CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 6, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Á

1125

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

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Á

1130

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

Á

1135

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

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

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Á

1145

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Á

1150

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Á

1155

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Â

1200

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

Â

1205

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1210

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. David Price

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. David Price

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Â

1220

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Denis Coderre

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Â

1225

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 017

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 6, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Bonjour, collègues. Good morning, colleagues.

    As you know, this morning we have the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration joining us to talk a little bit about his vision of the national identity card.

    As the minister will know and as you will know, the committee starts next week travelling across the country to hear from Canadians not only on the citizenship bill, but also on our resettlement programs, provincial nominee programs and, just as importantly, their feelings with regard to the national identity card.

    I'm happy to have with us this morning the minister so that he could share with us his thoughts with regard to the national identity card. As we move forward in discussing this very important issue for Canadians and for our country, in terms of identity, security, and so on, I think it's good that we have the minister here with us this morning to talk a little bit to us about the vision behind the national identity card, and then to hear from Canadians and talk to experts. Hopefully, by the time we leave this place for our summer recess, we will be in a position to be able to make some recommendations to the minister with regard to the national identity card.

    Minister, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you so much for coming here and talking a little bit about the national identity card. Welcome.

[Translation]

    Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to say hello to members of this committee, in particularly the new NDP critic, Ms. Libby Davies. Allow me to congratulate her on her appointment.

    Mesdames et Messieurs,since becoming the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration just over one year ago, I have benefited from the high quality of this committee's work. It is with great appreciation of your past contributions that I have asked you to study a complex and highly personal subject, a national identity card. What are the potential merits and problems of such a card? This subject presents critical questions concerning the protection of privacy, the safeguarding of national and individual security, and the preservation of Canadian values. I am eager to know what Canadians from all fields, experts and non-experts alike, have to say.

    Why is it important to have a national debate on a national identity card? What have we recently learned about the integrity of identity documents? Why is it necessary, even for staunch privacy advocates, to embrace this debate with an open mind? These are some of the questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to address in the time available today.

    A national ID card is simply a tool that permits the bearers to prove, with a high degree of certainty, that they are who they say they are. The card provides certainty because of the security around its issuance and the technology used in the card.

[English]

    In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, identity has taken a new prominence in countries around the world. Canada has been no different. Canadians have come to see the ability to establish identity as an important element of personal and collective security.

    While the new focus on a positive proof of identity is partially rooted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, other forces are at play. Identity theft is seen as a serious and growing problem in Canada. Yet as we sit here today, there is no specific crime of identity theft in the Criminal Code. Governments, individuals, and corporations are all witnesses to increases in identity fraud that pose threats to privacy, financial security, and the integrity of publicly funded services.

    For example, in 2001 almost 12,000 people in Canada were victims of identity fraud. The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimates that identity thefts cost $2.5 billion a year to consumers, banks, credit card firms, stores, and other businesses. The biggest threat to individual privacy is to have one's identity stolen and used by someone else. Our citizens are right to demand tools to protect what is uniquely theirs: their identity.

[Translation]

    This convergence of risks and vulnerabilities has individuals, corporations and governments in Canada thinking about identity in a very different way than they did even five years ago.

    There is an implicit, if not explicit, expectation that governments need to look at current practices and systems of establishing identity and evaluate their effectiveness. This is where the need for a public debate on a national identity card fits. I do not propose a national ID card as an obvious quick fix, but given that it is a tool used in many countries around the world to protect their citizens, I propose that we engage Canadians and their political representatives in a dialogue.

    I propose we examine the pros and cons of a national identity card. For instance, we need to examine whether a card should be voluntary or compulsory. What technologies can help to secure identity? Do these technologies present unmanageable threats to privacy?

[English]

    Within a few years, or maybe much sooner, the ability of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to cross international borders will depend increasingly on the integrity of their travel documents. The integrity of those documents will be determined by the strength of the identity documents on which they are issued.

    Are we in Canada ready for this reality? International standards are developing rapidly for travel documents. Closer to home, the United States is reviewing their requirements for travellers coming into their country. The time when Canadians and permanent residents could be confident of crossing the border into the United States solely on the basis of a valid driver's licence may well be over.

    This is happening at a time when Canada does not have an explicit official national identity policy or an identity system. The federal government, through my department, is responsible for issuing immigration and citizenship documents. The provinces, on the other hand, are responsible for issuing birth and death certificates.

    The combination of those documents, referred to as foundation documents, is used as a basis to issue all other entitlement documents: passports to travel, drivers' licences to drive, and health insurance cards to cover medical expenses. None of these documents is designated as proof of identification--not even the passport--yet most are commonly used and accepted for that purpose. We also know that the security features of these documents vary widely and some are easily duplicated. Fraudulent use is pervasive. In today's environment, with leading technology, we can do better.

    In response to the dangers posed by the theft and fraudulent use of documents, a wide range of biometric technologies is emerging. These are positive developments and they offer specific options to enhance document integrity. Unique biometric identifiers such as iris scans, facial recognition, or fingerprints are unique to each of us and can be used to verify one's identity. Biometrics is rapidly becoming common practice.

    Canadian companies are at the forefront of these emerging technologies. They are working around the world developing the biometric applications for public and private sector uses.

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    My department has been tasked to coordinate the Government of Canada's efforts to strengthen document integrity. CIC's role in missions throughout the world and at border points means that we work with documents. We issue documents to citizens, permanent residents, foreign students, refugee claimants, temporary workers and visitors to Canada. We know how to produce state-of-the-art documents. The new Permanent Resident Card, for example, the Maple Leaf Card, is highly secure and capable of containing biometric identifiers. This card also has 20 anti-fraud features.

[English]

    The permanent resident card was introduced last year. So far, we have issued over 170,000 permanent resident cards. It has been well received by our clients and document security experts. As a matter of fact, the International Card Manufacturers Association gave Canada's permanent resident card two awards last fall. It has been referred to by U.S. experts as the most secure ID card in the world.

    But producing a state-of-the-art card is probably the easy part. Your debate will need to address much more difficult issues. During the course of the debate on a national ID card, protection of privacy must be a paramount consideration.

    We must also guard against rushing to judgment. There will certainly be strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and we will need to hear from everyone. What we require is objectivity--an open debate based on fact and reason, not innuendo.

    Are there lessons for us in the way other countries are approaching similar debates? Last July, the United Kingdom launched a public consultation on the introduction of an identity card. In releasing the discussion paper, Home Secretary David Blunkett established a highly significant point:

...any debate about identity cards should not centre exclusively on issues of national security. Far more important are the issues of citizenship and entitlement to services...

    In the debate you will preside over, Mr. Chair, it will be important to acknowledge that we have before us more than an opportunity to debate an identity card. We are also seeking to clarify what it means to be a citizen, a Canadian.

    Establishing one's identity goes to the very essence of these questions. It bodes well for the debate that your committee will be running in parallel consultations on the government's new citizenship bill.

    The heart of the proposed citizenship law is a modernized statement of what it means to be a citizen of Canada. The legislation recognizes that citizenship is not static; that a law passed almost 50 years ago is now out of step with contemporary Canada. This debate on privacy and a national identity card must also be contemporary.

    It must seek to draw on opinions and insights that anticipate a concept and practice of privacy protection that keeps pace with a changing world. To do otherwise risks the perverse outcome of jeopardizing the fundamental values we seek to protect.

    Let me provide you with an example. Belgium has recently announced that it will include smart-card technology on its national ID card to protect the integrity of the document and better protect personal information. What we can learn from countries such as Belgium is that these advanced technologies have the capability to increase privacy protection for Canadians. The lesson has been registered by some.

    Ontario's Privacy Commissioner has noted that if properly designed and regulated, technologies such as biometrics can be used to enhance privacy.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    In conclusion, we live in a world where institutions and concepts are undergoing great transformations. We need to ensure that Canadians are not left behind.

    It is important to enumerate all the pros and cons of a national identity card. It is important to take the pulse of the people. As we move the debate forward, we need to consider a wide range of policy questions.

[English]

    How can we ensure that any efforts to strengthen document integrity will be consistent with Canadian values? How should governments work together to enhance document integrity? Where are the current gaps? What is the role of individuals in protecting their own identities?

    What about the array of documents that now serve officially or unofficially as proof of identity? Should there be one new national ID card, or should the security features of existing documents be strengthened? Must we do both?

    If a national identity card is appropriate, should it be mandatory or voluntary? What safeguards would be necessary to protect the privacy of the cardholders? What form of biometric identifier is the most promising? How can information be stored in order to protect identity and privacy?

    It is essential that we give serious consideration to these important questions. I have no preconceived notions about how we should proceed. My driving motivation is to serve the legitimate interests of Canadians.

    In this debate we have the opportunity to show leadership in a crucial area of public policy. Let me reassure you, that debate is not about attacking privacy; it's about protecting privacy.

    The time has come to decide among ourselves as Canadians what kind of future we want. On this planet that's always shrinking, within the new context, how can we protect the Canadian way? How can we do better, and how can we make it happen?

    I will follow the work of your committee with interest, and I eagerly await your report and recommendations.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    As you said, the challenge is immense. If I may, there are a couple of things. What this committee has learned with the review of the immigration and refugee bill is that we know how many people in the world want to be Canadian. What we're learning in the review of the citizenship bill, which is also before us, Mr. Minister, is what it is to be a Canadian citizen.

    We would agree with you that a card is more than an identifier, it's what that card represents. While it might be a little easier to talk a bit about a card, it will be interesting to talk a bit about what it is to be a Canadian. I think Canadians have for 135 years been trying to debate what it means to be Canadian. We all know in our hearts and minds what it is. Sometimes we compare ourselves with others.

    This is a great opportunity, as you say, to motivate embarking on an effort to define what a Canadian is and to be able to symbolize it in some way, shape, or form by way of a card. I can only tell you, Mr. Minister, that our track record in immigration, treatment of refugees, border security, and citizenship is a pretty good one.

    In most cases, 75% or 80% of the time, the government has listened to us, and therefore it has worked really well. There is no doubt in my mind we have a great team, again, one that is prepared to give you some of the best advice not only on a national identity card but on the other things we have before us. We want to thank you for your cooperation and your challenge.

    We will go to questions.

    Diane.

Á  (1125)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Minister, I'm puzzled about the principle under which you're operating. When we raise questions on the fact that thousands of undocumented individuals arrive in Canada and are accepted into Canadian society without us knowing who they are or where they came from, when we raise questions like that, you say that detaining these people to ascertain their identity is not the Canadian way.

    Now you're coming to us and saying that you want to make some kind of card whereby every Canadian will be fingerprinted, face-scanned, or whatever, so their identity can be more precisely ascertained. I just don't understand the consistency here at all.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, we never said that we don't detain, we said that we don't systematically detain. There is some preventative detention right now.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: But when I ask for figures, I can't get them.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, did you ask me?

    The Chair: There is a document we produced for the honourable member, who has now asked that three times. She has been given the information three times, and if she'd like it again today, I will get it to her. All the figures on detention are here.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: She doesn't like the figures, that's why.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's extremely incomplete.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, I can understand; I understand the partisan way.

    We are using detention in a preventative way. We always said that our policy--and I repeat myself--is not about building walls, it's about controlling the doors. We're doing that and we're doing a good job at it, I think.

    Regarding the ID card, let me give you an example. If in the short term we have the entry-exit program from the United States, they will have a record, they will have a database. For most Canadians or permanent residents, when they go to the United States, they will have to be fingerprinted. They will have to provide some proof of their identity.

    Now let's talk about prevention. Identity is one of the most important things. As a matter of fact, if I can quote James Baldwin, the U.S. author from Harlem who was a tremendous activist, he said, “An identity is questioned only when it is menaced,” and that's it. I believe the time has come to decide what to believe as to what an identity is and how we can protect it.

    Frankly, as to that ID card, Diane, unlike others who talk about a police state, I believe it's about protecting our way of life. As a matter of fact, we did a poll. Out of 2,500 people asked if they supported the idea of the federal government issuing a national ID card, 68% said they supported a voluntary card, and there was 63% support for a mandatory card.

    When we showed them--because when you talk about biometrics, they don't always understand what biometrics means--if you gave them the proper definition and you proved to them that with biometrics that card could not be used by anyone else because your fingerprints are your own, your iris is your own--though faces may change sometimes, they can still be recognized--there was 79% support for a voluntary card and 73% support for a mandatory card. They believed, 65% of them, and were confident that the use of this technology would not be misused in ways that would threaten their legitimate privacy, and 84% believed that would happen in the next decade.

    My idea of society is to have those inclusive debates and shape the future. What do we as Canadians think about it? I'm willing to listen.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It seems to me we've heard all this before. Just a few months ago I attended a briefing on the new passport, where officials told us how great it was, how much more difficult it would be to counterfeit, and how this was going to be the state-of-the-art document.

    Then we had a big discussion about the maple leaf card, how this was going to include biometrics and how it was going to allow us to better track entry and exit of non-citizens. The maple leaf card has no biometrics. The bar code that would allow tracking for entry and exit isn't there.

    Now all of a sudden Canadian citizens are going to be subject to measures we've not yet successfully implemented in any other document. It's very unconvincing.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: What I'm saying, if I may...because I have an example of that permanent resident card that I can pass along. I always support biometrics, and I believe, because we have the biometric capacity, after that debate it should be something we should look for. That card by itself....

    And when we're talking about identity, let me be straight here; we're not just talking about Canadian citizens. We have the possibility of an ID card with the Canadian citizen card and the maple leaf card, so this is another form of identity. Because it's already 20-point fraud resistant and we have that capacity, I believe we can have a coherent identity policy with it. That's why I think we should have that kind of debate.

    The passport is a travel document. Bill Graham, who is in charge of the passport bureau, issued a new one with some new measures that protect that document or the passenger. But again, this is not identity, this is a travel document. That's why I'm saying that before making any decision, we should have a debate on what we want to do with it. That's it.

    The Chair: You may have one additional question, Ms. Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: With respect, I think it is identity. Every time I show it, people say, oh, yes, that's you.

    The bigger question is, it's identity for whom? If I go to a bank or utility company or apply for anything and say that this is me, and I flash the card, they don't know if it's true unless they have some kind of database they can crossmatch my card with and make me take a fingerprint. Is this what we're going to come to, databases all over, where we're going to be crossmatched every time we turn around?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: No.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Otherwise, what's the good of it? If the passport allows us to travel freely, which it does, what's the virtue of having this other identity card?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: I won't get into technical aspects because you will have those experts. Biometrics is unique, and you have two kinds of biometrics; you have the off-line and the online. Online means that you have access to a database--for all those who think about Big Brother. The off-line is with a bar code; you have a reproduction of your thumbprint, your face, or your iris, and all you need is a scanner. You press your thumb on the scanner, you put the card in the slot, and it is just proof that the reproduction on the bar code and your thumbprint are the same. So it's a red light, green light card.

    I believe that there are some techniques, and that's why we need to have those kinds of debates about whether or not we can use the technology in a friendly manner. There are some ethics attached to it, there are some moral issues people would like to discuss, and that's why I'm willing to have an open debate on it.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    Just to be fair, this is the beginning and not the end of the debate. We'll have you back after we hear from Canadians, obviously.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: I hope so.

    The Chair: And for the record, Diane, here's your fourth report on detention.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, for the record, it is very incomplete.

    The Chair: That's debatable, but anyway, I wanted to make sure you at least got that one again.

    John O'Reilly.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    To the minister, thank you very much for appearing.

    I have mixed feelings on this. Previous to this particular session of Parliament, I sat on a committee that studied the SIN number. It was, of course, prior to 9/11, so there was a different feeling in the room as to whether we actually needed a common identifier.

    As well, I've just come from a meeting on Bill C-17, the public security bill, that Madam Ablonczy was also at. We heard from Mr. Radwanski and John Reid, the Information Commissioner. So we have the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner claiming that they were never consulted on Bill C-17 previous to it being brought forward.

    I'm wondering if in fact you have read the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's report on this common identifier card.

    If you haven't, I just wanted to throw in his concern with it, in his words:

A national ID card would remove our right to anonymity in our day-to-day lives. The RCMP's video surveillance constitutes systematic observation of citizens by the police as we go about our law-abiding business on public streets.

    Then it goes on and on about police and security being able to access records of every e-mail we send, every cellular phone call we make, information on what we read on the Internet, every website and web page we visit, and, likewise, it would be readily available to all government authorities.

    We obviously are going to have a lot of consultation here. Some of it is not going to be all that exciting as far as the promotion of a national ID card is concerned. Was there any consultation with the Privacy Commissioner or the Information Commissioner of Canada before you brought this forward for the committee to study? If not, why not?

    As well, what are your comments on the--

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Try to be nice.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, I'm trying to give you the questions that we're going to have to answer.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: No, not you, I'll try to be nice.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: You know, I have this Big Brother problem. I don't particularly have a problem if you look at what we're doing here as members of Parliament. You can't drive onto the Hill unless you have a parking pass in your vehicle. You can't get by the guard unless you have an identification card, which I've refused to get. I have a pin, and I'm on page 77 of the book they have of us, in pretty pictures. I tell them I'm on page 77, look it up. At one time, I was refused entry until a Senate guard came over and identified me.

    So we already have an intrusion with identity, as members of Parliament, right on the Hill. I don't object to that, but I would like your comments on those thoughts.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: You've said several things. First of all, the SIN number is a file number. It was never intended as an identification tool. It's used in that way because we don't have anything else. I think this is wrong. I believe that's why we need the debate once and for all.

    The second point is about our friend the Privacy Commissioner. My kind of society, my kind of democracy, is to have debate. I truly believe this nation has to take its head out of the sand and really address the fundamentals. Identity is fundamental.

    You know, the G-8 right now...even in Japan. We saw that in the news yesterday. Japan will add a chip with their passports. They have their own debate about whether it will include characteristics of the voice, the iris, and so on.

    What are we afraid of?

    I'm not coming here to tell you that we have a card and asking what you think. I'm asking you, what can we do in a better move to protect our own privacy and our own identity?

    That's very important. It's why I said let's have an open mind. Let's let it go. Ask Canadians.

    The commissioner is against a debate. He's against the debate of a card. That's his problem. He has the right to say what he thinks. He has the right to say what he says.

    This is not the way I believe we should approach the issue. I'm sure you will have people who will be totally against it, but that is their right. Instead of reacting to a situation in the future, I would like to see, among Canadians, a debate about how we can decide what should be the Canadian way.

    That's the reason we created the debate. I think it's pretty democratic.

    You will probably invite the Privacy Commissioner anyway, Mr. Chair. You will ask why, before criticizing the idea, then talk about it and ask why he's against debate. Those are your questions. I'm not giving you any tips on questions, but frankly, I believe debate is good in this society.

    The Chair: Mr. Radwanski, the Privacy Commissioner, will be here on March 18, and we can ask him some specific questions.

    Go ahead, John.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. John O'Reilly: I want to remind you that back when I was a social activist, Radwanski was printing books on Liberals. He wrote a book in 1978. I was young then. My mother talked about him, actually.

    But then again, the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, John Reid, was also against a common identifier.

    Is he also on the list, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: He has an invitation also.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: So maybe then my questions then to him would be--

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, John, the question is not whether he is against or for it. That's his right, and it's okay. We want to have a real debate. It's not a politically correct matter. It's to define what kind of society we want to live in, because technology is there, because other countries are doing it, because it's worked in certain areas, because there are some ethics issues that we should address. I believe we should proceed with that debate.

    The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

    Good afternoon, Mr. Minister, Mr. Dorais. This will likely surprise you, but when I was 20 years old, I couldn't understand why people didn't have an identity card. At the time, I had close ties with the French community and for the French, an ID card is just a part of their everyday lives.

    As I go about my daily routine, I've often had occasion, like everyone else, to want to pay for a purchase by cheque. However, so many pieces of identification were required that ultimately, I would end up paying with my credit card, a payment method that merely encourages people to spend more.

    As everyone knows, loyalty is my strong suit and I always go to the same gas station where young people man the gas pumps. I always fill up the tank at the same location. Last year, however, I received a notice to the effect that my car's gas tank had been filled five times in the same day. Someone had used my credit card number. Personally -- I'm not speaking for my party, just as a private citizen -- that incident hasn't kept me awake at night. However, an ID card designed to control me would cause me some sleepless nights, and on that score, I'm not prepared to be swayed.

    The issue has been debated at length in Quebec and considerable opposition has been expressed. However, opinion is beginning to shift, in light of recent events. In your presentation, you stated that a permanent resident card is “capable of containing biometric identifiers”. I would have preferred it had you said “may contain”. When you use the word “capable of”, does that mean the card contains such identifiers, yes or no? I know it doesn't, but I hope that when the time comes to include such identifiers, people will be consulted.

    I'm staunchly opposed to making this card compulsory. This speaks to the issue of human rights and privacy. I recognize that all citizens are entitled to request an identity card, but I believe the reverse is also true. It's clear to me that the card should be voluntary and should not be made compulsory under any circumstances.

    I've taken a quick look at the situation in a number of other, so-called democratic societies. In Belgium, one of the countries that you mentioned, ID cards are issued at 12 years of age. I don't quite understand the rationale behind that, because young girls and boys mature quite a bit between 12 and 14 years of age. I think an ID card should be issued to a person when that person reaches the legal voting age.

[English]

    The Chair: Madeleine, I'd like to know how it is you know that boys change a lot between 12 and 14.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Because I have a great deal of experience, Mr. Chairman, and a keen eye as well. Girls don't change quite as much, as everyone knows.

    That's one area of concern, along with the fact that the police can ask us for our ID card for no reason, simply because we may be walking more slowly or more quickly. That's unacceptable. I wouldn't want a person's birth place to appear on the card either. We debated that very subject. The situation we now know is not likely to change anytime soon. I'm opposed to having a person's birth place listed on a voluntary ID card. That would be ludicrous.

    As for the card having biometric features, I have to say that my photograph is a biometric identifier, and that hasn't killed me. Once my ATM card is capable of scanning my iris, even if someone steals my PIN number, that person won't be able to use my card, unless he rips my eyes out and...But that's really getting personal.

    I know the committee will give this matter serious consideration. I'm confident that our recommendations to you will be endorsed. If the Americans insisted that our ID card list a person's birth place, would you be prepared to go against them on this?

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: I won't give you a pat answer such as “I'll cross that bridge when I come to it”, since I think I've already made my position quite clear about racial profiling and stuff like that. One thing is certain, however. I do think this card could serve as a prevention tool. Basically, every person has his or her own unique identity. Biometric identifiers such as facial recognition, iris scans and fingerprints eliminate any need for listing the card holder's birth place.

    My colleague Sarkis, the new Parliamentary Secretary, was born in Syria. When he informed me that as a result of certain US policies, he would be profiled and that there were two classes of citizens, then I saw how this could be a problem. Therefore, as a prevention tool - and it will be up to us to decide this all together - the card will prevent this kind of problem. Clearly, we want to know if a person is a Canadian citizen or whether or not he or she has permanent resident status. Moreover, since our immigration policy is based on future Canadian citizens, and given that 80 per cent of all new arrivals become Canadian citizens, it's important to have a vision that will protect permanent residents of this country.

    In my opinion, the use of biometric identifiers will prevent some problems that could arise if disclosure of a person's place of birth was requested. This is an extremely important issue to debate.

    The problems occur when a person lacks identity papers. When a person cannot prove where he comes from or who he is, banks start to dig, and that's when the tools are used for the wrong purpose. Perhaps that's when credit card numbers are used, or when people start looking into a person's past.

    You've travelled extensively, Madeleine. Over 100 countries in South America, Europe and Africa already have identity cards. Iceland and England are the only two European nations not to have national identity cards and the debate has been raging in England since last July. Let's initiate a dialogue on the subject.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm going to ask respectfully of both the questioner and the minister, because I have a lot of people who want to speak, that the questions be a little shorter, and the answers as well, so that we can get all of the questions in. I know the minister has only given us about an hour, but by the looks of it we're running over already. So questions short, answers short.

    Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, you're known as someone who won't sidestep a debate on important matters. On the contrary, you relish such debates. You also have a reputation as a person who looks for solutions to flow from these discussions. I want to congratulate you on your willingness to move forward, despite certain pressures and, in my estimation, the premature criticism levelled at you. This is a delicate issue.

    Everyone has questions and concerns. However, we also appreciate the wisdom of wanting to put in place a new instrument. My colleague spoke to you earlier about some of the concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner, and you responded in a satisfactory manner.

    I would, however, like to draw your attention to several issues involving the implementation and cost of certain government systems such as the SIN number.

    Some argue that millions of ID cards would be in circulation illegally.

    Passport thefts are reported in some foreign countries. We're not quite sure how this problem is handled but one thing is certain: obtaining a passport has become a major problem in Canada. A enormous amount of red tape is involved, as the staff in members' offices can attest. SINs are poorly managed, as is the process of issuing passports. Consider the gun registry as well. These are three government systems that are generally viewed as being poorly administered.

    Should we decide to endorse the idea of a national identity card, would you be able to give us your assurance that the process of issuing these identity cards will not prove to be another administrative and bureaucratic nightmare costing us one billion dollars? To help shed some light on the debate, can you give us an idea of the cost involved and how the new ID card would be administered? This kind of information could help us arrive at a decision.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, let me just say that there have been some changes in so far as passports are concerned. Admittedly, some MPs have been inundated with passport applications, but the fact remains that the government has managed the passport process well. Changes have been made to the way in which passport photos are reproduced and the new technology has improved the odds against fraud.

    Obviously, biometric identifiers would reduce the risks even further, since these identifiers are an integral part of each individual.

    Despite a few glitches, the Canadian government has managed some of its biggest programs quite well, including the health insurance scheme. While some components of these systems may be called into question, the real question we need to ask ourselves even before we start talking about numbers is whether or not we agree on the principle behind this card. Do we agree with the principle underlying this policy?

    Earlier, I stated that my department issued certain documents. Passports, however, come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has responsibility for the Passport Office. However, provincial governments also play a key role in these matters, since they have jurisdiction over death and birth certificates.

    As we move this debate forward, obviously we will be asking questions of a far more technical nature and looking at the whole issue of jurisdiction. Before we decide how we're going to proceed, we need to agree on the underlying principle.

    I don't have any figures to share with you today, because in my view, we need to initiate the debate to find out if in fact this type of card is a viable option. Subsequently, we would seek Cabinet's advice on the matter. I didn't come here armed with a policy issued by Cabinet. I came here to initiate a debate.

    We will consult with Cabinet, then we will decide if we want to develop a government policy, working from recommendations put forward by the committee. Then we'll consult with our provincial colleagues. They too have some work to do. Their participation is critical to the implementation of the system.

    First and foremost, we need to consider a number of questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Libby, and then Sarkis.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming today. You asked us to have an open mind about this question. I guess I hope you do, too, in terms of the debate that will follow, because from your remarks it sounds like you're actually quite on board with this idea. I think there really are some very substantial questions that need to be asked, and we need to have a very healthy skepticism.

    I see it as a measure that would really change the direction our society takes. We've talked about other cards, such as drivers' licences, and something to get onto the Hill. I think there's a huge difference between an identity card or some sort of card used for a specific purpose, which has it own accountability—though there might be problems with it—and a national identity card, which becomes a mega database of information.

    I was curious in listening to your remarks when you said, “We are also seeking to clarify what it means to be a citizen, a Canadian”, and, “Establishing one's identity goes to the very essence of these questions.”

    I guess I'd like to challenge you on that a bit, because what right does the state have to determine someone's identity? That's an issue that comes from us individually, from our experience, and from our background or whatever. So the very notion that the state would have enormous power to establish this identity....

    And you're raising the question here that it wouldn't just be for specific purposes, but somehow it goes to the heart of what it means to be a Canadian. So I have a lot of difficulty with this.

    If we did establish such a card, you also said it's not about attacking privacy. I believe you, but we have to ask, would a system--so it's not necessarily about your motivation--then develop that really undermines that privacy? I would argue that there's a common theory that, well, if you're innocent or you haven't done anything criminal, or whatever, then what have you got to worry about? But again, one's innocence, or how other people see you as a suspect for something, may be used against visible minorities, particularly in the post-September 11 environment. So it really does become a question of power and how it is used. Even though you're saying it's not overtly attacking people's privacy, the very nature of the system and how it could be used over time may lead us into that kind of situation.

    I'd really like you to respond to this, because it is also a philosophical debate.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: It is probably one of the most important, because it's about what we believe, about our definition of identity. If I take your question with Madeleine's, talking about where you were born, it means that we really want to know if the person in front of us is really that person.

    There are some people who are entitled to put where they were born in their passport, which is their right. But the main question is whether a certain individual in front of you is the right person.

    What are you going to say to those 12,000 people who saw their identity stolen, which costs society more than $2.5 billion a year? It is not a cost to the government, but to society. What can we do about that, to be protective? I really believe that's why the time has come to ask those kinds of questions.

    Frankly, I believe that biometrics doesn't have a race, and doesn't have a religion. Using biometric matching, we want to know if the person or cardholder and the card itself are the same. We won't look at the colour of the skin; we want to know mathematically if the thumbprint fits.

    That's why I believe it's a prevention tool. But I also believe that because it's so sensitive and it doesn't belong to the state, but to the individual, we should have this kind of debate. Sometimes it's better to have these kinds of issues among ourselves and to decide among ourselves what kind of a future we want to shape than to ask “What do you think? This is what we will do.”

    Identity, Canadian citizenship, is so important that I want to make sure that when those individuals go through certain borders, they will be protected, so that it means something to be a Canadian citizen. If we don't do this, we will say to individuals, “Where were you, and what happened?”

    So instead of reacting, this is why we have this kind of debate.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, as my colleague mentioned, I think it's a very good idea that we start a debate before any decisions are made or any proposal presented to the cabinet. As you mentioned in your comments...and maybe I'm the only one in this room, but when I cross the border to go to the United States, I have to be fingerprinted. Now we are all in the same boat. You will have to be fingerprinted, which is in some ways positive to me.

    There are some concerns when we were discussing Bill C-17. We were told the records on passengers would be kept for seven days, and some people said that seven days are too many; one day is enough. Some people just think there is totally no need to keep the record.

    But when I use this scanner to go the United States or to travel, how many days do you think this machine, the scanner, will keep my record while I'm travelling over there, how long will this particular usage of the card be kept on the record?

    What kind of institution will use this? Is this only for border crossing, or could I go to the bank and use my fingerprints? Again, what kind of institution will be using this? What use do you see in the future that will benefit us as individuals and society as a whole?

    If you're going to go in a way that will replace ten provincial birth certificates and three territorial birth certificates with one, or replace the drivers' licences, so if the police stop me I can give them my card and everything will be okay, my question is, how do you foresee this being used in the future? Will it be only for border crossing or for general use in our lives?

  (1200)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: It's up to us to decide what we want to do with it. It's up to us to decide how to use this technology. Do we believe, as Madeleine just mentioned about the bank teller, that you should put your thumb on a scanner and because it's really you, you can have access to your money? It's up to us to decide.

    With the identification process, that's why it's so important to have those kinds of discussions. When you have the experts from biometrics, they will tell you how it works. Are we going to need a database, and in what form? Does identification mean we have to keep a record? The scanner by itself will just recognize what's inside the code bar. That's how it works.

    I've just been to the airport in Amsterdam, and I've been to Hong Kong on the Shenzhen Line, where over a quarter of a million people a day pass through. They have a scanner with a red line and the green line. The green line means you're okay, and in 15 seconds you go through and that's it.

    The difference with Hong Kong, though, is that since 1943 they have believed in a central database. I think it's a bit sensitive. I don't necessarily believe it's the right approach, but that's why we should look at every option.

    Reproducing and recognizing your thumbprint with that card is one thing, but to have a major central database, that's another thing. This is why we don't want to get too technical.

    This is the best opportunity, the best place, to have all those experts. The members of the travelling delegation will probably have some examples of how it would work at certain levels from Heathrow Airport or other places. But again, it's the difference between off-line, which means identification, and online, which means you have access to a bigger database. I'm not ready to take any decision on this, and neither is the government, because I think we need to have a debate on this. It's too early to make any decision.

    The Chair: I'm not sure I would want my driving record on my national ID card.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: For personal purposes, or...?

    The Chair: I won't say anything. But that's the kind of debate we're having.

    Joe Volpe, and then we'll go back to Lynne.

    Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Minister.

    I guess some of the questions are implicit in the comments that have been made, and as you've indicated, they'd be best directed to your technical staff.

    I suppose the only thing one can say is we clearly live in a different world than the one we lived in a few years ago, and I suppose we can all refer to anecdotes. I was allowed entry into Europe without any ID. I had left my passport here in Canada. I think a member of this committee was accompanying me, but on the strength of my own word, I was allowed to enter. I was allowed to enter back into Canada just because somebody recognized me at the border. I was also refused entry into another country, even though I had special green passport. And today, I guess, it's an entirely different situation.

    But the most important question we have to ask ourselves is the one Madam Dalphond-Guiral asked, which is whether this will be a mandatory card or a voluntary one.

    I'm hoping you'll give special consideration to the concept of voluntary, because the first question I'd have to ask you, and, I suppose, the technical staff, is when and who shall apply for it? If you're talking about biometrics, and prints, both iris and thumb, they don't change, so it doesn't matter how old you are.

    Again, even though you said initially that you weren't committed to anything, you have a card, and presumably later on you'll share with us how your thinking has been shaped by the debate.

    From your perspective--since you're the one who's going to be coordinating this national identity card--is it part of the concept that this card will be all-inclusive, that it'll replace my OHIP card, which is now outdated; my SIN card, which I can't find so I have to rely on my memory for my number; and my driver's licence? Is it a comprehensive card that the department is looking at? Is that what it's struggling with?

    I'm very conscious of this because, Mr. Minister, with all due deference to my colleagues, I suppose you can always maintain your anonymity if you pay cash. I used to like to pay cash for everything, and when I tried to rent a car, they wouldn't take my money. When I go shopping with my wife, at my local grocery store, believe it or not, they scan all $5 and $10 bills. They refuse to take anything bigger than that.

    So I'm just wondering where your department is going.

    A voice: What area do you live in?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Joseph Volpe: I live in a big metropolis called Toronto.

    The Chair: Wait until we put your face on the dollar bill, or something like that.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, we don't have a card proposal. Let me be clear. We want to have that debate. I pushed that debate because I believe it's a debate about ID cards versus entitlement cards.

    We have something like 23 to 24 cards that people are using for identity purposes. Is it fair that when you buy a plane ticket now they're asking you for your passport or a picture? You know, you have several issues like that.

    I was just mentioning Islam. It was Ireland, by the way. Ireland and the U.K. don't have a card. You have a hundred countries that have a card.

    That's why we need to have that debate. We're not here to say it will replace everything. We're here to say, do we need a national identity policy or not? Do we believe that it will protect our privacy?

    Right now the G-8 are looking for international standards on identity. They all have policies at certain levels. If you're going through l'OACI, and we have our policy, what will be accepted or not? That's why the timing is just perfect. We have to decide among ourselves what we want to do. Should it replace...?

    There are some people who believe we should have a smart card for health care. Instead of aller chercher ses prises de sang à chaque fois, is there a way to be more efficient?

    We've all buried our heads in the sand. Everybody is talking about it. Everybody has their example. Everybody has lived some experience, and they want to do something about it. So now we're doing it in a more coherent way and we're saying, okay, go for it. During that time, cabinet will also address the issue.

    We prefer to have that kind of debate among Canadians to start, and then we will decide--among Canadians--what we should do about it. But it's up to us.

    The Chair: Next is Lynne and then David Price.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

    I'm interested in some of your comments about the timing being perfect, and your thinking being shaped by debate. Mine is shaped more by history. I'm thinking of what has happened most recently. I can't think of a worse time to implement something like this, with the fraudulent use of SIN numbers and the cost overruns of the gun registry. In Saskatchewan we have had one of the biggest ID thefts in history, and we'll probably see more of that.

    I think you should wait quite a while before you set something like this in place, especially since we still don't have anything in place for our immigrants coming into Canada. The maple leaf card hasn't come fully into effect yet. So I don't think this is the time for it.

    I thought the smart card was going to be implemented in Ontario. I think they've decided not to do so. If that's true, why haven't they? I think it was because there are many problems with that.

    How do you prevent somebody from going up to these people who are going to start registering this material and saying, this is my thumbprint, and this is who I am? We all know that it's very easy to get fraudulent certificates into the wrong hands. Let's say that your birth certificate is stolen or there has been an ID theft. I can see that this will move theft even further down the line to where birth certificates will be a real hot item.

    I'm just wondering how we can protect ourselves from all of the “boondoggles”, a word I hate, that have been happening recently.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Lynne, if I may, I believe we need to address that issue for those 12,000 people who saw their identity stolen. And we're losing $2.5 billion a year. That's the first thing.

    Secondly, when you don't have that kind of debate and some entitlement cards are being used for purposes they weren't supposed to be used for, that's where you give opportunities to les fraudeurs to do what they're doing.

    It's up to us to decide what we want to do. If we're not doing it and we wait again and if there are some other policies somewhere else to be applied and we don't do anything about it, you will stand up at question period and say, where were you, Minister? Why didn't your government do something?

    I believe it's a non-partisan issue. I believe it's a Canadian issue. I believe it's everybody's business. We have to find a way to start that debate and to have that inclusive policy. As everybody here has said, the world has changed. The planet is shrinking. There are some issues that will force us to find a way to protect our own identity.

    Our thumbprint is our own. Maybe we like James Bond too much, and we think there is a place in every city where they will reproduce your thumbprint. According to the experts, it's pretty difficult because it's based on a mathematical calculation. I'm not an expert, but you will have some appear before you. It's the same thing with the iris.

    We have to be very prudent. We don't want to bury our heads in the sand. We need that kind of debate.

    The Chair: David Price.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think this is really a very important debate, Minister. The only thing is, if I look at your conclusion, I see that you've already asked all the questions we should be asking you. Or have you set up our agenda? It's one or the other.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: No. I'm waiting for your great recommendation, David.

    Mr. David Price: Okay.

    I have a couple of things. First of all, as far as databases are concerned, they're out there with the credit card companies. We've certainly all seen that. They focus on whatever we're doing. They gather the information, and it usually comes back in the form of promotional literature for something they're trying to get us to hook on to.

    As with Madeleine, I've had my credit card stolen twice. It's a bothersome thing. The credit card I have now has my picture on it and my signature embedded in it, which gives me a little more protection.

    The bottom line is that I believe in cards very strongly. At the same time I'm very worried about what kind of information is going to be kept and used.

    I look at my wife, who is an immigrant but has lived here for more than 40 years, and she has a nice Canadian citizenship card. She can come and go and do anything she wants. I don't even have that. I find that a little bothersome.

    The Chair: You can apply.

  (1215)  

    Mr. David Price: Believe me, it is not the same thing.

    The Chair: It'll only cost you $60 or $70, that's all.

    Mr. John O'Reilly: And you can have your credit card back, too.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. David Price: Oh, thank you. You've used it?

    Mr. John O'Reilly: It's maxed.

    The Chair: That's how quickly you can lose your identity, just sit beside O'Reilly.

    Mr. David Price: That's right. Luckily, the picture is on it and we don't look anything near.

    My question, Minister, is similar to what the other member asked. How much is going to be put into this card?

    As you said, we'll determine it for the driver's licence. On the other side, for the maple leaf card or permanent resident card for immigrants, is that going to be integrated into that particular card too? Is that what you're looking at, so everything is one card?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Not necessarily. If you take the new maple leaf card, 20-point fraud resistant, where you have several items of information, it is a very good card by itself. All we need to ask ourselves now is, when are we going to apply biometrics? Because there is a biometrics capacity.

    First, as you know, we have a process, up to 2005, such that everyone who travels needs the document.

    Again, why would I tell you what should be in it when we want to know what the experts and Canadian citizens would like to see in it? I heard some fair comments about the place of birth. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm asking you, as the catalyst for Canadians, to find a way to create the recommendations and take a look at it afterwards.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Sorry, David, be quick.

    Mr. David Price: As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, do you not have it in the back of your head to tie this together?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: The question is, should we have one card, period, for permanent residents?

    Mr. David Price: And a national identity card.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, that's it. If we already have a good maple leaf card for permanent residents, now we have to ask ourselves, should we use the citizenship card for everybody and change it in such a way that it will be an ID card? Should we create a third one? Should we bind everything?

    Those are the kinds of questions we want to ask.

[Translation]

    In hockey, you don't break up a winning scoring line. The Maple Leaf Card is an excellent document and reflects the sound work done by our department. It's a fine example of sound management, efficiency and security.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    John, then Massimo, and that will be it.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Are the Americans bringing in the national identify card? Is there a movement there?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: No.

    Mr. John Bryden: So it's not....

    Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm not having the debate because of the Americans.

    Mr. John Bryden: No, that's not what I'm asking. Are the Americans bringing in a national identity card? Do you know? Is there any talk about that?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: No.

    Mr. John Bryden: So they're asking everyone else to do it, but they are not bringing in a national ID card of their own.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: They are not asking.

    Mr. John Bryden: To follow up on the chairman's question, just to be very clear, the Americans want everyone entering their country to have a biometric identifier, but they are not bringing in a national biometric identifier for their own citizens. Is that correct?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: That's correct.

    John O'Reilly just said, “They don't travel.” Those are his words.

    Mr. John Bryden: This may seem like a trivial question, but if you're a Canadian and don't have a passport, you don't have a permanent resident card, and you have perhaps lost your birth certificate, how can you prove your identity to get this identity card?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, there are ways to get back your birth certificate.

    Mr. John Bryden: But the birth certificate may be false. Many, many Canadians don't have an original document.

    I guess, Mr. Minister, what I'm really afraid of in this initiative is that, by having this very debate, we're probably sending a wave a panic through those many Canadians who have perhaps been here for many years and are not in this country properly. They may be illegal aliens. They may be people who have existed here and never travelled out of this country, but they have lived here and been good Canadians, even though they are not Canadians by proper legal means.

    Have you any thoughts about that?

    I know in the United States there are 3 million illegal aliens there. They brought in a national identifier and still can't find them.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: There are eight million to nine million illegals in the United States. And there are 314,000 people they don't have any trace of.

    Mr. John Bryden: And in this country, how many illegal immigrants are there?

    Mr. Denis Coderre: The question you were asking me was why we should need the ID. First of all, the reason it's so important to include the provinces is that they are in charge of the birth certificates and the death certificates. That's why we need to make sure we are respectful of the jurisdiction. If they don't have their own ID cards issued, that's their issue. There's another reason. It's not just a matter of a common identifier or a matter of services; there's also a matter of security.

    At the border, when you have exit and entry programs, I would like to protect our Canadian citizens and protect our permanent residents who are future Canadian citizens.

    Mr. John Bryden: So this has been—

    The Chair: No, you can't have three questions when everybody else only had one.

    Massimo.

    Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    From everything I've heard here, I think you've brought up some good points. I think everybody else here has brought up some good points. Being last—I think you saved the best for last—I don't want to repeat anything. I just want to make sure I understand that if we're going to go through all this work, you are going to take our opinion and don't already have a preconceived notion. Again, we all use the passport as an international document, but it seems to be a problem for some of us. Is this going to replace the passport?

    If we're saying it's going to replace the passport.... The passport is an international document that's not being accepted in some places. We are going to put out a national ID card, and that's for sure not going to be acceptable. Do we replace the SIN, replace our driver's licence, our medicare card?

[Translation]

    Take Quebec, for example. The Société de l'assurance automobile used machines to print new cards.

[English]

    Where's the security? I have no problem with the privacy or the moral aspect, but it's the human beings who are going to be creating these cards. They're the ones who are going to be producing the cards, and I have a problem with that. What's the cost? We've already discussed it. What's the administrative process? Again, we're legitimizing people who perhaps in the past weren't being legitimized, because now all of a sudden they have fingerprints, so we can say, “Hey, we can put them on an ID card.”

    These are all things I think the committee is going to have to look at, yes, but is this going to be something that in the end you're going to take our advice on?

    But I'm all for it; I think it's something we need.

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, I have a reputation for taking a lot of your recommendations. I don't think we're doing this for nothing, because I think the time has come to decide as Canadians what kind of future we want. All those technical questions will be addressed by experts, who have several good questions, such as those John just mentioned. Do we want to know who is illegal in Canada? Do we want to find a way to make sure we can prevent identity theft?

    The best example, the one given by Joe Volpe about the passport, just proves to you this is a travel document, not an ID card. That's why we have to decide among ourselves what we want to do about it. I believe it will be very interesting. You will have a lot of pros, a lot of cons, but at the end of the day I believe that having this inclusive policy will be a great sign for to us to take it back afterwards and have that debate in cabinet.

    Let me finish by quoting Shakespeare, perhaps for the media here; they're all listening, I guess.

    The Chair: Did we know who he really was?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Denis Coderre: Probably not, but that's the point.

    Othello said:

But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Minister, if I could, I'll thank you on behalf of the committee. When you started this debate, you gave us a challenge. As you can tell by some honest skepticism and the questions we've asked, the issue is much more fundamental than just a piece of plastic. It gets to the root of identity, security, and all those other privacy issues.

    There's no doubt that there have been some public opinion polls showing Canadians like the idea of having a national ID card. I think those numbers show 65% to 70% until, probably, you start asking the very questions we asked today. Then all of a sudden people start to question what it is we're truly getting at.

    My clerk had indicated that perhaps the best solution would be to put a chip in everybody's ear at birth, just as they're doing for dogs now. That way it's proof positive that this is who we are from birth to whatever.

    I want to say one thing in relation to the ongoing discussion that is also happening in the United States with regard to a national identity card. They are starting this debate also because, let's face it, they're one of the few countries in the world, like us, that doesn't have an ID card.

    I know that post-September 11...and Sarkis and others, including you and I, have addressed some problems around the fact that a passport carried by a Canadian citizen would be used for something other than identifying who that person is, regardless of whether or not by birth or by nationalization, naturalization, and would cause a problem.

    I can only tell you, and I think you raised the issue that their new patriot law, which might be problematic for Canadians because of the entry and exit provisions they might be subjecting Canadians to, this is really problematic. Therefore, we have the question John asked: what are the dynamics in the world that are occurring today that force all countries in the world into a debate on this issue?

    We've been trying to get to the United States to discuss an awful lot of subjects with our counterparts, subjects that directly relate to the relationship between Canada and the United States, be it about immigration, trade, or a whole bunch of things. I would hope that you could facilitate that because that debate also has to take place at the earliest possible time.

    We thank you very much, Minister, for your insight, and we look forward to producing this report, whenever. Thank you.

    By the way, colleagues, for our travel, there is a motion I just quickly need. As you know, for the purposes of having witnesses appear there need to be at least four of our committee members to hear witnesses as we travel, and we're travelling for the next two weeks.

    I need a motion just to cover ourselves off, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the committee at its first meeting, that a reduced quorum to hear evidence during the committee's travel be set at two members. This is just in case we're there and, instead of four being present, there are only three or two, even though I think we have it pretty well all covered off. But just to be on the safe side, I want to make sure that in terms of the witnesses we're hearing, it's all legal and legit.

    Could I have that motion?

  (1225)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Is that in addition to the chair or including the chair?

    The Chair: That's including the chair.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, the quorum will be reduced to two members. Does this necessarily mean someone from the opposition would be present?

[English]

    The Chair: Well, as you know, with the current system, when we're in Ottawa, it's easy. We say four members, of which one needs to be an opposition member. Now we're saying two. I don't mind saying whether it could be an opposition member or not, but let's try to facilitate the situation because, I will tell you right now, the NDP and Conservatives have really big problems in terms of covering off some meetings.

    I don't view this committee as Liberal, Conservative, or Bloc. We're members of Parliament, and for hearing witnesses I think we should take off the party banners and just listen to the people, Canadians, bringing forward their points of view.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Anyway, I'll be there.

    The Chair: Yes, I know.

    Anyway, let's have the vote on the motion.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Happy travelling, and I'm looking forward to your reports.