation, to eliminate the fine and penalty with regard to the census?

The minister was actively working on eliminating the long-form requirement, keeping the short-form, which is ironic and interesting in that the agricultural census is being maintained with fines and penalties.

In anyone's opinion, why is it that the minister did not eliminate, or table legislation in this committee to eliminate, the penalties that are being professed continually of prisons and fines, and making it assumed that there's going to be basically a census-induced crime wave that needs to be dealt with in this country as we move forward?

I'll invite anyone to offer why that process wasn't actually done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bélisle.

[Denis Bélisle]

I cannot really answer the question as is, in terms of what the political reasons are for there being no legislation tabled. However, my understanding of the matter is that there is a fairly obvious consensus on the issue of penalties associated with the failure to participate in the census. The Canadian government would be ill-advised to send someone to prison for this reason. I have not met anyone who was in favour of this kind of action. I think it is clear why these penalties have become obsolete. There should perhaps be a more clear-cut bill. When I say that the census should be mandatory, that implies that we look at consequences, but not as serious as jail time.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Unfortunately, though, that is the current government policy that is actually in place. The point I've been trying to get across in terms of this basically rogue argument is that legislation has to be tabled in the House of Commons. That won't actually take place before this goes to print, so the government policy will continue to have, as this census rolls out, jail time and penalty time. Does anybody think jail time is appropriate?

They could have dealt with this a lot sooner than now, but legislation has to be tabled. It has to be voted on in the House of Commons. It then has to come to committee if we want to be able to study it, and there's a certain period or window of time in which we deal with it. It goes back to the House of Commons to be finally voted upon, and then it goes to the Senate for them to dispose of it.

Does anybody here think that process can get done prior to the actual census going out?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

One moment. Mr. Lake has a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Lake. You have the floor.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Masse knows that the changes being made don't require legislation.

We will be putting forward legislation to address the prison issue in the fall and we'll hope for his support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Lake. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Masse has the floor. He has posed a question to the witnesses. Does anybody care to respond to his question?

Mr. Rutherford.

[Dave Rutherford]

Mr. Masse, is that a requirement, then?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's my understanding.

My understanding is that it's a requirement. It's not a regulation, it's actually law.

[Dave Rutherford]

So you're suggesting that legislation is required to change the penalty phase as well as the mandatory aspect of the census.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I believe so.

[Dave Rutherford]

If that's the case—I don't know that it is, and others in this room might object—I guess your larger question was, could we possibly do that fast enough? The answer, of course, is yes, if you wanted to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Rutherford.

Mr. Murdoch, I believe you had something to add to that.

[Ken Murdoch]

I'd just indicate that this is the wrong party to ask that question to. The proper place to ask that question is in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Masse.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would also like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Thank you in particular, Ms. Vonn, for your comments. It reminds us that, whatever the outcome of the current discussion we're having, we will have to have consideration of what the alternatives are and the implications in terms of the protection of private information. But I won't go there now.

I want to follow up on Mr. Oh's testimony.

Mr. Oh, you mentioned that the United Way of Peel Region produced community mapping that was very useful. Correct?

[Victor Oh]

Correct.