CIMM 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 Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 13, 2003

1335

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

Ms. Joy Ikede ( As Individual)

1340

1345

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy Ikede

1350

1355

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Dr. Kevin Arsenault (Executive director, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada)

Mr. Zeke Eaton (Member of the Board, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada)

1400

Mr. Joe Byrne (Member of the Board, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada)

1405

1410

Dr. Kevin Arsenault

1415

1420

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

1425

Ms. Joy Ikede

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Zeke Eaton

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Zeke Eaton

1430

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

1440

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Zeke Eaton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Zeke Eaton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Joy Ikede

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Dr. Kevin Arsenault

1445

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Zeke Eaton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1450

Dr. Kevin Arsenault

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Joe Byrne

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Dr. Noel Ayangma ( As Individual)

1515

1520

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

1525

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

1530

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1535

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Dr. Noel Ayangma

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1540

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Noel Ayangma

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1545

1550

Dr. Noel Ayangma

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1555

Dr. Noel Ayangma

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 032

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 13, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1335)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, our other committee members are here now and we're ready to get under way.

I believe we have an hour and a half for presentations and questions. We may not need that long, but we do have a good amount of time, so I think we can go about this in some reasonable way.

Joy Ikede, you are the first. I will ask each person to do a presentation, if they have some things they would like to put on record with the committee, and then later we will have some dialogue back and forth between the members.

Ms. Joy Ikede ( As Individual): Good morning. My name is Joy Ikede. I work with the University of Prince Edward Island as the international student adviser, but I'm here this morning presenting as an individual.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me or asking me to make a presentation.

I didn't write out what I have to present, I just made notes of the things I wanted to say. I wasn't sure how much time I would have to make my presentation. Usually when I give presentations I don't write out what I have to say because I know I have a problem reading my script and maybe missing something, plus the fact that when people hand out their speeches, people tend to read rather than listen to what the person has to present. I had that in mind when I did what I did.

The list for settlement integration was provided on the Internet. Ten points were listed under it, ten areas on which to focus. However, from my experience as an individual and as an immigrant to Canada, I'll present the problems of public perception and then how to combat discrimination.

When immigrants come to Canada, they come under various status. Some come as refugees and others come because they have a job. They do not think about what the public will see in them, think of them, or what assumptions Canadians who are already here will make about them. What's paramount in their minds is that Canada is the best country in the world to live in.

I'm sure people think there will be people like them in the new country, so when they go there it will only take a few days to settle--that is, if they know the language that is spoken. However, if they don't speak English maybe they will immediately get into an English school, learn to speak the language, get a job, and the neighbours will be okay with them.

We see that from this or that country, culturally. When strangers arrive in our country, they are so welcomed and so made to be at ease that I think we take for granted that what happens in our country is what will happen in the country to which we are going. So the question of discrimination is far, far, far at the bottom of the list when immigrants arrive here.

When we talk about the public perception, what is perception? Let me quote what I read in the dictionary this morning: “the mental grasp through the senses”, and it is “insight” or “intuition”. So when we see somebody or a group of people, our senses tell us that this group is different from our group, and from what I have heard and seen, this is the way they are and what I think they are able to do or not to do.

So before the public interacts with the new people who arrive, they already have set behaviours and characteristics. Be they false or true, it doesn't really matter. This is how they relate to the new people. It wouldn't be as official friends. It's like that. Because this is the way it is, integration becomes more difficult for newcomers because they already have been put into a compartment of where they belong. It will not work.

· (1340)

When you see somebody who is black or white, then you already know how the person is going to perform even before looking at the person's credentials. Even when you do see the person's credentials you ask, “Are you sure this is your work?” or “We've seen your credentials; do you think you can do the work?”

Because settlement embraces everything, the way you live in your home, when you go out, how you interact and everything, with this perception that the public has, it diminishes the confidence a particular group of immigrants or people who come to Canada had while in their country without them really knowing it. A person is really going to ask, “Am I really up to it? Am I going to be like the other people who are in their dream job?”

Just this morning, when I went to work, the university was closed because of the weather and I left my material in the office. I went to collect them and I just clicked on my computer to see if I had any e-mails. A friend sent this to me. She doesn't know that I'm going to present anything, just the regular thing, because this is black history month.

She writes, “Being black in the workplace, they take my kindness for weakness. They take my silence for speechless. They consider my uniqueness strange. They call my language slang.”

And I added my own: “They call my outfit a costume. They see my confidence as conceit. They see my mistakes as defeat.”

So what do we do? It seemed to be the other way around. I will give you some personal examples.

I came here with children. One of my sons went to school. He's the outgoing type. His friends were cutting holes in their jeans. When they went to school, they thought, “That is cool, Dan, that is cool”.

The following morning I saw the holes in his jeans. I said “Where are you going with those jeans?” He said “Well, that is what the boys are wearing in school now”. I said “If you wear these jeans to school, you're black”. The first thing that came to mind is that the parents couldn't give him a good pair of jeans. Don't take my word for it. He went to school. The jeans that the other guy wore, which were cool the day before, my son wore to school. You see, perception has a lot to do with the way we relate and we react to people who are not from where we are because our senses tell us otherwise.

Naturally, psychologically and emotionally people are affected by what others perceive. As I said earlier, you are not able to perform to your utmost because people already expect less from you. That is what I am trying to say.

· (1345)

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

Ms. Joy Ikede: Expectations. Thank you. A lot is expected from us even if we are able to perform at the top, and each time we take a step it is questioned.

Let us take, for example, the game of basketball. We all know that many black athletes are very good in basketball. My friend, who went to Switzerland, is tall. When she was at school they were trying to choose a basketball team and everybody was scrambling to get her into their group because she was tall and she was black. This girl couldn't catch a ball even if you threw it, but there was a perception: basketball, yes, the blacks play it.

We have to bring this country to a state where people can be assessed on who or what they are, whether they are black, white, brown, or yellow, on what they know, and that their ability should come into effect when anything is being considered rather than on what continent they are from or whether they speak English well or whether they have an accent that nobody understands. Everybody has an accent.

I attended an English movie with a Canadian, and it was a British film. I was the one interpreting because she couldn't understand the British accent. If you had a British guy and someone from Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, or east Africa, you know the British guy will be considered first because, first, he's white and nobody questions his ability when he presents his credentials.

Discrimination stems from this perception. It is good to be perceptive because it gives you an inside, but if you don't use it properly it becomes discrimination. You have to see things the way they are. You have to be fair when you're dealing with people. We are not asking that everybody who applies for a job be given a job because of a quota system. The person may not be able to perform the job.

Canada is a multicultural country and we all are immigrants. Some, of course, are the first immigrants--because the natives are not here right now, although there may be one in this room. Some of you arrived before me, but I arrived before some other people.

This land, which didn't belong to all of us originally, has been made available for all of us to live, to develop, and to work, so we should give room to everybody to be what God has made them to be. We need to encourage one another, trust one another, and believe in one another. The problem in the whole world right now is that we do not trust one another. We feel that we are better than the other person and that we have so much power and so much to say that we can make everybody do what we want them to do.

We all can't be at the top. Somebody is happy being at the bottom. But since that person is happy being at the bottom, let's not make life more difficult for the person at the bottom, because the person will want to have some dignity in what he or she is doing.

When I was looking through the Internet I saw something written by some grade five students in the U.S. One of them said:

All people should be treated equally regardless of their sex, race or religion. We know that our actions and the choices we make can make a difference. We should all accept our differences and be the people who we really are. What matters is who we really are deep down inside.

This was written by Aaron, a grade five student at Parkway School in the U.S.

· (1350)

We see that there is prejudice all around the world, and then we ask ourselves, “What can we do to combat it?” It should start from the individuals, because when I look at people, I have my idea in my head what I think she is, what I think you are, what I think everybody is, but then I have to pass it on to somebody else. If I say, “Oh, look at her, this is the way I think she is”, in one way or another, even remotely, it will affect the way individuals are going to interact with her.

As for the way we bring our children up at home, what we tell them, what they see, what they hear, what we do, they are influenced as to what they become and what they do outside and then at the workplace also. If only we were to treat everybody equally. If I were to work in a chamber of commerce here and if I weren't looked upon as a black woman from the third world who knows nothing, even though I have my university education and post-graduate education, I would say, “Oh, I'm one of them.” That would make me perform my best. If we all work well together it's good for the company, it's good for the government, and I'll be happy when I get home. I won't be complaining that somebody treated me badly. It is the treatment I receive that will enable me to relate to other people outside, to say, okay, we are all human beings, we are all made by God, we are all equal, and I can be kind to everybody, regardless of who they are.

Also, the policies that governments make should favour everyone irrespective of country of origin, because the government is the parent. Government is the mother and father of the people in the country, so the policies they make affect us in one way or another. If the government perceives that people are different and so should be treated differently and so on, that sort of trickles down as well and everybody takes their cue from that. So the community, the school, and the curriculum in the school should strive to include the understanding of other cultures, because Canada is a multicultural country. If the students in the schools are taught that we are all the same although we see things differently and we do things differently, those children will grow up to relate that way with their own classmates.

· (1355)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Joy. You've done a very good job at laying out your particular concerns. If we look at the broader spectrum, certainly all human contact and working together affects the way everyone sees each other, reacts to each other, responds, and gives credit for things that are happening. That's something we always must keep up front in our considerations, not only of immigrants but of all people, as you point out so well. Thank you.

I'll go to Kevin. Kevin, I believe Zeke and Joe are appearing with you.

We have Kevin Arsenault, Zeke Eaton, and Joe Byrne together as a group.

I understand that you're going to do the main presentation, Kevin, but that Joe is going to pick up on the identity cards for a bit, and Zeke as well.

Dr. Kevin Arsenault (Executive director, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada):

Like Joy, I want to express our appreciation for this opportunity. It's not very often that standing committees come to Prince Edward Island. You are getting a sampling of our weather in the wintertime. Most people know P.E.I. from golf courses and beaches, but there is another side of Island life.

We recognize the very broad spectrum of issues this committee has been asked to hear comments on. Obviously, in the interests of time, there's no real amount of time to delve into anything with any amount of detail, or even to touch upon all the issues we would like to comment on. In the interests of time, we just want to make a passing comment or two on two issues we feel strongly about: the identity card and the Citizenship Act.

Before I speak in a more focused way to our primary concern today, which is settlement and integration, the current situation and the prospects for the future on Prince Edward Island, I would like to turn it over to two of the board members for the P.E.I. Association for Newcomers to Canada. Zeke Eaton will make some comments on the proposed identity card.

Mr. Zeke Eaton (Member of the Board, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada): Let me first say that it's a privilege to have the chance to speak to the committee. I won't speak very long, but recent news reports concerning the possibility that the Government of Canada will introduce a new national identity card are particularly worrying to us. It seems clear that this initiative comes in the wake of a decision by the United States to require all travellers entering the U.S. to have identity cards with biometric information such as retinal scans or fingerprints or perhaps other biometrics.

It is interesting that Minister Coderre has asked this committee to consider which biometric identifiers should be used on the card and whether the new card should be voluntary or mandatory, rather than whether any biometric information should be used.

Off the top, I have to say that I'm strenuously opposed to identity cards, particularly mandatory identity cards. I grew up associating identity cards with repressive regimes in the Eastern Bloc. We find a few countries that are playing with them. Australia made the attempt and had a virtual revolution on its hands. A number of other countries have looked at them.

There is mention of the United States asking for biometric identity cards for everybody coming into the United States. To me, this appears to be totally unworkable. It seems that possibly Canada might try. Canada has made the attempt to do something like register firearms. We know what kind of fiasco that has blown up into. I don't have to get into that now, but that's only perhaps 10% of the logistical nightmare that would arise if we proceed with the identity card business.

Canada could conceivably tighten up the requirements for passports, for passport information, and improve the security of the passport system. As it is right now, Canadian passports are well respected throughout the world. We know that there have been a few particular abuses, but they haven't been Mafia-type abuses. They have been official abuses by individual nations. There's one notorious example from the Middle East a few years ago. When they were caught out, the promise was made that it wouldn't happen again, but we're finding other less publicized examples showing up again and again. That's simply the abuse of a passport.

An identity card may be as easy to forge as a credit card. We know what's been going on with credit card fraud in the last five to ten years, and particularly more recently. The criminals of this world are becoming every bit as sophisticated as the government.

The infringement of privacy has been much better addressed by the privacy commissioner than I could hope to do, and I don't see how these infringements on privacy can have anything at all to do with national security. If indeed they had any valid place in addressing national security, the United States would likely be moving in the direction of a security card. In fact, it recently passed the Patriot Act, which has a specific clause that directly addresses the matter of identity cards. It points out that there is nothing in the act that is to be construed as encouraging or authorizing any kind of personal identification card. So even the United States is recognizing that carding the population is the wrong way to go in a democratic society.

¸ (1400)

We talk about a free and democratic society in Canada, but step by step, both “free” and “democratic” are becoming less correct terms to describe Canada and Canadian society if we allow these particular infringements on our privacy and our personal security, our freedom to move, and our freedom to keep our private things private.

Probably I've said enough for now, but I think the committee can understand my feelings with respect to this kind of carding of the population. I believe it's something that should be very, very strenuously opposed by all members of society.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Joe Byrne (Member of the Board, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada) Note to Publications--Affiliation should read : Mr. Joe Byrne (Member, Board of Directors, PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada)

I would like to thank you for being here with us today. It's unfortunate that you can't visit the four corners of the Island and get to know the people, but at least we association members will try to provide you with food for thought on our experience with immigrants here.

[English]

Just following up on what Zeke said, I can't imagine, frankly, a worse condition in this country than having to carry an identity card with biometrics around so you can be stopped. It just raises so many side issues.

Going down the street so that somebody would just automatically try to stop you to check your biometrics--man, it just sends shivers up and down my spine. I would hope that parliamentarians, with the deliberations you give to this, would see that the net effect of security would do nothing but create a climate of fear, which goes hand in hand with an identity card.

On the other hand, my comments are more directed toward the Citizenship Act, Bill C-18. The general tone in the introductory level should be applauded. There is a nice sense that our experience gives us here in Canada that people come looking forward to the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

We have, as undefinable as they may be sometimes, a sense of good Canadian values. And with newcomers coming in and having to deal with so many side issues and baggage that they bring from countries in war zones or with family de-unification, it's hopeful. If that tone could just continue to be reflected in the act it would give that sense of hope from us. It would also give that sense that we can take care of each other, not only in this country but towards the world.

There are some concerns that basically emanate from a general insecurity in the country that a number of mostly men behind closed doors can make decisions about people's lives without the proper checks and balances that come through a legal system.

Unfortunately, even though these bills are supposed to reflect the interests of the citizens, there's often not the buy-in at that level that we can have things in clause 17 or in the first legislation that allows a Federal Court judge to revoke the citizenship of Canadians without those individuals having the opportunity to hear the evidence or appeal the decisions. That should be revoked.

Also, that the minister would have the right to annul citizenship without the individual receiving the direct evidence, not a summary, is not acceptable. It denies the due process and doesn't meet the standard of procedural justice that we should be aiming for in this country.

Clauses 21 and 22 give cabinet the power to refuse citizenship without a hearing to due process. I would recommend that the committee give very clear guidance to the minister not to go there. That the minister has, in a lot of cases, some capacity to make decisions based on ministerial prerogative is fine. Revoking or annulling citizenship is not something that should be done without the person who's going to be suffering the revocation of that citizenship having the capacity to directly confront an accuser and respond directly to the evidence that's presented. That's much different from giving a minister the power to do that as opposed to giving the minister the capacity to override the denial of a visitor's visa to come visit Canada. The level is completely different.

I think it's pretty clear that the commitment that we have to fairness has to be not only outlined in the legislation but it has to be perceived to be present. The minute we give a whole series of opt-outs to the minister or to Federal Court judges to examine evidence behind closed doors and present summaries without identifying where the evidence emanates from or not giving people proper procedures to appeal a decision, then I think we're running the risk of actually degrading Canadian citizenship.

¸ (1405)

As citizens, we have to recognize we all have rights and responsibilities, and that means the right to appeal those decisions that are made contrary to our best interests. That's my comment for the citizenship.

Though it may not be within the direct scope of the deliberations of the committee today, we are looking and we have been looking in our association at the general conditions of immigration and settlement. Kevin will talk to you a bit more about our settlement and adaptation programs.

I would encourage the committee, at the level it needs to be done, to begin to loosen the “family class” definition that was tightened up after 1993. Zeke and I are part of a group of a five-member committee here in Charlottetown that has been working on an immigration case where the primary relationship is a mother and son who's married with children. Because he doesn't meet the “family class” definition, there's no automatic referral for sponsorship. He has to go through the regular process. We'll probably be looking at trying to get the minister to make an exemption on this eventually.

The part I find most disheartening about this is that we have, in this case, a family of five from El Salvador that could be coming here. They would have a great amount of community support. This group of five that we're a part of has been able to raise money, provide lodging, clothing, integration, and settlement. But because they didn't pass the English test in the embassy in El Salvador they're not eligible. We had a whole conversation in English only on the phone.

We have a group of people who are prepared to come here, to be members of this community, and to eventually gain those rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. They are the kind of people who would come up and have all kinds of support and make those contributions, as Joy was talking about, to the community. If we break down some of the preconceptions....

We're at a block because of the very restrictive definition of “family class”. I would encourage you to open up that definition. It would fit very easily within the federal-provincial strategy to increase immigration, especially with the kind of support we can offer.

I'll turn it over to Kevin to continue.

¸ (1410)

Dr. Kevin Arsenault: Thanks, Joe.

The P.E.I. Association for Newcomers to Canada is just one of two organizations on Prince Edward Island that delivers direct services to immigrants and refugees, both of which are based in Charlottetown. So in a way, unlike many other settlement service organizations, we're really a provincial organization in terms of the scope of our responsibilities.

Just keep that in mind because one of the problems with immigration generally is a dispersal of immigrants and refugees in rural areas and small towns and communities, and our capacity to deliver services is restricted because of national allocation funding models and what not, that restricts us pretty much to Charlottetown in terms of service delivery.

Holland College delivers the language instruction to newcomers to Canada under the terms of the Citizenship and Immigration LINC program. The P.E.I. Association for Newcomers delivers services under five different service contracts with federal government departments, four of which are with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I'm sure the committee is very familiar with the ins and outs of all of them: the RAP program; the refugee and humanitarian resettlement program, which is administered by the settlement branch and is a different branch of Citizenship and Immigration from the integration branch, which administers the other programs, ISAP and Host.

It's very complicated for us because we're dealing with refugees and immigrants in terms of their needs, how we can help them, how we can assist, refer, and basically enable them to become members of society. It took us a while to figure out exactly how the funding works, what it's based on, and the fact that the programs are not funded by the same models, that there are really two national allocation models.

Because we receive funding from these two distinct branches of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration under terms of these national models, a number of negative impacts have resulted, which need to be understood and corrected.

We ask that this committee recognize that these models were designed using an economy of scale approach, with much larger jurisdictions in mind, such as Ontario. But given the size of our province and the number of immigrants and refugees who've come to P.E.I. each year, and the fact that our organization is a non-profit service agency, the result of inadequacies in the funding models fails to account for the core costs required to keep our organization viable.

The reality is that our organization has a number of times given serious consideration to folding, and there would be no settlement agency in Prince Edward Island. We've taken a different strategy in the last few years. We've attempted to supplement our funding, much like many family farmers are having to work off-farm to subsidize their dwindling farm incomes to try to keep their enterprises alive.

We've subsidized our settlement services and enhanced them as much as possible by doubling our workload through project applications to a whole range of foundations and government departments. We've done good work, and it has enhanced the work we're doing as an agency, but it has not addressed the core institutional problems with those funding models.

Obviously there is no time to get into any detail, but I do want to give just a couple of examples to give you some inkling of the magnitude and in some cases the absurdity of the consequences.

The settlement allocation model has a per capita figure that's higher for P.E.I. than any other place in the country. So when you look at a piece of paper with all the different provinces and the per capita payment, it looks very good. The reality is that the model that determines funding for ISAP and Host doesn't currently provide P.E.I., the entire province, with sufficient funding for a full-time staff person. Despite the fact that we're the only service agency, we only get 18 hours per week for our ISAP coordinator.

Under the RAP model with the settlement branch, it's even worse. We only get 12 hours a week. So we've combined the two into one position, and she's still only part-time, 30 hours a week. This is a tragedy, because if people phone on a Friday and they have a crisis going into the weekend we have to find either a voluntary means or some way to get our settlement worker back in the office and then accumulate a few hours overtime to address it. It's at that level of absurdity in terms of addressing basic needs.

¸ (1415)

Furthermore, because the national settlement allocation models provide funding for supervisors or management positions only if there's a certain level of ISAP workers, and we don't have enough funding for a full-time ISAP worker, no allocation is made for a management or an executive director position for the only settlement agency in Prince Edward Island. That's the situation with ISAP's general delivery.

With RAP, it's just a failure to recognize the actuals as opposed to the theoreticals when the formulas are determined. I'll give you an example.

Under the RAP allocation model, which maps out how many service hours are given for each task, we see that there's one hour allotted to meet and greet. In our experience, we can never do that in less than three hours. Nor does it take into consideration the hour or more of work required to pre-book the appointments, to do up cheques for temporary food allowances and what not, then get to the airport, wait, meet, arrange for taxis and transport to the hotel, get preliminary information and set up following appointments. All that takes a minimum of three to five hours. One hour is allotted, and that's one of those 18 hours, yet we have to do three to five hours for what is done on the model as one hour.

To give one last example, the RAP assistance model says that it provides $25 per family unit, which amounts to less than two hours of work to find permanent accommodations. We don't have any public transit in Charlottetown. We have a situation where there's a very low vacancy rate with apartments. We have to spend a lot of time, sometimes over a period of days, sometimes even weeks, locating an appropriate apartment or apartments to set up appointments and make arrangements with government-sponsored refugees to show those apartments. We never get away with less than, I would think, five hours on average or more, yet only an hour or so is given.

We're compensating for the deficits almost at every level or stage of the model, and we're trying to make it work. It's impossible, obviously. If anyone takes a serious look at it, they'll realize that. I'm just saying this to sensitize the committee a little to the seriousness of the situation.

We are working at it here locally. In fact we've developed a very good relationship with the provincial government, which, because of a recently signed provincial nominee program, is looking to bring in a significant number of business class immigrants. They're looking at settlement and how to stem the flow of out-migration of business class immigrants, obviously, because there is a high out-migration rate from P.E.I., as there is in many areas of Atlantic Canada.

We're working together currently to do a systematic analysis of both these settlement allocation models and make recommendations on what we believe would work for the unique situation of Prince Edward Island. Even though it's on a very small scale, and we're not talking big dollars at all, it has to be delivered and targeted in different ways. We can't rely on this model. Even though there is a factor rate for refugees, it's nowhere nearly adequate in terms of the actual services we're required to deliver.

We have the highest percentage in the country of refugees in the overall immigrant intake. Even though other jurisdictions are getting a lot of money because of the overall immigrant intake, they're getting few refugees, so the demands on service are much less. In fact I've done a rough comparative analysis, and we're getting about one-quarter of the money of--and I'll not mention the other city--because of the provincial overall immigrant intake numbers that factor into this allocation model.

All I would say is the most important message we wish to leave with the committee today is it is crucial that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, along with other federal departments, participate in upcoming discussions and negotiations with the P.E.I. provincial government with an open mind to the need for tailor-made and flexible approaches for P.E.I. It may not even result in additional dollars; it just has to be delivered in a different way, perhaps.

This is what is required if the needed modifications to the funding formulas are to be made. Corrective measures to existing service delivery are required, and the introduction of new programs and services is urgently needed if existing gaps in service are to be addressed.

¸ (1420)

We are providing you with a copy that I have here of a study the Association for Newcomers to Canada commissioned a little over a year ago. The study outlines gaps in services to newcomers, immigrants and refugees to P.E.I., and recommends a collaborative strategy to address them.

I can say from my heart that I've never been more impressed with the level of optimism and even enthusiasm for the development of a very collaborative and cooperative approach. I think this is primarily based on the shared goal. The provincial government is seriously committed to increasing immigration. We're seriously committed to doing the best job possible and offering services. Most organizations, schools, and universities are seriously interested in making P.E.I. a less homogenous and more culturally diverse population.

A lot of these factors are converging, but we need to have the federal government right at the centre of this process on the Island, even though many of the people who are making decisions about funding and models and other things are far from here, and to put some faith in the process. We believe that such a consensus as has been already achieved here in terms of common objectives will bring great successes to our efforts.

Again, I would just conclude in thanking the committee for hearing our concerns. When you get back in Ottawa and you hear from people in the various departments about the kinds of complaints, concerns, and requests that are coming from Prince Edward Island, please situate them within this more complicated but very encouraging context.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Zeke, Joe, and Kevin, for your input.

I'm going to turn the floor over to Diane to begin questioning, or Madeleine, whoever would like to start.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): We appreciate you being here to present today, and Joy especially, for your very eloquent presentation to us on the need for us to continue to do what we can to fight discrimination and to help everyone realize that, as you say, we're all just people.

I have a brother-in-law from Nigeria. He's a PhD now; he studied in Canada and has a senior position in an agency in Manitoba. He tells me that even at his age and stage he still comes across all too many examples where he's denigrated or not equally considered. He feels it's because of his colour and his accent.

You are really speaking not just for people who have just come to Canada, but all too often for people like yourself and my brother-in-law and others who have been here for a very long time, and who are Canadian in every sense of the word. It was a good reminder for us.

I expect that you are often asked to speak in schools and so forth, because you have such a powerful message. Can you tell me and the committee just how that message is received and what particular part of the message people find most compelling? What are you most successful in communicating?

¸ (1425)

Ms. Joy Ikede: The first thing that strikes people when I make presentations is the realization that they themselves have an accent, because the accent belongs to non-Canadians. When you begin to tell them that everybody has an accent, they sit back and say “Yes, it's true”.

Also, most people don't realize the emotional trauma that immigrants go through in trying to fit in. People are expected to be the same, but you can't be the same. Even children in a household are not the same. I have four children, and they are four distinct individuals. Also, they don't always understand that if you are doing something differently, it doesn't mean that you are not doing it right.

These are some of the things. There are so many issues that the ordinary person does not think about because they are from here. They think everything should go the way it has always gone.

Those differences, what we want people to say, rather than listening to what they have to say, are what they feel I have pushed on, and most times there is enthusiasm and appreciation of what I have said, but within a week it all goes back to how things were before, and nobody asks them.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Actually, that's something we don't often think about: that we all have an accent. I remember a few years ago I was in Texas visiting, and someone said to me, “Y'all must be from Canada. I just love their accent.” That was kind of funny.

The remarks that Zeke made about the national identity card are interesting for us. You may know it's being debated in the House today on the supply day motion. All of you who are normally glued to the parliamentary channel are missing some of that, but it is taking place. I just wanted, Zeke, to say to you that many people in Parliament share your concerns, and if you look at the Hansard tomorrow, I'm sure you'll be reading some of that.

I was just wondering what you're hearing. Obviously you've put a position forward. Is it something that is your personal opinion? Have you discussed it with other people? We're interested in hearing what Canadians are saying across the country. We know what you think. Is what you've told us reflective of other people with whom you've spoken? Are there people you've spoken with that support the idea of a card? Can you just give us a sense of what the broader population you come in contact with might be thinking about this?

Mr. Zeke Eaton: First, I might say that this association for newcomers is not the only group of people to which I belong. My church group sponsors a discussion group. We call it the old boys club, but maybe that has the wrong connotation.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's the coffee club.

Mr. Zeke Eaton: It's a coffee club, yes, and we're mostly retirees or semi-retired. We include a retired United Church minister, a chaplain of the Unitarian Church, a serving school teacher, a retired school teacher, a retired social worker, and an environmental activist. I could go on and on. It's a fairly diverse group for a little gang that gets together two or three times a month on Prince Edward Island.

In this business of the international situation, the moves towards war and the moves against personal freedom, which seem to be opportunistic in the light of the tragedies of the last couple of years, we all agree on the one thing: that personal identity cards are useless in terms of national security and most useful in terms of corporate enrichment. It's virtually impossible to keep all the personal data secure, safe, and private.

There are moves with respect to distribution of personal information that we've heard about in the last little while. There is the proposition to allow Canada Customs to take a whole lot of personal information and keep it for six years hoping to find some evidence of some sort of malfeasance for which natural-born citizens might wind up in jail and “unnatural-born” citizens might find themselves without a country at all. These are things we find quite concerning. Like I say, I'm not the only one who has this view, but I haven't heard very many people say very much contrary to the view I've expressed today.

In addition to this group, I speak to some people from other parts of the world. I have some contacts in Central America and a couple of contacts in South America. I have some friends who originated in the Middle East. I know a number of people from a lot of different places. With respect to identity cards, the common thread is that the more information there is on an identity card, the less freedom of thought there is, with less freedom of expression, less freedom of movement, less freedom of ownership of property, and less freedom of anything at all. They're inversely proportional.

There is a book, 1984. I keep forgetting whether it is by George Orwell or the other fellow, but at any rate 1984 has come and gone. He thought that these things were going to be firmly nailed in place by 1984. He was wrong. They were just getting under way in 1984. It might take us another five or ten years, the way we're going, before his vision of 1984 comes to pass, but in geological time that's a pretty short period in terms of the life of a democracy or the life of an empire. Thirty years is a pretty short period, but empires rise on the basis of personal freedom, personal independence, personal integrity, and personal responsibility, and they die with the onset of this kind of infringement on personalities, on humanity. I could go on, but I might be repeating myself. I think you know where I'm coming from.

¸ (1430)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I appreciate that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We're at ten minutes.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Okay. Does that mean I'm cut off? I have so much more.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): You may have a lot more, but I think everybody needs opportunity here.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

Joy, I'll start with you. I'm convinced you're an excellent pedagogue; you made us listen to what you had to tell us, which I think is very important. Congratulations on your presentation.

You presented a humanistic vision of what it means to welcome people. While you were speaking, I wrote on a piece of paper that, ultimately, you mean to tell us that you want what we all want for ourselves. We want to be treated well, and the only way for that to happen is to treat others as we would like them to treat us. That generally works.

In the case of refugees and immigrants, who have very considerable needs, but who also want to take part in the growth of the society in which we live, support needs vastly exceed the amounts of money allocated.

If I clearly understand your message, you're telling us that you have the will and the values needed to carry out your mission, but that you nevertheless need the necessary funds. In a way, your're asking us to be spokespersons for your needs.

We have already heard, both in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia, witnesses tell us about their expectations. I believe the committee members will collectively bring to the government's attention needs which are real and which have been expressed very precisely. Now, sirs, it is your turn.

I will very briefly speak about the identity card. I fully understand your position and precisely because I understand it and, in certain respects, share it, I think it essential that we conduct an important societal debate, not a one-evening television debate or a ministerial speech, but a much broader debate. In my view, that should enable the public to clarify the values it considers important.

As to Bill C-18, it is a good piece of legislation on the whole--and this is an opposition member speaking--but, like every act, it isn't perfect. We have considerable reservations about the clauses you mentioned. Everything we consider a very serious amendment to the rules of law which are part of our reality... Regularly in Canada, whether it's in Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, horrible crimes are committed, crimes which everyone finds appalling. But everyone also acknowledges that the individuals who are charged have a right to a full and complete defence, even if that costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we must pay, you and I. We know that. The argument that the cost of their defence is too high is a false argument, in my view, and it is with those kinds of arguments that people somewhat undermine democratic values.

I believe there will be a good debate in the House on Bill C-18. There has already been one, and that will continue. Will we get what we want? I believe we'll get it if the pressure groups make themselves heard loudly enough. And that's a responsibility you have as citizens.

As to the entire question of the harmonious settlement of newcomers, we believe the will of the stakeholders is very real. The riding where I'm from is in the Montreal area, which, as you know, is an immigration focal point. In my constituency, which is located just north of Montreal, there are a lot of newcomers. Every month, I write I don't know how many letters to all those people to congratulate them on their courage, not to tell them “Bravo” because they have received Canadian citizenship, but to congratulate them for their courage and to tell them we need them.

I think it is important for us to acknowledge this together and to make these newcomers feel that society needs their contribution, not that we are forced to accept them. It is important to recognize that they are ultimately making a gift. Usually, when you're given a present, you appreciate it. In any case, all Canadians have a lot of thinking to do, in spite of all the other concerns they may have. It is clearly organizations such as yours which are in the best position to introduce awareness programs. And for that, you need money, always money. We'll see what the next budget holds for us. Our sittings will probably be different on Wednesday, after the budget is tabled.

Thank you for your participation. I have no questions. If you wish to react to my comments, I'm sure the Chairman will afford you the opportunity to do so.

¸ (1440)

[English]

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

Mr. Zeke Eaton: I'd like to make just one more comment.

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

Mr. Zeke Eaton: I'd like to remind the committee, if they haven't heard it already--they've probably heard it a dozen times already--of a quotation of Benjamin Franklin's. Many, many years ago now, Benjamin Franklin said that any person who is willing to sacrifice his freedom in order to enhance his security deserves neither freedom nor security. I think that's really a kind of bottom line with respect to these cards.

Thanks.

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

Ms. Joy Ikede: I just want to add something to what Kevin said. In the early nineties I was on the board of the P.E.I. Association for Newcomers. I was also with the Prince Edward Island Multicultural Council, so I know what those two sections are going through.

In order to make settlement very effective, especially from the point of view of public perception of the immigrants who come in and how they are able to settle and have a very comfortable life, I would want your committee to try to put this in place, or suggest that the government itself get involved. As it is now, the Association for Newcomers to Canada is struggling, with the multicultural council, which is almost dead here now, to write proposals for projects. Even for what they want to achieve by maybe having a program or workshop for schools so that children are able to associate with all the newcomers, or for the community to be able to take in the new people who come here, they don't have the money. They now have to write proposals and maybe they are using language that does not allow those proposals to get grants, to be funded.

What I'm asking for is for the government to be seen to have an interest in the welfare of everybody who comes in, so that they can have money and the government can say “Here is an amount of money, Multicultural Council, and this is what we want you to do with that money.” Or, to the Association for Newcomers: “This is what we want you to do with that money. Give us a report of how you spent this money to make everybody aware of the diversity we have.” This is what I'm asking for, rather than having these groups struggling to get money to do their work.

Thank you.

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

Kevin, do you have something to add to that?

Dr. Kevin Arsenault: No, I don't think so, just to take it seriously that this is critical. It's like if you have a really nice car but the money stops just at the point where you're supposed to fill the gas tank. Your transportation capacity is zero, just as if you had no car at all. It looks at times like we have a pretty good car, but it's constantly a struggle to get the gas.

¸ (1445)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Right. Maybe I could go back a little bit and give you some of the testimony that we've heard in other areas as well as yours. I think we do have a very specific critical issue where we are in more rural areas, where we're in smaller provinces, and where we're in areas that don't have the huge intake in a concentrated area.

Joy, I think you did a superb job at pointing out the bias, the expectation problem, and the problem of people having that social support system, which needs to be there in order to make them successful and make them move ahead.

I compliment all of you for building that social support system. That really is the critical issue, in my view, in whether new Canadians become successful or not. But along with that, there are many things that are required. In smaller communities like this one or Halifax or St. John's, we've heard that right now there's a critical money shortage. Because of numbers, those in very large urban centres like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal have a lot of dollars that they can use and deal with in very clear, defined, separate programming, which makes that system work well.

At the same time, there may not be quite the demand on volunteer service because of the social structures that are in those communities to help new Canadians. For instance, people with the same language, in a concentrated group, help other concentrated groups in those larger areas, whereas in an area like Charlottetown we don't have that same concentrated group, so we need a lot of volunteers to try to work through all those kinds of support things, all those efforts to stop people from being isolated, the kinds of neighbourly things that need to be done in order to help them become part of our community, and the churches and all of those kinds of organizations pull together.

I'm thinking from my own point of view that one of the critical aspects we need to look at is what we can do for the regions that is different from what is being done in the larger centres with the huge, massive support systems that are there. It seems clear to me that educating the public is something that is extremely important, as Madeleine pointed out, but still, on top of that, we need to make sure that there are key people who can make sure that the coordination of all that social support is there.

I think Kevin pointed outthat the shame of the program here is the 30 hours of full-time support when you probably need two full-time people doing that kind of job and that kind of support. We have to look at Charlottetown and the program here and the program in Halifax as something very different, not just as a numbers game, in Kevin's words, I think. That is important.

I think that each region of the country, if we're going to be successful, must have that core of basic services. In St. John's, a person put forward the idea that we should have core support, basically, and then above that we can deal with other things. But there should be certain primary services, certain basic costs, that are there whether you have 20 people or 100 people in the program, and we can work from that core of basic support.

I thought this was something I heard, but not quite as directly, from your group.

Mr. Zeke Eaton: Perhaps that can be addressed by CIC during the upcoming meetings on the small centres settlement strategy. One of these meetings is taking place at the end of March in association with the Metropolis Conference in Edmonton.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Number one, I very clearly see that we're not meeting the needs and certainly not specifying those needs in different sections of the country. We say we're not getting the settlement in rural areas and in small towns. We're not getting it. There are clearly reasons beyond the social side of it for that happening.

Number two, I think there's the area of retention, which has been brought up as well, and in my view that area of retention is critical as well, from what people have come forward with. There's always that philosophy in some places that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Although the support systems that are here, the kind nature of people working with English second language groups and all of those things were very good--and I thought the college this morning made a great presentation--people hear the rumours that there's a whole lot in the community in Toronto that's going to be helpful to them.

So as for the retention here, they're here for a while, they get the minimum service not knowing what personal support they're getting, and suddenly somebody lures them out of the community. That's not good for the programs either. How do we educate those who are in the system to show that this really is a very specific, very supportive system that you won't find elsewhere? We have to deal with that kind of issue to show the strength of what you can provide in Charlottetown that's above what could be provided in other communities.

Kevin, you were going to make a comment.

¸ (1450)

Dr. Kevin Arsenault: Ironically, and this speaks to the wisdom of what you're saying right now, about half the people, government-sponsored refugees, who get the bug in their ear that it's great over here, to come here, after they relocate to Edmonton, Toronto, or Vancouver, then phone us or get in contact with us wondering if we can help them come back to P.E.I. Not a word of a lie, it's at least half. They didn't appreciate the personal contact--because we're smaller--and the kinds of services that we can provide even though we are strapped. But we've been doing more than we've been really funded to do just because of the need and a lot of good people and volunteers.

However, if we are going to meet quite substantial targets as far as increased immigration goes, we'll not be able to sustain that. The problem with volunteer effort is that it works great until it collapses, and then there's nothing there at all because there's no infrastructure to support it.

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

Mr. Joe Byrne: Just on that point of retention, there was a point I was also trying to make when we talked about relaxing the family class definition. I'm not sure how it would work if we relax it by region. This particular example of a group of five sponsorship of a family member who falls outside the family class definition is a perfect example of how retention could work in a small community like P.E.I. You would have a whole family that would come in, and from the moment they arrive they would have support not only through the community organizations but also through the family and the friends who are here. Retention is a no-brainer in that kind of question.

In my own personal example, my wife is from the Dominican Republic. Since we moved here in 1993, two of my sisters-in-law have moved here, and now one of my brothers-in-law is coming up. They're staying here. Why? Because they have those supports here. Especially when you talk about what kinds of regional things we can do, that is one area we can examine and say, okay, how do we relax that family class definition in order to promote immigration in particular regions of the country?

We've dealt with that situation, especially out of the former Yugoslavia with the influx of refugees whose families were completely de-unified and dispersed around a large area. They were struggling to try to make those connections. If we can offer that possibility for a broader family reunification in places like P.E.I., then integration is just going to happen naturally because this is where it's going to work.

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

So public education here is very important, and that goes beyond, I guess, what we're doing now. We need to do a lot in public education. We need to do a lot more in support of immigrant service in particular, and housing. English as a second language seems to be handled reasonably well here, but other services aren't necessarily in place, such as the network to support them, retention, keeping people here and the dollars involved in helping programs operate.

First, the main key issues. I know there is some disagreement with some of the views of the identity card, and my view is different from some of the witnesses. That's quite clear.

The program that you mentioned on the six-year time, which is called the NEXUS program, that NEXUS program is involved in making sure that goods flow back and forth across our borders and that we maintain the business cycle that is there. It requires pre-approvals of trucks, of companies and of drivers. All three of those aspects are pre-approvals. It's voluntary but if a company is going to transport Chrysler automobiles and parts back and forth from Canada to Michigan they want that pre-approval so they don't have to stop at the border all the time. So there has been a program that has looked very seriously at it, set pre-approval basis, so those goods and materials can flow back and forth across the border.

Believe me, one of the major problems that Canada has right now is the free flow of goods between Canada and the United States. The NEXUS program is designed to have that pre-approval so we don't have to stop a person at the border and we don't have to stop every set of goods. They can go and inspect it at the factory or on the truck, it's then sealed and gone, and they can go into the United States. They can get inspected there, sealed and back.

Obviously, drivers can't have criminal records, and all kinds of things are involved in that, and that's why the special pre-approvals are there, to facilitate a need that business has in North America.

I looked at some of the programs that have been put in place. They are to facilitate the free flow of goods and the free flow of people. My view on the identity card is just that: it's the free flow of goods, the free flow of people and proper identification.

I know many other things have been said about it but I've never been able to put a linkage between some of the comments that have been made and the actual motivation for putting pre-approvals, pre-cards and other things in place.

I guess you've given us good reason to think about some of the issues that are coming forward. We very much appreciate that. The views will be taken into account.

I want to say thank you very much to the committee. We do have someone who would like to take a picture of the group. We have another witness appearing at three o'clock, so we are quite on time at this point in time. I'm sorry I couldn't give more time, but we were each given ten minutes, which just wrapped up our time. If we don't move along we will not get to our plane and get out of here.

Thank you very much, folks.

¸ (1458)

¹ (1513)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I want to thank you very much for coming forth to the committee. It's been a very interesting exercise having various people come forward and present their ideas and thoughts about not only Bill C-18 but also the identity card.

I see you have a presentation here. Maybe I could ask you to start, and once you finish your presentation we'll try to get some time for each committee member to ask some questions about it as well.

Noel Ayangma.

Dr. Noel Ayangma ( As Individual): Thank you.

As the chair has mentioned, my name is Noel Ayangma. I am the president of the P.E.I. Multicultural Council. It is my pleasure to appear before this committee to make my views known on the issue of the national identity card. I also thank the committee for giving me this opportunity.

Coming from the country of Cameroon in Central Africa, where a national ID card has historically been used, I can relate to what a national ID card was meant to achieve.

The national ID card is an official document made on official paper. It looks a bit smaller than the Canadian passport and it is impossible to fake. The national ID card bears the emblem of the country, with of course a serial number just as unique as the social insurance number in Canada.

In addition to the fact that it carries the fingerprints of the bearer, the national ID card also bears the signature of the commissioner of police, who is authorized to sign it. Each citizen above the age of 18 must carry a national ID card, and it is an offence not to have it with you at all times.

In order to receive an ID card, you need to go through a process of applying for a national identity card, which means being fingerprinted and then waiting for two or three days for the issuance of the ID card.

The national ID card is made on the basis of a birth certificate and is used in the production of other officials documents, such as a passport, a driver's licence, or a copy of credentials. This document is also presented during official examinations, for financial transactions in banks and elsewhere, during routine police check-ups, and curfews. Everything in between would be covered by your own ID card. That would be your alter ego for everything, everywhere.

Years ago, in the 1960s, in addition to the ID card another document was required to enable citizens to travel from one province to another, from one region to another, and from one department to another. This document was called a laissez-passer. Once the ID card is issued, you would never leave home without it. If you did, it would be at your own risk. If the police were to stop you for any reason, the lack of proper identification would earn you a night in jail and a fine to pay for the privilege. Even so, that would be easy. Someone who knows you would have to come and bail you out.

Although I can see the importance of having a national ID card, I have serious concerns with the timing and the reasons behind the suggestions of time and age as it pertains to Canada, our country.

In Canada we already have a birth certificate, and, in the case of those who became naturalized, a picture citizenship ID card. A passport is available for those who travel, and a social insurance number as an identifier. If this is true, why then do we need a national ID card? I fail to see, nowadays, the purpose of having another ID card.

¹ (1515)

The only difference I can see between the Cameroonian national ID cards and the Canadian IDs that could relate to security is the fact that Canadian citizens are not fingerprinted when they're issued an ID card. Nevertheless, this worked well before September 11. We should not react to this tragic event by imposing on ourselves things that are contrary to our values.

We are Canadians, not Americans. This country is a leader. It's a country that is well liked all over the world. For me, this is where everything stops. There's no other country for me to go to that I would really enjoy. I have been everywhere, and that's the bottom line here. I don't want to go to the south. I've been used to the weather in Africa. There's nothing to attract me in Europe. The only place I want to stay is here.

I'm not going to go into any other detail on this, but if you want a quick picture of an ID and what our country can do with it, well, there you have it. It's everything I've said.

While up front all could be done on paper, do not let that fool you. Computers are in every restricted area of a building where only authorized personnel can access and work on our identity. Do we really need that invasion of our privacy?

Of course computer microchips are already being used to track criminals, including DNA sampling. Today the implant chip is also used on pets in the U.S. Oracle is ready to provide the government with the technology for free. Well, as free as much as it can get? Do we really need that in Canada?

Before we proceed with this bill, we should be asking ourselves whether it is necessary, in the name of security and personal safety, to deploy all the programming languages and devices available in the market over our privacy. If the answer is in the positive, then we should ask ourselves whether that would be a good deterrent to the present threat.

My experiences over the years with national ID cards and the recent tragic events of September 11 and others show the opposite. Despite the heavily guarded borders in the U.S., people still enter that country illegally. People still kill or are being killed one way or the other. Terrorists are still living inside that country and are still posing a threat to the national security of that country. Crimes are being committed with anything but firearms. This is supported.

I personally have nothing to hide and specifically nothing against the idea of national ID cards. Nevertheless, I'm against the proposed bill because it fails to provide a clear rationale, and its proposition derives from a reaction rather than a true need for this important document. It also does not clearly identify the people who are being targeted. If this is true, its first purpose therefore would constitute an alien one.

That's my presentation regarding this issue. I will be ready to take questions.

¹ (1520)

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

I guess we'll go to Diane for the first question.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes. Thank you, Dr. Ayangma. I hope I'm saying that correctly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Dr. Ayangma.

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

Dr. Ayangma, I thank you for appearing here today. You're the first person we've heard who has had experience in a country that uses the national ID card. It's quite interesting to us.

Can you tell us whether in your view the card has been helpful in contributing to public safety, or stopping people from acting fraudulently, or hiding their identity? In your experience, has it decreased crime in Cameroon? Can you just give us an idea of the effect of it?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: As I mentioned before, the ID card is a very important piece of identification. The way we did the ID card, Canada is trying to do it in the reverse. The ID card originally was done to protect people and to track criminals. That's why in the process of doing the ID card, you have to be fingerprinted right from the beginning. Nobody opposes that, because the message is quite clear. Everybody is willing to do it because everybody needs to have an ID card.

In Canada I don't know whether all of us need to have an ID card, because we have ID cards. Therefore going through that process means that voluntarily you accept to be fingerprinted. Then the ID card serves the purpose of doing other things, as I mentioned. Therefore the fingerprint is already there. If they are looking for you for one thing or another, they can get you through the ID card. Finally, they can go and try to match your fingerprint on the ID card with what you have done. In terms of security, it's a very important piece.

The ID card has been very important in Cameroon. Everywhere you go you never know if you might be stopped at any time, so you need to have your ID card. If they are looking for you through your ID card, you'll be caught. You also have to get your driver's licence through your ID card. Even if you show your driver's licence, it's not sufficient. You have to show your ID card and your ID card has to match with your driver's licence. It has to match with any other documents you have. That ID card is your document of reference. It's a very important document.

As I said, the only thing is how do we tell our fellow citizens that is the purpose of using the ID card? I think that a great many people take that to be a reaction, rather than a move that shows that importance in terms of security. That's where the problem is. I'm not totally against this, but I'm just saying that I don't know what is at the back of the idea of having this ID card. That's the communication part of which I'm afraid. Who are the people we are trying to target now, not then, by bringing in this idea?

¹ (1525)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Are you saying it would allow people who have access to the database to go on a fishing expedition using your ID?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Exactly. It's because the only difference, as I mentioned, from what we have now and what we have in Cameroon is that fingerprint. That's the evidence and that's what you need. With that, you can go around and you will be caught. If they are looking for you, the first place they are going to go is there. Here in Canada you have passports, no fingerprints. You have a social insurance number, no fingerprints. Since I came to Canada there is nothing there that could say I was fingerprinted.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Couldn't you argue that if you've done something wrong, you should be caught?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I have no problem with that. That's why I'm saying I'm not against the ID card. The problem is who are we targeting? If it is true that this is just done to target a few people of the community, then why put the rest of the people into this problem?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You would be in favour of something like banks of DNA for people who've committed serious crimes?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I have no problem because I came from a country where I accepted at the age of 18 to be fingerprinted. I also believe that people who do wrong things need to be caught. This country is known to be a leader. I don't feel that we should allow people who commit crimes to be free. Therefore you only talk about your privacy if you are afraid of something. If you asked me my degrees today, I would have no problem giving them to you. If I'm hiding something, then I would have a problem with this.

That's why I'm saying the issue is not the ID card per se. The issue is why do we need that now, and I think that needs to be communicated to the people.

¹ (1530)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do you think people in Cameroon feel safer because of having an ID card?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Exactly, because you never know when they are going to stop you. Sometimes when I go they stop me and ask for my ID, and I don't react. It's the same thing even in Canada. When I now go to the airport and they ask for my ID, I don't react. I'm happy because I see that to be the positive thing that September 11 brought us, because all of us are treated equally when we go there. If this is to treat all citizens equally, whether from eastern Europe or Iraq or Iran, the policy is that you show your boarding pass as your ID. I show it, I'm searched like any other person is searched, and I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when they search this group of people and not the other. That's where the problem comes. I have no serious problems with having an ID card.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I guess I'm a little confused, because your presentation seems to suggest that you don't want Canada to move toward a national ID card.

Dr. Noel Ayangma: No, that's not what I'm saying. My presentation was quite clear. I have no problem with an ID card, but I have the problem with the rationale. Why do we need the ID card now? That's the bulk of my presentation, because I don't think the communication is quite clear.

When I came to Canada, I was already maybe 30 years old and I never had a problem with the ID card. That's a document we use for everything. For me, I don't see that to be a problem, provided it's used for the right purpose.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If that same rationale were given here in Canada, then you would be supportive of a national ID card for every citizen?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Of course, yes.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You are president of a multicultural society. Congratulations on that. I know that's a position of trust and respect. Have you spoken to other members of the society about this matter? Can you tell us what other comments you may have heard from others in your society?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I think from our society point of view, we are always striving and fighting for equality and justice. That's what I said. If the ID card is used for the good, not targeting specific groups of the community, I don't think as a group we will have any problems. The group will only have the same concern that I voiced today. Are we trying, through this ID card, to just go after a few people? Is the purpose for national security and not to target a visible minority or people from eastern Europe? These are the types of things I don't want this ID card to serve.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If the government said the card won't be used for that, would you accept that? Would that satisfy you? You wouldn't have any further concern?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I will not have any concern, provided we have a commissioner who is independent. I work for first nations and I have access to all first nations' information. This is not information that I need. I don't go and start looking at what is there because I respect the fact that information is there for a certain purpose. Although people may think, even the first nation think, that I am not a member of a first nation and that I have access to this information, the trust is there because they know I don't need that information. It is a lack of trust that will create a problem with the ID card.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Would it be fair to say that you would support an ID card if there were certain clearly expressed restricted uses and if there were safeguards in place against abuse of the card?

¹ (1535)

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Exactly.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Those are your concerns.

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Exactly.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you very much. I know others have questions, so I'll pass that along.

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Thank you.

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

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You've made an interesting presentation because you have lived with an identity card. You asked a fairly important question: why now?

I admit that, when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration started this debate in November, many people asked themselves that question. Some, including me, wonder whether the current debate is not a response to a request from the United States. There have been a number of incidents at the Canadian border that were very clearly the result of racial profiling of Canadian citizens. I can cross the border without being asked unusual things, but if I look like I come from the Middle East, that could happen. Canada thus has two types of citizens who are treated differently at the American border, something the Minister of Foreign Affairs has denounced, along with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Do you think that complying with the Americans' request by establishing a mandatory identity card for everyone or for everyone wishing to go to the United States, and who is not required to produce a passport, might be a decision that will diminish Canada's independence from the United States?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I believe you are asking a very important questions. We're coming back to my presentation once again. I believe we should not react to what has happened to the United States, but that we should nevertheless be on alert because that could also happen here in Canada. I don't think a national identity card would solve the problem of what is going on at the border. That problem will always exist, whether you have a national identity card or not. When you go to the U.S. border, they will know whether you're black because they'll see you. You don't need an identity card because you have your passport when you pass through, and your picture is in it.

So I don't think we should react because of what happened in the United States because a national identity card will not correct the border problem or the relations we have with the United States. On the contrary, this could give the United States another way to obtain information very quickly on individuals. When those individuals hand over their passports, for example, they do not contain the desired information.

Are we going to establish a national identity card so that that information can be found and shared with our neighbours? If that's the purpose, it's not worth the trouble. If it's for the national security of Canadians and it has nothing to do with the Americans, I have no problem with that. But if the idea is to react to the events of September 11 or to other situations, I don't think it's worth the trouble.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: How do you feel about the bureaucracy's ability to manage this kind of project? We have heard all kinds of horror stories, particularly about social insurance numbers. A lot more cards have been issued than there are Canadian citizens who actually exist, and they do not contain a great deal of biometric information. What has happened in the case of firearms control is fairly disturbing because of the money it cost. Do you think the experience the United States has had with an identity card over the decades--a number of states have them--could be helpful to Canada? How can we manage it properly?

¹ (1540)

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I believe that's a very important question. As I said in my presentation, why the identity card? What's its purpose? In Cameroon, for example, the identity card was used to produce other documents. But here, the other documents have already been produced and now we want an identity card. It's somewhat like putting the cows before... What's the proverb?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Putting the cart before the horse.

Dr. Noel Ayangma: The national identity card is very important because people are also identified by means of fingerprints. In the case of the social insurance number, you can give that because there's nothing on it. Someone can leave one place and go and work in another province using someone else's social insurance number. But when you have a national identity card with fingerprints, it can be seen that the Jean-Marc who is in Vancouver today is the same Jean-Marc who was born on a particular day, of a particular father, in Charlottetown. That's the importance of this card. But the card should not be imposed merely because of things happening elsewhere. It must be made mandatory on the basis of our own objectives and our personal problems here in the country, not to solve the problems of other countries such as the United States.

I believe you need an agency outside the government bureaucracy to manage this and gain the public's trust. I work in the government. I have seen all the bureaucracy that exists, and I think that, in order for this to work, there will have to be a third party, somewhere between the government and the public and the information that must be managed. It's the same in the case of the First Nations. As soon as you tell the First Nations that you are from the government, you awaken their mistrust. It will be the same thing with this identity card. I think another manager besides the government should be found.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you believe this is a significant debate that should be conducted in a broad manner?

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Precisely. The problem here is that we don't really know why we need this card. The idea has been suggested that it is because of the problems in the United States. If that's the case, I don't think it's a good idea. But I nevertheless think there are serious problems in our country and that an identity card could solve them if the process were followed, as has been the case in other countries. A national identity card would even be useful in the United States because some of the terrorists are there.

So I believe this is something important. It worked in Cameroon. It is still working and there have been no complaints. On the contrary, when people lose their identity cards, they quickly go to the commissioner's office to say they need their cards. They aren't reluctant to do so because they know what it's used for.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Madeleine and Dr. Ayangma.

I'll give you a scenario that I potentially see there. I'm not trying to spell out the use or non-use of the card, but I see a lot of value in having a positive identification of people.

We in Canada have started a process called NEXUS, which is a process where we will pre-approve companies to ship goods back and forth between Canada and the United States and Mexico. Quite frankly, that program could be expanded into Central and South America. It is not at this time, but travel between Canada and the United States is critical.

At this point in time Canada trades with the U.S. approximately $1.5 billion a day. If we were to clear the congestion in our high-potential border crossings, we would need to come up with guarantees of knowing we've got a company we could count on, that's responsible and does the work. We would need to know who the people are that are travelling back and forth across the border and what they do, and know that the carriers of those goods, those who own the trucks and so on, are also good, reliable people.

So three areas of approval are going to be required in the NEXUS program. If you were a truck driver and you had a national identity card, they could pre-approve you to go back and forth across the border, and in fact my understanding is that they would only spot-check on occasions. It would not be stopping you every time to check, but there would be a spot check maybe one out of twenty times you go across. You would show your national ID card and you're gone again. Those are the kinds of technologies that move forward security identification and that are going to be required if our societies are to move with the trade we need.

It's not just casually going back and forth across the border. I'm talking about some folks who might go back and forth across that border three, four, and five times a day. We do not have the facilities to stop and check all trucks, drivers, and goods. We have to address the critical aspect that we pre-approve drivers. We know they're good quality, we know that we can count on them, we know that they're going to be doing what they're doing, and we know who they are.

That, to me, is a very practical application of a national identity card. People are not forced to get a national identity card, but if they want to drive across the border and be involved in the NEXUS system, it may potentially be a very good use of our time, resources, and energies in order to facilitate that trade back and forth. I believe that, in part, these are the kinds of concerns we have to deal with as a society, as an important trade community in North America or other areas. And we have to be sure the folks we are dealing with are who they appear to be.

If you were to have an opportunity to travel and were able to go into some of the customs areas in different countries where Madeleine and I have been, you would have seen piles and piles of passports where all kinds of things had happened. Pictures were cut out and new pictures were put in, just a raft of different things. The technology on a passport is not as safe as we would like it to be. There are many people who alter passports today.

¹ (1545)

The national identity card, as you mentioned, is safe and can be made secure, at least at this time. There's always going to be the argument, ten years or five years hence, that somebody will find another way to manipulate that. But it seems to me that reason does prevail in our society, and there is good reason to be able to exactly identify somebody as to who they are and expedite movement where we need to expedite that movement. That's what we're talking about. That's what the national identity card represents, in my view. Quite frankly, I think it's safety and security for all of us.

¹ (1550)

Dr. Noel Ayangma: I totally agree with that. That's part of my presentation, and I agree 100%, not only for the truck drivers that are crossing the border and coming in but for all citizens. Again, when you are talking about passports, we still have the important issue of who are we targeting?

I remember when I used to teach high school and I took a trip to Europe with 12 of my students. They were all white. They had never been there, but they were always ahead of me and I was at the back. They started asking me, “Mr. Ayangma, what's going on, you are always back there?” I said, “Listen, that's how it goes.” I was using a Cameroonian passport with my Canadian landed immigrant status. But they were passing me and I was being held back, and I was the person taking the 12 students to Europe. So this is just an example of what can happen.

If that is what is happening in the United States, that problem is going to remain, and ID cards cannot resolve this. If it's to deal with the exposition that you are talking about, I would be 100% in favour of that. We have to communicate clearly to the citizens why we need this piece of identification. If we, as I, know that it's not as a result of the reaction of what happened there, I would be 100% in favour because it is going to clearly rectify what Canada didn't do then--that is, to identify clearly the people through fingerprinting. There's no problem there.

We are doing that, and people continue to do that. This has never been an issue because maybe we consider ourselves to be the same people. But here, a multicultural country, where a lot of people are coming from all over the world, it creates a little bit of a problem if the rationale is not communicated to the people.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): There are very many reasons that I can think of. Madeleine was very astute in pointing out that there was racial targeting at our borders after 9/11. Canadians travelling to the United States were exposed to racial targeting. I can see where a national identity card would help in that issue as well.

We should, in all honesty as a committee, start to look at all of the reasons why national identity cards would make fairness, consistency, and eliminate discrimination in the system, which I think it would do. It would be based on one merit only, and that is you are who you say you are. That's why I have strong support for that issue, and I believe most Canadians looking at it that way would agree.

You always get side issues. Are they collecting a whole bunch of information that they're going to use? There are security laws in this country that do not allow those types of things to happen. If some people want to keep records, that can be done, we know that. But to me, I have to think that the outcrop of a lot of things, the reason we move in certain directions, has to do with eliminating some problems, and we have not.

I believe the minister put this item on the agenda, not to say we're specifically dealing with one problem but to have a debate or a discussion across this country and see what the reaction is and how people would view it.

Your comments have been very helpful to our committee on this issue, and certainly the caution to not just do it because it's something to be done. We must have specific reasons to implement it, and it is very important to make sure we translate those specific reasons to the population of this country. I think you made a very good point there.

Thank you very much for coming. We really do appreciate your testimony.

¹ (1555)

Dr. Noel Ayangma: Thanks. My pleasure.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): The meeting is adjourned.