CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

Á

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Ms. Joy MacDonald (Program Coordinator, Holland College)

Á

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Á

1115

Ms. Joy MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Á

1125

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Á

1130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Á

1135

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Joy MacDonald

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy MacDonald

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Á

1140

Ms. Karen Rose (Information and Privacy Commissionner, Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island)

Á

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Á

1150

Ms. Karen Rose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Karen Rose

Á

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Karen Rose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Karen Rose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Karen Rose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Â

1200

Ms. Karen Rose

Â

1205

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Karen Rose

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Karen Rose

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Karen Rose

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Â

1210

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Â

1215

Ms. Karen Rose

Â

1220

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 030

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

    This morning we have Joy MacDonald, program coordinator for Holland College, here with us. I had a chance to chat with Joy a little earlier. She's going to help us to better understand issues surrounding the ID card and some other issues that may have an impact in Charlottetown with regard to our legislation.

    Joy, the floor is yours.

    Ms. Joy MacDonald (Program Coordinator, Holland College): Thank you.

    Today I would like to talk about the LINC program--language instruction for newcomers to Canada--that we have at Holland College in Charlottetown. I will break it down into a background of LINC at Holland College, the strengths we feel our programming presents, the issues of concern, and future considerations for LINC.

    Holland College is a community college in Prince Edward Island. We have been involved for many years with English as a second language programs. LINC has been in place at the college for the past ten years.

    At the present time the college has 42 seats, which covers from pre-LINC to LINC five level. A job LINC is also offered for a short period of time each year for those who have completed at least level four. Employment is the ultimate goal of this program.

    Holland College presently has 33 full-time LINC students, who represent 13 countries. We have three full-time classroom instructors, and one full-time computer lab instructor in our department.

    During the past year, to enhance our programming, Holland College developed a new curriculum for LINC with financial assistance from Immigration Canada. This new curriculum provides extensive lessons with spiralling approach for each level of training, such as Canadian law, Canadian society, and banking services.

    The strength of our program and one of our greatest assets is our staff. All staff have extensive ESL training, and more importantly are extremely passionate and versatile individuals. As we are a small unit, we have become a close-knit family, which leads to a great deal of support for both students and staff. We have a close working relationship with Immigration Canada and the P.E.I. Association for Newcomers to Canada. This linkage is vital if the program is to run smoothly on a daily basis.

    This centre is probably one of the few in Canada where student transportation does not pose a problem. Because we are a small city, most students live within walking distance of college programs. Students state that they feel safe and comfortable in Charlottetown because it is a small city. They say that the hospitality of the island makes them feel quite at home.

    The college's linkages throughout the community work well in favour of each individual, as we are able to pool our resources for the benefit of the students. Students who have left Prince Edward Island often call back to say they wished they had stayed here for a longer period of time. We think this speaks volumes of the services provided at Holland College in Charlottetown.

    For issues of concern, in this regard a few come to mind. One is a lack of availability of interpreters to assist with crisis situations within our department. We have managed with the assistance of P.E.I. Association for Newcomers and by calling upon other students to assist us. This situation may be pretty peculiar to a small area like ours. We could be dealing with up to a dozen different languages at any given time, and this could always pose problems in our department.

    A second issue that presents difficulties is the constant need for our instructors to be performing multiple tasks on a daily basis. They must be social workers, child care supports, translators, health care assistants, and, in general, community support systems. Time is a huge factor here. Staff put in much more time than the required hours by contract to ensure the smooth running of everyday student affairs.

    A third issue is contract funding. Contract funding is a growing concern for Holland College. Such funding appears to be shrinking. In 1990 Holland College received more than $221,000. In 2001 we received more than $211,000. Now we are down to $197,000, and it appears to be staying at that level. We've been told the bottom line for the coming year will remain the same as last year.

    Although funding has decreased, we now deliver two additional levels. The teaching day has been decreased from 9 a.m. until 4 to 9 until 2:30 p.m. Holland College is still required to maintain facilities and staff with a decrease in actual funding while operational costs continue to increase.

Á  (1110)  

    The major concern for Holland College with the LINC programming is, naturally, funding. To maintain a quality program, top-notch facilities, and keep valuable staff, appropriate funding must be in place. Another aspect of funding is the appropriate timing of awarding contracts. Quite often the college continues programming with the understanding that the contract is forthcoming. We realize that there are many factors in play that can affect contracts. Some factors, such as numbers arriving in the province, secondary migration, and child-minding, can be dealt with through contract amendments. We feel that baseline contracts should be available at appropriate times. An increase in funding is essential if our level of training is to remain as it is today, or grow to meet the ever-changing and varied needs of our clients.

    We feel that Prince Edward Island is an ideal location for immigrants and refugees to begin the transition to life in Canada. Our unique size supports many additional aspects of our training other than just teaching language. Again, increased funding could afford us the opportunity to expand our operations to serve greater numbers through language training, ensuring a seamless entry into Canadian culture.

    Having said all this, Holland College is very pleased with the cooperation and its working relationship with Immigration Canada.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much for a good presentation. I think you have emphasized very clearly that funding is a major priority. Reductions in funding hamstring your program and the lack of long-range planning on baseline funding creates the unknown in the future. So, obviously, in your mind, funding is a critical point.

    You also mentioned that language training is the primary function for your program operation, which is excellent.

    We've heard from other witnesses, and other witnesses have suggested that in many cases the funding and baseline training that are really required often aren't enough to do the job that needs to be done. Oftentimes it becomes inadequate. I'm wondering if you could comment on that area.

    Are there other issues, going beyond the funding, that you feel Immigration Canada, yourselves, and other social organizations in this area can do to enhance settlement aspects? Because it's not just the SLD, but it's the whole settlement focus that we have to look at. Because of your unique position with the college and dealing with English as a second language, you probably have a really good grasp of the other problems that are in existence there, maybe not directly for the college, but for the community and for the new immigrants themselves.

Á  (1115)  

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: I agree that the training that we had for a number of years was not adequate, and that is why we have added the two levels of training in the past year. We only trained to level three, and now we're training to level five, which really gives immigrants and refugees a comfortable feeling for English before they even get out into the work world. We found that before we were really shortcutting, especially if immigrants or refugees came into the country with very low levels of education in their own area.

    I feel that some of the concerns that we have in dealing with outside communities and immigration are probably unique to us because the province is so small. We at the college feel quite comfortable in calling on Immigration Canada or the newcomers association and we work very closely together for the benefit of each student. That is probably unique here simply because of our numbers, I would suggest.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Could you help me a little bit? What are levels three, four, five? I don't have an idea.

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: The pre-level and level one is very basic language. When individuals enter the country they may be able to say “good morning”, and probably at the end of the day would say “good morning” also at that level. At level two they're starting to expand a bit.

    Level three is a fairly comfortable level where you can converse with students. That's when they're starting to look at employment and starting to look at banking issues, safety issues, and broadening their knowledge base of Canada.

    Level four and level five are quite advanced. I would say a person with level five could easily make the transition into a university course after completing that level.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): So, proficient reading and writing and speaking the language?

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: Yes. The writing skills of many immigrants that we have are pretty proficient. It's the listening and speaking that causes the difficulty, and this takes a longer period of time to deal with.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Joy.

    Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for coming. It really helps us to hear people who are actually on the ground. In Ottawa we're more at the theoretical level. So it's been really helpful for us to talk to people like you.

    I appreciate the chair clarifying the levels of instruction, because I was a little hazy on that too.

    We really take pride, of course, in Canada in having a country built by immigrants and continuing to be a real beacon of hope for people wanting to start a new life and have new opportunities. But we have found on these travels that when you scratch below the surface of that good intention, very often the supports that are needed for people coming to our country to really succeed are pretty shaky, in spite of, as you say, the extremely dedicated people who work long, long hours, far longer than they should be sometimes, to do everything they can to help other people.

    We want to ensure that our good intentions are actually carried out in practical operational measures, so your information is very helpful.

    I notice you say employment is the goal, and other witnesses have emphasized to us that people's well-being and their ability to start building a new life is absolutely tied to their ability to obtain employment. We have heard from others that is the number one goal.

    You mentioned that your program is at the community college. When we spoke to people in St. John's, the program had been moved out of the community college. You're probably aware of that. There was a feeling that this was unfortunate, because the ability to connect people further with the bigger educational picture was very helpful.

    Could you tell us what your feelings are about the suitability of the training at the community college?

Á  (1120)  

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: I feel it's a very important part of the training to be part of the main centre in Charlottetown. We have several students who have gone through level four language training with us who have moved on to our adult education department to maybe upgrade in English, chemistry, or physics before moving on to some of our post-secondary programs or to the University of Prince Edward Island.

    I think having them there in the centre allows them to get to know the other students and instructors, and a little bit about the programs and how they run in Canada, as opposed to some of the training they've had in their countries.

    It's an eye-opener to begin with, but they do feel very comfortable after being with us for a period of time to explore these avenues. I feel it's very beneficial. We have several students now in post-secondary programs at the college.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, that's really something to think about. It's an issue we haven't considered before, but I appreciate those comments.

    The chair mentioned this issue of contract funding, and others have pointed out that it's extremely difficult to stabilize programs and to do not only long-term planning but even medium-term planning when the funding is unknown from year to year or even behind times, as you've pointed out. We are aware now that it is a real issue for you, and as the chair said, we'll certainly be bringing that message back to the department and the minister.

    I'd like to also mention this issue of interpreters, especially in health situations, and having a family member or a buddy who knows a little more English than the newcomer. It sometimes inhibits free communication because you're filtering things for social reasons. Do you find that an issue with interpretation? Other than government going to the expensive measure of having interpreters standing by, so to speak, in the various language groups, what would be the best way of ensuring that interpretation is something the newcomer is comfortable with but also is affordable and efficiently run?

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: I think we have been fortunate here, in that we do have a few people in the community who we can call upon. The students also get comfortable with each other. We usually have one or two students in the department who are comfortable and have a common language with several students.

    The biggest area of concern here is with health issues. We have been called to the hospital for emergency situations when it has been very difficult to interpret. I'm not sure what the answer is. When you have 13 countries represented with 33 students, it's a difficult call. We usually have somebody there who can speak an Arabic base, and, like I say, with the P.E.I. Association for Newcomers, we've been very fortunate to be able to call on people there.

    I don't think you could ever be prepared for every language that you have coming across. Recently we've had several countries from Africa represented in our study body, and I think it would be almost impossible to be able to call in an interpreter for every one of those languages. I think we try to make the students as comfortable as we can, the best we can, and as the language develops the issues are lessened.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Would a telephone link be a possibility, where you have somebody in another centre but who is at least fluent in the language of origin?

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: That could be a link. It could be a possibility. I think what we're finding when students first arrive here is that they're extremely hesitant to speak to anybody except the people who are very close. In the college community, there's a comfort there. There's a safety there. I think we try to deal with it on our own basis. Unless we absolutely had to, if we were really stuck, that's a possibility, I think.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes. A disembodied voice doesn't really make a human connection sometimes.

    Just as one final thing, you mentioned in your brief that P.E.I. is an ideal location for newcomers to gain basic skills before they launch into the broader world, so to speak. I wonder if you could tell me two things. One is just to expand on--you've mentioned some things in your brief--why this location is ideal for this. Also, what is your opinion on what needs to be done to make P.E.I. the destination of choice for newcomers, particularly in filling labour force needs that may be present here but maybe aren't being filled because people are moving on to bigger centres?

Á  (1125)  

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: I think that because we are a small centre we know all the players. It's easy to pick up the phone to immigration and to the newcomers. We also know employers in the community. We know landlords. We have connections with people at social services or are on a first-name basis with some of the medical staff so that we can get the help at the drop of a pin when we need it. People know when we call what we're looking for. I think that's very important. We all work together. You're not having one agency pull against the other. We're working together for the benefit of that student we have in front of us and we're trying to make it work. Again, I think that would be a little more difficult in a large centre because you don't have the personal contacts.

    I think one area that we fall short on here is probably in dealing with some of the housing issues. I'm sure that some of the speakers later in the day will address some of these settlement issues. I think that especially some of the immigrants who arrive from African countries find that maybe the culture is not here, that there's not a base of their culture. They tend to move west to certain areas where maybe there are several people they already know and there are linkages. As soon as they get here, they seem to know how to make those connections.

    It's interesting that we do get a lot of phone calls from students who have been here, have stayed maybe six months or a year and have decided to go to a larger centre. They always call back and say they wish they had stayed “because we didn't realize the personal contacts that we had” and what was being done for them in this province. When they go to a larger centre, a lot of times they become a number. Here we know almost everything about them and their families and where we have to jump in. I think that's a very important aspect, but it's a difficult aspect to sell while they're here initially.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's interesting. Thank you very much.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thanks, Diane.

    I just wanted to follow up on one aspect that Diane was looking at. What popped into my mind is that you're dealing primarily with students and obviously that student body is totally immersed in the community. From my aspect, I would think that as a result the students would go very rapidly from level one to two to three, and that would be augmented, obviously, by all the social contact and the immersion they have here in this community.

    Are there other family members? In other areas we'd heard that men would come or women would come and spouses and children sometimes were isolated and not in that immersion in the community. They would tend to go back into the homes. They would tend not to become so involved in community life. As a result, there are other obvious problems that can be created unless they have that opportunity to be out. Looking at the family as a whole, it may bring some elements to this question that are different from the particular students you're dealing with in your programs.

    Do you see that extension of the family life as problematic? Or again, do you see that in a smaller society like this they're able to integrate into the community at large in an easier and functional way?

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: I think they are able to integrate easily because we are a small community. We do have a lot of husband and wife combos in our classes. The only problem we've had in that area is that sometimes day care has not been available. Sometimes we have to deal with funding for day care, depending on the numbers. Again, you never know from year to year how many children you will have in day care or after-school care, so that is an issue.

    Several times with families I have seen grandparents who have had a tendency to stay home and not want to integrate. I think a lot of that is through fear. We try to do things so that we bring families together at the college. We do have a lot of activities at different times of the year. There are also gatherings, like tea houses, put on by associations here in the province, which bring everybody together to experience the cultures of other people. We're constantly aware of that. I think that is really an important part. Even though we're teaching language, we cannot teach language unless people are settled, happy and feel comfortable where they are. We try to bring all of that together.

Á  (1130)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): The other aspect to that question was time for people in the college who are totally integrated. How quickly do they pick up the language skills and become able to communicate on a functional discussion social base?

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: Anybody coming into the college at a pre-level or a level one usually takes at least a year to get to the point where they are speaking comfortably with others. Once they move to level two, they start to progress fairly rapidly and they could be in level three within six months. At levels four and five they move fairly quickly.

    A lot of it depends on the background they have. If they've had university or college training in their own country, they seem to have the academic skills to grasp another language quickly. If they've had very little schooling in the countries they came from, it's a very slow process. We have had people for up to three years in the program who may not even progress beyond level two.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Joy.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

    Since the beginning of our hearings, in other words since last Monday, we have had the opportunity to hear several witnesses demonstrate very clearly to us the importance of a sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to integrate oneself. All of them have shown us that the funding allocated for this reality, this objective, is insufficient.

    What I found interesting in your presentation--and Diane mentioned this also--is the fact that in your view, Charlottetown, on this jewel of an island, is virtually a made-to-measure place for language training. You however also stated that some people leave and then regret it.

    Prince Edward Island is very far away from the 13 different countries your students come from. It is therefore very far from their cultural base, and we are well aware that one's cultural support is very important in the case of people arriving from another country.

    Have you already used the experience of your students who have left too soon and who say they now regret it to tell newcomers that they should hang in there, that they should stay even if it is difficult, because it is nevertheless here that they will have the best opportunity to learn the language in an environment that is very open and that is not aggressive?

    That is all I would like to know.

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: Yes, we have. We always use this. I know that we always talk to people or students who call back. It's sometimes like teaching a child a new trick. Until they find out the dangers themselves, they do not want to listen to this. I think that probably it's the pull of the culture, or they may have a relative in another area and it's of the utmost importance in their minds that they get to where these people are. We do use the experiences. We relay the phone calls. Sometimes we do have students who call and speak to students who are in our area, and that's a very valuable tool. We have had families where one person in the family would move on and call back and tell the others, “Stay for a while because this is where you will get the personal attention before we move on”.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What proportion of your students stick to it and what do you attribute their stick-to-itiveness to? We know that it is difficult to learn a language, that it is not easy. Have you succeeded in giving them some form of cultural support? This is something I find upsetting. If I were to go to Africa, somewhere where neither French nor English are spoken, I would feel very far from my mother. I am wondering how you succeed in compensating for that, because you must, since some of the students do stay on to complete their training.

[English]

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: Yes, we do. I think we have a very close-knit department at the college. We become very close to these students. They know we're there for support. We do try to learn about their cultures. We do from time to time have mini-exhibitions of some of their costumes and dress and have them explain their native countries to the other students. We do a lot of that, because I think it's extremely important to make them feel important and make them feel comfortable. If we can do that, that's when they want to stay. Last week, one student who cannot speak very much English described our department as “a happy, happy place”. I think that's really important.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Joy, I want to say thank you very much for bringing your concerns to the committee and for helping us better understand your perspective and certainly the perspective of Charlottetown and P.E.I. It gives us a lot to think about and it gives us another aspect, which, quite frankly, I think is a very positive one, and that is the message that fostering and support mechanisms in a smaller community and smaller community college can be turned into a very positive aspect in experience for new Canadians. I think we haven't quite heard that message presented in the same way as you've brought it forward. We appreciate that and we appreciate your taking time to come today.

    The only thing we wish is that you might possibly be able to warm up the climate outdoors. It's very warm inside, but outdoors it's a little chilly this morning. So thank you for braving the weather and coming and helping us.

    Ms. Joy MacDonald: You're welcome. Perhaps you could all come back in July. It's beautiful here on the beaches.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yes, there are lots of ads for July, summertime, and all the great things that P.E.I. has to offer tourism. Thank you very much.

    Now to Karen Rose. Good morning, Karen, and thank you for coming forward to help us better understand the issue of working with a privacy commissioner and your concerns with some of the issues we're bringing forth on the national identity card, possibly, as well as Bill C-18, although I'm not sure on that aspect.

    Welcome to the committee. The floor is yours if you'd like to begin. After the presentation we'll go through the same process of having some of the members delve into a little more detail on your concerns and the information you're bringing forward.

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Karen Rose (Information and Privacy Commissionner, Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island): Thank you very much. Good morning, honourable members.

[Translation]

    Good morning, and welcome to Prince Edward Island.

[English]

    I will be speaking only on the national identity card this morning. As Information and Privacy Commissioner for Prince Edward Island, I am opposed to the development of the national identity card, especially with biometrics. I'd like to explain why.

    We live on a small island, and some of us are fairly nosey. Within five minutes of meeting you, I may ask you where you grew up, I may ask you who your parents are, and why are you here on the island. The truth is you may choose not to give me that information, not because it would incriminate you in any way but simply because it's none of my business. It's private.

    We're all fortunate to live in a country where, except in very exceptional circumstances, we don't have to give out such information on demand--again, not because we've done anything wrong, but because it's private. That in a nutshell is why I oppose national ID cards. Privacy is a fundamental part of our Canadian way of life, and I wish to preserve that way of life.

    If we all have national ID cards, the logical conclusion is that we will have to use them. Currently in Canada we don't have to identify ourselves on demand. We can go about our lives quite anonymously. Not so if we have to carry a card that proves our identity and will likely disclose other personal information about us. A national identification card will require a national database, which would give government increased powers to record our activities.

    The committee has asked what should be the guiding principles for a national strategy on identity documents. It has also mentioned the preservation of Canadian values. I read this on your website. We of the younger generation, and I think I would include all of us in this room, often forget how costly our freedoms have been to uphold, but we can be reminded by our war veterans. In my view, the principles that should guide the committee are that we live in a free society, that our freedoms have been hard-won, and that we must be careful not to set a course that might erode those freedoms.

    I understand that some of the reasons for introducing a national identity card would be to prevent identify theft, prevent terrorism, and prevent illegal immigration. These are certainly lofty goals, and I think every Canadian would support such aims. My concern is that a national identity card would not achieve these ends.

    There will always be methods for criminals and terrorists to strike at the ground floor of such implementations and obtain a fraudulent ID card. Such an ID card would be more valuable to terrorists and other criminals than those that exist today simply because the new ID card would be thought to be so much more infallible and impenetrable. In a sense, it would give us a false sense of security.

    I suggest that government continue to address these criminal and immigration concerns with methods that have already proven to be effective--for example, criminal penalties, putting more police resources into such investigations, and establishing better security measures for computer databases to help prevent identity theft. I'm not an expert on security, but I suggest to you that less intrusive means are likely just as effective, and far preferable from a privacy perspective.

    The types of crime government is trying to address or may try to address with a national identity card will likely always be in existence, whether the card exists or not. Although it certainly is frustrating, one of the costs of living in a free society is that sometimes criminals go free. A fundamental tenet of our justice system is this is far preferable to innocent people being imprisoned or robbed of their freedom.

    The committee has stated that it wishes to look into the experiences of other jurisdictions with regard to national ID cards. I think that's very valuable to learn from other jurisdictions. Take the United States, for example. I think we can agree that the U.S. is a country that has always been concerned with its national security. However, Americans have always rejected the idea of a national identity card. So have Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Korea in recent years. I think this is because of public opposition, but also because there are too many reasons not to implement a national identity card.

    I urge the committee to make a thorough investigation of the experiences of other jurisdictions and also to look at the jurisdictions that have national identity cards to determine their effect on crime and on individual freedoms.

Á  (1145)  

    On biometrics, in my view, attaching biometrics to a national identity card takes us out of the realm of invasion of privacy and into the realm of big brother. Using face recognition technology, iris scanning, or fingerprinting for every Canadian is certainly unprecedented and is a road that should not be travelled. Widening the fingerprint database to every Canadian I think is the action of a police state. We do not live or wish to live in such a society.

    I have presumed that citizenship and immigration and your committee have very good intentions in starting a debate on national identify cards, but let us presume that such a card did come to fruition. The card would then be in existence, and how it would evolve from that point is the most frightening question of all.

    Future governments could use it to drastically increase police powers and to collect an extensive data profile on every Canadian, ready to be used against us at some future date. These ideas may seem unrealistic to some, but not, for example, if Canada were reeling from a terrorist attack and had a security-at-all-costs mentality. I think that's something we've seen a little bit of a flavour of in the last couple of years.

    Implementing the national ID card opens the flood gates. How the card's uses extend from that point is anyone's guess.

    The final question the committee has asked is how much a national identify card would cost. Obviously I don't know, but I think the price would be such that no Canadian would want to pay it. On a monetary basis, we need only look to another national registry system, the gun registry, to have an inkling of the cost. We should keep in mind that the gun registry system only applies to firearms owners and not to every Canadian, and there is no biometric database associated with it. More important, the cost to Canadians' privacy rights and fundamental freedoms would be immeasurable, in my opinion.

    As Information and Privacy Commissioner for Prince Edward Island, these are my views. As a Canadian and as part of a free society, I will do everything I can to prevent a national identity card from coming to fruition.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Karen. We certainly appreciate you coming forward and presenting your information to the committee as well. I think the committee at this point in time is trying to look very carefully at concerns and issues around the national identity card, and you certainly have touched upon several issues that need to be addressed to one degree or another. I very much appreciate you coming forward.

    I think from my viewpoint--and I've had opportunity in the last year or longer to travel around the world and look at some of the security measures in identifying people, such as passports. The types of fraud that have been committed with regard to passports lend themselves a lot less to security than they once did twenty years ago. Now people are able to remove photos from some of our passports and replace identification in those that are not appropriate. We do have problems.

    With a national identity card, the suggestion was that we would move forward a great deal in technology in being able to identify a person who in many respects could for whatever reason be giving false information about who in fact they really were.

    There have been many issues that have been related to possibly this could happen or possibly that could happen. I wondered why your position came forward that it could lead to a police state and police could do different things in society. First, I see nothing in the legislation that moves in that direction. Second, quite frankly, that is a totally different issue, in my mind. I may be naive, but you could help me with that. If someone is talking about a police state, why couldn't they use the same type of thing with the driver's licence, a national health card, a provincial health card, or any other means by which someone's identified and information tags along?

    I see many things being raised and suggested that this card would be related to, but I have no indication from anyone that there are those linkages or that there are those linkages with any cards that exist in this society today.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Karen Rose: You've brought up quite a few issues.

    I think you can tell from my address that my concerns are about the future, and perhaps not what the intention is with foreign national identity cards right now.

    I mentioned opening the floodgates. The most frightening part about a national identity card to me, and I think you can tell from my remarks, is the biometric association. Now, obviously our passport and our driver's licence do not have a biometric identifier on them.

    I think we need to be vigilant early on in the process. The fact that we would create a biometric identifier for every Canadian, even on a voluntary basis in the beginning, opens a door that has never been opened here before. It still won't achieve the ends of preventing identity theft, because that biometric identifier was associated with a card. The information is still stored on a computer database, and, as we know, computer databases can be broken into. And it would still be possible for an identity card to be altered so that you have my identity but your own biometric identifier. So the fears, I think, are well-founded.

    I can tell you what would be the crème de la crème of an identity card. If you were a police officer and you asked me for identification and I could show you my driver's licence, wouldn't you prefer to have a national identity card with a biometric identifier on it? You then could be certain that it was really me. Since this would be the crème de la crème of an identity card, it would only make sense that police organizations and government programs would choose this card over tried-out trade policies. This would be the card they required when you applied for a service or when you were identifying yourself in a--

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I guess I don't see a problem in identifying if a person says he is John Smith and has solid proof that he is John Smith. Quite frankly, a lot of the other related things are totally different issues, in my mind.

    If you associate a police state to something, I don't see that connection. Maybe you could help me with the connection. If you have some way to identify somebody and you always slide back to police, I think you're bringing in a negative. What is the problem with having a card that identifies someone accurately? That's where I have a difficulty.

    Ms. Karen Rose: Because it opens the doors for so many other possibilities. I mentioned the police state when I was talking about having a national fingerprint database, or iris scanning or whatever other biometric it was. Currently there is a fingerprint database for people who have been accused of indictable offences, people who have been convicted of crimes and several other smaller groups. There is no national fingerprint database.

    When I use the term “police state”, what I'm referring to is the fact that obviously police would be quite interested in having a fingerprint database on all Canadians. It opens the door for not only having such fingerprint databases, but using them--this is our own private information--and associating all sorts of other personal information with that national ID card.

Á  (1155)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I don't see the connection. How are you putting all this other information into identifying someone? You're jumping way off into nowhere on that assumption, in my view.

    Ms. Karen Rose: I'm only looking into what the card will have the capability of doing. This technology allows us the capability to do something. Very often we will try to do that very thing simply because of convenience. It makes it easier to provide a service.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Do you travel often?

    Ms. Karen Rose: Fairly often. I've travelled.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Before you get on an airplane today they ask you for photo ID to make sure you're who you are, on the ticket anyway. I guess we could have all kinds of driver's licences, health cards, or photo IDs that may not be that accurate, but I feel an awful lot safer when they are checking more carefully.

    I feel it's not necessarily the infringement upon my right to show them I am who I am. The view I have is that if everybody is checked carefully on that plane, it is less likely there will be further problems. I guess there is a safety factor there, and somehow that balances.

    I'm just trying to see, from my own point of view, how we can associate so many things over here, with which I see no connection, to a national identity card in securing who that person is. However, I guess ultimately you can associate any kind of action with any kind of database and so on.

    I think your earlier comment about society not allowing that to be the case here in Canada, isn't that the way Canada has developed, evolved, and is today? It is an interesting one.

    Maybe I've taken over time, so I'll go to my colleague, Diane.

    Ms. Karen Rose: Can I make one comment? I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that it was a balance. I am concerned about safety as well. I think every Canadian is concerned about safety. It really is a matter of perspective in how you see that balance. When you look at things the way I do, you can conclude that the need for a national ID card is not in balance with my desire for privacy, whereas some Canadians may feel differently.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I really appreciate your very clear and well-written brief. You may know, coincidentally, that the matter of a national ID card is being debated in the House today by way of a supply day motion brought forward by the NDP. The supply day motion occurs when a particular party in the House gets to pick the issue being debated. You'll probably see something on the news about this tonight.

    I, as a parliamentarian, have been in Parliament for nine years, and I guess I've seen some puzzling discrepancies in our approach both to privacy and to security. For example, when I was handling the HRDC file it became known, kind of accidentally, that the department had created what was termed “a big brother database”. It brought together information from Revenue Canada about tax matters, access to social programs and other information on citizens. When this came out there was an enormous outcry. So, within a matter of a day or two, the minister got up and announced that the “big brother database” would be dismantled.

    There has been a lot of debate in the House about a DNA database for individuals who are convicted of serious crimes so that in future cases DNA could be matched against future suspects to see whether individuals who were formerly convicted of serious crimes could be conclusively tied to future crimes.

    Recently there have been talks about a database for sexual offenders. After much delay and debate that was put into place, but not retroactively. So there's no way to match immediate future sexual assaults, especially against children, against known sexual offenders because that information is not being kept, and the government cited privacy issues.

    Now, we also had a briefing about a new passport, which touted the new passport as being virtually counterfeit-proof. Rather than a picture being affixed to the passport, it would now be embedded digitally within the passport paper so that it couldn't be peeled off and replaced. It was touted that we'd now have this state-of-the-art passport here in Canada, which would give it respect and credibility, and it could not be fraudulently used across the country.

    Suddenly we have a new ID being touted, which would, in my understanding of it, necessitate a database. In other words, if you were using an ID card instead of a driver's licence, a health card, a social insurance card, travel documents, or a citizenship card, this would all be rolled into one. Then clearly all that information would have to be collated somehow into a database, which would then be tied to an individual.

    We know that just last week in Saskatchewan the database for the government insurance program was stolen. The hard drive was stolen. Personal information about insurance and personal background of all insurance claimants in that database is now in the hands of we don't know who.

    So given all these very troubling pieces of the puzzle, I wonder if you could comment on how comfortable Canadians should feel, both with the security of our personal information should it be collected, and also comment on what principle we should be following. As I say, government has been reluctant to collect databases of DNA of serious criminal offenders and DNA of people convicted of sexual assault of children, but now wants to create a database on the rest of us. It just seems to me to be a very puzzling inconsistency. I know you've looked at this, and I wonder if you have some comments on those two issues.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Karen Rose: There certainly does seem to be an inconsistency there. I'm quite happy the government has decided to implement the new passport, which certainly addresses some of the safety concerns a lot of Canadians have right now.

    We live in a very technological society, and I think we all will agree that there's probably an electronic record of many of the things we do on any given day. Whether we send e-mails, surf the net, talk on the cell phone, use our credit cards, all these things we do are recorded by someone.

    I think Canadians, when we go home in the evening, close the blinds and have private time. If we start thinking about all the information that's being collected about us, we feel uncomfortable with that. I think Canadians feel that much more uncomfortable that this information is being shared from business to business or government department to government department, which is why we have new legislation, the Protection of Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act, PPIEDA, and also protection of privacy legislation in every province and territory in the country.

    As some of you may not know, Prince Edward Island only proclaimed its act on November 1, 2002. So we were the last province. I think it is an indication that it's becoming a growing concern of Canadians how our personal information is collected, how it's used, and whether it's disclosed to other government departments.

    I think the government and this committee should be guided by those facts.

  (1205)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You mentioned that you recommended the committee look at jurisdictions that have national ID cards and determine their effect on crime and on individual freedom. Did you put that in the brief because you had information you felt would be helpful to us, or did you just think that area should be explored by somebody?

    Ms. Karen Rose: Yes, and I don't know what you would find. I can only guess what you would find, but I really don't know what you would find.

    Obviously, if you're going to make an informed decision, it will be helpful not only to look at those jurisdictions that have rejected the national ID card but also at those jurisdictions that have implemented it and are using it. You will find that certainly there are people in those countries who are very much still in favour of the national ID card and people who are against it. However, you will also see the effects of whether the goals of the cards have been achieved and whether individual freedoms have been eroded in any way.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I know our researcher is just dying to get into such a project, but it could be interesting.

    I just have one final thought, and that goes back to the chairman's concern about whether we are, to paraphrase--and the chairman can correct me on this--jumping to too strong a conclusion by saying that the national ID card would lead to a police state. He mentioned that at this point you could be asked for ID cards: a banking card if you were trying to get money out of the bank, a driver's licence if you were caught speeding, or a health card if you were accessing health services.

    I'd like you to just try once more to address that issue. Why are the forms of ID I've mentioned, which we use every day, acceptable but a national ID card with biometrics is not acceptable?

    Ms. Karen Rose: I associate privacy with freedom. You are free to obtain a driver's licence or not, and the same with a banking card. A health card is good to have if you want to access health services, but you also know that the information on a health card relates to only your health history, and not even there yet, actually.

    At present the purpose of this card is only to identify ourselves. But in order to identify ourselves as accurately as possible, one of the ideas is perhaps to put biometrics on that. So already there is very personal information on that card. The concern is that the card, because it is so accurate or deemed to be so accurate, will also be used to hold other information about you, and that violates privacy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: By the way, I noticed the government had talked about putting biometrics on the new maple leaf card, the permanent resident card, but decided not to. Did you get involved in that? Do you know what the discussion was around biometrics on that?

    Ms. Karen Rose: I didn't follow it at all.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We'll have to find out, because for some reason that has been dropped, but here the issue is coming forward again. I'm just interested in the whole history of that. We'll find out at some point.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yes, we'll clarify the point that Diane raised.

    My issue is that I see nothing in the legislation that relates to police state, a huge collection of information that's available to everybody. That just is not in any way related.

    I also wish to point out as well that the committee has also discussed the fact that other jurisdictions have identity cards and it would be good for committees to travel to other countries and look at the impact of those identity cards in other jurisdictions. That is a potential that may happen in the near future as well.

    The exercise here is more to get feelings, look at the facts and try to make some kind of connection between concerns out there that directly relate to any legislation that comes forward. This is a process in motion, and certainly a lot of the facts have to be dealt with in that way.

  (1210)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.

    You mentioned legislation. Has legislation been drafted? I haven't seen it.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): No, I'm saying this is the process. As a committee, we're looking at the issue of identity cards. Obviously, before any identity card is put in place there would be legislation put forward. From the administration point of view, from the department's point of view, from the minister's point of view, it's wise to have public input in order to see what the concerns are before you move forward. I would think that is part of the Canadian way and part of the Canadian process. That's why we operate as we do today.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good morning, Karen. I would first off like to tell you that this debate on the ID card is to my mind very important and very useful. It is a debate during the course of which a broad spectrum of opinions will be expressed and then relayed to the entire population. This will take time; it is clear that we will not be able to cover everything within a month. Furthermore, people will have the opportunity to define exactly what they want.

    After September 11, I got the impression--and my colleagues probably felt the same thing--that citizens busy earning their living and raising their children were ready to give up certain fundamental freedoms so as to feel safe. That troubled me greatly because how in fact can one be sure of being safe? Life is precisely the opposite of being safe.

    Attitudes have changed, and this is all the more reason for the debate to be broad and thorough. In the circumstances, the devil's advocate and the Crown's advocate both seem important.

    Some things have changed. You made mention of biometrics. For my part, I cannot pretend to be part of the young crowd; nevertheless, I well remember the debates of 40 or 50 years ago on the need to have photo ID in order to have access to certain institutions. It seemed horrible. But everyone has access to hospitals. There are visiting hours and certain hospitals are even open 24 hours a day. There were cases of substitution, and the safety of family members became paramount. Thus, today, I do not even know how many photos are in my wallet.

    We have also seen science develop. To my mind, every bit of progress accomplished through science has a flip-side: it is our ability to control it. Karen mentioned DNA. Forty years ago, we were unable to identify a person through DNA testing. Today, this is the practice.

    But we are realizing that insurance companies for example could very easily be tempted to require DNA samples. It would be easy; all you would need is a drop of blood or a small cell and that would be it. They would therefore be able to determine if at the age of 20 a person has a defective gene that might bring about an illness that could cost the company an awful lot of money. It could turn around and refuse to ensure this person or else demand exorbitant premiums. What choice would this individual have?

    All of this means that we are in a very different society. Following the events of September 11, legislative measures were very quickly passed, and the Anti-terrorism Act comes to mind immediately.

    People were practically happy to see this law enforced. It reassured them. To my mind, the time has come to engage in a debate on this issue. That being said, the idea of using biometrics does not particularly bother me. I am sure that when you were born, an imprint of your foot was taken so as to ensure that the right baby was given to the right mother. I do not know if that is still done today; my days in the maternity ward are far behind me.

    It was not a tragedy, but simply normal practice given that little babies always look alike and that if there are a lot of them there is a risk of error.

    We must therefore not exaggerate things and present biometrics as something absolutely horrible. As far as I am concerned, I cannot play that game. However, we should go and take a look in those countries that have used biometrics for several years to see what changes have been made in the application of that technology.

    Those countries that have not adopted these techniques and that you mentioned earlier are all anglo-saxon. We are well aware that our anglo-saxon friends are very different from us. Taiwan is not anglo-saxon, but we know that its elite often gets its education in the United States or in Canada. The anglo-saxon influence is therefore quite obvious.

  (1215)  

    I believe we should enquire as to the reasons of this resistance, but we should also go and check on the situation in other developed societies recognized as being very democratic.

    A day or two ago, we met with a journalist who had lived several years in France and he told us that over there the ultimate proof of one's identity is one's passport. I find that quite interesting.

    It is worth taking a closer look at what is being done. For my part, I must tell you that when my credit card gets taken from me--without it being stolen--and that some data is added to it, this bothers me. I hate that. I however would not like to have a catchall card. I am talking here about a card that would show who I really am. For those who want that kind of card, that is fine. But if you make it compulsory, that is another matter. We should be very careful in this regard.

    I do not know if anything in what I have said clashes with your deep convictions, but I would like to hear your comments.

[English]

    Ms. Karen Rose: You've covered a lot of issues.

    I also have a three-year-old son and a 16-month-old daughter. In fact, she was born four days after September 11. I would have to agree with you that whatever measures Canada had implemented following September 11 I probably would have agreed with, because I was so concerned with the future of my children and the future of our country. As Mr. Chair said earlier, it really is a balance of what is the most important to you and how much of what you think would be the reality really would be the reality.

    As I said earlier, it's all a matter of perspective. I just go back to my original premise, which is that developing any national database on Canadians allows us to have the potential to collect any type of personal information about Canadians. As a privacy commissioner, I'm not comfortable with that, because it does violate privacy to collect information if we don't want it collected. So again, it's going to back to, yes, you're comfortable with voluntary, but when it becomes mandatory, no, all of a sudden it's a different thing. I agree with you, but I'm not even comfortable with voluntary, because of that very floodgate argument.

    I understand that in France the ID card is voluntary. I'm surprised that it is not the crème de la crème of identifications and that the passport is, but I also understand that in France the ID card is necessary in order to apply for many government programs. Therefore, I think that up to 90% of French citizens do have a national ID card. I don't think it's unrealistic of me to think that if we do have a voluntary card, its effect really will be mandatory or almost mandatory.

  (1220)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I want to say thank you very much. You certainly have clearly given us your viewpoint and your concerns, and they will be taken into very serious account when the committee discusses that issue. I think the obvious thing is that there are differing viewpoints, and we need to hear all of the viewpoints and deal with those issues that are brought forward. Certainly you've done your share in doing that, and we very much appreciate it.

    Committee members, it is important for you to realize that one o'clock is check-out time. At 1:30 our meetings resume here. This afternoon we will have three witnesses. By the time we complete the 4:30 work it will be a very tight timeline to try to get to Fredericton as well, so we'll have to try to move as quickly as possible.

    Thank you very much.

    Ms. Karen Rose: Thank you.