Pat Martin

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-52 on behalf of my NDP caucus colleagues and the people of Winnipeg Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to split my time with my colleague from Burnaby--New Westminster.

Bill C-52 found its origin when the scrutiny of regulations committee virtually stumbled across the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had been setting regulatory conditions of licensing without any statutory authority to do so. It begs the question: Is this the way the government has been running the DFO for the last decade or more? If that is true, it explains the absolute mess the fishery is in from one coast to the other.

A number of speakers who have spoken tonight have listed a myriad of grievances about the mismanagement of the fisheries from one end of the country to the other and the middle in the great freshwater fisheries such as we enjoy in my home province of Manitoba.

Lake Winnipeg is the fifth largest lake in North America and is home to the largest surviving freshwater fishery in North America and is valued at almost $30 million American per year. I am very concerned that inaction on the part of our federal Liberal government may sound the death knell for that important economic engine for the province of Manitoba.

As of July 1 of this year, the United States intends to divert, by inter-basin transfer of water, the dirty polluted water from Devils Lake, North Dakota into the Cheyenne River, into the Red River and flowing north into Lake Winnipeg. If Bill C-52 were to grant regulatory authority to the minister, I hope he would use whatever authority he might have to intervene on behalf of the people of Manitoba to counter this egregious breach of Canadian sovereignty, an environmentally disastrous move of the wholesale inter-basin transfer of water from polluted Devils Lake, North Dakota ultimately into Lake Winnipeg.

Let me explain some of the frustration that Manitobans feel. Not only is this a catastrophic move environmentally, but as far as diplomatic relations between Canada and the United States are concerned, this single unilateral action by the United States could be the death knell of the boundary waters treaty of 1909, an international instrument that has proven critically important in protecting the interests of both signatories to that treaty from the unilateral actions of the other.

The International Joint Commission, of which the House I am sure is familiar, deals with complaints regarding the boundary waters treaty. Both parties have to refer an issue to the International Joint Commission and the Americans have refused to do so. It is a diplomatic slap in the face to have them say that they will solve their flooding problems in Devils Lake by cutting a channel and diverting all that water into Lake Winnipeg.

One of the serious problems that comes to mind with this is the invasive species aspect. At least one well-known parasite exists in Devils Lake called the gyrodactylus hoffmani which is a flat worm that parasitically attaches itself to the gills of channel catfish, minnows, et cetera. No environmental assessment has done on the Devils Lake diversion and so the scope and magnitude of this invasion by this species is unknown.

The scale of the spread of it is unknown because we are talking an inter-basin transfer here and the drainage basin that flows into Lake Winnipeg is most of western Canada. It is from the Rocky Mountains to Hudson's Bay essentially. This drains into all of Saskatchewan and most of Alberta. A great deal of the northern country in Nunavut directly to our north flows down and toward Lake Winnipeg. That same parasitic invasion could flow the other way and infect vast regions.

Not only that, in recent years the Americans, as do Canadian prairie farmers, have been overloading their fields with chemicals and pesticides to such a degree, and the wetlands have been drained, that a lot of this runoff goes into Devils Lake.

By the cruelest of ironies, the Americans have chosen Canada Day to turn the tap on for this diversion of water into Canada and when they do, an extra 40,000 pounds of phosphorous water a year will be going into Lake Winnipeg. It is bad enough that we already have our own agricultural contaminants going into Lake Winnipeg from Canada but we also have mercury, sulphates, nitrogen, diammonium phosphate, some of the popular fertilizers. All of these nutrients will be flowing into Lake Winnipeg seriously compounding the algae problem that exists there already with floating algae beds that are acres in size. The U.S. army corps of engineers has ignored the well-being of Canada in digging this diversion.

We had a similar problem in 1977, called the Garrison diversion, where the Americans again wanted to solve their water drainage problems by diverting through Garrison. They had a plan to divert their water north into Canada to follow the drainage into Lake Winnipeg. With a great deal of protest we managed to stop that.

We have tried everything this time. I personally went down with Lloyd Axworthy when he was the minister of foreign affairs to meet with senators and congressmen in Washington, D.C. and implore them to reconsider the disastrous and catastrophic idea of the inter-basin transfer of water. They simply accepted our representations to them, acknowledged that it was a serious environmental threat and then said, “If it ever comes down to doing what is best for North Dakota and what is best for Canada, we will do what is best for North Dakota. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out”. Essentially, that was all they would do for us.

Now we are desperately urging Canada to use every diplomatic measure possible to appeal to the Americans to block this catastrophic move. Our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a role to play. Surely there is a joint interest, an international element to the Department of Fisheries. There always has been, whether it is offshore with our fishing limits or, in this case, the interprovincial and international flow of water that can have a devastating effect.

However one of the most frustrating things is that reason and logic do not seem to penetrate this barrier we are getting from the Americans. Even their own research shows that by diverting this water they will lower Devils Lake by 1.5 inches per year. It has risen three feet in 10 years. They will devastate the largest freshwater fishery in Canada, possibly, all for the sake of making their water levels static and dropping it by 1.5 inches per year. At what cost?

Some day we have to start looking at ourselves as global citizens. We cannot let this arbitrary 49th parallel be the place where reason stops. That is simply not progressive thought and there is no future in that way of thinking.

When I see Bill C-52 and I think of the pattern of unilateral and arbitrary powers that the government likes to give ministers and the lack of respect for Parliament when it squirrels things away, it reminds me of a saying that the devil is in the details of any piece of legislation.

The government has put all the details into the regulations and very little of the specifics into the legislation. We rarely get to debate all the facts surrounding a piece of legislation in this House of Commons. We end up debating the shell or the outline of a bill but the regulatory changes, where the real meat and potatoes are, remain the exclusive domain of the minister to introduce at a later date.

In this case, we are appealing to the government to become seized of the issue of the crisis that is looming in the Devils Lake diversion and use whatever arbitrary powers that it has granted this minister to intervene on our behalf.

We are at the eleventh hour. The clock is ticking. July 1 is almost here. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is about to turn on the faucet and flood Lake Winnipeg with a bunch of invasive species and chemicals that we do not want or need. It will be the end of an era for Manitoba tourism and fisheries. It will be the death knell for Lake Winnipeg.

I urge my colleagues to please help us address this issue. I certainly implore the government to use whatever is in its power to help us save Lake Winnipeg.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have just watched the member for Yukon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, dance around and skirt the salient issue here. I think the member must have missed the point completely. The Minister of Fisheries has been unilaterally and arbitrarily putting conditions on licences when he had no statutory authority to do so. He has been doing it for years. It makes one wonder who is driving the bus around here. Who is minding the store in the Department of Fisheries if this kind of irregularity has been the norm for years. It was up to the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations to catch the irregularity. That is the real story of the day.

My colleague has a nice yarn and it was kind of a soothing, melodic flow to the diatribe he shared with us, but it had nothing to do with what is fundamentally wrong with the Department of Fisheries as managed by the Minister of Fisheries. He has been unilaterally and arbitrarily setting the conditions of licences for the fisheries in Ontario with no statutory authority whatsoever until we pass this bill to do so.

How my colleague can explain that irregularity? In the larger context, how can he explain this pattern, trend and obsession of the Liberals to grant even more unilateral authority to ministers in virtually every piece of legislation they have introduced since I have been a member of Parliament for eight years? It is a trademark motif of the Liberals to take power away from Parliament, to bastardize democracy, to minimize our participation and control of our legislation and to shift that authority incrementally, bit by bit, to ministers, giving absolute power to them.

Maybe the member for Yukon in a little more honest way could give us a response to those legitimate concerns that we are trying to address here tonight.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions about his speech.

Would the member agree with me that it is a worrisome trend in this Parliament and in the previous Parliaments under the auspices of the Liberal government, a pattern or we could even call it a trademark motif of the government, that virtually every piece of legislation it puts in place grows and adds to the arbitrary authority of the minister? The arbitrary powers of the minister are almost always enhanced by a bill. We never see those powers limited by any legislation.

In this case, Bill C-52 was made necessary because it became known that the minister had been setting regulations for years as it pertained to the fisheries in Ontario with no statutory authority whatsoever. We could view the bill as a way to further augment and enhance the powers of the minister to make it at least legal that he does set regulations.

I would ask the member to comment on two worrisome trends. The first one is the urgency and, seemingly, the goal of the Liberal government to enhance the arbitrary unilateral powers of ministers. The second one is the regulatory regime, setting regulations, leaving the details out of legislation and leaving it in regulations where they can be arbitrarily and unilaterally introduced by the minister.

Do either of those trends ring familiar with the member and is he concerned by those trends?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share my admiration for the statisticians at Statistics Canada for the work that they do and their reputation internationally.

I wish I could ask a question of my colleague, because it boggles my mind why the government wishes to contract out the important work of the data information side of Statistics Canada to Lockheed Martin, an American military merchant of death, we might call it. That is what we call it in the peace movement. Why would Lockheed Martin be in charge of our census data? If my colleague has such great confidence in his own bureaucracy and the good work it does, why is there this urge to privatize and contract that work out, especially when it makes that information liable to access by the patriot act in the United States?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this lessens the duty and obligation of the government one bit. The way my colleague phrases it, he seems to imply that this information is wasted because no one may use it. That is not the point.

The Government of Canada may have access to it and use it for its own actuarial assumptions, or even historical tracking of growth periods or ethnic diversity. The point is should it be made public, should it be open to anyone who wishes to see it?

The information is not wasted. The information is not lost. It exists for the exclusive use of the government of the day. The question remains, should that information from 1901 to 1911 be released when it did contain statutory provisions of confidentiality? The enumerators of the day told people that it was confidential information. They were dealing with people from areas of the world who may have been reluctant to share that information because they had fled from persecution and had a distrust of government, a healthy and warranted distrust of government, I might add. They were guaranteed confidentiality and in some cases in perpetuity.

Do we want to turn our backs on that just because the promise is 100 years old?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the frustration of my colleague from Nova Scotia on that point. When I was first elected I was less sensitive to the issue, because I was already being inundated by people who were very concerned about the 1911 census. Like him, I was confused about why this was such a burning issue when there were social issues of basic needs not being met and cutbacks to social programs. I was wondering what would encourage people to write to their members of Parliament with such enthusiasm over something as seemingly insignificant as the 1911 census.

The fact is that some of these are fundamental points of natural justice. They were raised by some of the member's own colleagues in the Conservative Party. Just because a contract or a commitment made is now 100 years old does not mean that it has a shelf life, that it is stale dated and does not have to be honoured. If these guarantees were made in perpetuity, can we now retroactively change them just because it is 92 years later?

My colleague should know that censuses taken after 1901 did contain statutory provisions of confidentiality. In collecting the information it is likely the enumerators probably did, at least in some cases, guarantee confidentiality in perpetuity. These are trusts. It is a breach of trust to violate a commitment of that nature just because it is 100 years later.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus and the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill S-18 dealing with the census information.

Before I begin my presentation tonight, I would like to expand a little bit on what my colleague from Kelowna--Lake Country was talking about. I am of the same view as he. Just because an agreement is 100 years old does not mean it is stale-dated. It does not have an expiry date unless such expiry date was freely spoken to at the time or was entered into the original deal. The analogy we could use is the government's treatment of first nation's treaties. Just because they are 150 years old and just because they contain language that we have a hard time accepting today, or some people do, does not mean that they had some kind of expiry date or sunset clause, unless there actually was a sunset clause.

I am concerned as we enter into the debate. It is a good graphic illustration of the advantage and the benefit of reasonable debate in the tone that we have seen tonight and it gives us pause to reflect on the complexity of what we are being asked to do here today. What would seem like a pretty simple and straightforward issue is anything but that.

I, for one, have had hundreds of representations to my office in the form of faxes, phone calls and petitions tabled with me from people who can see no good reason that they should not have access to all of that information from the census data prior to 1911, or at least in that grey area of 1901 to 1911.

However when we look at the competing interests here, the legitimate interests of historians, statisticians and genealogists, whether people are doing it as a hobby or as a career, their legitimate interests in knowing this information is compared with the absolute right to privacy that we uphold to the very end of our being in the House of Commons. It is a conflict. It is a tension between two competing interests that cannot be viewed lightly.

Looking at this issue in the larger sense, I would ask, first, for my colleagues to consider and to pass judgment on whether or not it is appropriate that the bill should be coming from the other place. I feel strongly that were there the political will, it is almost abrogating our obligations, our duties and our responsibilities to have not dealt with this issue in the House of Commons from the House of Commons.

The government could have introduced the legislation through the House of Commons rather than through the Senate but it chose not to. This is fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which the Senate is not an elected body. We are the elected legislators and lawmakers and the federal jurisdiction in the House of Commons. I just wanted to preface my remarks with that one observation and criticism. It should be originating here. It should be a bill that begins with “C” for Commons, not “S” for Senate.

Much has been made of the idea of whether or not a promise was made. Was there a guarantee in perpetuity of privacy? I find it hard to believe that was not at least frequently promised to people given the people the Government of Canada statisticians were enumerating.

I try to think of the context of 1901 to 1911 in the prairie provinces where I come from. One million immigrants arrived at the train station at the corner of Portage and Main to begin a new life. I believe that was in 1906 alone. My numbers could be off but we will recognize a massive influx of immigrants, many seeking refuge from persecution in parts of the world where people's privacy was not guaranteed and information was used against them. Many of these people would probably be reluctant to have an official from the government in their new-found country asking very personal questions about them, their background and their history

I would imagine that to get the information we needed to plan the opening of the west, I think government had a right to know who was who, where they were going and their background but one can imagine the reluctance of people to be forthcoming with that information. One can also imagine the guarantees or the promises made to these new Canadians, these immigrants, that they should not worry, that they could trust the government and that any information they gave would be confidential, private and for government use only.

In other words, I can imagine a scenario where those promises were made at pier 21 in Halifax, at the train station at Portage and Main or in Edmonton, whatever the dropping off point was, where individual enumerators, which is what they were called at that time, would ask these questions and then commit, at least sometimes, that the information would be forever secret.

Now that is a contract that we are entering into and we have to be cautious when we break faith with people. At the very least, it would be a breach of trust if not an absolute breaking of a formal contract. Any contract, treaty, compact or agreement, as I say, is in fact binding and time does not wear that down or change it.

My house was built in 1911. I would like to think if I owned that house for another 50 years that nothing would happen to my title on that house, that it would l not expire and somebody would not view that as something that is expendable.

It is a commitment we make and the promise kept, I would think.

The bill has many complexities. It is intended to deal with the census after the one conducted in 1911 and it proposes two things. First, it proposes that the records from census between 1911 and 2001 be released after 92 years. Second, it proposes that records from the 2006 census onward be released if the individual confirms on the census form that his or her personal census information can be made publicly available after 92 years.

That is what the legislation seeks to achieve but some of us still have some fundamental problems with the way Statistics Canada and the Liberal government have been managing census taking in its larger context.

First, I am uncomfortable with the very recent idea that the Government of Canada would contract the record keeping out to an outside third party, and not just any outside third party but the leading American military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin, which would be in possession of our confidential census data.

If we are talking about the right to privacy of people from 1901 to 1911, let us think about that in the context of the right to privacy of Canadians who sent us here a lot more recently than that, like last year. Their personal private information would be in the hands of an American firm subject to the patriot act in the United States, where it is more or less like martial law, where one's confidentiality and privacy is non-existent. This concerns me very much and, frankly, any legislation to amend the census legislation and the statistical gathering from the Liberal government concerns me if its commitment to our privacy is so cavalier and shallow that it would risk our personal information being held by an American corporation subject to the patriot act. That is not defending the interests of Canadians very aggressively. I speak to this with an added concern coming from Manitoba.

The Conservative government in Manitoba in the 1990s thought it would be a cost efficient measure to contract out the gathering and the database of the Manitoba health insurance. It believed that it would be a cost efficient measure if it contracted out all my confidential medical records. Well, it did, and a new firm was created and it built a big office building downtown.

Then, because this was the era of corporate mergers, this data collection agency that held all of our confidential health records was sold to an American company, which promptly moved our Manitoba health records to Dallas, Texas. Now, all of my confidential medical information and that of my family and everybody in the province of Manitoba is located and stockpiled in Dallas, Texas, again subject to this patriot act, whereby the confidentiality of Canada's most private information may in fact be compromised and breached.

That is a concern. I would have thought that the current Liberal government of the day would have learned a lesson from what happened in Manitoba. We do not want our confidential information subject to the patriot act and we should be actively taking steps to avoid that. I am a little suspicious when the current Liberal government tells us that “we are in charge of the census and we are here to help”, and when it tells us that it is here to protect us by moving this amendment to the way it gathers statistics and census information, if it is going to subject us to this risk of having our privacy compromised.

I want to speak a little more on the range of options that have been put forward today. We have heard some very good ideas. I think some of them are being aired here for the first time publicly by those who seek to amend this bill. We do not seek to slow down this legislation, but I too am a little suspicious about the lack of priority this bill has been given by the government. I am wondering how committed the government is to solving this longstanding problem we have if it keeps introducing the bill at a stage of Parliament where it consistently dies on the order paper.

Were there the political will to really see this bill through to fruition and royal assent, one would have thought the government of the day would have introduced it a little earlier in this Parliament. Some of us have pretty good reason to believe that when we leave here on June 23 or thereabouts we will not be coming back. An election will be triggered or called sometime prior to the Gomery report being tabled. We might not get a chance to ever deal with this bill at committee. We certainly might never get a chance to get it to third reading or report stage in the House, because the legislative agenda is chock full of things that the government is prioritizing to try to force through whether that is Bill C-38 or the budget bills.

For all that the Liberal government is trying to garner some support by paying lip service to this complicated and thorny issue, it does not seem to me that there is a legitimate commitment to seeing this bill pass the stages necessary to actually give any satisfaction to the statisticians, the genealogists and the historians. It makes me wonder. I guess I could be convinced otherwise, but somebody would have to show me some evidence that there is a legitimate commitment to this bill being passed.

We can look at other jurisdictions. I often find it helpful and useful to look at other jurisdictions that have dealt with a similar problem. I note that in the 2001 Australian census of population and housing about 50% of the respondents chose to have their information released in the future. If in fact this bill were to go through, from 2006 on there would be an optional nature to this. We could check a box and say that we do not mind if 92 years from now some historian wants to look at our personal information. About half of Australians agreed to that. On a similar question in New Zealand, about 60% of the population there indicated on their forms that their information could be released after 100 years.

That gives us an indication of other Commonwealth countries. I think we would probably find about the same reaction here were we to test Canadians. It will be interesting to see what the result will be.

I was here in January of 2003 when the Government of Canada announced that it would need to clarify the Statistics Act to resolve this issue and it released the 1906 special census records.

The 1906 census was taken only in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I think because of the massive influx of immigration to those provinces in that particular year. I do not have the information here, but if memory serves me that was one of the peak years for the great land rush to open the west. The advertisements went out all over Europe, including eastern Europe, to attract settlement and to open up the west.

As I referred to earlier, most members of Parliament were getting deluged with representations at their offices. It is significant to note that in January 2003, in partial response to the overwhelming interest that had been indicated, only very limited information was released. It is called tombstone information: name, age, address, sex, marital status and origin. There was none of the sensitive information that people may be concerned about, not like our personal medical records, those records of mine in Dallas, Texas.

I think we have found that this was not enough to satisfy most of the researchers, who found themselves without the information they needed. They were still left with great gaps in the history.

With that many people arriving in the prairie provinces that year, we can imagine the number of current residents in the prairie provinces whose lineage and genealogy are interrupted. There is a big gap. They do not really know exactly, I suppose, by census data at least, where their family tree went. They can trace it back easily to that point, but then there is a great interruption. That is what is giving a lot of Canadians cause for concern. There is a legitimate thirst for that knowledge for all of us.

It goes beyond curiosity. When one's people fled persecution in other countries and sought refuge here in Canada, that was a traumatic event in the history of one's family. There is a legitimate appetite for that kind of information. I have heard that since the advent of the Internet, genealogy is one of the fastest growing hobbies, so to speak. People really like being able to do it and obtain that knowledge.

When Bill S-18 makes the censuses after 1911 available after 92 years, it will take an active, informed part in deciding the use of one's own personal information. My point is that Canadians will be taking an active and informed part, because we all have the right to decide for ourselves if our information should be made publicly available in the future. It is a decision. It is a choice we are going to have to make. I will have to give it some thought myself. I do not think I will simply automatically check that box. The erosion of privacy rights is of some concern to me.

The point I would like to end with is that because Canada is a land of immigrants, perhaps our appetite for knowing our history, who we were and where we came from, is even more acute than in other countries where it is not so much the case. In the prairie region, I think it is even more interesting to those of us whose ancestors go back to this great influx, this last great frontier where the massive settlement drives took place.

On behalf of those people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre who want that information and who thirst for that information, I hope that we in the House of Commons can see fit to find a way to balance those competing interests and let that information be accessible. That is my hope. If reasonable heads prevail, and there does appear to be a fair amount of goodwill in the room tonight, so very ably chaired, there is optimism for progress on this contentious issue.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country for raising an issue that I have not heard before and which, frankly, gives much cause for concern and has actually changed the way in which I am viewing the legislation. The idea of introducing a precedent of retroactivity, passing legislation retroactively, would be worrisome to me to the point where it would trump the benefits that we have heard touted about the bill today.

I would like the member to expand on what leads him to believe that this could have the effect of retroactively changing laws. Perhaps to simplify it, this retroactivity would be like changing the speed limit and passing out speeding tickets for people who drove that stretch of road last week under the speed limit as it was at the time. Could he expand on this fear that we may be establishing a precedent of changing legislation retroactively?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Edmonton speak. Not only do I find the tone and timbre of his voice very soothing, but I always learn something, and tonight I learned a new word “progenitor”. I will have to ask him to explain to me what in fact that is, if he would be so kind, because he left me in the dust on that one.

I would like him to expand a little on the point he made that there was no perpetual guarantee of privacy ever implied to those who fill out census forms, even back in the pre-1911 period. If that was implied and if that was the understanding, which certainly is the concern that has been brought forward, would he not agree that just because a promise is old, it does not mean that it is still not binding, that just because a contract or a treaty or some kind of an agreement is ancient, that it is still binding on the parties?

I would like to know where he gets the information that there was no guarantee of privacy in perpetuity back then. We really do not know what was told to those people pre-1911. Would he agree that if that were the understanding, then it would be something that we would have an obligation to uphold, at least in this House in this modern era?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon made an excellent speech. He pointed out some of the sensitivities and some of the competing if not conflicting interests at play as we debate this issue.

I can share with him that since I came here in 1997 we have been bombarded with letters about this very issue. I have probably had more letters about the release of the 1911 census data than I have had about child poverty or other issues of social importance.

The question I want to ask my colleague from Dufferin--Caledon is about the root origins of this particular bill. All of us have expressed an interest in trying to help statisticians, genealogists, historians and so on access this data, but does he not think that it is fundamentally wrong to have the bill originate from the other place, the unelected, unequal Senate, rather than from elected members of Parliament who have the mandate to create legislation?