James Rajotte

[International Aid, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance supports Bill C-56 which attempts to facilitate the delivery of drugs to help developing countries deal with public health emergencies, such as the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa.

We would have liked to have this legislation in September when it was first announced by the Minister of Industry rather than on the day before the House closes.

Why has the Minister of Industry waited so long to introduce this legislation?

[Statistics Act, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-13, an act to amend the Statistics Act regarding census records.

Many members of Parliament have received hundreds and thousands of e-mails and letters regarding the bill. This is a very important bill to a great number of people, particularly those who are interested in historical research of family records and genealogists who obviously like to trace not only their own family's history, but other family histories in terms of preserving and knowing our heritage.

Before I address the bill specifically, I should pay tribute to two of my colleagues, the member for Calgary Southeast and the member for Peace River.

The member for Calgary Southeast introduced at one point in the House a motion which we in the Canadian Alliance supported unanimously. The motion stated:

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.

The member for Peace River, the previous industry critic, dealt with this issue and certainly shepherded it through our caucus in the main discussions back in 2001.

We all know that census records are an invaluable source of information for those conducting historical or genealogical research. In fact, the 1906 census, the document which gave rise to this specific bill, was a special census that was conducted only in the prairie provinces after the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the century.

The release of the 1906 census generated more than four million hits in the 12 days it was online. The same story holds true for the 1901 census which received more than 50 million hits for its first six months online. This obviously demonstrates a deep desire by Canadians to know more about their collective history.

The problem as I understand it is the nature of census data itself. Statistics Canada strives to protect the integrity of the information it gathers. It strives to protect the privacy of the individuals as much as possible. This is something which we in the Canadian Alliance are concerned about.

In Canada we have kept census information secret for a long time after the data has been initially collected. We have kept census information secret for 92 years on average in order to address those privacy concerns. That is 20 years longer than in the United States and eight years shorter than in the United Kingdom. In my view, 92 years is a reasonable time period to wait before releasing the census information to the National Archives.

At the turn of the century, ambiguities were raised as to how long such information should be kept from public release. According to Statistics Canada, census takers were given conflicting instructions on how to collect census data. This may have led some Canadians to believe their information would be kept secret forever. The situation was clarified when confidentiality and disclosure regulations that had existed for previous census operations were enforced by law for the 1911 census.

The Canadian commissioner of privacy and a legal opinion received by Statistics Canada have led some groups to push that census records be kept secret for 20 years longer, a total of 112 years, due to the provision in Canadian law to keep personal records secret until 20 years after the death of an individual.

Bill S-13 proposes a compromise between concerns for privacy and the covenant agreed to by Statistics Canada and the Canadian public through the census.

It was originally proposed that the bill be passed in a single sitting without full deliberation. We in the Canadian Alliance could not agree to a course of action as proposed by the government on the bill. We have some serious concerns that need to be addressed and I would like to touch upon those concerns at this point.

First of all, we are seeking clarity concerning the conditional release of information. Second, I would like to discuss the creation of a new bureaucracy and new regulations to police the conditional release of information. Last, I would like to debate the appropriate passage of time before census information should be released to the public.

Bill S-13 is silent on the issue, but the research I have is that this type of information will be available in the initial release after 92 years. My understanding is that the only information that will be released after 92 years is what they call tombstone information: name, address, age, date of birth, marital status, sex, occupation.

At the turn of the century, this scope of information comprised the bulk of the census. However, some interesting questions have been asked over the years, some fairly personal questions ranging from the mental state of members of a person's family to the type of company that a person keeps, questions that understandably Statistics Canada would like to treat gently.

One has to wonder whether the questions that needed to be treated differently needed to be asked at all. That is a concern I have. Some members argue that this information should not be released because it is too personal and too private. I would advise and guide members of the government that they themselves should question whether they should be asking those questions at all. If the information is too personal to be released after a 92 year period, then perhaps the government ought not to be intruding on the privacy of Canadians today by asking those types of questions.

Nonetheless I am hoping to clarify why there will only be a partial release of this information, especially since researchers will be required to fill out an application in order to access this information. This brings me to my second point.

The bulk of this bill deals with section 17 of the Statistics Act which governs secrecy. The information released after 92 years will be reviewed by those who fill out an application to view the records. There will then be two separate sets of researchers allowed to access census records after 92 years, genealogists and historians.

Genealogists will be required to fill out a very simple form and their qualifications to the best of my knowledge will not be reviewed. Historians, however, will have to be vouched for. According to the draft regulations proposed to cabinet, persons applying to conduct historical research will be required to submit an application on their own behalf, accompanied by a form from a list of people who have “assessed the public and scientific value of the research”.

The people identified who can approve historical research are presidents or faculty deans of universities, a senior elected community official such as a mayor or a reeve, a president of an ethnic or cultural association, a member of Parliament from either this House or the Senate, a member of the provincial legislature, senior clergy, a native chief, a chief librarian, a provincial archivist, the national archivist of Canada or the chief statistician of Canada. Clearly this list of people who can approve access to census information should be included in the bill itself in order to outline exactly who can approve someone under the historian category.

If we take the example of a member of Parliament, many people question, justifiably I think, whether MPs are able or qualified to assess the public and scientific value of the proposed research. Members of Parliament and their staffers are incredibly busy. To assess the 50 or 100 historians who would approach our constituency offices and ask us to assess whether they should be allowed access to this research, quite frankly I am not sure whether a member or a senator is a good person to do that.

Further to the release of information, there is a clause in the bill which states that those people filling out the 2006 census will have to give their consent at the time they fill out the census forms for the information to be disclosed after 112 years. This is one clause that is quite confusing. It has caused a lot of concern in the genealogical community.

Some questions have been raised. Will there be a campaign to educate people about this clause? Is this a one time offer? Could people go back and change their decisions? Who is allowed to check the consent box for children? How many people is it expected will opt out of a public release? If more than 50% of Canadians choose to keep their census records secret until the end of time, ad infinitum, how will that skew the other 49% of records that are to be released? How much will it cost Canadians to administer and keep these records secret?

Finally, I wonder why we need to create a new bureaucracy to police this endeavour. A form is being created for those who wish to conduct research on census information.

In a speech, the sponsor of the bill, Liberal Senator Lorna Milne, stated:

The government does not want to make it difficult to conduct historical and genealogical research.

I think the senator is a genealogist herself. She is an advocate on behalf of that community and she certainly deserves credit for her activities.

If it were the case that the government does not want to make it difficult, in my view the government would not be imposing new and complicated procedures in order to access census information. It is my experience that regulations, forms and bureaucracy make things more difficult, not easier.

I must ask has the government conducted a cost benefit analysis on these new regulations? Does the government have any idea how many people will be applying to view these records? How is the government going to police and monitor the use of these records? Will there be fines or jail times for those who misuse their privileges?

We in the Canadian Alliance will be proposing amendments to the bill. We assume it will be in committee if the House continues to sit.

One of the most important questions facing the House now is how much time is appropriate to respect the privacy rights of those who have completed these census forms. Today the average life expectancy for Canadian males is 75 years and for females it is 81 years. In all likelihood, people's personal census information would not be made available while they were still alive.

As may be noticed from my speech, we in the Canadian Alliance believe that 92 years of secrecy is a sufficient and reasonable time period to protect the integrity of census records. At the same time we do not belittle the privacy concerns of Canadians and the Privacy Commissioner on this subject. The Canadian Alliance is very concerned about the breadth and scope of the current census forms.

There is a balance in saying that a 92 year period is reasonable but at the same time if there are questions for example about the mental state of members of a family, and it is something that is deemed to be too personal, we ought to consider whether we ought to ask that question at all at any time.

Many of us know people or have heard from constituents who feel especially that the long form of the census asks for too much personal information, financial information or otherwise. Statistics Canada is a depository of highly sensitive and private information of private citizens and corporations. Many individuals and corporations believe that Statistics Canada collects too much information these days and then because of the sheer volume of information, is delayed in releasing its analysis in a timely matter. That could be a full debate on Statistics Canada and the Statistics Act but it is a partner to the debate on this bill.

I would hope that the government would simply adopt the approach proposed by the Canadian Alliance in its previous motion which said that 92 years is a reasonable time period to release this information to the National Archives. Frankly, let us trust the National Archives and the archivists there to determine who should or who should not view the census information.

We will be watching what the government does with the bill and how long the House sits. If the bill gets to committee, we will certainly be participating in those discussions and proposing amendments at that stage to try to improve it.

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the industry minister was involved with the Irvings in at least two incidents. One was in February 2002, not in May 2002 when he contacted the ethics counsellor, when he wrote the letter to ExxonMobil. He has now admitted he was wrong. He was wrong to lobby on behalf of the Irvings. He was in a clear conflict of interest.

The honourable thing to do is for him to stand up, take responsibility and resign. Will he do that today?

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, finally the industry minister has released a statement in which he admits he was wrong. He also said in the statement that he immediately went to the ethics counsellor when he was dealing with an Irving file, but that is not true.

The industry minister was appointed in January 2002. He did not contact the ethics counsellor until the end of May 2002.

My question for the industry minister is simple. Why did he wait five full months before he contacted the ethics counsellor?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on October 10 the industry minister defended himself by stating:

The trip took place in the summer of 2001 when I was minister of health.

Once named Minister of Industry...I informed the ethics counsellor of all the particulars relating to the trip.

That is simply not true. In fact the minister waited five full months during which he actively lobbied on behalf of the Irvings: $100 million for the two shipyards, and the ExxonMobil contract.

Why did the minister wait so long to contact the ethics counsellor?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry knows his actions were wrong when it comes to the shipbuilding file. He accepted a gift that violated the conflict of interest guidelines. He repeatedly lobbied on behalf of the Irving interest at the cabinet table. He wrote letters and signed agreements. He made government appointments with respect to a shipbuilding file he was told to stay away form.

How can the minister possibly suggest he was just doing his job when he violated the terms of the blackout over and over again?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the industry minister actually co-signed the $55 million grant to the Irving shipyard. In fact, in May 2002, ironically just at the time he was consulting the ethics counsellor, he was lobbying cabinet for $100 million for these two shipyards. This goes against his direct testimony in question period today. He violated the terms of the conflict of interest. He violated the blackout period. When is the minister simply going to stand up and resign?

[Ethics, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister was told to cease and desist with respect to Irving family businesses, but he continued to represent their interests. He appointed a member from the Irving empire to advise him. He lobbied on behalf of the Irvings for money and federal contracts. He co-signed a $55 million grant for the Saint John shipyard, which is owned by the Irvings.

How can the minister say that he was not acting on behalf of the Irvings when he was the one who co-signed the grant in the first place?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister was specifically directed by the ethics counsellor not to involve himself in any decisions involved with the Irvings.

The $55 million fund was announced during that blackout period. In addition, in November 2002 the vice-chairman of Irving Shipbuilding was appointed by Industry Canada to the shipbuilding and industrial marine advisory committee. This was also done during the blackout period put forward by the ethics counsellor.

Clearly the minister is in a conflict of interest and was involved during the blackout period. Again I ask the minister, will he do the honourable thing and resign today?

[Ethics, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister has been caught in a clear conflict of interest. In July 2001 he went on a fishing trip in an executive jet paid for by the Irving family. In June 2003 the federal government awarded an Irving owned company $55 million to help redevelop their unused shipyard, something the minister had been lobbying for since May 2002. This is a clear conflict of interest.

Will the minister do the honourable thing today and resign as the industry minister?