Debates of Sept. 20th, 2000

Income Tax Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the number of private members' bills that are coming forward are very creative, imaginative and are keeping the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary very busy.

I hope I am not the bad cop today.

I have some sympathy for the member's bill. Before I was elected in 1996, I worked for 20 years in the forestry sector. The workers in this sector are very professional. They are people with whom I have done a lot of work.

As I understand it, the intention of this private member's bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to permit, in certain circumstances, forestry workers to deduct for tax purposes motor vehicle expenses related to travel between their residences and places of work. Deductible costs would include not only the day to day out of pocket expenses required to operate the vehicle, such as gasoline, repairs and maintenance costs, insurance and licence fees, but also capital cost allowances. That is the depreciation on the original cost of the vehicle and interest costs associated with any loan taken out to acquire the vehicle.

This bill raises a number of issues that need to be examined carefully. In examining these issues, a number of policy principles must be considered.

One of the most important tax policy considerations is that of fairness. That is that the tax change be fair, not only to the taxpayers directly affected by the change, but also to all other Canadians.

A second important tax policy consideration is that of simplicity. Can taxpayers understand and comply with the tax change and can the proposed tax change be readily administered and enforced by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency? Another consideration is how the proposed tax change impacts on the fiscal resources of the government.

This bill proposes to permit forestry workers to deduct employment income motor vehicle expenses related to travel between their residence and their place of work. Permitting such a deduction would represent a major departure from a well-established tax policy which has been in place for many years. The cost of driving to and from one's place of employment is considered to be personal driving. As such, costs associated with personal driving are considered to be personal and therefore not deductible.

Before I was first elected in 1996, I spent a number of years in the forestry sector. Even with that predisposition I cannot think of any rationale that would justify providing this benefit to forestry workers but not to workers in other sectors. I agree that forestry workers often have to work far from their home in relatively remote locations whether it is doing silviculture work, tree planting, thinning or spacing or whatever the case may be. However, forestry workers are not unique in this regard. Most employees have to commute to work and incur costs in doing so. Some employees may have to travel relatively long distances, like forestry workers, to remote work locations. However, it would be difficult to justify providing a tax deduction solely for forestry workers, as this private member's bill proposes, at the exclusion of other individuals.

In fact, the issue that this bill raises relates to the much broader issue of the deductibility of employment related expenditures more generally.

Most workers incur costs connected, in one way or another, to their employment. In addition to the cost of commuting to and from their work location, in the past, taxpayers and their representatives have sought tax relief for work related expenditures such as personal computers; professional journals; skills upgrading; business and construction safety clothing; and home office expenses.

Providing tax relief to employees in all of these situations would be a major shift in policy and would result in a significant fiscal cost.

As I mentioned, a second issue that must be carefully considered in examining this bill is that of simplicity. Can taxpayers understand and comply with the tax change and can the proposed tax change be readily administered and enforced by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency?

We already have extensive provisions that permit the deduction of automobile expenses from business and employment income in certain circumstances and within certain limits. These rather extensive provisions are intended to ensure that all taxpayers are treated in a fair and consistent manner. However, taxpayers often express concern about the complexity of these provisions. This bill would only increase the number and length of the provisions devoted to automobiles by providing a unique tax benefit to forestry workers that other employees are not entitled to. By confining this benefit to forestry workers, the bill requires the crafting of a definition of forestry workers eligible for this tax benefit. However, developing an appropriate definition broad enough to include a variety of work situations yet narrow enough to focus the benefit to those taxpayers for which it is intended would be extremely difficult and could lead to increased uncertainty for taxpayers and increased administrative and enforcement concerns for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

I agree that there is a need to reduce the tax burden of Canadians. However, providing focused tax relief to employees in specific sectors is not the way to go. Rather, as outlined by the government in its last three budgets, it is better to provide broad-based tax relief to all Canadians.

In the 2000 budget alone, the government proposed that federal personal income taxes be reduced by an average of at least 15% over the next five years. The proposed budget measures will ultimately benefit each and every Canadian taxpayer by retroactively restoring full indexation of the personal income tax system effective January 1, 2000.

In addition, the budget proposes to: first, reduce the middle income tax rate to 23% from 26%; second, increase the amount of income that Canadians can earn tax free to $8,000; three, raise the income amounts where middle and upper tax rates begin to apply to at least $35,000 and $70,000 respectively; and finally, eliminate the 5% deficit reduction surtax for people with incomes up to $85,000 effective July 2000 and completely phase it out over the following five years.

The budget also provided further support to Canadian families by the expansion of the Canada child tax benefit by $2.5 billion a year to more than $9 billion annually.

The personal income tax cuts proposed are even larger when combined with actions taken in the budgets of 1997, 1998 and 1999. The combined effect is that federal personal income taxes will be cut by an average of 22% over all, 26% for low and middle income Canadians and 30% for families with children by the year 2004-05.

It is important to note that the personal tax cuts outlined in the 2000 budget reflect the least, not the most, that the government will do and we will accelerate those tax measures, I am quite confident, in budget 2001.

I could not agree more that the forestry sector plays an important role in the Canadian economy. I have met and worked with many of these professionals. This sector contributes significantly to our gross domestic product and the large volume of exports contribute significantly to our balance of trade.

This industry provides work to many hard working Canadians. However, for the reasons I mentioned, I hope the members here would support the position I outlined. To create this provision for forestry workers alone, to restrict it and not allow it for other workers in other sectors and to create a precedent with respect to the deductibility of travel expenses from home to the workplace would create an unnecessary and costly precedent. I urge members to vote against the bill.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc member's private member's bill, Bill C-211, on tax reductions for forestry workers.

First, I want to say that I fully support the issue that all workers in the country are crying out for tax deductions. There is absolutely no question with respect to that. I want to talk a bit about that.

Bill C-211 is specifically targeted at forestry workers who want another tax deduction. I want to focus on the larger picture which is the taxation levels in the country.

Today we watched the Prime Minister. Ironically, he announced a $12.3 billion surplus. To his credit, he did put it on the debt. However, I have some concerns. Only months ago that he was forecasting a $3 billion surplus. I question who is doing the accounting for the government. We have a 400% increase in the amount of the surplus and one has to question exactly how this happened. Is it happening because there will be election weeks or months away? We know we are within a six month election cycle and all of a sudden we have a $12 billion surplus. We saw this type of what I call bean counting in British Columbia where months before an election there was great surpluses and months after the election there were great deficits.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

That was the NDP.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

That is exactly right, as the member yelled across to me. That was the NDP but again, we are seeing exactly the same scenario here.

We want to see how they arrive at these numbers. In the first quarter of this year alone the surplus reported by the Department of Finance was $11.4 billion. There is only one way that the government gets money and we all know that is from our back pockets. The government collects money from taxes. That is one source of revenue. Clearly we have to look at what has been going on.

The Canadian Alliance believes it is time for real tax cuts for working Canadians. They need these tax cuts. There is all kinds of evidence to substantiate this. We can look at the standard of living of Canadians. It has been dropping dramatically over the last 10 years. Today the worker's purchasing power is much less than it was 10 years ago. There are all kinds of reports and statistics to back that up.

We have to get taxes down. Since 1993, the Liberal government has raised taxes over 60 times. It claims it has deducted taxes. I challenge Liberals to to go to the working people in their ridings and ask them to pull out their paycheques from today and compare it to two years or four years ago. Working people have less money to take home. There is only one reason for that. The current government has raised and raised taxes. What are they left with?

The Department of Finance reported a $12 billion surplus. The government has put that on the debt but I am a little curious to see what kind of numbers we will get after the election. Maybe we can go back and look in Hansard when the government comes back.

Again, to back this up, our standard of living has gone down. Let me give a couple of quotes. This comes from the OECD: “One of the most important determinants of the standard of living is productivity which is a measure that attempts to capture the efficiency and productive inputs and technical progress”.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

This has to do with forestry workers.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is yelling this has to do with forestry workers. The issue here is taxation levels. The private member's bill is specifically trying to reduce the taxes of forestry workers. He has brought back a private member's bill to bring in more tax deductions for the workers in his riding. I fully support the need for tax reductions.

I agree with the member across that it would not be fair to give tax deductions to just the forestry sector. We cannot just provide tax reductions to forestry workers, or as the government would probably like it to members of parliament. In fact, we need to bring in tax deductions for all Canadians.

Let me continue on. These are statistics from Canada. The OECD went on to state: “While productivity growth appears to be better in Canada than anticipated, there continues to be a wide gap in the productivity level compared with the United States, Canada's most important economic partner. This gap is reflected in a substantially lower standard of living in Canada”.

If we go out and talk to the people in our ridings, they will tell us that they are struggling, that there is no money for extras and that there is less every month to pay the bills. That is strictly because we have seen one increase after another by the government. It is reaching into people's back pockets and we have to change that.

I am proud to say that the Canadian Alliance is committed to reducing people's personal taxes with meaningful tax relief, not punishing people who are successful. These are the people who power the economic engine. We are saying that we want to provide tax relief to all Canadians.

I have people in my riding who are earning less than $20,000 and should not be paying any taxes. We would take them right off the tax rolls, yet the government continues to tax them.

I struggled with whether I wanted to run for parliament back in 1997. One of the passions to which I was committed was that the aspirations and dreams of my generation were being shattered strictly through taxation.

We often hear of and talk about the brain drain. It is one of my greatest frustrations. It is not the significant number of people who are leaving Canada, but it is the very best, the very brightest, the economic engine of the country in 15 or 20 years. It is the entrepreneurs, the people who will create jobs in Canada for other people. They are flocking to the states. Why? It is because of the tax levels in this country. It is time for meaningful tax relief which they will feel.

The $12 billion is not the Minister of Finance's, the Prime Minister's or the government's money. It is taxpayer money. We need a plan where we can give taxpayers real, meaningful tax relief. We are committed to doing that.

It is a laudable goal by the member from the Bloc who brought this issue forward. I too have worked in the forest industry. I spent five years working at Crestbrook Forest Industries. I have a lot of friends in the forest industry. It would be very easy for me to stand here and say that we should provide tax relief just to one sector, the forest sector which is huge in British Columbia, but we have to look at reality. We cannot start providing tax relief targeted specifically to one occupation or one sector of society.

We need tax relief for all Canadians. We in the Canadian Alliance are 100% committed to doing that. Jurisdictions all over the globe such as Hong Kong and Ireland have brought in meaningful tax relief, and what has happened? We have seen those economies flourish.

What happens is that it attracts the best and the brightest. Economies flourish and the wealth created by the private sector, not by the government, allows us to have the social programs that are dear to our hearts. We can put the money into health care.

Bill C-211 is asking for a tax deduction for one sector. It is obviously not doable. It needs to extend to all Canadians. I am very proud that the Canadian Alliance is committed to providing meaningful tax relief to every Canadian. Their standard of living would increase. It would allow our best and our brightest young people to stay in the country. It would turn around the tax increases we have seen year after year after year by this government. I can count over 60 sneaky, hidden tax increases. We can turn those around and start putting money back in the hands of the taxpayer, not in the hands of the government.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-211, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, relating to travel expenses for a motor vehicle used by a forestry worker.

The bill introduced by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is an initiative that I also feel strongly about. The bill would allow forestry workers, who have to travel long distances in a motor vehicle between their place of residence and their workplace, to benefit from a reasonable tax deduction, which, in this case, I find adequate.

In summary, Bill C-211 would allow a forestry worker, under certain conditions, to deduct from his income the interest paid on money borrowed to acquire the motor vehicle.

Also, a forestry worker would be able to deduct from his income expenses related to the wear and tear of the motor vehicle. This bill means a lot to forestry workers.

Currently, Revenue Canada considers the use of such a motor vehicle as a use for personal reasons by forestry workers who have to travel long distances to get to their workplace. Consequently, these workers cannot claim travel expenses from their residence to the logging area. What this means is that Revenue Canada does not consider that these workers need to travel to work.

If we look at forestry workers, and this is where I disagree with my colleague from the Alliance, there is a major difference, and that is what my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is trying to point out with his bill.

Forestry workers do not work all year round, they are seasonal workers. When spring comes around, they have to contract loans. I think it is one of the only Canadian industries where people have to buy their own tools, such as chain saws, that cost $850 plus tax.

Each year, the forestry worker, the logger who goes off to the logging area has to buy a new saw. That costs money. Unlike other workers, he does not work all year round. The seasonal worker, the logger has to survive on employment insurance for part of the year, at least six months. He has to make do with 50% of his income because of the cuts Liberals made in 1996. EI benefits have been slashed by half. These workers are punished left, right and center.

That is why I feel I have to support the bill introduced by my colleague from the Bloc, because these workers deserve a break. Each spring, these workers have to fork out a lot of money after spending the winter on employment insurance, because they cannot log all winter long. They end up with debts after spending the winter on employment insurance.

That is why I am going to support this bill. It is all well and good for the Canadian Alliance to say that all Canadians must be treated equally, but in the meantime, we must take into account the plight of our forestry workers. According to Alliance members, Canadians should not have to pay any taxes or everyone will want to move to the United States. I will say one thing. I would rather live here, in Canada, the best country in the world, than in the United States, where they have a two tier health care system. They may pay less taxes, but going to the hospital can easily cost $10,000. In my opinion, that is a form of taxation.

In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, the forest industry is important. Nearly half the people are seasonal workers, either in fisheries or forestry. These jobs are important for our region.

As I said, and I will repeat it because apparently before people get it into their heads, it must repeated 28 times: in my riding, the forestry worker who is lucky to work 15 or 20 weeks ends up unemployed the rest of the year, because there are no jobs. He is not a seasonal worker, but he works in a seasonal sector. He ends up with half an income for the rest of the season and in the spring, he must buy a chain saw even if he would appreciate getting a little tax break then. With the little tax break that he gets, which is a tax refund, he has to buy a chain saw in order to go to work.

The purpose of this bill is to help this industry and its workers, because they are unique. We need those forestry workers. People living in big cities, whether it is Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver, are happy to get 2x4s from my region, from Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, the Gaspé Peninsula, northern Ontario and northern British Columbia.

I am sure that the hon. member opposite remembers the visit we made to loggers in the Prince George area. This is not an easy job, because we cannot bring the forest into the city. Loggers have to go into the forest, miles away from home; they have to travel and leave their family behind for weeks. When they come back on Friday night for the weekend, they are exhausted. They are home Saturday, and on Sunday, they go back to the logging camp. That is what loggers do.

I think that the government could recognize their work by giving them some tax relief, such as the one proposed by my hon. colleague in his private bill. I think this is the best thing to do.

The Alliance members come from a region where there are many loggers, but they are not prepared to give a break to a specific group like this one. However, they want to have a tax, what they call the flat tax, to give a break to all the millionaires in this country and all the people who make over $100,000 a year, giving them a tax cut, so that they do not have to pay as much tax.

But they are not prepared to do anything in support of the forestry workers, not prepared to treat them as special workers. Yet these workers are special, because they are the ones who go out in the woods to cut down our natural resources, which provide the whole country with wood, with 2x4s, with paper and what have you. The piece of paper I am holding starts in the forest. The forestry workers are the ones who cut down the raw material that it is made from.

The only thing they are asking for is recognition. Very often people say “Oh, he's just a forestry worker, that's all”. As if these workers were not part of society. That is how they feel sometimes.

It is not enough that many of their jobs in the bush have been lost to mechanization, now gas costs are making it extremely expensive to get to their jobs.

In my opinion it would be just the honourable thing to do if parliament were to say “Now we are finally paying attention to our forestry workers”.

Most of the members of this House have such workers within their ridings, or their fathers or brothers were forestry workers. I think giving them a little hand up is nothing more than the fair and honourable thing to do.

Before closing, I will just quickly repeat a few points. We must keep in mind that the forestry workers cannot control wood quotas. They are therefore forced to be seasonal workers. For a large chunk of the year, six months I would say, they are forced onto employment insurance, at 50% of what they were earning.

I strongly recommend that the government members vote in favour of Bill C-211 in order to give our forestry workers the opportunity to purchase chainsaws and get to work providing our country with a resource.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to speak to Bill C-211. My colleague from the Bloc has put forward a pretty interesting proposal. However, when we look at the forest worker separated from a lot of others in the same categories, I have some concerns.

I look at the proposal that a low paid seasonal worker is asking to reclaim some of his expenses through the income tax source. The other interesting part is that he would be able to claim his vehicle or the costs of his travel back and forth, including the cost of the interest on his loan to purchase his vehicle. I wonder if we are just talking about cars and trucks here. As the hon. member knows, some people travel by Sea-Doo. Maybe they should be able to claim them also.

Unfortunately a dual economy is developing. There are areas that are flourishing. Employment rates are extremely high mainly around our urban centres and people are doing very well. In many of the rural regions people are trying to eke out a living. Forestry workers, fishery workers and construction workers are some of those groups.

Because of the way the present government has operated and because of the CHST cutbacks over the last number of years, most of the provinces have put the meagre income they have into health care more than anything else. In most provinces, except for the two or three more affluent ones, there is a lack of construction work. Many construction workers who worked on our highways, municipal projects and water and sewer projects now have to travel all over the place to get enough hours of work just to qualify for EI benefits during the long hard winters.

The hon. member who presented the bill has an issue. He is on to something but he needs to broaden the base considerably.

There has been a lot of discussion tonight on the methods of taxing people. Alliance members talked about their proposals, the flat tax. Let me tell them that many seasonal workers certainly would not benefit from the flat tax. They would just be flattened a little bit more by the flat tax.

Some might say that the government's proposals are going to be generous. Let me say to them that again, the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer. We are seeing this more and more. When I use the word poorer, I am not talking about poor in the sense of resources, but poor simply because they have been downtrodden by the Liberal government over the last 10 years to the point where they cannot gain from the development of the great resources they have.

There is no greater example than my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are an extremely rich province with a tremendous amount to offer, but because of the policies of the government, we are not gaining at all from the development of our resources. We see some employment in the urban centres, but the employment levels in the rural centres are going down.

We see among our fishery workers what the hon. member sees among his forestry workers. In order to gain meagre employment, they have to travel miles and miles. Before, many of our communities had large fish plants where the local fishermen came into their own wharf. People in the area worked in the processing plant and did very well.

Because of the depletion of our resources and in particular the mismanagement by the government, there is absolutely no scientific research involved in order to dictate how we should handle our resource. We see the decimation of the fishery. Fewer people are fishing.

Fisher persons themselves have to travel further and further to get to the wharf that they use and to the place where they now must store their boat. Many of them have to go from the smaller boats to the bigger boats to travel further afield to catch the meagre resource. Fish plant workers who work practically next door travel in excess of 100 miles a day in order to get enough work to qualify for EI benefits.

I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. member is saying. Construction workers day in and day out travel over 100 miles to get to a place where they have a few weeks of work.

When we look at changing the tax structure, instead of looking at across the board cuts that the members opposite say will benefit everybody, perhaps we should look at adjustments within the system that will benefit those who really need the tax breaks.

When the federal government cuts taxes by 5%, 10% or whatever, it brags about it. Everybody gets a break. But for the people in Newfoundland who pay 69% of the federal rate in their personal income taxes, it does not mean a thing. It means that the provincial government is taking in fewer dollars. It means absolutely nothing in the sense of attracting investment because the playing field is not level. Again, the rich benefit more. They can offer more incentives to people to invest. The poorer provinces such as the Atlantic provinces in particular cannot compete with the more lucrative ones because they cannot offer the same tax incentives.

Across the board cuts and made in Ottawa solutions might be looked upon as being equal, but they are certainly not fair for many regions. Not only are rich, poor and some in between regions developing, the same thing is happening in sectors within our provinces.

People in the rural areas of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in particular are finding it more and more difficult to find employment. The expense of going to their job and the expense of being involved in the workforce are getting so great that people need some kind of a break.

I support in principle what the hon. member is proposing. I hope we will use this as a catalyst to help other sectors, not just the forestry workers. Their case might be unique in certain areas of Quebec, but the fishery workers in Newfoundland are just as unique. The construction workers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec are just as unique. Perhaps it is time that we looked at developing tax policies that benefit those who need help.

Members opposite brag about the $12 billion, $14 billion or $15 billion surplus. They should be on their knees thanking the Tories for their initiatives. Back in the early nineties when they brought in free trade, the members opposite said no, that it would destroy the country. What happened after the election? The Liberals went along with free trade and today they see the benefits. Every night they should give thanks that Prime Minister Mulroney had the fortitude to do what the Liberals did not have the fortitude to do.

The other great income generator is the GST. Once again those hon. members said that we could not have this terrible tax. What happened? They had the terrible tax. We can go back to the government of the hon. leader of our party which was defeated when it increased the gas tax. When the members opposite came into power, they doubled it right off the bat.

The Liberals can brag about the surplus for two other reasons. It is not only because of good Tory policies but they have also shafted the people on health care and have held back billions of dollars that should be going to the sick and the poor. People are suffering because of seasonal employment. The government has cut their legs out from under them with the EI benefits. This has helped fill the government coffers and it is nothing to brag about.

Maybe it is time for the government to change its mind and support the hon. member's bill and help the people who really need the help.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members who took part in this debate.

Even those who did not support the idea, I felt, considered a debate on tax incentives needed to get people to work relevant.

The forestry workers we are talking about here have to go elsewhere to work, are forced to sleep elsewhere and need their vehicles for their work. So they are not using them on a whim. They need them to get to work.

The government already partially acknowledges this, because there is a partial deduction for it. The problem is that the present deduction is inadequate, because it does not take into account the relevance of using this type of vehicle for these purposes. In a little square box, in a department somewhere, they defined this vehicle as being used for tourism or personal uses, and this is not the case. This point needs to be changed.

I invite all members who said something special could not be created for a given sector to debate my bill so that we may look at similar situations and examine this issue in committee. I invite them as well to not close their eyes to the facts. Under the existing tax system, all sorts of specific deductions are permitted for all sorts of people. We are among these people who have a significant sum that is tax exempt so we can do our job.

Some people get tax deductions to pay for season tickets to the hockey games in big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, and people in my region cannot benefit in any way from such deductions. It is absolutely impossible to obtain a season ticket and to benefit from it.

We have to weigh things carefully. The system is not balanced in that regard. In this case, I think we have what is needed to reach a practical solution.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this bill a votable item and for us to vote on it after the vote on Motion M-160, which is the next item and for which division will be deferred. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for my bill to be declared a votable item so that members can take a stand and so that we can examine it in committee and amend it, if necessary, to do justice to forestry workers, not only those in my region and in Quebec, but forestry workers all over Canada who need their vehicle for their work.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to make the bill a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hour provided for the consideration of this motion within private members' business has now expired. This item is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of the motion.

1911 Census Records

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 160 on behalf of my colleague from Calgary.

To many, this issue of sealing the 1911 census information forever does not seem like a very important issue and think that maybe the House should spend its time in other areas, but it does raise a concern for a number of people and several of my constituents who have contacted me.

A number of individuals in our society take great delight in seeking information about their family history and look forward to the time when this information will be available to them so they can have a better understanding of their roots in Canada. It was because of an individual who was very concerned in 1906 and again in 1918 that this information could be used for purposes that were not necessarily considered to be good purposes, that they felt for privacy they needed to seal the records.

At that time it probably made sense but that was 85 years ago. Many of the laws on our books have now become redundant. The concern for privacy and respecting the privacy of an individual is a good one and should be considered, but when this information becomes of an age and is no longer current that need for privacy disappears.

Most of the people who would have this information in the 1911 census would be 75 years or older. Many of them are probably not even alive. The question of securing or protecting their privacy becomes less of an issue, if an issue at all.

The intent of the motion is to make an allowance and to perhaps put a timeframe on when this information would be made available, but certainly not to have all the census information from the 1911 census lost forever. That certainly was the concern of some of my constituents who contacted me on this issue. Their concern was that that information, even if they had to wait another 20 years, should be available to the families for historical purposes.

When other countries had to deal with this issue they set a year beyond which the person probably would not be living, although with today's technology it may be hard to put that to the number of years. In Australia and France the census data is released after 100 years. Denmark is saying that 65 years is adequate. The United Kingdom is making efforts to release its data after 100 years.

The precedents are being set internationally that maybe 100 years would be an adequate period of time that any information on an individual, if they lived beyond 100 years, which is very unlikely, at least for most of us, could not be used and harm that person.

With all due respect to an individual's privacy, there is a good cause for Motion No. 160 and for the concern that historians and people who are researching their family histories have, that we set a timeframe, perhaps 100 years. This law is actually 88 years old. Maybe that is time enough and we should say that as of the year 2000 this information will be made available.

Nevertheless, the indication is, from other countries that have dealt with this issue, that 100 years is adequate. In one case 65 years was considered adequate. I think Canada would be justified in putting the timeframe at 90 or 100 years, or whatever, into this legislation and then to redraft it.

We do have a number of statutes in our country that need to be overhauled. I think this certainly is one that has to be looked at and changed.

I think my hon. colleague is looking to all members of the House to support this motion, which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

I certainly, on his behalf, request that members of the House support his motion.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion raised by the member for Calgary Southeast with respect to the release of the 1911 census records.

The transfer of census records to the National Archives for public access is a fairly complex issue. The competing interests at issue here are both legitimate and important.

I would like to assure my colleagues that the minister responsible for Statistics Canada is well aware of both sides of this debate. Although he recognizes the importance of historical and genealogical research, the minister must also take into account the privacy concerns of all Canadians.

In fact, my own private member's bill, Bill C-312, an act to amend the National Archives of Canada Act and the Statistics Act, is an attempt to resolve this issue with a fair and balanced approach.

It is for that reason that the minister took immediate steps and appointed an expert panel to examine the legal, privacy and archival implications of providing access to historical census records. The panel was asked to recommend an approach which balances the need to protect personal privacy with the demand of genealogists and historians for access to historical census records.

The panel submitted its report to the minister on June 30, 2000. The minister is now reviewing the recommendations made by the panel and will be making the panel's report public in the near future.

I am therefore encouraged by the minister's genuine interest and commitment to find a balanced resolution. While he must carefully consider all sides of this issue, any decision taken must respond to the concerns and desires of Canadians to research their personal and community roots. The minister is working toward a resolution of the issue of public access to historical census records.

Canada's census records up to and including the 1901 census are available to the public through the National Archives. Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1996. Up to 1991 these records are on microfilm and are available only to individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension purposes, passports or any other related issues.

I believe that the members of the House understand the need for access to census records while at the same time they are sensitive to the privacy concerns of Canadians.

In the spirit of co-operation, I would like to propose an amendment that would support the work of all those involved reaching a workable solution to this issue. I therefore propose to amend the motion and emphasize that the government should consider taking the necessary steps to release the census records.

I think the member for Calgary Southeast will agree that this small change to his motion will allow an opportunity to look at both sides of this issue. It also provides parliament with an opportunity to vote in support of the motion.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word “take” after the word “should” and by substituting therefor, the words “consider taking”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 60 put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

I am actually a bit surprised at the brevity of the debate on the motion before us tonight, and I am more than a bit surprised that the person who actually proposed the motion has chosen not to speak to it at this time. I understand that he may be here for the five minute wrap up, but when one puts a private member's bill forward, hopefully one would be a little more serious about it than the five minute wrap up.

The motion addresses an issue that is very important to many Canadians. Many of us understand it because we have been contacted by constituents, historians and genealogists.

While I understand surveys have shown that this issue is not one of which the general public is aware, there is certainly a vocal outcry from many segments of Canadian society who understand the implications of this motion and the problem it attempts to resolve.

Let me outline what exactly it is that needs to be addressed and what this motion we are debating here today contemplates.

Statistics Canada conducts a census every five years, polling Canadians about such things as their name, address, marital status, income, education and activities.

In the 2001 census, additional questions will be asked on languages spoken at home and at work, birthplace of parents and religion. This information is considered confidential and is not made available to other government departments, including the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The problem is that until 1906 census information collected by Statistics Canada was kept confidential for 92 years, after which time the information was provided to the National Archives of Canada and available for public searches. This enabled family descendants, historians, genealogists and any other interested persons to access records from censuses that were collected at least 92 years previously.

In 1906, however, changes were made to the Privacy Act which stated that where other acts provide specific protection to personal records, those acts must prevail. Since the Statistics Act makes reference to the confidentiality of census information supplied by the individual completing the census, legal opinion indicates that any census following 1901 cannot be released to anyone other than the specified individual in the census. Moreover, no time limitation was ever stipulated.

Hon. members can see the bind in which the government finds itself. What I find more surprising, though, is the real lack of activity by the government to do anything about that bind because there are certainly a couple of avenues that the government can take.

To go back to the 1911 census, which would have been made public in 2003 under the regulations in place prior to 1906, it is now considered private and confidential in perpetuity. Only with a change to legislation can this regulation be changed and access provided to historians, genealogists and descendants of people who filled out those original censuses.

The motion we are addressing today proposes such a change. It asks the government to take the necessary steps to amend the regulations and allow the former practice of transferring census information to the national archives following a period of 92 years. The federal government is aware of this problem as there has been a concerted effort by genealogists to have this matter brought to the attention of the public to facilitate the changes that would allow continued access to these records.

Genealogists across the country like Muriel Davidson and historical societies have been in contact with my office. There is a huge file on this issue. The need for it is obvious. If the government has a bill in waiting it should have put it out first. This is something that we should no longer continue to ignore.

The government responded to efforts made by individuals, historians and genealogists by establishing in November 1999 the expert panel on access to historical census records chaired by the president of Carleton University, Dr. Richard Van Loon. This panel was mandated to examine the problem from the perspective of both historians and the general populace, to review options and to report its findings by May 2000. May has come and gone. The panel subsequently requested an extension, expecting to report by the early part of this summer. The early part of this summer has come and gone.

Statistics Canada is now saying that the minister has the final report to review and it will be released at his discretion. Those of us who are interested in the findings of the expert panel will have to wait until the minister chooses to release its recommendations.

Certainly all of us would benefit from knowing the results of the panel's interpretation of release of historical census information, particularly given the important discussion tonight on this matter.

As part of the review of this topic the panel was asked to examine a couple of options regarding possible remedies to allow access to census records. One option would see the 2001 census and any future census transferred to the national archives after an established period of 92 years. The second option would see a similar change made retroactively to allow access to the 1911 census after 92 years. This second option entails breaking the promise of confidentiality made by the government of the day to the people who completed the censuses since 1906.

I understand a number of concerns with respect to this matter, both from the perspective of privacy and confidentiality and the need for historical access to information. As the past president of the local New Ross Historical Society in Nova Scotia, I am fully aware of the usefulness of census records when exploring and tracing family ties and compiling historical snapshots of any particular moment of time.

It is interesting, and I think important, to look at the history of census taking in Canada. According to a publication by Statistics Canada, Intendant Jean Talon ordered the first census in 1666 in New France. The basis of the door to door enumeration was to better prepare for the development of the colony. The 3,215 colonists in the areas of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Quebec participated. Until 1739 there were 36 censuses conducted under French rule.

With British occupation censuses became more intermittent until the British North America Act of 1867. That act established the need for more regular, dependable data collection, which was particularly important for regional population counts as the British North America Act set out democratic representation based on population, a system still in place today.

As a Nova Scotian I also found it interesting to note that it was the 1767 census of Nova Scotia that introduced questions on religion and origin.

The PC Party recognizes and supports the release of census information to the general public. Not only does this information assist historians and genealogists but also everyday Canadians can find out information about Canada's past.

Sure, there are other options available for historical searches but to cut off this important avenue would be to ignore the past, and we all know that when we ignore the past we are unprepared for the future.

A survey was conducted as part of the expert panel's review of access to historical censuses.

The survey found that Canadians agree with having access to past census records particularly to enable families to trace their backgrounds. When the questions emphasized the fact that government would have to break its promise to keep the censuses confidential from 1906 onward there was less support.

However, if we think about why census records are useful and informative, it would be difficult to accept that although census taking began in Canada in 1666 there would be a complete void for a period of 92 years from 1911 to 2003. There would be no census information available.

It makes sense to allow access to the historical censuses on the contingency basis that only after 92 years have passed will records be publicly available through the national archives.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have been contacted by a number of people concerned with the availability of census records. I have talked to constituents about this matter and publicly stated my support for initiatives to allow access to historical census records. I continue to advocate the position. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the motion before us today.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the hon. member for South Shore who just spoke referred to the absence of a certain member from the House. I believe that was out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

No, I was listening very carefully. The member for South Shore indicated that a certain hon. member had not participated in the debate today, but he made no reference to the presence or absence of the member. I was quite attentive to the fact that this was the tone of the discussion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion. More than a year ago, the president of the historical and genealogical society of my area, Mrs. Ouellet, made some representations to ensure that this information would be made public.

I have asked myself some questions about the protection of personal information. I am particularly sensitive to this whole issue since the Department of Human Resources Development accidentally sent me some incorrect information about myself. I think there is a distinction to be made between historical information collected through the 1911 census and protected ever since then and the privacy issue.

I believe the motion put forward will help us reach a greater consensus in the House to let the government know how important it is to make a decision as soon as possible and to take into account all the various points of view.

From what I gather from the arguments I have heard in support of this motion, it seems that the report submitted to the minister was quite favourable. I hope this means that the government is considering providing access to this information in an appropriate way.

The Minister of Industry, who is responsible for this issue, will have to complete his work quickly, because he has had this report in hand for some time now. He can make it public at the same time that he announces the government's position.

As for the House, it would be interesting to say to all those history buffs, to all our historians, to all those who would find it useful, such as genealogists, that, yes, they can use the information collected via this census.

Some said that in other countries, the data remain unavailable for 90 or 100 years. In the present case, it is close to 90 years. I believe we have all the arguments in favour of public access to this information, so that it can be used for historical purposes and so that this anomaly be corrected. In the subsequent censuses, there were no provisions concerning the period after which the information would be made available.

I would be very happy if we could allow people in our historical and genealogical societies to do their job so that they can respond to requests made to them in that regard and if we could settle this issue once and for all.

I have been was in favour of the motion from the start. This is my personal position, and I will probably support the amendment as well because I think it will create a larger consensus in the House to send a clear message to the government. The time has come for the government to act responsibly, make up its mind and state its position.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate the amendment to what is actually my motion. This motion seeks to have the government release the results of the 1911 census and by implication every census thereafter. I have spoken to the principle of the motion in the first hour of debate and will not reiterate. Rather I will address briefly the amendment brought before us by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

I note with some dismay the remarks of my itinerate colleague from South Shore who for some reason apparently supports the motion but saw some reason to criticize its mover for not having participated in the debate. I am here tonight to participate in the debate. I was here during the first hour and I was here at every stage in this debate. I think in private members' hour that kind of apparently petty partisanship is uncalled for. I am as partisan as anyone when it is called for, but certainly not when we are discussing matters of this nature. I found that regrettable.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre seeks to amend this motion by changing the words “the government should take” to “the government should consider taking”. I object strenuously.

Millions of Canadians have an interest in this matter although they may not yet realize it. Certainly tens of thousands have a very acute interest in the passage of the motion. Genealogists, archivists, librarians, researchers and historians through many personal and organized representations to their representatives and to this place have asked for the government to release the 1911 archives for the census of that year.

It was principally as a result of those representations that I brought forward the motion. I thought these archivists, genealogists and so on had made a very reasonable case that the release of these documents would be well within what would be very conventional and would not violate privacy rights or undertakings on the part of the government.

I brought a motion which would suggest that the government should take this action. Let us be honest and frank about it. This is how it works. Government members have been deluged with mail on the issue like all other members from people concerned about the issue asking for the release of these documents. It has become a political concern for them.

I suspect that many of these members have received dozens of letters and communications asking for their support of this motion or action of this nature to be taken. It has become a small but not insignificant political concern for them. Undoubtedly many of these members intended to vote in favour of my motion that the government should take this action and release these census documents.

I am sure this is what happened. The Minister of Industry is responsible for the oversight of Statistics Canada and the archives. Undoubtedly his office realized that the motion could be somewhat embarrassing for the government because he clearly had no intention of taking decisive action on the matter.

Rather, the Minister of Industry appointed a committee to delay, a panel of experts, which is a typical government procedure, to study the issue into the ground probably at least until after the election so that my hon. colleagues opposite could tell all the genealogists and local historians in their ridings not to worry in that the government was considering the matter and in the fullness of time and at the earliest opportunity would release the archived documents.

No doubt they were planning to do that with the committee to delay. This motion comes along and suddenly forces them, heaven forbid, to actually confront the issue, especially because it has been deemed votable.

The minister says that the government has to come up with some way to water this thing down so that it is not obliged to take any sort of action at all, but instead can continue to delay the release of these census documents and denude this as a political issue for the backbench government members. That is exactly what has happened. Let us be grown-ups about this.

I strenuously object to the motion which would require that the government consider taking action. The government can consider taking action on anything, anytime. This amendment renders this motion meaningless.

I want to clearly put on the record that this will not serve as an adequate loincloth, if you will, for government members who hope to go back to their ridings and tell their constituents interested in access to this important historical information that they voted in favour of this motion, that they voted in favour of the release of these census documents. That is not true.

This is an disingenuous motion designed to cloud the issue for those with an interest in obtaining these records. It is a somewhat underhanded effort on the part of the government to prevent the House from actually reflecting the interests and concerns of their constituents. It is a very simple matter, but the government and the minister want to maintain a stranglehold on this information. He does not want the House, its members or, heaven forbid, his own members representing their constituents deciding that this archival information should be released from the 1911 census. He wants his department and his bureaucrats to be able to make this decision. That is why this amendment has come forward from a government member tonight.

I just say to my colleagues opposite and everyone else that this completely dilutes the meaningfulness of the motion. I would ask members to please vote against the amendment and support the original motion which has stronger language and which creates at least a strong sense of the House. Even if my motion passes unamended, it will not force the government to take action. It will merely give a strong sense of the will of the House. That is what private members' motions are intended for. Let us use that procedure properly. We get very few votable private members' motions. Let us use this one to actually represent our constituents in a non-partisan fashion. Instead of protecting the minister's hide and his committee to delay, let us vote against the amendment and support the original motion, as no doubt most members would be inclined to do.

Business Of The House

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to move:

That any requested recorded divisions pertaining to the Business of Supply of Thursday 21 September, 2000 be deferred to the end of Government Orders, on Tuesday 26 September, 2000.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Calgary Southeast have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.