HUMA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

1525

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development)

1530

1535

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1540

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Charles Nixon (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

1545

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Charles Nixon

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Charles Nixon

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

1550

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Mr. Lu Fernandez (Acting Director, Investigation and Control Operations, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Peter Simeoni (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

1555

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1600

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

1605

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

1610

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Lu Fernandez

1615

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1620

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Charles Nixon

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

1625

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1630

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

1635

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

1640

Mr. Lu Fernandez

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

1645

Mr. Charles Nixon

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

1650

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

1655

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

1700

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

NUMBER 013

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1525)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to welcome you to the 13th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today the committee is hearing a review of the social insurance number action plan pursuant to Standing Order 108(2).

We have with us today witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General and from the Department of Human Resources Development.

With us from the Office of the Auditor General is Maria Barrados, who is the Assistant Auditor General.

Welcome. This is your first appearance before this committee. You have brought with you two people, and I will have you introduce them when you begin your presentation.

Maryantonett Flumian, you're no stranger to this committee. We welcome you back. You have brought two colleagues, and when you begin your presentation I'd ask you to introduce them.

Ms. Barrados, you can begin.

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Madam Chair, thank you for this second opportunity to discuss our audit of the integrity of the social insurance number, SIN. With me today are Peter Simeoni and Suzanne Therrien, who are responsible for this work.

While we would be pleased to discuss any aspect of our work on the social insurance number, I will confine my opening remarks to the actions planned by the department.

At the previous hearing the department agreed to provide your committee with a plan that would address all our recommendations describing actions, responsibilities, and timelines and indicating how much it would cost. We have reviewed both drafts of the department's action plan with those commitments in mind.

I am pleased to note that the department has already starting working on the problems we reported. It assures us that it is committed to solving all these issues expeditiously.

[Translation]

Unfortunately, we find that the plan is unclear in several important ways. First, the department has not indicated when many of the initiatives will be completed. As a result, we cannot tell when the department expects to have fully implemented its plan and when our office would be able to follow up again. In particular, the department has not explained when it will meet the requirements of the Employment Insurance Act and regulations for determining the citizenship and identity of SIN applicants. The committee will recall that we criticized HRDC's policy of requesting only one document as proof of identity and citizenship, since a single document is usually insufficient to check both. The department has not yet changed this policy.

Second, the action plan is silent on costs. It states instead that “completion of each initiative is dependent on suitable funding”. We expected that the department would have a clear idea of what the cost would be and would secure appropriate resources before providing an action plan to this committee. Initiatives may not actually go forward if there is no funding. This work also depends on the collaboration of other departments, whose work, deadlines and resource needs are not described. In our view, HRDC should provide the committee with a complete action plan that fills these gaps.

[English]

In 1998 and again in 2002 we noted our concern about the reliability of the documents HRDC accepts with SIN applications. While HRDC now accepts far fewer documents, it is not clear whether this decision is based on an assessment of the documents' reliability. For example, the department no longer accepts Canadian passports as proof of citizenship and identity, but it does still accept birth certificates. The action plan does not explain whether HRDC will at some future time assess the reliability of the documents it accepts.

Here are some issues the committee may wish to pursue.

HRDC has to make a sustained effort to strengthen the integrity of the social insurance number. The first order of business is making sure the government has committed the necessary resources to this effort. The committee may wish to ask the officials from HRDC how much the action plan will cost and whether it is fully funded, and if it is not, what the consequences are.

There may be some confusion about what the department means when it says 2.6 million SINs were deactivated in October of last year. It is our understanding that these SINs can still be used to access federal benefit programs except employment insurance without triggering an investigation. The committee may wish to ask the officials from HRDC to clarify the status of these SINs.

In addition, the committee may wish to ask the officials from HRDC what assurance they can provide that other departments will fulfill their responsibilities under the action plan; when they expect to have fully carried out the plan; how and when they plan to comply with the Employment Insurance Act and regulations in determining the citizenship and identity of SIN applicants; and what plans they have to access the reliability of documents they accept in support of SIN applications and to check the validity of the documents with the authorities who issued them.

Finally, the committee may consider asking the department for regular progress reports showing whether the elements of the plan are on time and on budget.

That concludes my opening statement. We'd be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. As the clerk has pointed out, you've been five minutes, precisely.

It's a hard act to follow, Ms. Flumian. Your five minutes begin.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): Madam Chair, it's always a hard act to follow the AG.

In any case, today I'd like to introduce two colleagues who are with me, Mr. Charles Nixon, who is the acting assistant deputy minister in the insurance program, and Mr. Lu Fernandez, who's the director of operations in theinvestigation and controls area of the EI as well.

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

Thank you for the opportunity to return to update you on the actions already taken and planned by Human Resources Development Canada to protect the integrity of the social insurance number.

I wish to assure the committee that HRDC has been working closely with the Auditor General to address her recommendations, and I am happy to report that progress is being made to further safeguard the SIN. We are also working closely with our partners within the department, the federal government and other levels of government to improve the safety and security of the SIN.

[English]

When we appeared before the committee last November we committed to providing you with an action plan, and we believe we've delivered. This plan outlines the steps we are taking to respond to the Auditor General's specific concerns, and the issues raised by this committee at that meeting, and forms the basis for our plan to more broadly meet the needs of Canadians concerning improved public safety and streamlined access to government services. We would be happy to take you through each element of the plan after my introductory comments.

We are also in the process of securing the total funding we will require for 2002-03. We've made it through all the approval processes except for the last and most important one, which is parliamentary approval of supplementary estimates.

Our plan, as we move to the future, will take an integrated risk management approach to maintain integrity for our client-related activities and all of our interactions. This framework will form the basis to ensure appropriate prevention, control, quality assurance, and investigation activity across all of our HRDC programs, which is one of the issues the AG had asked us about.

The accuracy of the social insurance registry data and the consistent application of rigorous integrity standards will be the cornerstone of the successful implementation of our integrity and risk framework. Our plan will be to manage the social insurance number in a complete end-to-end fashion, from issuing the application, to issuing a card, to investigating possible misuse and ensuring the highest level of data integrity in the social insurance registry.

We can foresee a time when all persons born in Canada will be able to apply for a SIN at birth. Very shortly, a temporary SIN will be issued at the same time a person receives permission to enter the country to work--that's the 900-series. We can also foresee a time when we will be continually validating clients' SIN numbers within the social insurance registry as they seek access to our programs and services.

Managing the social insurance number and the social insurance registry requires a continuous improvement strategy, which is why this is an important beginning but not nearly the end, as things are constantly changing and we continue to adapt to those changes.

[Translation]

Let me now highlight key elements of the action plan. Public awareness is important because we believe that a knowledgeable public is fundamental to ensuring the proper use of the SIN. A SIN public awareness campaign was completed last year.

[English]

To evaluate the impact of our campaign we conducted focus tests on the effectiveness of our communication products. A survey will be conducted this month to assess the general public's awareness and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the SIN. Based on that evaluation, a communication strategy will be developed and implemented focusing messages to specific groups within the general public, such as the employer community, banks, credit companies, and young adults. In the interim we will soon be communicating with key stakeholders around the introduction of the expiry date on the 900-series SIN cards.

Fundamental to our management of the SIN are the agreements and links with other departments and provincial and territorial vital statistics agencies. HRDC and Citizenship and Immigration are working together to verify access to immigration data as proof of identity and proof of need for SIN applicants who are not permanent residents. We are also working together to validate the identity of non-Canadian-born citizens.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

HRDC has been involved in discussions to validate SIN application information against provincial and territorial vital statistics information. HRDC is developing an agreement with the BC Vital Statistics Agency for a pilot project to verify SIN application information. Discussions are taking place with Quebec and Ontario to begin similar initiatives.

[English]

This system, together with the one we hope to develop with vital statistics agencies in Canada, will provide assurance of identity, status, and, in the case of non-Canadian-born persons, proof of needing a social insurance number. These links will also allow HRDC to verify information given by applicants for replacement SINs and for new applicants who are not registered at birth.

Essential to safeguarding the integrity of the SIN is the security and reliability of the social insurance register.

The current state of completeness and accuracy of the SIR is being assessed and plans will be made to improve levels of accuracy. Improved integrity of the social insurance registry will allow us to use the information with confidence as we move to ever-greater electronic access to our services at HRDC.

As HRDC is moving in that direction, the SIR will become a key component for the authentication of clients who are seeking our own HRDC programs and services. The validation should be fast, seamless, and always respectful of privacy considerations, and it should allow HRDC to provide a more modern, high-quality, and timely service to all of our clients.

[Translation]

These initiatives will greatly contribute to improving the integrity of the SIN.

We will continue to work closely with the Auditor General and our partners to ensure that the integrity of the SIN is maintained.

My colleagues and I will be happy to go through the action plan and answer any questions you may have regarding the SIN program in general.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll begin our round of questioning. Mr. Solberg, you'll have six minutes.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of you for appearing today.

I'm going to follow the advice of Madam Barrados with respect to asking some questions about the resources you've devoted to your action plan.

First of all, can you tell us how much funding you've devoted to implementing this action plan, and is your action plan fully funded? Do you have the funding yet to actually go ahead and do it? If not, what's standing in the way of that?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: As I said earlier in my opening remarks, we've secured every level of approval, save for the final, which is a supplementary estimates process. Once that is done, we'll be in a position to secure this new funding through the appropriate processes and then begin to actually expend it.

Mr. Monte Solberg: How long will that be?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Supplementary estimates will be tabled shortly.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Should we take from the fact that this is taking some time that this obviously hasn't been a priority, despite the fact that we've been pushing it for a number of months now—not even months, years actually? I just don't understand why this continues to take so long to get moving forward. It's such an important issue.

We just had an example in the news the other day of a couple of people—it's an old news story, I guess, but new to us—who were arrested because they had managed to obtain 68 social insurance numbers and made off with all kinds of student loan money and that sort of thing. It's quite disconcerting to see this over and over again. Can you explain why this isn't moving forward any faster?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, I think we're moving as quickly as we have said in the action plan that we would. As I said, we have gone through the process of securing all the internal processes for the approvals for funding, and now, as is appropriate, we're waiting for supplementary estimates to be tabled to secure the funds.

In order to go through that process, we have costed and validated the costing, not only for ourselves but working with our partner departments and our other partners—I spoke about vital statistics agencies. We hope we're in the final stages of securing that funding through parliamentary appropriation processes, and we feel confident we've secured the funding we need to get the job done for this coming year.

¹ (1540)

Mr. Monte Solberg: It just strikes me, though, that if this issue is important—and I think everyone agrees it is, especially when we're worried now about ties to the security of the country. I wonder why there wouldn't even be a reallocation, perhaps, from another area. I just don't....

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We have reallocated some internal funds in order to keep this process going. For some of it we obviously had to secure new funding.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Among the specific issues that were raised, for instance, the Auditor General's department has pointed to what strikes me as a weird anomaly, where the department won't accept Canadian passports but accepts birth certificates. Could you explain that? Obviously other departments do accept our passports.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Certainly.

Mr. Charles Nixon (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): I think it's important to remember what has happened in the last little while. As you point out, everybody is much more security conscious than they were before.

We have been working in conjunction with a federal-provincial-territorial council on identity of Canadians. We've been talking to them about what foundation documents we should use in terms of processing applications for SIN cards. The advice of that group has been to move to foundation documents, and those foundation documents are the Canadian birth certificate and immigration documents. That is what we have done for now. We have gone very simple to make sure we are using the soundest documents we can to process SIN applications.

We have set up an interdepartmental committee to discuss what the ultimate documents might be that we would use in the future in addition to those documents or processes and that would provide greater comfort. Whether that includes using a passport, a guarantor system, or whatever remains to be seen. We put in the action plan that we would hopefully be receiving some recommendations back from that group come September.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Why has the policy on the single document not yet been changed so that it would comply with the act? The act states that there should be more than one piece of identification.

Mr. Charles Nixon: We think the birth certificate actually provides both sides of that. It may not be the best in all situations, but we think it does provide both an issue of citizenship and identity.

Mr. Monte Solberg: It would be much easier to forge one document than two. Wouldn't it make sense to have a couple of different documents to make it a little harder for people with malevolent intent to rip off the system?

Mr. Charles Nixon: We have fair confidence in birth certificates. They're not just made on photocopy paper and so forth. We thought the most prudent action for now was to go to these foundation documents and to use those for our application process.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Doesn't the act state that there has to be more than one piece of identification?

Mr. Charles Nixon: No, it does not. It says “citizenship and identity”. It doesn't say “two documents”.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Oh, I see.

Mr. Charles Nixon: We feel that certainly at this time we should focus on what we think are the better pieces of documentation, which is not a document that is built on other documents so as to buttress this. That's exactly what this working group wants to look at in order to make sure that if there are additional documents we want to use, there is consensus that these are bona fide documents we can use with confidence. We will start talking within the federal government, but we will probably end up talking to provinces as well because we're all looking around the same issue here. That is how you build bona fide documents and have confidence in them.

The Chair: The time is up.

I'm going to ask Ms. Barrados to respond.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Just a point of clarification on some of our concerns about the use of a single document. The legislation requires identification and citizenship. If you think of what a birth certificate tells you, it doesn't necessarily give you the two. Our concern is that you have appropriate documentation that gives you both identification and citizenship, as is required by the legislation.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Madame St. Jacques, followed by Madame Tremblay and Mr. Malhi.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question pertains to the use of the social insurance number. We know that it is now the norm, everywhere, including in many private sector corporations, to always ask for our social insurance number card as means of identification. If I am not mistaken, the Auditor General mentioned this in her report. What does the department intend to do to try to minimize or stop this practice?

You also mentioned a public awareness campaign to teach people how to better protect their social insurance number. I would like you to clarify what you intend to do exactly.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Yes, we are going to do something. We did run an awareness campaign in 2001 that tried to, in different ways, draw the attention of Canadians to the use of the SIN number and that of businesses as well. We provided information to different business associations, etc., to make sure they understood what was the proper use of this social insurance number.

We are now in the process of doing some focused testing on how those products work, again, and we're also doing a survey this month to see what the awareness is in different sectors of the Canadian economy to see what kind of understanding people got out of that campaign. And it is our goal to have a new campaign that will be targeted to different groups in 2003-04, once we get this information.

In the meantime, we certainly will be running an awareness campaign for the new 900-series cards that will be coming out, we hope, at the end of March with the expiry date on them.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Could we require that companies not ask for this card, so that it not be used for such purposes? Are there any tools, is there any recourse, or is information the only means we will use to attain this goal?

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: We certainly have a piece of legislation called the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which has already come into force but is being phased in. As of January 2004 this piece of legislation will be extended to all organizations that collect, use, and disclose personal information. There are legitimate reasons for businesses to have a social insurance number. They are asked to collect it when they hire people. They need to use it, depending on their business, for tax purposes, that kind of thing. But how they use it and how they distribute it will be governed by this act, the aim of which is to reduce the exchange of this kind of personal information.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to be clear about one thing. To a certain extent, the law requires two pieces of identification. Do you currently require two pieces of identification in order to issue a social insurance number? Is it clear that this is now required?

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: The act does not require two pieces of identification. It requires that citizenship and identity be verified. We feel that at the moment the best way to do that is to use foundation documents, as we call them, which would be a birth certificate and immigration documents.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: So you require two documents: proof of immigration, if the person is not a Canadian citizen... If I were to give you my driver's licence, it would not tell you what my nationality is. Would you accept it?

¹ (1550)

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: No.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I am a Canadian citizen; I was born here. What are you going to ask me to provide in order to issue a social insurance number?

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: A birth certificate.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: But that doesn't tell you that I am a Canadian citizen.

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: Yes, you were born in Canada. That makes you a Canadian citizen.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Not necessarily. It is not because I was born in Canada that I'm necessarily a Canadian citizen. That has nothing to do with it. These are two distinct things. You can be a foreign citizen, and have been born here. I know someone whose daughter was born here and who has lived here for 35 years, but who is not a Canadian citizen. And her daughter is not either. She has been living here for 35 years but she does not have Canadian citizenship because she is German and does not want to renounce her German citizenship. If you are German, you cannot have dual citizenship. So providing our licence does not prove Canadian citizenship. I do not think so. Personally, I would doubt that.

There must certainly be a failure in the system somewhere for us to wind up with five million cards too many. There is a problem somewhere. Did you identify what it was? You said that you cancelled 2.6 million cards, which were deactivated in October. There are still 2.4 million cards out there. Have you discovered who has these social insurance numbers without being entitled to them?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Fernandez.

Mr. Lu Fernandez (Acting Director, Investigation and Control Operations, Department of Human Resources Development): I want to respond to your comments about the 5 million SINs, the gap, the difference between the population and the number of SINs that were issued to people over 20. As you said, 2.6 million of those were deactivated. In addition to those 2.6 million SINs, we have subsequently also deactivated 600,000 that were found to be deceased and dormant. They were not being used. They were actually cancelled.

That left a little less than 2 million SINs. There are a number of people living outside of the country collecting, very validly, Canada Pension Plan benefits or similar old age security benefits. We have found that if you take those people out of the equation, out of the balance of that 2 million, you're left with about 1,700,000 SINs.

One of the issues we had with the Auditor General's report, specifically, was that when the census was taken in June 2001 there were approximately 22 million Canadians listed over the age of 20. When the Auditor General looked at the social insurance register that holds the database of all the SINs, at that point it was February 2002. These were different points in time. We issue about 100,000 social insurance numbers a month. We issued about 700,000 additional SINs from the time when the Auditor General looked at the population, so there were an additional 700,000 SINs there. If you take those out of the equation, you're left with just under 1 million SINs. So we've brought our number from 5 million down to 1 million.

Because Canada as a country does not have exit controls as to who leaves the country, these social insurance numbers can belong, again very validly, to persons who are living, working, studying, or volunteering outside of the country.

There are also those social insurance numbers, both the regular and the 900-series--the temporary social insurance numbers--that belong to people who have no further contact with Canada. They've left the country and don't plan to come back. They are not reflected in the census, but they are holders of social insurance numbers. Some of our efforts with deactivating SINs and cleaning up and improving the integrity of the social insurance register are aimed at that group to try to reduce the gap.

Mr. Peter Simeoni (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): I'd like to add some comments on what Mr. Fernandez just said, Madam Chair.

In our work we focused on the census because it was our only point of comparison. How else would you judge if the number of SINs in use made some sort of sense unless you compared it to the Canadian population in some way. The report recognizes that the social insurance register is not meant to be a census of Canadians, so it's a little bit of apples and oranges, yet a gap of 5 million struck us as so large that it deserves some explanation.

In the chapter in our report you'll see that the department did provide a number of explanations, a number of possible reasons why there would be 5 million extra SINs, some of which Mr. Fernandez just mentioned, some of which he did not.

We're pleased to see that the department is coming up with ways of explaining what that 5 million might be, but we're not convinced that that's actually about managing the gap. Finding ways to explain it away doesn't necessarily move us forward. We have not audited the numbers, but even small imprecisions in what you just heard could result in hundreds of thousands of extra SINs out there, and that's an awful lot.

We think the department's plans to, first of all, assess the quality of the social insurance register, find out what really is going on with their database, and then take steps to improve it, is the right path to take, and we should get beyond imagining ways to explain the 5 million. I don't think that really furthers the discussion.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Assistant Auditor General mentioned in her report that the action plan is silent on the costs. Perhaps she would explain why that is.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Certainly.

We've done everything in our power, as I said, up until the internal processes to government, to assess the measures we need to improve on, cost the measures we need to improve on, and go ahead to secure the appropriate authorities. But the last and sovereign body that makes decisions about funding is Parliament, and those dollars will be tabled for parliamentarians in the supplementary estimates process. It's not until Parliament votes on those that the money is actually secured.

We have gone forward and we have so far had every indication that our request for dollar amounts to get the job done is being favourably received, but it's not until Parliament votes on the supplementary estimates that we will actually secure the funding.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What efforts are being taken to, first, formulate a uniform policy for all HRDC offices in Canada to issue social insurance number cards, and second, have a central training program for SIN investigations to prevent misuse and fraud? I don't mean one, but across Canada--

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, across Canada in terms of standardization of training and preparing our staff.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Yes.

Mr. Charles Nixon: Madam Chairman, this has been one of the areas in which we have expended quite a lot of effort in recent times to make sure we are exercising our responsibilities appropriately. We have developed specialized training for our staff. That was piloted in September. We trained our trainers in November. The English training was done in January, and we hope the rest of it will then be completed.

We also have prepared many tools for our people that have been put up on the web--for instance, the facsimiles they can use to detect false documents. We've also equipped all our offices with ultraviolet light to detect forged documents. They have with them a handbook and a systems guide so they can carry out these duties appropriately, as I said.

We think these steps will aid in improving the integrity of our application-taking process.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What important elements of the action plan are exposed to the greater risk of lack of funding?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Subject to the parliamentary appropriation process, we think we will be able to secure the appropriate levels of funding to do the job and therefore not put at risk the job that needs to be done.

As I said earlier, we have already reallocated some funds internally to begin the process of where we have to get to. It's only in areas where we couldn't reallocate funds internally, or were short of funds, or had requirements and dependencies in other departments and agencies that we secured additional funding.

So we're not contemplating putting any of this plan at risk on the funding side.

º (1600)

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Solberg, this is your second round, so you have about three and a half or four minutes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: When someone comes into an office with a birth certificate, how do you know they are who they say they are? There's no picture on a birth certificate, so how do you know?

Mr. Charles Nixon: One of the key things we want to achieve is to have a connection with all vital statistics across the country. We have such a process in place in New Brunswick, and I have recently signed a letter of intent for us to do a similar pilot in British Columbia. We have had interest expressed from both Ontario and Quebec to enter into discussions about how we might do that with them. Together those provinces cover probably 80% of the population or births in Canada, so I think that is a very important way we can ensure those people are who they say they are.

In addition, as I said--

Mr. Monte Solberg: So right now it's pretty wide open. If somebody steals a birth certificate they could waltz in and it would be pretty hard to pick it up. You don't accept other documents as foundational documents. Because you don't have that system in place right now, it's pretty much wide open.

Mr. Charles Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: You don't accept a passport.

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Actually, one of the issues that is being raised right here is connecting the individual with the document. As Mr. Nixon was explaining, what we are trying to do with a lot of the work that's ongoing right now is make sure the actual document that is being presented is in fact valid and real.

Some of the work we would like to be doing, and have started the process to do, is having the larger discussion with other departments that deal with things like passports and immigration status and so on, to talk about how you connect the individual with the document they're presenting.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I understand that. But right now you're issuing 100,000 of these a month, roughly. Is that what it is? How certain are you then that the people who are coming forward with birth certificates are the people who they say they are? How can you really know?

If you don't accept a driver's licence or a passport, if you don't accept anything except a birth certificate that has no picture on it, with no way of identifying the person, isn't the system completely wide open right now?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Most people do apply for social insurance numbers in person, and we have at the front end a SIN application review process, a program, that really does focus in on a number of key variables that accompany the application. It's not just the identity document; it's the information that's provided on the application as well, as well as behavioural characteristics of individuals.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Excuse me, but you get the information from the people who have, in the case I'm talking about, perhaps stolen a birth certificate. Rather obviously the information you gather from somebody who wants to rip off the system is going to be false, right?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Likely, yes. However, what--

Mr. Monte Solberg: What you're telling me is really there's no check at all right now to tie the person to the birth certificate.

Mr. Lu Fernandez: As I was explaining, what we do have is this program that actually looks at not just the document itself but the application information. In very many instances the impersonator provides inaccurate or incorrect information on the application to accompany the document they're using. In some cases what they tend to do is they falsify a birth certificate or request a recent-issue birth certificate. That's a key indicator for us. If a birth certificate has been recently issued and an individual is using that for a social insurance number application, that's a cause for us to question, or a concern.

º (1605)

Mr. Monte Solberg: I have to say, I think the common-sense perspective would be that a driver's licence, a passport, would be a far better check than the sorts of things you've indicated, which are after-the-fact sorts of things. Why not accept a passport? Why not accept a driver's licence? At least you have some way to tie the birth certificate to the individual.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: As we go through this period we're always balancing two issues: the integrity of the documentation in the application process and the issuance of the SIN; and service to Canadians.

Two jurisdictions that I'm aware of changed their requirements after 9/11. For documents, they would consider source documents--for example, baptismal certificates. In two jurisdictions Canada was notified that they should no longer accept them as reasons for issuing a valid passport.

We could have gone through a more onerous process right up front, in consultation with all the partners we talk to, in terms of determining what are source documents, what are foundation documents. We could have gone through a more complicated process of saying we'll accept this passport but not that passport, or we'll accept a passport that was issued on such-and-such a date but not a passport that was issued on such-and-such a date.

So we sought that balance out, and we took the advice of all these interdepartmental committees that were working on these issues, and we came to the conclusion that for the time being we would use source documents, not documents that were issued after the fact on the basis of, for example, someone who may have received one of those pieces of identification that you've just commented on, on the basis of having a SIN number to begin with. So we had to get back to the original source documents.

But we have struck the certain balances we have because of issues we are all aware of, which is why, as we said earlier--and both of my colleagues have mentioned this--we're continuing to work on this interdepartmentally across government and with other jurisdictions. We are expecting a report in September to advise us further on other modifications we might make.

It's a work in progress because of the situation as it occurred, and the situation is the way we treat some of these issues post-9/11, not only the externality of the Auditor General's report.

We're constantly striving for that proper balance between integrity and service to Canadians. So for the time being, this is the balance we've struck, but we're constantly reviewing it. If there's a better balance to be struck, and as I think one of my colleagues said, including other pieces of documentation, including photographs or guarantor documents, we're taking that advice now, and no doubt we will be back to this committee in the future with the advice we have received and whether it is appropriate to implement it in striking that balance between security, integrity, and service.

Ms. Maria Barrados: The concern we pointed to in the audit is two-part.

One, the government claim is that the SIN is only a file identifier, that this is its only purpose. If that is the case, you manage things in a certain way, and I would find arguments about accepting a balance between service and some of the other requirements acceptable if you have identification requirements met in your other disbursement programs.

But what we have is a piece of legislation that is very specific about requiring identification and citizenship. So the obligation is there to do that, because that's what is required under the current piece of legislation. That's our perspective.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Simard, and then Madame Tremblay.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is to the Auditor General's representatives. I'm not sure if it's a fair question. I don't recall the information in the initial report.

I just want to know if you have ever analyzed the potential costs of the additional SINs that are out there, in terms of fraud, for instance. Has that ever been analyzed, or would that be purely speculative?

My second question is to Madame Flumian. I don't think I've heard you say what the costs of the remedial plan would be. Do we know exactly what it is at this point? You say you've gone through the process and you're at the last level of the process, so obviously you must have some idea of where we are in terms of what this system should cost, or what the remedial plan should cost us.

º (1610)

Ms. Maria Barrados: As far as the audit work that we have done is concerned, we have not put a number to the potential costs that could result from inappropriate SINs being out there.

We do say in our reports that there are a number of government programs that disburse a large amount of money that are potentially at risk because the SIN is used as part of the identification for access to those programs.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: In response to our question, I'm going to have to give the same answer that I've said several times, because I think appropriate procedure requires Parliament to first vote on the money before I can actually talk about having secured it and what it might be.

We have reallocated some dollars internally for some of the measures that we have talked about. The rest of it is through the process now, and we'll have to go to supplementary estimates in order for us to be able to secure the funding for each of those pieces. It rests with Parliament to make that determination.

So obviously we have costs in the individual elements, and we have gone forward with a proposal on each of those individual elements and have been able to defend them in terms of convincing the bodies internal to government that we've properly costed them and taken into account what will be required to get the job done.

Mr. Raymond Simard: You should have been a politician: good answer.

I guess the next question is, can you tell me, after this remedial plan is done, do you anticipate you will have one SIN card for every Canadian, or is it impossible to resolve that problem completely? Is that part of the plan?

An hon. member: You mean “at least”.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Yes, a minimum of one per person.

Mr. Charles Nixon: I hope to God we only have one.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I guess I'm asking whether it is possible to completely resolve this problem, and if yes, how long it would take?

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Definitely over some period of time, as Mr. Fernandez has explained, we have to go through the process of ensuring that each one of those dormant social insurance numbers is dormant, verify the reason it is dormant, and try to track down as many of them as possible.

This is an area where we're not just trying to manage the gap; we're actually trying to ensure that those SIN numbers held by either Canadian residents or Canadians or people working or residing abroad who have numbers are holding them for a purpose. Just the fact that those numbers have been inactive doesn't necessarily make you jump to the conclusion that there is fraud involved in having them.

As we go towards bringing a better balance into the system and ensuring its integrity in all the ways we've talked about in the action plan, we're also making sure we're tracking down to every degree possible what is perceived to be a gap by the Auditor General in the numbers.

So yes, the intent is definitely to have one card per Canadian, because that's the purpose of a file identifier.

Mr. Raymond Simard: It would be kind of ideal.

My last question is with regard to deactivated cards. Does deactivated mean in fact that you've identified them as not belonging to anybody? There's a huge number: it's three million cards that have been deactivated. Just define that for me, please.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: It's the time of usage. I think Mr. Fernandez will take the question.

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Deactivation means that the cards—the numbers, actually, are what we're talking about; the numbers have not been used to access a federal program that's authorized to use the SIN in five consecutive years.

All of those SINs were dormant. They have not been used, for instance, for filing income tax, which is our major source to define where those SINs come from. That's what dormant is.

Mr. Raymond Simard: But they could reappear, theoretically?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: An individual, for instance, who, for whatever reason, has not had any interaction with government, has not filed a tax return, perhaps was incarcerated—

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Or perhaps was a stay-at-home mom—

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Or incarcerated as a stay-at-home mom—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lu Fernandez: --may not have had any interaction with the federal government. At some point in the future, they may come back into the labour force or whatever. That social insurance number would then be flagged as deactivated and it would give rise to an intervention.

Mr. Raymond Simard: So it would have to go through the new process you've put in place now, right? It would be like getting a new SIN card?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: It would be a verification and validation of the individual's identity and of a reason why the card was deactivated in the first place—why it was dormant. That currently happens for the EI program.

º (1615)

Mr. Raymond Simard: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chair, I'm a bit discouraged by the situation. When we started having security problems, post-September 11, the government put all sorts of measures into effect for passports, and Canadians themselves realized that the situation had changed. Now it takes time to get a passport. A lot of things are checked. All kinds of things are being rejected. If the signature goes beyond the little square, it is rejected. If somebody has ears that stick out and create a shadow, the photos are rejected. I know somebody whose photos were rejected three times until someone finally understood that you just couldn't glue his ears down. Those were his real ears.

We can see, on a daily basis, that the government has taken its job seriously and the people are aware of this as well. But as far as you are concerned, unfortunately, the people realize when you do not take your responsibility seriously each and every time. Just recently, a reporter managed to obtain eight social insurance numbers, just like that.

You persist in saying that you do not interpret the law the same way. Who will tell us who is right? According to the Auditor General, the department has not explained when it will comply with the requirements of the legislation. You were saying that you do comply with the law. Who is telling the truth? We have to know this. Your system must change. You have to ensure that there is only one social insurance number per person. You can clearly see that your system is not working since you are not able to guarantee that there is one social insurance number per person, and it is still possible for people to obtain many numbers. I fail to understand why you are being so stubborn about not wanting to achieve greater efficiency. In all honesty, I do not understand that, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Whoever wants to may respond.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: It's an important series of questions, to which we have a duty to respond.

I have to say there are some differences of opinion between our interpretation and the interpretation taken by the Office of the Auditor General. We're continuing to work on them, and we're continuing to find the best ways to safeguard the concerns of all Canadians--those who are applying for cards, those who currently have cards, and those who will come in future.

Again, for us it's a function of trying to find the appropriate balance. We recognize the world has changed. We recognize we have some improvements to make in the way we've managed the program. But it's a question of balance. There will always be those who will try to commit fraud. We feel we are putting processes and elements in place to ensure protection against those various elements, and we'll do everything, as we think of it and as it's brought to our attention, to improve that process.

On the other hand, there are a lot of numbers bandied about. There are a lot of facts handed around. We don't know how many Canadians we'd be inconveniencing if we leapt to the assumption that all of those numbers currently out there on which we have not seen active usage in the last many years have been obtained fraudulently or are held by people who shouldn't hold them.

So again, we have to balance between service and integrity. For all those stay-at-home moms across the country, for all those pensioners who may not have filed or who have been out of the country and have not been in receipt of benefits, for a whole range of Canadians or people who have resided in Canada and paid into some of those contributory programs, who may or may not be in receipt of them, we have to be careful to strike that balance in a way that we try to manage the integrity aspects to the best of our ability and constantly improve them. We understand we have to do that. But we also have to understand that there are sometimes good and valid reasons people have not made use of these numbers in the last many years.

So we have gone quite some distance, with the help of the Auditor General and this committee, to making improvements and to coming forward.

First and foremost, we're making sure we're doing everything we can, and we're informing Canadians of their roles and responsibilities, informing those businesses and other folks out there who are using the number appropriately or inappropriately, requiring usage of that number in ways that are either sanctioned or not by legislation and by the government.

We know we have improvements to make. We're trying to make them as quickly as we possibly can, because we know it's an issue here for Canadians. But it's that balance between service and integrity. We'll keep working. We'll keep working with the Auditor General's office, with this committee, and with anybody who has a good idea and an interest in managing this process in a way that strikes the right balance at that point in time.

º (1620)

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I see one tiny thing in your action plan. You will be asking Treasury Board for authorization to include three new programs in the Treasury Board list of authorized social insurance number users. You, the department, are asking Treasury Board for this authorization. You asked for this in September 2002 and you said that, perhaps, you will have a response by the end of March 2003. Your department must be located quite far away if it takes the mail so much time to get to its destination. Don't you use the Internet to make such requests? How can it take so much time, six months, in order to simply add three programs to a list? I understand that you need time to check the social insurance numbers, if you are not able to add three programs to a list. It does not make any sense. This is appalling. And this is the first point made in the plan, a seven-page document.

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: There is a list of programs that are allowed to use the social insurance number as a file identifier, etc.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I understood that, yes. You want to add three.

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: That's right.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: You asked for that in September.

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: We've been working with them since September, yes, and ultimately, it will have to go to Treasury Board for approval. That's what we've been working with them on--the appropriate documentation that needs to go forward that will include these on that list. Sometimes it is difficult to explain why things take as long as they do, but certainly that's what we've been working on with them.

We hope to have it, as we say, in March so it'll be clear which programs we can use the SIN for.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That includes the dialogue with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, because we're adding other requirements to these programs, such as SIN number and so on. So the privacy impact assessments have had to go through that process as well.

The Chair: Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Madam Chair, instead of asking questions, I will make various comments, because the answers we have been getting today make me feel uncomfortable. I agree with Mr. Solberg and Ms. Tremblay. The name of this section of the Human Resources Development Department should be changed to continuum, namely, always trying to improve but never fixed.

On page 2 of her presentation, Ms. Flumian says:

[English]

“Managing the SIN and the SIR requires a continuous improvement strategy....”

[Translation]

Just imagine if we were at war and we always had to have a continuous improvement strategy as we fought the war.

The document reads: “As things are constantly changing.” What things? What is happening? What are these constant changes? We can, for example, identify Monte Solberg, determine that he exists, that he is a Canadian and that he is entitled to a number. It seems to me that Monte Solberg is not a moving target, he is there and we can prove it. Then, we will start to talk.

[English]

There's a debate right now on ID cards, Madam Chairman. If we're going to get into ID cards, with the problem we have with SIN numbers, my reaction is holy smokes, are we ever going to get into something. It's going to be a forever problem.

Then Madam Flumian talked about the cost of a remedial plan. I didn't quite get the number, the amount of money. But she's waiting for funding. I'm not sure if it's for staff or for contracting out work. And if that's the case--contracting out--I would be very, very upset, because then that's a blow to

º (1625)

[Translation]

the feeling of belonging associated with a program.

[English]

I believe in public servants being permanent people on staff and not people who are in and out. Being from the city of Ottawa, I have met many public servants and many people on contract. There is a difference. The person on contract is in and out. They do their work; it's quantitative not qualitative. In the case of a staffer it's qualitative; there's corporate memory. There's a sense of belonging to the file, which does not happen with contracting out. I would be very upset if you were spending the money in that area.

On equipment, just how much equipment do we need? Is equipment computers? How many more computers do we need to buy?

On the foundation documents, my colleagues are very right that it is a slap in the face to the foreign affairs department if we say we don't like their documents; we prefer the Ontario documents.

Last night I was at supper with a group. One lady in the group said she was at a clinic the other day and a nurse asked the gentleman sitting next to her if he had his OHIP card. The fellow took out his wallet and unfolded eight cards. He said with a big smile, “Which of these cards would you like”? He had eight Ontario health cards. The nurse was smart enough to go to the office and call the police. The police came and took the fellow away.

If we're going to rely on Ontario cards, on provincial cards, they also have problems. If we're going to have a problem in our family, let's deal with our own family--that's where the problems need to be fixed--and not rely on some other family to try to fix our problems.

If there are five million extra SIN numbers, that's 16% of the total Canadian population. That's quite a whack. Have you ever charged anyone who possessed a fraudulent document? It would be quite interesting to find out if you've ever done that. If you've ever done that, was it 14 times or a million times? If there are six million extra SIN numbers, there have to be some guys there who are not cricket.

You mentioned something about stay-at-home moms, that they don't need numbers. That's not a correct or proper statement. When my wife was living I used to enter her on my tax return. I needed a SIN number. There are SIN numbers for stay-at-home moms.

What was done with these people you found with more than one card?

[Translation]

Birth certificates from the Province of Quebec

[English]

prior to 1975, do you accept them? There is a problem, I understand. That's another province. I've mentioned Ontario and Quebec. They have problems with these birth certificates--

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Nothing before 1994.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Bon.

You're waiting for supplementary estimates. I thought in the last few weeks we did have the supplementary estimates. I am under the impression we have supplementary estimates once a year. I am under the impression that on February 18 we're going to have a budget, and the next day you will automatically have the estimate books. They go that high in piles. If you're going to wait for supplementary estimates, does that mean we're going to wait until next June? I think that's the timing for the estimates.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, you've asked questions, but I don't think you want answers.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No, I don't want answers because I'll get--

The Chair: You've had seven minutes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm so accustomed to hearing answers for the last 15 years. As I say, it's job creation, it's continuum, it's improvements, but we never fix it.

º (1630)

The Chair: Your statement is certainly on the record.

I'll go to Mr. Finlay. Then I'm going to give Mr. Solberg and Madame Tremblay very short follow-ups. At the end I'll allow all of you to sum up.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: What about all those questions that were asked, Madam Chair?

The Chair: You'll get an opportunity at the end. I'll give you five minutes to respond to as many as you wish.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Madam Chair, I have a few comments to make. I must say that it has been a most interesting afternoon. There's a certain amount of poetic justice and hubris here. We're talking about a forever problem, trying to improve but never fixing, my colleague says. He's talking about life and government. Madame Tremblay is talking about the same thing. Because we don't have it quite right, we get impatient, and Mr. Solberg too.

I've walked in my riding and encouraged people to vote for me. One afternoon two years ago in the spring, a very nice afternoon, I went out and I met two gentlemen. One said, “It's no use talking to me because I can't vote.” “Why not? You live here in number six.” He said, “I'm not a citizen.” “How long have you been here?” “I've been here for 22 years.” The other fellow said to him, “You can be a citizen. I'm a citizen.” They were both from Portugal, I think. “Oh no, I'm not going to become a citizen, because if I do, I'll have to pay tax when I go back home and visit my mother in Portugal.” Who told him this or what confusion he was under, Madam Chair, I do not know. He obviously didn't have a SIN, he probably didn't have a birth certificate, he certainly didn't have a passport, and he lived 50 feet from my office.

So a million or two is probably right, Mr. Fernandez. They may be stay-at-home mums or they may not be employed enough to earn money and therefore to pay taxes. They have some sort of self-sufficiency. There you are. They go on doing a job. There must be millions of them. Your balance between service and integrity is exactly what the problem is.

I've read the report, Madam Chair. It says “no longer accepts Canadian passports as proof of citizenship and identity”. I'm thinking of the people who come into my office. It takes us six months to get them sorted out so that they can get a passport because they don't have a birth certificate. One gentleman came in. His father went to the States. He was born in the States. They didn't record his birth. They brought him back to Canada. He didn't have any immigration papers because he came with his father and mother, and you don't have papers for kids. Now he has no proof of that. We had to get his military record, and it had to be vetted. He had to have an RCMP check, etc. We finally got him a passport.

We're running up against human nature. Whenever there's some money to be had, people will find an illegal way to get it. The balance, Madam, is all you're going to get, because there's somebody smarter than the clerk who is doing the job and serving the public. The reason our government works so well and does so well is because we base it on the honesty of the citizen, and most citizens are honest. You say, where were you born? They don't say Timbuktu. They don't make something up, except in their dreams.

Let's have a little bit of understanding of what the problem is. Yes, there's some fraud, such as with the GST. If a guy runs 60 dummy companies, there should be a way to check that. But there aren't that many people who run 60 dummy companies. He's a crook, a thief. We should accept it as that.

There's such a thing as poetic justice and hubris. Man's reach should exceed his grasp. Isn't that the saying? We're reaching for a better society all the time. That's why we have to have a balance. We have to recognize that some people don't pay their dues and don't do their share, but there's no use getting all excited about them. They're there, and they're going to be there 20, 50, 100 years from now. Eugene is a bit of an author and artist, and he knows that.

º (1635)

We rail against imperfection. Keep at it. We'll get better as time goes on. We may come up with some magic bullet some time. I doubt it. Take three pieces of identification if you can get it.

Anybody can falsify any identification. Look at the technology that exists today. My secretary handed me a picture, in colour, of you, Madame Tremblay, and me reading to those children yesterday. She took it with a digital camera. She put it into her computer and sent it to me. You would have been hard put to say that it wasn't an original photograph.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

The Chair: You're quite welcome.

Mr. Solberg, do you wish to make a statement or ask a question?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, I might ask a question, but I will start out with a preamble. I just want to point out to my friend across the way that obviously human imperfection is a fact of life, but systems need to be designed to catch those imperfections.

I just want to remind my colleagues that this is not a new issue. It's at least four years old. It goes back to May 4, 1999, when the standing committee tabled a report containing 21 recommendations with regard to this issue. So four years later we're still dealing with it. That's why I think people get a little frustrated.

When we encounter a situation where we're talking about how people get social insurance numbers, and we find out that the document they use to get a social insurance number doesn't connect them to their own identity because there's no picture on it, we're concerned that there's no balance. But there's no balance in the wrong way. The balance in this case is tilted too far in the direction of protecting people who shouldn't get other people's social insurance numbers. That's my concern. Yes, you have human failings and human frailty, but the system should be designed to check that. Right now the system is not checking that, and that's the concern.

After having said all that, I have a very specific question, probably for Mr. Fernandez. It has to do with obtaining SINs. The great majority of people obtain them in person, but some people obtain them via the mail or the Internet. Is that correct?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Via the mail.

Mr. Monte Solberg: The check we had on people getting them in person was to observe their behaviour, for instance. What is the check for people who are trying to fraudulently obtain a SIN through the mail if they have a stolen birth certificate?

Mr. Lu Fernandez: It's very similar, except for the behavioural attributes. All SIN applications are reviewed to ensure they're complete. All of the fields must have entries, and the required documents must be submitted. A birth certificate or citizenship and immigration documents need to accompany an application by mail, and these are originals only. The application is reviewed to ensure that all of the information on the documentation submitted is accurate; legible, meaning all entries are typed or printed and will be easily and accurately interpreted by anyone handling it; and valid, meaning it represents a legitimate request for a service by an individual whose identity and status has been established. I'm just reviewing our guidelines on the SIN application review program.

Mr. Monte Solberg: But really what you're counting on is someone being a little incompetent and entering these things and getting it wrong. If somebody is out to rip off the system, it's not really a check. If somebody makes a mistake and you have a chance to review it, maybe you'll catch them. But you don't have a proactive checking process.

º (1640)

Mr. Lu Fernandez: Actually, what we are doing right now is putting in place a risk assessment/risk management strategy. We're trying to do that with our colleagues from the Auditor General's office. We're looking at risk not only from the standpoint of where we should invest our resources but also what the risk areas are in the process.

Mr. Monte Solberg: This is such an old issue, I just don't understand why it's taking so long, especially after 9/11 happened and all the concern about that. Today, a year and a half after 9/11, we have a system where if you steal or forge a birth certificate you can get a SIN number, and with no way of checking whether or not you're actually the person on that birth certificate—unless you have shifty eyes or something when you come into the office.

It just seems so bizarre to me. I'm very frustrated that it's taking this long. It doesn't seem to demonstrate that the government is putting the security of the system and the public as a number one priority. A number one priority would mean reallocate; do it quickly; get an order in council to get some money—whatever it takes to get it done. What we're seeing is constant delay, delay, delay, and in the meantime you have reports such as Suzanne pointed to a while ago about somebody obtaining eight fraudulent SIN numbers, or people across the river in Gatineau stealing millions of dollars in student loans because of fraudulent SIN numbers.

So I'm frustrated. I know John attributes this to human failings. There will always be people, I agree with him, who rip the system off. But the system shouldn't be open, and this one is.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: May I, Madame Chair?

I think it's fair to say that we are as anxious to fix some of these outstanding issues as members of this committee have indicated they are, and as the AG has commented on as well.

We have, again, reallocated resources internally to begin the process of fixing it. We are in the process of securing additional funding to fix and enhance and put improvements in place across all aspects, from the application process and the way we manage our national services to the way we manage investigation control associated with that, to the way our individual staff and HRCCs are trained, and to the training that's going on across all of our program areas.

We've acted as quickly as we possibly could, given all the approvals that had to be sought, to put in place the 900-series changes we're proposing, and a good chunk of funding has been reallocated and will be secured, we hope, through parliamentary appropriation to put it in place.

Again, that has systems components, it has training components, and it has legislative components that we have worked hard over the course of the last many months to put in place.

When it comes to ensuring and enhancing the integrity of the social insurance registry, the bulk of the new funding we will secure, probably about half of it, will go to making improvements on that front—probably more than half of it—and a good chunk of that has to go to the authentication services that are directly tied to linking systems between ourselves, CIC, and some of the vital statistic agencies we've mentioned, with which we're running one pilot and on which we're hoping to move very quickly with Ontario and Quebec.

We are as anxious to fix it as anybody here. Unfortunately, for a whole bunch of reasons we are where we are, but we have moved and will continue to move in some of these areas—source documents being a good example—to continue to take advice that continues to strike a balance, that meets the integrity issues and tries to deal with the issue of service for Canadians as well.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Chair, I see from this document that was sent to us that the committee, back in 1999, unanimously made 21 recommendations. The government's response was twofold. One of the first things that the government rejected was the recommendation pertaining to a new act to protect the social insurance number. We were fully aware that it was not protected whatsoever. That was in 1999.

The government also turned down the idea of issuing new cards because this would have been too costly. Considering what is going on with the firearms, perhaps the government was right when it decided not to want to issue new cards.

The government also rejected the idea of adopting legislation in order to impose new restrictions on the use of the social insurance number, stating that this would result in additional costs for corporations that were not authorized to use a number for their own purposes.

This may have been Diane's question, but what is the department doing in concrete terms in the case of someone requesting a social insurance number when this person is not on this infamous Treasury Board list? We're often asked for our social insurance number when we want to buy something somewhere and we are paying by cheque. When that happens, I tell them that they are taking a risk because there are five million fraudulent cards circulating in Canada. If I am asked for additional proof of identity, I show them my driver's licence.

I am discrediting this card. I am no longer asked for it at any rate because people have understood. It seems to me that there is something to this. This was rejected in 1999 and in 2002, and we are facing the same problem.

Madam Deputy Minister, I know that you are making an effort, but at one point, you cannot simply make an effort and work 12 hours a day. You need results. That is where the problem lies. We are not under the impression that this is yielding results.

º (1645)

[English]

Mr. Charles Nixon: Madam Chair, first of all, I think it's important that we have had a campaign of awareness with Canadians about the use of their SIN number. We are in the process of evaluating how effective it was, with a view to going out again in targeted ways to our different groups, whether they're citizens or different types of businesses, about the use of the SIN number, because I think not all Canadians share an appropriate view of how it should be used.

It was only when I came to work here that I was told I shouldn't carry the card around with me. You're not supposed to, because it's a file identifier, not a piece of identification. So I took it out of my wallet, where it had been for 30 years, and put it into a drawer. That's what Canadians should do with it; it's not something you should carry around, because you don't need it every day. You need it when you start a new job, and perhaps when you open a bank account, or for these types of prescribed uses. So part of that awareness campaign was to try to get the message out to Canadians about the appropriate uses of the card.

Yes, businesses do ask for it inappropriately. I personally take them on every time they do, and they back down. I ask them not to do it again, because they shouldn't. But I'm only one voice.

A voice: You and me.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Charles Nixon: Good. We'll have a campaign together.

But it does take time to change people's view of how it should be used. The piece of legislation the government has passed, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, will come into force on January 1 for businesses beyond federally regulated ones. I think it will also help in making sure that if people have this kind of information they won't use it inappropriately. It will begin to focus the use of the SIN on the purpose for which it was designed, which is to be a file identifier for specific government programs. That's what we're trying to do.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: If I go to the office to apply for a number with my birth certificate or the little blue card from Quebec that was issued after 1994, chances are I will probably not have any problems, but there is no guarantee that I am really Suzanne Tremblay. We were recently told about a woman who had an unfortunate experience because of a mistake made by a public servant who had checked the "deceased" box. When she arrived with all of her photos, her driver's licence, her health insurance card and her passport, she was told that she could not be issued a number because she was dead. This person who was supposed to be dead, even with all of her photos, had a harder time getting a card than someone with a birth certificate that may or may not be hers. I have a feeling that something is not quite right somewhere, that the system just does not work like it should.

It might sound like an urban myth—I can see that you are smiling—but it's something that I learned at school. If you want to capture the imagination, you use a striking example. I think that we have to get back to basics if we want people to trust the system. We don't want to hear, three years down the road, that the number is no longer five million, but eight million. That must not happen.

A voice: It is not five million.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I know that. I understand. I will examine the figures carefully once again. A lot of them seem to have fallen by the wayside this afternoon, because when I arrived, the number was five million.

I will let you have the last word.

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Barrados.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Madame Tremblay and some of the other members are raising the concern about why things have been so slow.

One of the observations we made in our follow-up report was that HRDC did in fact have a plan in 2001, but it never got funded. In our opening comments, that's why we have stressed the importance of trying to get dollars behind the plan. I understand the department's situation in having to go through the process, but it is extremely important to make sure a plan does get funded and that the early commitments in there soon become specific, though it is understandable they are not yet specific, as some exploratory work has to be done first. If they don't become more specific, we will be back to where we were.

The Chair: Do any of you have any final comments?

Ms. Flumian.

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I'd love to, Madam Chair.

First and foremost, I will say that there are not five million false SIN numbers floating around the countryside. I won't go through the tedious details one more time, which are tattooed to the front of my eyeballs, but we do have a duty to balance these issues.

For example, we did not say that stay-at-home moms don't need social insurance numbers. We said there are circumstances where stay-at-home moms may not be included in their husbands' tax returns, or not file their own tax returns. It's conceivable there are people who have no interaction with government programs over a five-year period and who then have a dormant number and all of a sudden face an issue the first time they choose to use it.

So the same balances we strike in maintaining and ensuring that we deal with fraud are also important in maintaining and ensuring that those Canadians who need to be served are also served. We're trying to strike these balances.

Supplementary estimates are tabled twice a year. There will be no magic in this. Very shortly we should see the next round come out, and the numbers will be there. Again I want to emphasize that we have reallocated funds internally, and we are serious about doing this. Quite frankly, we don't think it behooves us well to say we'll have to wait to see if we have new funding. We have moved to take these measures more aggressively than we perhaps have in the past. We have moved to do this.

As for some of the celebrated cases appearing in the paper in recent times, it is our own investigation control that brought those things to light. Investigations were undertaken, the police were called in, and penalties have been levied against those individuals. So we are in the process of bringing things forward, and they are making it into the public domain through the court proceedings. So we are moving anxiously on all of these fronts.

On the issue of source documents, we've gone around and around and around on this. In terms of levels of service and further confusion, it would be inappropriate to say “We will accept your passport if you live in Ontario, and we will not accept it if you lived in Quebec at a certain stage, or if you lived in Newfoundland”. We have been asked by both of those jurisdictions to stop accepting documents issued before a certain time because they didn't go back to source documents. They relied on baptismal certificates, not birth certificates.

It is a work in progress, and we have a committee and are taking advice from across government and from our provincial colleagues on how to deal with this. We will be back to this committee, either in person or through written communication, to inform you where we're going.

On most of those other measures, we hope soon to be able to tell you what resources we have allocated, as approved by Parliament. In most of these areas, we are working very quickly to put many of these measures in place by the end of this fiscal year. Indeed, some were put in place on October 8, when the minister announced her recommendations and acceptance of much of what the AG had found in her report. The rest of them are a work in progress, because technology and the modes by which Canadians apply for some of these things change. We have to keep current with this, so it will be an ongoing process to make sure we continue to strike the right balance for Canadians.

Thank you.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Barrados.

Ms. Maria Barrados: Madam Chair, we are encouraged by the attention the department is giving this and by their efforts in trying to implement our recommendations.

We will keep focusing specifically on the issue of identification, because it is important to us given the current legislation.

We are also pleased to hear the department is feeling confident they will be able to get the funds they require through the supplementary estimates process. As we saw the last time, that's a key part of making the kinds of changes they need to make.

As those approvals go through, it will be important for them to fill in their action plan, to put the cost behind them, and to set some firm dates for some of those preliminary activities now described as initial activities. It will also be important to start bringing in their government colleagues who play an important role in this, and to put some timelines and commitments on what they need to do to make all of this work.

The committee may want to consider following the implementation on an ongoing basis, to be assured that the plan is implemented as the department indicates it is intending to do.

For our part, we will continue to monitor what the department is doing. We keep fairly close contact with officials in the department.

A voice: On many fronts.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I want to thank all of you for coming here today.

No one realized how quickly the time was going. I didn't see anyone twiddling their thumbs or thinking this was not very interesting.

Again, I thank all of you. And I thank my committee members as well.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I have a point of order. I move that the committee prepare a report and recommendations based on what we've just heard.

The Chair: Well, it is just sort of a straw.

Would the committee like us to do a mini report?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes, I would agree with that. I think it's very important.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I think I agree with Monte.

I think the key here is the supplementary budget. It would be a springboard to get things done, so our recommendation should be for the finance people to provide the funds. We're criticizing, but we need to provide them with the ammunition.

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Raymond.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I just want to tell you I am more concerned today than I was after the last meeting. It seems that we haven't stopped the bleeding.

We have two issues here. We have the issue of fixing the problems that were there before, the 2 million or 5 million cards that are outstanding. But from the information we're getting here, it seems they may also still be issuing multiple cards to people.

So I am very concerned. I really think we have to do something quickly and make our message known to these people.

» (1700)

The Chair: Okay.

Given that we don't have a quorum, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.