Bryon Wilfert

[1911 Census Records, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, many historians, genealogists and researchers had expected that the 1911 census records would be publicly available in 2003, 92 years after the taking of the census. They were dismayed to find out that this was not to be the case.

Canada's censuses up to and including 1901 were taken on the acts of parliament which did not contain a specific confidentiality provision having the force of law. As a result census records up to and including the 1901 census have been transferred to the national archives and are now available for public access. However, starting with the 1906 census, access to individual census records is explicitly prohibited by law.

There seems to be a general perception that Statistics Canada has taken an arbitrary position on the matter and is simply refusing to release the 1911 census records. This is certainly not the case. In fact, the agency is respecting the legislation for which censuses have been taken since 1906. Starting in 1906, the legislation giving authority to collect census information contains statutory confidentiality provisions. These provisions are such that only the person named in the record may have access to his or her own information.

There is also a time limitation on this access. Even when the person is deceased, the provisions are still in effect. As a result, Statistics Canada cannot make public census records taken under the authority of the 1906 and all subsequent statistics acts without breaching the Statistics Act.

Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1991. These records are on microfilm and extracts are made available only to individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for pension purposes, passports, et cetera.

I would like to make the point that information from the current census records can be released only when written consent of the person named in the record or the person's legal representative has been provided.

Also Statistics Canada has never considered the destruction of the 1906 and later census records. These records have been transferred to microfilm and the original paper questionnaires have been destroyed in accordance with approvals given by the National Archives of Canada.

We all agree that historians, genealogists and researchers have legitimate reasons for wanting access to historical census records. We also have to recognize and respect the right to privacy of individual Canadians and their ancestors. While there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical census records, this is where an important principle of privacy protection comes into play.

The House is being asked to retroactively alter the conditions under which information was provided by Canadians. Is this right? The privacy commissioner strongly opposes a retroactive amendment to the Statistics Act which would allow the transfer of individually identifiable census records to the National Archives of Canada for archival and access purposes.

The commissioner is of the view that allowing third party access to census records for such purposes constitutes a use that is inconsistent with the guarantee of confidentiality that Statistics Canada gave to Canadians when collecting their personal information. He is also of the view that it constitutes a violation of fundamental privacy principles requiring that the personal information be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

On the other hand, many historians and archivists view Canada's census as a national treasure that must be preserved. They argue that the census should be available after a reasonable period of time in order to conduct research which will shed light on the personal and community histories of Canadians.

Another argument often used to access Canadian census records is that census records in the United States and the United Kingdom are publicly accessible. I would like to remind my colleagues that this is an issue of different legislation and perhaps of culture when it comes to the taking of a census.

While there is undeniably great value attached to historical census records, there is also great value attached to the aggregate information that can be produced from current and future censuses. Much of this value is contained in various pieces of legislation. For example, population counts play a vital role in determining the amount and allocation of federal-provincial transfer payments for Canada health and social transfers, equalization and territorial formula financing. These payments were established at $39 billion in 2000-01 and the census is required to allocate them.

Statistics Canada feels that the most important factor contributing to respondent co-operation is the unconditional guarantee given to respondents that the information they supply will be protected. Canada, for almost 100 years, has been able to unconditionally guarantee the confidentiality of the information supplied in the census.

Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such co-operation could jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable and timely information.

The minister recognizes the importance of historical research but also must take into account the privacy concerns of Canadians. This is why he has created the expert panel on access to historical census records. This panel of eminent Canadians will look at the issues and provide an approach which would balance the need to protect personal privacy with the demands of genealogists and historians for access to historical census records.

The five member panel, which is chaired by Dr. Richard Van Loon, president of Carleton University, has been asked to make recommendations to the minister by May 31, 2000. The panel has been provided with all relevant documents and information on this matter. The panel is reviewing this information and is meeting with key stakeholders to seek their views.

In my view the House should wait for the expert panel on access to historical census records to make its recommendations before voting on this issue.

[Vimy Ridge, April 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Vimy Ridge, April 9, 1917: Canada's nationhood was forged by the tremendous efforts of its soldiers. More than 66,000 Canadians died in action or of their wounds after the war, more than one in ten of those who had worn uniforms.

There are many memorials to this great battle of the first world war, from a simple stone plaque on the west side of this building near the Speaker's entrance, to the grand Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France which took 11 years and $1.5 million to build. At the base of the memorial in English and French are these words:

To the valour of their countrymen in the Great War and in memory of their sixty thousand dead, this monument is raised by the people of Canada.

Whether grand or modest, in English or in French, one thing remains true: the respect that we must show for those who fought and were wounded. I would ask all members to remember the veterans of the first world war and of this battle on the anniversary of Vimy Ridge.

[Dr. James Langstaff, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a founding father of Richmond Hill, a gentleman and a country doctor, Dr. James Langstaff, who passed away at home last Sunday.

He graduated from medical school at the University of Toronto in 1935 and for a time set up a small hospital in his home. Caring for patients 24 hours a day was too much to handle with such a busy practice, so he campaigned for the building of a new hospital, York Central Hospital in Richmond Hill. He was the first chief of staff, a post he held for four years.

The first Dr. Langstaff opened his practice in 1838 on Yonge Street in the same house where James was born, lived in and died. In fact, the only time that Dr. Langstaff changed addresses, he did not move, the house did.

For 162 years there has been a Dr. Langstaff in Richmond Hill. My condolences to his wife, his children and his many friends. We will miss him.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition with regard to amending the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported in Bill C-367, with regard to the right of grandparents to access or custody of children.

[Richmond Hill, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the budget team of the town of Richmond Hill. The town recently received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.

In order to receive the award, the town fulfilled nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation. These guidelines assessed how well the town's budget served as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device.

Having worked with these financial professionals before coming to this place, I know that they are very deserving of this award. I would like to offer the town staff my congratulations on a job very well done.

[United Kingdom Parliamentary Delegation, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canada-United Kingdom Interparliamentary Association I would like to indicate to the House that members of the British delegation are visiting with us today to learn more about how Canadian parliamentarians carry out their responsibilities both here in Ottawa and in their constituencies.

I am pleased to note that the delegation is headed by the Baroness Pitkeathley of Caversham. Also present are Keith Ernest Darvill of Upminster; Christopher Leslie of Shipley; Maria Eagle of Liverpool-Garston; John Bercow of Buckingham; Gerald Howarth of Aldershot; the Rt. Hon. Eric Forth of Bromley-Chislehurst; and Andrew George of St. Ives.

It is a pleasure to have them here with us today.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am not an apologist for the provinces, unlike my colleague.

My colleague wants evidence. When this government came to office in 1993 the unemployment rate exceeded 11%. In February it was 6.8%, the lowest since April 1976. I suggest that is evidence. I also suggest to the member that she go back and take a look at the fact that the province Ontario has not balanced its books.

As one of my colleagues said earlier on the whole health debate, the Government of Ontario was transferred $1.2 billion last year, plus a one-time cheque for $950 million after the CAP was eliminated. It then sat on $500 million. At the same time, in December, when Ontario had one of the most major flu epidemics in the history of the province, 16 out 18 hospitals in the greater Toronto area were redirecting the ambulance service.

If the province of Ontario is so concerned about health care, why is it not using the dollars to help the citizens of that province rather than sitting on $500 million? Clearly, the Government of Canada transfers dollars. It does not administer the health care system, the ERs, ambulances, et cetera. Maybe the member should get her facts straight.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yes these people should be paid. The government is on record as saying that they should be paid. In fact the government is working very hard toward that end. Unlike the province of Ontario with a one time payment of $10,000 which would not go very far for many of the victims, the fact is that the Government of Canada has a long term commitment to make sure drugs and so on will be available, unlike the short term band-aid approach as in the province of Ontario.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the opposition motion. It gives me an opportunity to highlight all the grants and contributions programs that are making such tremendous differences in the lives of so many Canadians.

The grants and contributions we are talking about are moneys that go to help Canadians who have not been able to find work. It is done through targeted wage subsidies and through self-employment assistance. It is money that goes to communities that may not have a diversified economy to help build new opportunities and jobs for the people who want and need them. It is money that goes to young Canadians to help them land their first work experience, or to youth at risk to help them make a fresh start in life. It is money that goes to hundreds of thousands of more Canadians to help them get the literacy and the life and job skills needed to turn their lives around.

These are the kinds of programs we are talking about. They are proven programs that Canadians have come to count on. That money is invested in communities across the country regardless of political stripe.

At the heart of these programs is the notion that in return for individual responsibility we must expand opportunity. We must give Canadians the tools they need to succeed. These programs are about expanding opportunity for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

Our economy with its 1.9 million new jobs is stronger today than it has been in generations. We are making one of the greatest economic expansions in Canadian history with unemployment at its lowest levels in more than two decades.

These programs are hard at work for Canadians who have been left out of the new economy. Thousands of individual Canadians and thousands of small organizations depend on these programs for their livelihood and indeed for their very survival.

The transitional jobs fund created jobs for over 30,000 Canadians, bringing new hope to areas of high unemployment. Its successor, the Canada jobs fund, is continuing to create jobs today. These are practical programs that are helping the unemployed get jobs.

I should point out that the vast majority of the jobs created are permanent year round jobs. The Canada jobs fund's success is based on valuable partnerships forged between the Government of Canada, the provinces and territories, the private sector and local communities to help create opportunities and jobs for Canadians.

I am talking about 30,000 Canadians who now have work thanks to opportunities we have created, work that would not have been available otherwise. We are helping people to provide for themselves and for their families. Those people know the pride of bringing home a regular paycheque and know the dignity of making their own way in the world.

The Government of Canada also recognizes the need to help young people and has acted on it. We have created successful programs to help young people develop the skills they need to build for the future. So far over 300,000 young Canadians have been able to give their careers a boost by landing their first work experience, landing summer jobs or by starting their own businesses.

I am talking about programs that stress both opportunity and responsibility and give our young people the tools they need to compete in the new global economy. Programs like youth service Canada are giving young people the opportunity to serve their communities and to earn money toward their own education.

These programs are bringing tangible benefits to communities from coast to coast to coast. They are giving young Canadians a chance to roll up their sleeves and get involved with projects in crime prevention, literacy and the environment right in their own backyards. These programs are helping youth at risk to put new direction in their lives. They are helping them to learn the enormous value of helping their fellow Canadians.

Programs like youth internship Canada are helping youth to break into the job market and break the no experience, no job cycle. They are giving young people the life and job skills they need to turn their lives around. These internships are providing young people with meaningful work experience in growth sectors of our economy such as science and technology, international trade and development. These programs are really working.

Seventy-eight per cent of youth service Canada participants and 88% of youth internship Canada participants who have finished their programs are now employed, self-employed or have gone back to school. At the same time more than 90% of students and employers were satisfied with their summer job placements. These numbers show Canadians real value for their tax dollars. Once again the numbers tell the story.

In 1998 youth employment in Canada increased more than it did in any other year on record. It increased again last year by another 73,000 jobs. So we begin the new century with the lowest youth unemployment rate in almost a decade and another 12,000 young Canadians found work in January. Even more important, we are giving our young people the confidence to build the future of their dreams. We are giving them the power to seize the opportunities of the new century.

I am absolutely convinced that these programs have helped countless young men and women find opportunities that would otherwise not have been available. I am convinced that these programs are transforming the lives of many Canadians. These programs are proof positive that government can play a significant role in the lives of individual Canadians. They can forge strong partnerships with business and communities to create new opportunities which reward work and strengthen families. We are determined to fulfill our promise to give all Canadians the opportunities to succeed.

Over the next year, rather than slackening the pace, Canadians can expect to see a focused and energetic drive to give more Canadians the tools and opportunities they need to support their families and ensure Canada remains one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group.

The delegation participated in the eighth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Canberra, Australia, from January 9 to 14, 2000.