Serge Marcil

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, a funding proposal for a new Canadian neutron facility was submitted by Atomic Energy of Canada, in partnership with the National Research Council. This proposal was considered by the government. However, Atomic Energy of Canada withdrew its project.

It must be understood clearly that, for this type of research, it is essential that our Canadian researchers have access to high performance centres. Canada must therefore participate in space related activities here, together with other countries. Americans and Russians come to Canada to work.

It is somewhat along the same lines. We will continue to provide support to these research centres, and particularly to our universities and our Canadian researchers.

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Government of Canada continues to support research on optical materials and advanced materials. It is committed to maintaining Canada's status as a leader in advanced materials research for many applications, particularly the physics of solids, energy technologies and medicine.

In her question, the hon. member referred to the recently announced $15 million international access fund of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It was awarded to McMaster University for the construction and maintenance of a neutron beamline to be housed at the Spallation Neutron Source, scheduled to open in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 2006.

As the members are aware, the Canada Foundation for Innovation is an independent agency that offers awards for infrastructure research based on peer reviews of proposals from universities on behalf of their researchers.

The $15 million approved by the foundation was proposed by McMaster University, on behalf of university researchers. It will give Canadian researchers full access to Canada's neutron beam and potential access to the 23 beams that will be built or maintained by other partners. This activity is an excellent complement to the types of research that can be conducted in Chalk River.

A Canadian, Professor Bruce Gaulin, of McMaster University, is leading this team of researchers. Professor Gaulin and other contributors to university research are and will continue to be key players in the field of neutron scattering in Canada. Their research is concentrated at the national neutron scattering facility located at the Chalk River laboratories and operated by the National Research Council.

This $15 million is a substantial investment. However, we want our Canadian researchers to have access to even more sophisticated laboratories.

[Marriage Act, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not try to throw red herrings or to steer people in the wrong direction or to talk about a scandal when there is none. We are talking here about workers who lost their jobs, and we are trying to do something to help revive this site by finding a new vocation for it.

When a company want unions to be decertified, that is not the Government of Canada's problem. This is an industry matter. I trust the workers. We trust the president of these workers' union. Everyone knows that if this site is revived with a new vocation, workers will be hired and unionization will happen automatically.

There is nothing to hide. Everything is crystal clear. Two governments have decided to work together to revive a site which, at this time, has no vocation.

[Marriage Act, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Minister of State responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The Government of Canada has made the commitment to provide $55 million not to close the Saint John shipyard, but to help it rationalize its operations.

As stated previously by the Minister of Labour, “After making laudable efforts to try to diversify the Saint John shipyard in a highly competitive global climate, the owners made the difficult decision to close the shipyard”. It is the owners who made the decision to close the shipyard.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst has asked the government to make public what he incorrectly called a secret deal. The facts that pertain to the Saint John shipyard adjustment measure are clear. This measure is an extension of the government's contribution to a national rationalization exercise in the shipbuilding industry. It applied not only to New Brunswick, but also to Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

The federal government has agreed to allocate up to $55 million as a transition fund for the Saint John Shipyard. This program was created to permit modification of the site, find other uses for it, or to fund other qualified projects. Thus the $55 million is not being provided to close the facility: it is meant to find another purpose for the site. That is what the mayor at the time asked for; she is now a member of this House. She wanted it as quickly as possible; that was her reaction.

There is also a local contribution of one dollar for every dollar provided by the Government of Canada. This makes a total of $110 million: the federal government will supply $55 million and the New Brunswick government $55 million. All of it will go to changing the use of the site and finding it a new purpose. The president of the largest union is in favour of that.

There is an attempt here to make us believe that the government approves of or agrees with their deunionization. The site is being closed; there are no more workers. There is an attempt here to give the site a new identity or renewed purpose. Some $55 million is being invested to give it a new vocation, and New Brunswick is being asked to match these funds. Obviously, workers are returning to work at the site with its new vocation. This can be the construction of steel framing, as the union president of the site said.

The Canadian government will never prevent the unionization of workers. That is not our role. There will always be a shop steward or a union president to unionize the workers. All the better.

[Genome Canada, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, Genome Canada's first report for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

[Statistics Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Yukon for his question.

It is important that members of Parliament can ask questions in order to clarify a bill. Few people, in fact, even members of the public, read a bill or an act clause by clause. Instead we rely on experts, lawyers and other people. At least, here in the House, questions from the hon. members give the minister or the parliamentary secretary an opportunity for further explanation.

Bill S-13 does, in fact, protect private information. If a person does not want private information released, as of the 2006 census, that person need only sign a form stating that this information is private and cannot be released until 112 years have passed. We will certainly not be here in 112 years to debate this act again.

[Statistics Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his question.

Today we are debating a bill for the purpose of correcting a situation. Historians and genealogists will be given access to information for their family or others in order to put together material to show Canadians, or anyone else, 92 years later, the origins of people who were born or living in Canada with consent from the person participating in the census.

If Canadians mistrust Statistics Canada or the company that might be conducting the census, they could simply sign a document indicating that they do not want this personal information to be disclosed until 112 years later.

Let us not confuse the bill as it stands today, Bill S-13, with the contract that has been awarded. Let us be clear that contracts awarded by the government are tendered. A statement of work is drafted and standards are followed. There are also well-disclosed selection criteria. It is open to everyone.

Our legislation requires us, in North America and under NAFTA, to open our market to everyone. Calls for tenders cannot be limited strictly to Canadian or local firms. We are required to open our market.

Signing an international agreement means that one agrees to respect the document and the conditions agreed to. In this case, I trust the Government of Canada. Calls for tenders have been made; that is one thing.

Today, what worries us specifically is the high number of citizens, genealogists and historians who have phoned me and whom I have met with in my office. I am sure that all parliamentarians have met with people in their office who asked, “Why are we denied access to the famous 1901 census and the censuses for subsequent years?”

At the time, disclosure standards were probably shorter to protect the privacy of Canadians. Now, we want to give historians and genealogists access to all the censuses, while ensuring that privacy is protected.

We are telling people that nothing can be released before 112 years. To have information released after 92 years, consent will be required. It will be possible for individuals to consent to the release of tombstone information, such as name, sex, origin, occupation, after 92 years.

This is the sole focus of the bill, which is redressing a certain inequity. Historians sometimes retrace the history of a region or village. Every year, there are villages celebrating their 125th, 150th or 200th anniversary, and we want to know who built these villages. Often, a local historian wants to find out who the founding families were, among other things.

In order to retrace the history of a region, province, country or family, access to certain information is necessary. We are fortunate enough to have an organization by the name of Statistics Canada, which carries out censuses on a regular basis, so that the information is always up to date. Through this organization, historians and those interested in history can have access to such information.

This is important, and this bill gives all these specialists access to this information while at the same time protecting the privacy of Canadians.

[Statistics Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present Bill S-13, an act to amend the Statistics Act, for second reading today.

Bill S-13 is of interest to many of our constituents. Historical census records are a key tool for historical researchers and genealogists and remain the most commonly used records in family and historical research. There has been much debate over the last few years about access to the post-1901 historical census records. I am sure that you have all received correspondence or seen media articles on this matter.

Bill S-13 provides reasonable access to historical census records and meets the needs of genealogists and historians for information on their families and communities. The bill also puts appropriate safeguards in place to protect the privacy of individuals. Bill S-13 achieves an acceptable balance of these two competing public goods. I am pleased that a solution has been found to the difficult problem of balancing access to our historical census records with protecting the privacy of Canadians.

The underlying problem regarding historical census records is that there has been legal ambiguity about the confidential status of historical census records. As such, Bill S-13 is designed to remove the legal ambiguity that currently exists with post-1901 census records.

First of all, I would like to explain to the House why this legislation does not cover the 1906 census records. The government released the 1906 census without restriction on January 24, 2003. The 1906 census records were released without condition given the special nature of that census. Only tombstone information was collected and the 1906 census was limited to three provinces— Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Unlike the 1906 census, the 1911 and subsequent censuses contain very sensitive information.

The purpose of Bill S-13 is to make the 1911 and later census records available for historical and genealogical research.

The bill would allow historians and genealogists to have access to historical census records, under certain conditions, beginning 92 years after the census took place. The census records would become available without restriction after 112 years.

The bill also seeks to clarify the position with respect to future census records by asking respondents to consent to the eventual release of their information. The bill contains a provision to allow Canadians, beginning with the 2006 census. to consent to the eventual public release of their personal census information, 92 years later. Some of you may question why there are conditions attached to the release of these historical census records, while others may say that these records should be permanently closed to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Bill S-13 is a compromise. As in any compromise, there has been give and take. Bill S-13 represents ground given on the access side and ground given on the protection side by both the Chief Statistician of Canada and the National Archivist.

On the protection side, informed consent by Canadians will govern the release of future censuses starting with the 2006 census. On the release side, it is unrestricted access after 112 years for censuses taken between 1911 and 2001.

Bill S-13 provides genealogists and historical researchers with access for genealogical, scholarly, cultural or educational purposes beginning 92 years after the census took place. After 112 years, the records will be fully released. Wile this legislation puts conditions on release of information for twenty years, it is important to have such safeguards in place to protect the privacy of Canadians. In fact, this legislation goes beyond the Privacy Act and provides an additional 20 years of privacy protection.

One of the most important sections in Bill S-13 is its provision for Canadians to give informed consent to the release of their census information in the future. Starting with the 2006 census, Canadians will be asked to decide if they will allow their personal census information to be released publically after 92 years. Individual census records would be released only where consent is given. To allow Canadians to decide in future censuses whether others can have access to their personal census records is in keeping with the highest standards of privacy protection. This is the heart of the compromise as it will ensure the willing cooperation of Canadians with future censuses which is so essential for a successful census. This continued trust by Canadians is a cornerstone of Statistics Canada.

I think it is fair to say that the bill meets the needs of historians and genealogists while protecting the privacy of Canadians.

In summary, the bill will permit access to the 1911 to 2001 census records, 92 years after a census was taken. Access will be subject to specific conditions.

Genealogists, professional or amateur, or their authorized representatives would agree in advance that they would release only tombstone information pertaining to their own family members. Subject to this release condition, access for genealogical purposes would be unrestricted. Tombstone information is defined as name, address, age, sex, marital status, origin and occupation.

Historical researchers would have the public and scientific nature of their proposed research confirmed by appropriate peers or community leaders prior to starting their work. Again, while access would be unrestricted, only tombstone information could be released.

The conditions would be in effect for a 20-year period following the release of the historical census records 92 years after the census. After 112 years, the conditions would be removed, and access and release would be permitted.

The bill will allow Canadians to decide, starting with the 2006 census, whether they allow their personal census information to be made publically available 92 years after the census. Starting with 2098, access to 2006 census records would be made publically available only when consent has been given at the time of collection.

Access to census records as specified in the legislation would be achieved by using existing access mechanisms of the Library and Archives of Canada, formerly known as the National Archives. These conditions are neither onerous nor restrictive for genealogists and historians.

I would also like to assure the House that the legislative change in the Statistics Act does not impact on any of Statistic Canada's other surveys. The census is the only survey where identifiable personal records are microfilmed or scanned and kept in perpetuity.

In closing, I want to say that this bill is a reasonable compromise. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, this bill is a solution to the difficult problems of balancing access to our historical census records with protecting the privacy of Canadians. This bill fully ensures the integrity of census-keeping in Canada.

It will ensure the public's continued cooperation with and trust in Statistics Canada with regard to its censuses and other surveys.

I ask the House to support this bill.

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly have a question; it is more of a comment.

First, I am very pleased to see that the hon. members of the opposition will be supporting this bill. In my opinion, this is a positive gesture toward the people who represent us in so many corners of the world.

But their speeches are a bit beyond me. To listen to the hon. members, one would think we needed three more submarines here, four more ships there, 20 CF-18s somewhere else, and so on.

I think they are completely out of touch with Canada. Canadians are not known as a nation of warriors. Canada is a country that uses its defence and military capabilities for peace throughout the world.

Perhaps the hon. members should consider the role we wish to give our soldiers. They should not limit themselves to the rhetoric of “warriors”—the word is a bit stronger than I would like—people who would like Canadians to be equipped with the same highly developed weapons as the Americans, which would fit neatly into the American military, because their goal is more one of military intervention. We have a different goal.

They should perhaps tone down the rhetoric.

[Pharmaceutical Industry, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for now, the minister plans on reading and analyzing what is happening in the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which is hearing from representatives of the generic and patent drug industries and from Health Canada and Industry Canada officials.

Following these hearings, we will see if the committee makes any recommendations and at that time, we will consider the report.