Paddy Torsney

[Statistics Act, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about this very important issue, Bill S-13, an act to amend the Statistics Act.

Certainly those of us who have been here since 1993 know that there has been much debate over the last few years, and quite intense periods of debate, about access to historical census records.

I have been very pleased to see throughout this debate just how many of my constituents and how many people across the country are hooked up to the Internet, because I think it was one of our first blasts of e-mails on a major subject.

In fact, many of us in this House have been contacted by constituents on this issue. All of us understand their need for access to census records and the value that they can provide to their family's history and genealogical research. All of us, I am sure, are in agreement with the reasons why genealogists, historians and researchers want historical census data. They are legitimate reasons and they are important reasons.

At the same time, of course, colleagues in this House had to recognize that while there is an undeniably great value attached to historical census records, there are also important principles of privacy protection that must be addressed.

We have to be sensitive to the privacy concerns of Canadians. Careful thought has been given to this matter, in fact, and both sides of this debate have been considered and extensively debated in the Senate and by Canadians at large. I think there have been many private members' bills on this, both in this place and in the other.

Bill S-13 addresses the legal ambiguity concerning the confidentiality status of historical census records. This bill would allow the access to historical census records that genealogists and historians have been seeking, while balancing Canadians' concerns for the protection of their personal information.

Specifically, the legislation would amend the Statistics Act to permit access to the 1911 to 2001 census records after 92 years, with conditions, and after 112 years, without conditions. For 2006 and all future censuses, it would permit access after 92 years because consent would be provided at the time the census was taken.

For all members of this House, let us have a brief overview of Bill S-13. The bill makes changes to section 17 of the Statistics Act, which is the section that governs secrecy. There are three main clauses to the amendment. The first sets out the release of historical census records. The second clause gives the governor in council certain regulatory powers. Clause 3 sets out a penalty provision should the conditions of access not be respected.

Let us look at clause 1. It governs the release of census returns collected between 1910 and 2003, which in fact would cover the censuses of 1911 through to 2001. This means that 92 years after the census has been taken, a person may have access to those census records to conduct genealogical research on their own family or on behalf of another person from whom they have written consent.

Anyone conducting genealogical or family research will be required to sign an undertaking in order to have the right to use these census records. This undertaking will be prescribed by regulation and will contain certain conditions that would restrict the disclosure to only tombstone information related to a person's own family.

Similarly, historians or researchers wishing to have access to census records must also sign an undertaking limiting disclosure to only tombstone information from the census record. In addition, historical research projects must demonstrate public and scientific value and be approved by an individual who is on the list of authorized persons. This will be prescribed by regulation.

After 112 years, census records may be used without restrictions. The 112 years represents a condition that provides 20 years of additional privacy protection for Canadians. The Privacy Act permits information to be released from a census 92 years after that census. The Privacy Act also permits the release of personal information 20 years following the death of an individual.

Since at this point in time there are few people alive by the age of 112 years, or even very many who are much beyond the age of 92, the conjunction of these various conditions has resulted in the 112 years as set out in Bill S-13.

Beginning with the 2006 census, the government will be asking Canadians to consent to the release of their personal census information 92 years into the future. If consent is given, then anyone will have access to the information after that period. It is proposed as an opt-in question, seeking the permission of Canadians to have their census information eventually made available to the public.

Clause 2 states that the governor in council is to make regulations setting out the form of the undertaking required to gain access to census records and the conditions for the use and disclosure of that information. This will ensure that the personal information of other individuals contained in the census record is protected. In addition to this undertaking, the regulations will list the category of persons who will approve historical research projects as described.

The regulations will be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, as that minister is responsible for Statistics Canada, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, as that minister is responsible for the Library and Archives of Canada.

Clause 3 sets out the penalty for failure to respect the undertaking given by genealogists and historical researchers. A violation of this undertaking could result in a summary conviction and a fine of $1,000.

As I have mentioned, there has been much debate in this place, in the other place and in the general public about how to deal with census records. I am sure most of us in the House agree that we can support Bill S-13. The conditions outlined in the bill are neither onerous nor restrictive for genealogists and historians, but put appropriate safeguards in place to protect the privacy of individuals. Bill S-13 provides reasonable access to historical census records and meets the needs of genealogists and historians for information about their families and their community.

Some people may view these conditions as being overly bureaucratic or burdensome. However, the proposed procedures to gain access to historical census records follow those already in place at the Library and Archives of Canada. The only additional requirement being asked of genealogists and historians is to sign a form guaranteeing that they will release only the tombstone information. It is a small price to pay to protect the privacy of our ancestors.

As well, some genealogists and historical researchers feel that if Canadians are permitted to determine the accessibility of their personal census information, the complete history of our country will be lost to future generations.

Canadians should be allowed to decide whether others can have access to their census information. This is in keeping with the highest standard of privacy protection, which Canadians have come to expect. Informed consent about the use of one's own personal information is a matter of fundamental personal privacy protection.

In closing, I want to reiterate that Bill S-13 has achieved the right balance between access to census records for historical and genealogical research and the protection of the privacy of Canadians. I urge all members of the House to support the bill and finally put this issue to rest.

[Committees of the House, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the very great honour this morning to present, in both official languages, the first and second reports of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.

Specifically, this committee was given Bill C-38, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That in fact is our second report.

Our first report is also a recommendation to the government, a unanimous recommendation from all committee members, that focused on two main issues: We encourage the government to focus on the renewed national drug strategy and that the government further its work on the recommendations made by the predecessor committee and that this strategy work to resolve the issue of drug impaired driving, as this issue was raised by witnesses and by all members of the committee. We really encourage the government to move rapidly.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will thank all my colleagues on all sides of the House for their incredible dedication and hard work in a very short order. We were blessed with great researchers and a great set of clerks. Everyone really pulled together, and we know that there was a big team working very hard last night. To all of them I say thank you very much.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian interparliamentary group respecting its participation at the 108th conference and related meetings of the Interparliamentary Union held in Santiago, Chile from April 6 to 12, 2003.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, November 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-6. I am in support of this proposal specifically because the effectiveness of this new act will take us a step closer to resolving historic grievances involving land claim disputes between first nations and the Government of Canada.

The application of Canada's specific claims policy has had a significant measure of success, but despite these successes, the current system, while resolving claims, cannot cope in the expeditious manner that both the Government of Canada and first nations need to see. We have to do better.

That is why the government, on behalf of all Canadians, must move forward to bring closure to the climate of adversarial, litigious debate that has marked negotiation of land claims for far too long. As a nation, we must settle the backlog of outstanding claims and have in place a new system that will effectively resolve claims.

Through Bill C-6, the government proposes to establish a process that is more independent, a process that is fair and impartial, and a process that is transparent.

For far too long, first nations peoples have held that the existing process lacks fairness and transparency in the areas of research and assessment. They maintain that it does not provide a level playing field for negotiations and that it lacks independence, impartiality and accountability. Those are all things that people in this House and in our country expect.

The lack of confidence in the fairness of the process expressed by first nations peoples means that first nations are reluctant to accept negative decisions about the validity of their claims. Costly court actions causing further delays are the result. In this atmosphere, enhanced partnership and economic development can hardly be expected to flourish.

Under the proposed legislation before the House, the centre would establish in law neutral and at arm's length claim facilitation and adjudication bodies. Transparency would be enhanced. Funding to first nations peoples to participate in the specific claims process would be removed from the minister's jurisdiction. The existing structure would be simplified and there would be a greater rigour brought to the process.

In other words, there would be, for the first time, an effective alternative to litigating specific claims in the courts through active promotion of negotiated settlements and authority to render binding decisions as a last resort.

I think it is important to note that hand in hand with fairness goes accountability. As a government, the Government of Canada must be accountable to first nations and to other Canadians to ensure that they have in place a land claims settlement system that is fair, effective and efficient. This proposal that is before the House contains extensive accountability provisions to help achieve those ends.

What are those provisions? They include: annual audits by the Auditor General; annual reports tabled in Parliament and made available to first nations and public scrutiny; quarterly reports on compensation; and a requirement for a full review between three and five years of the coming into force of the bill.

These are important measures that will really make a difference in enhancing accountability, but how did we arrive at this point? We did not arrive at this point in isolation from first nations' opinions. In fact, in 1996, the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations established the joint first nations-Canada task force on specific claims. This event in 1996 marked the beginning of consultations on the creation of an independent claims body. The legislation we see before us in this House is based on the work of the joint task force.

As this proposal now before us made its way through the parliamentary process, the government heard a number of concerns about the legislation from first nations. Most recently, the Senate committee repeatedly heard the concern about the jurisdictional authority placed on the tribunal. As the minister had originally proposed, this legislation set the jurisdictional limit of the tribunal at $7 million on awards for claims resolved under the new system. Following extensive consultations and presentations before the Senate committee, an amendment was proposed to increase the tribunal authority's limit to $10 million.

The minister assures me that he is confident this new ceiling is a realistic one and is one that meets the needs of the first nations peoples and their concerns as raised in the process. As we have heard, most of the claims currently before the Government of Canada could be dispensed with under this new increased amount.

Another important element from first nations witnesses concerned the appointment process for this new centre. I am pleased to say that the government has listened to these concerns and has proposed an amendment that would give first nations a greater opportunity to make representations with respect to appointments and to be more actively involved in the review process. The minister also proposes to confirm post-employment conflict of interest rules, something that I know is very important to members of the House.

A key aspect of this proposed legislation that has provided comfort across the consultation board is the provision for alternate dispute resolution processes to keep the parties at the table. Under the proposed act, the new commission's overarching role would be to facilitate the resolution of negotiated settlements with authority to apply a full range of alternative dispute resolution processes: facilitation, mediation, non-binding arbitration, and binding arbitration with the consent of the parties. All claims, regardless of size, complexity or value, would have access to these processes through the commission.

In conclusion, a lot of effort has been directed toward the bill by committees of the House and the other place, by first nations witnesses, by bureaucrats in the department of the minister, and by the minister's office and the parliamentary secretary, to ensure that we have in place a process that would help to resolve first nations claims in a way that is accountable, transparent and impartial. The intent behind this proposal is to level the playing field for negotiation and, frankly, to resolve claims more effectively and efficiently. Surely that is in everyone's interest.

This new process will allow aboriginal people in Canada to take advantage of economic opportunities and I think it will lead to a more prosperous life for all of us as full participants in this great nation of ours.

I thank the House for its attention. I thank all members for supporting the bill.

[Charitable Donations, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reports show that Canadians donated more money than ever last year to charity, up 6% from 2001. According to our tax forms, Canadians gave an outstanding $5.8 million to charity in 2002. Canadians are compassionate citizens.

Canadian charities provide crucial support and important infrastructure in our communities. They help those less fortunate and direct aid to needy families and street youth. They improve the quality of our lives through arts and cultural programs, and they work to bring peace, security, human rights and humanitarian assistance right around the world.

However they choose to help, clearly Canadians are willing to put their money and time to back their caring attitudes. I applaud the generosity of Canadians and the Canadian public, and encourage each and every one of them to continue to contribute in whatever capacity they can. Together we will make a difference, this year and into the future.

[Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and an opportunity for me to thank a Burlington constituent for his work in raising money to fight this disease.

Seven years ago, Paul DeKort founded Clothing for Charity, whose bins collect used clothing donations. Clothes are distributed free of charge to women's shelters or sold to textile recyclers, with a substantial portion of the proceeds donated to the Breast Cancer Health Fund of Canada.

Clothing for Charity has donated over $100,000 to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington for it to buy a breast cancer diagnostic machine.

Mr. DeKort has also provided substantial assistance to an awesome Burlington organization: Breast Cancer Support Services. His recent donation of $175,000 enabled BCSS to purchase a secure and welcoming home from which to operate.

I ask colleagues to please join me in thanking Mr. DeKort for his outstanding efforts to make a real difference in the fight against breast cancer.

[Multiculturalism, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada prides itself on being a country that is ethnically diverse, that we celebrate our ethnic diversity and our multiculturalism.

Could the secretary of state tell the House how her recent announcements will enhance and allow Canadian communities to enhance their social cohesion.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Delegation of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union concerning the 107th conference and related meetings of the Interparliamentary Union, held in Marrakesh, Morocco from March 16 to 23, 2002.

[Mohan Rao, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure today to recognize an outstanding resident of Burlington, Ontario. Mr. Mohan Rao is one of hundreds of retired Canadians to donate his time and expertise to the Canadian Executive Service Organization, CESO.

Mr. Rao recently returned from Almaty, Kazakhstan where he assisted a project management group in the planning and integration of the design and procurement of contracts. The company he assisted will now be in a position to respond to bid invitations more realistically and with greater success.

Mr. Rao is part of a great Canadian tradition. For 36 years CESO has been providing highly skilled volunteers to help stimulate development in disadvantaged economies and in our aboriginal communities.

Colleagues, join me in congratulating Mr. Rao for volunteering his time and expertise and for his fine representation of Canada.

[Family Supplement, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too am thrilled, as are all other members of the House, to speak in favour of the motion put forward by the member for Ahuntsic. The government has done some terrific things in terms of supporting families and making meaningful changes, and as one member has already mentioned more can be done. We need to continue to look at these things.

The indexing of benefits and tax rates was stopped a number of years ago based on a low inflation rate, and that was an accomplishment. However, over a period of time it had a devastating effect on families and individuals. Thankfully, that was changed in the most recent budget, but these benefits have not been changed. The member for Ahuntsic has done a good job in bringing forth this issue.

This kind of benefit is a meaningful difference for families who need our help. There is a reason for government to support families and people in difficult times. We want to ensure that they have the possibility of getting into meaningful employment.

I am sure the member for Ahuntsic, as most members, finds it difficult dealing with families who are in a period of difficulty, families who are struggling after the loss of a job, and dealing with creditors, hydro and telephone companies, all wanting their payments. My office, and I am sure the offices of other members, spends far too much time trying to help people out because they are in such difficulties. This benefit was brought in to support families and to ensure there is still food on the table. This is something that I fully support.

As the member mentioned, this benefit is something that the government introduced following extensive consultations right across the country after we took office in 1993. However the discussions were somewhat contentious. Many of our offices were inundated by people who did not support the change and thought the old system worked best. We are now seeing, however, that benefits like this are making a difference, and I know the current minister definitely supports this kind of initiative for families.

Only one spouse in the family can receive the family benefit at one time. This has been effective at targeting low income families who are dependent on this provision under EI. Low income families with children whose annual income is less than $26,000 are already struggling in this country. This is an important opportunity for them to get this supplement as well as the Canada child tax benefit which has done an amazing job in lifting a number of children out of poverty. As the member for the New Democratic Party has identified, this is an area where we could do a better job.

The EI monitoring and assessment report for 2002 indicated that the family supplement was effective and was responding as it was designed to do. The benefits in 2001-02 amounted to $176 million with 187,000 low income people receiving them. That is a significant number of Canadians who needed our support. Approximately 10% of all EI recipients are receiving a higher benefit because of this family supplement, and hopefully, with the support of the House for the motion put forward by the member for Ahuntsic, those families will receive a better benefit.

Obviously, we want more people to be working and not depending on EI. However, for those who are in need, that is the role of the government. We must support people in their time of need and help them get to the next job. We must help their families and their children in particular.

This EI monitoring has shown that benefits for families receiving the family supplement are 38% higher than they were under the old system. For all the people who opposed the changes, that is the proof that the benefit is an important benefit and that the system is working. There is no argument that the family supplement works. With the member for Ahuntsic's motion, it will work even better and help those people.

The benefit has been frozen since 1996. Inflation and salary increases have eroded the number of eligible recipients. It is not the tradition of the government to sit by and not take steps to adjust programs when improvements can be made and when those improvements will make a significant difference in families' lives.

We have witnessed such measures as adjusting the EI programs to take into account small weeks of earnings, eliminating the intensity rule, modifying the clawback provisions, and repealing the undeclared earnings rule. These are important steps that have made a difference the life of every Canadian and particularly in the life of every child.

Certainly, the member has demonstrated, as have other members of the House, the merits of this proposal. It particularly benefits low income women and children who, sadly, are two-thirds of low income Canadians in this country. We do not want anyone to have to be in that particular position. However, it is clear that women and children are the majority of poor Canadians. We must do more to get them job ready and support them in their time of need.

The family supplement is an important part of our government's effort to alleviate poverty. It complements the federal contributions to many provincial programs aimed at diminishing poverty. I know that is something that is certainly important in my province as we are in an election period. We must be able to support families in need.

The member for Ahuntsic has done a good job in her motion. I fully support her. All colleagues on this side of the House and most colleagues on the other side of the House have also demonstrated their support in this debate.

We are able to see and Canadians can be proud that parliamentarians are getting together and working on progressive ideas and supporting each other to make a difference for all Canadians.