CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 17, 2003

¾

0855

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.))

¿

0900

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi (Chief Councillor, Qualicum First Nation)

¿

0910

¿

0915

¿

0920

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

¿

0925

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Louis Plamondon

¿

0930

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

¿

0935

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

¿

0940

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

¿

0945

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

¿

0950

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae (Executive Director, Inter-Cultural Association of Victoria)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae

¿

0955

À

1000

À

1005

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jean McRae

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jean McRae

À

1010

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jean McRae

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jean McRae

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Jean McRae

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Louis Plamondon

À

1015

Ms. Jean McRae

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Jean McRae

À

1020

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Jean McRae

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Jean McRae

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae

À

1025

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Ms. Jean McRae

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

À

1045

Mr. David Loukidelis (Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

À

1050

À

1055

Á

1100

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Á

1105

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. David Loukidelis

Á

1110

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. David Loukidelis

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Á

1115

Mr. David Loukidelis

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

Á

1120

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

Ms. Mary Carlson (Director General, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Á

1125

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. David Loukidelis

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. David Loukidelis

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 037

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾  (0855)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Victoria.

    It's a pleasure for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to be here today to hear from witnesses on several subjects. We have a couple of them, but I know you will be presenting on one in particular. I might have a question at the end for you on another subject that we're looking at.

    You're going to start on Bill C-18, so please take the floor.

¿  (0900)  

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi (Chief Councillor, Qualicum First Nation): Thank you. My proper name is O'gwi'logwa. I am an elected chief from the Qualicum Band of Indians, which is a small band from the middle-eastern part of Vancouver Island. I'm also the president of the Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia, which is the commission that is part of the Liberal Party of Canada. As well, I'm a member of the riding association for the Vancouver Island riding of Nanaimo--Alberni, which developed policy around this particular bill last year and past policy at the Liberal convention in British Columbia last November.

    In particular, I would like to speak as an aboriginal person and as an elected representative who represents aboriginal people within the confines of an Indian reserve in Canada.

    I know that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted at the time of my late father's birth. For many of the things we speak about today, I will speak about them in reference to the lack of freedoms and the lack of rights that were afforded aboriginal people and status Indians in this country for better than a century.

    It is with that passion that I speak today about the issues of immigration. In effect, we were the first immigration officers in Canada, and in effect we were the people who began trade with different countries of the world, so I think we speak with a bit of authority when we speak of these issues.

    Immigration is not a terrible thing to aboriginal people. It's not something that most of us feel bad about, but it is something in which, for everything we do in this land, we must ensure that the basic and fundamental freedoms and rights that apply to all Canadian citizens apply to all bills that are passed at this time. I don't believe this bill has that capacity at this moment.

    Two weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. I've cited it and included it in this package. Just for the record, I would like to read it and then speak fundamentally about the freedoms and the rights around citizenship for aboriginal people that have been lacking up until recently. The letter states:

Dear Prime Minister,

The Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia has grave concerns regarding the revocation of citizenship sections of the proposed Citizenship Act.

    At the time it was Bill C-16 and we are now speaking of Bill C-18. The letter continues:

As members of Nations throughout Canada who trace their ancestry to the creation of this land, we feel our generational acceptance, welcoming and assistance to immigrants to our respective homelands gives particular weight to our deliberation and conclusions. We therefore respectfully submit the following motion passed unanimously by the Executive of the Aboriginal People's Commission of B.C. at our May 25, 2000, meeting:

“That we call upon Parliament to amend the proposed Citizenship Act to guarantee that the courts, not politicians, will decide on revocation of citizenship, and;

That there is a provision for appeals from a decision of the Federal Court (Trial Division) to the Federal Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court of Canada, with the leave of those courts, in both existing and new cases involving revocation of citizenship.”

As descendants of the First Peoples of this land who welcomed and aided the ancestors of a majority of the Canadians, and as Liberals, we pray that you will guide your members to revisit the clauses in Bill C-16 with the same spirit and hope that founded this Country.

    I need to remind you that as aboriginal people there are several institutions throughout British Columbia that I know of, in particular from my own homeland, that have these kinds of provisions in our old customary laws. They removed from the hierarchy and the hereditary systems that decision-making process and put it into a separate body, which we call Kwi'k^wa or “the sentinel of eagles”, which made decisions that are very similar to the courts of the land today. This is not an issue or an institution that we are unaware of, and it is important that we separate from the politicians these fundamental issues of citizenship and revocation.

¿  (0910)  

    If the Charter of Rights were in effect when my late father was born, I know that several parts would never have applied to him and in fact did not apply to me in my youth. In particular, many of the rights of aboriginal people have been denied over time. From 1884 to 1951, our rights even to exercise our cultural and religious practices were outlawed. That's not a very long time ago. Until 1960, the right to vote and to become a citizen was not granted to status Indians in this land.

    I know what it's like to have these rights denied. I was alive at the time these things took place. I know my father was denied citizenship in this country even though he was a hereditary chief who could trace his ancestry. To be a hereditary chief in his cultural tradition, you have to trace your ancestry to the beginning of time, from the time your ancestors survived the flood, and in some cases that was up to 8,000 years ago. He had to go back to a place of a residential school education to be able to produce a baptismal record to even prove citizenship at a point in his life.

    Basic citizenship rights have been denied to us as status people, and so I feel very strongly that immigrants or people who have naturalized as Canadians be given the same kinds of citizenship rights that were denied the people of this land.

    In order for our people to even get fishing licences, they had to produce citizenship papers, and most aboriginal people did not have citizenship papers until their right to vote was granted, until they were given the franchise to actually vote in this country.

    I know the freedom of peaceful assembly was denied to the people until 1951. To assemble outside of Christian religious purposes was a right that was denied aboriginal people as well as the freedom of association, the freedom to hire a lawyer, and the freedom to discuss certain aspects of the land claims question.

    I speak from a place where I know what it's like, and I was born at a time when my citizenship was not guaranteed as a Canadian. I feel very passionate about that because we were the founders of this land and we welcomed people, contrary to a lot of popular belief--because we do hear things to the contrary. On this coast, we were the last place to be colonized in most of this modern world, and active colonization didn't begin until 1849. We still have a living memory of those generational people who met, greeted, and provided the basis and foundation for immigration in this territory.

    With that, I'd like to speak very briefly of a political side on which I work. Because we feel so strongly about these fundamental rights, we work within the Liberal Party of Canada. It affords a commission that speaks to people of different groupings: the youth commission, the aboriginal commission, the seniors' commission and the women's commission, and we operate within those commissions. I have with me Diana Recalma, who actually wrote the policy on revocation that was passed as one of the priority resolutions within our riding association.

¿  (0915)  

    We have one riding of Nanaimo--Alberni. It's one of five ridings in British Columbia that have a large aboriginal population as well as a large multicultural population. The immigrant population and the aboriginal population actually forwarded this policy, and I have it before you today. It speaks primarily to the issues of revocation and the Charter of Rights infringement, the right that the clause actually infringes upon.

    With that, I'd like to welcome some of your questions, but I need you to understand that I speak passionately about a question of freedom. I know what it's like to live in a land where freedoms and rights have been denied to a group of people. I can't stand by and watch it being legislated into effect so other people have those similar freedoms and rights denied in this modern time. It's unthinkable.

¿  (0920)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much for your passionate presentation. We could feel where you were coming from.

    We'll start off the questions. Lynne, would you like to start?

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I would like to just mention that you're speaking from the Liberal point of view and your policy of being a Liberal. My question would be that perhaps you should have an all-party commission and an executive so that we could all hear your concerns and help you build policy for your people. I guess that's just a comment I want to make. I really don't think that it's policy when in fact we've heard in these hearings that bureaucracy is our biggest problem across the nation in almost every area of our government, and Citizenship and Immigration is not exempted from that. The bureaucrats are causing a lot of problems.

    I'm very surprised in a way that citizenship would even be a concern. I just thought that you were automatically citizens as you were born in Canada. Doesn't that automatically make you citizens?

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Not prior to 1960.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: But now anyone born in Canada automatically is a citizen.

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: That's right.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Just like the rest of us. But your problem is that now, of course, it would be revoking and--

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: My problem is about revoking, but I'd like to first comment on your all-party concern. This is not a pitch for partisanship, but I look very carefully whenever we participate. My father joined the Liberal Party in the 1960s, shortly after he was granted the right to vote and after careful consideration and looking at the framework and policies that matched our customary laws and how we operated.

    I'm not doing a partisan pitch, but there are other political parties that work actively to deny aboriginal rights. I have to speak in a partisan way because I am part of the Aboriginal People's Commission, but I speak here primarily as an elected chief.

    As you know, a lot of mayors and elected civic representatives also are partisan to other areas, but I want to be honest about my partisanship. I also want to be honest in that the policy-making process is one that a lot of aboriginal people have adopted because the policies match and mesh. This is absolutely not a partisan sell, but it is by way of being honest and a reflection of this area.

    Citizenship was not automatically granted to aboriginal people. It actually was denied under the Indian Act. There were several restricting pieces of legislation and statutes that denied basic foundations of citizenship, one being the right to vote. There were several other areas as well. It is now automatic, but it was not then.

    I sit here today because I know what it's like to be born into a country where basic fundamental rights of citizenship were denied to me at the time of my birth. I do not want to have those kinds of things happen to immigrants. There were definitions in the Indian Act that described a person as someone other than an Indian. That existed until 1951.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I am very pleased that you came here today. When I saw who you represented, I was very pleased, because we have not had anyone from the aboriginal communities at the table. You certainly have a very valid concern, and it's something we will be looking at. You have taught me something today about where the first nations have been with citizenship. I thank you for joining us.

    But I do think it would be more effective...because we are all working towards the best for first nations and for the citizenship act. I think we are all starting to agree that revocation is not something we want to see, so you can be quite pleased to hear that we are all thinking on the same line. I think we are.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿  (0925)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you, Lynne.

    Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. [Inaudible—Editor]

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I don't mind.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: In the regular committee, what do you do? Is it seven, seven, seven, and five, five, and five?

[Translation]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): It's not a question of time. We're more flexible when meetings are open to the public. Go ahead, but we'll take down names.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine.

    Like my colleague, I too am surprised to see you here as the Liberal Party representative. I think you must be at the wrong table. You should be making your demands known to the Liberal party Convention. You should know that the opposition parties share your views and it's the Liberal Party that in fact believes otherwise. It's all rather surprising.

    You spoke, and rightly so, of the injustices that First Nations have suffered. However, I would point out that over the past 100 years, the Liberal Party has been in power for 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the time. Therefore, it may have addressed some injustices, but it has also let problems slide for a long time.

    I'm surprised that as leader, you claim to be partisan, a claim that cuts you off considerably from other parties that might be able to help you, a claim that undermines significantly the credibility of any argument you might put forward, since up front, you claim to be partisan.

    I've listened closely to your demands and I enjoyed the historical account you gave us in an effort to broaden our understanding of the experiences of First Nations. My riding is home to two First Nations, and to two Abnaki nations, with whom I share a very close friendship. Ten years ago, I was honoured with the title of Honorary Chief. I have been an MP for 18 years.

    I have come to understand many of these nations' demands, having visited often. For example, I remember the expression “les affranchies”,the “excluded”, as it applies to women and to the injustices they have long suffered. This wrong has been redressed, but you are right to say that it had an adverse affect on aboriginal culture.

    I would appreciate further clarification. In your resolution, you call for guarantees to be provided by the courts, not by politicians.

    When you say “not by politicians”, I have no desire to remind you that the politicians in power, the decision-makers, have represented the Liberal Party for quite some time now.

    Why not clarify the wording of this resolution which calls for authority over citizenship issues to be transferred from politicians to the courts? As my colleague noted earlier, the level of internal bureaucracy is tremendous. The decision-making process is extremely slow. Isn't there some way of combining the two, that is allowing for more political intervention on occasion and at the same time, opting for recourse to the courts in extreme cases?

    Could you explain the first part of your resolution to me in further detail?

¿  (0930)  

[English]

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Certainly, and I thank you, but first a comment.

    My custom and my laws dictate that I am honest, that I am upfront, and that I clarify.... In other ways as well, it's really important that I am upfront. My partisanship is not about excluding other parties, because quite frankly I do work with other parties as well. I have worked both provincially and federally, and I do consult and do work. It does not undermine my credibility as much as it is about honesty and being very upfront. As an elected official, it is a brave thing to do and I believe it does not undermine my credibility. I have sat with my father in the House of Commons for close to 40 years.

    I come from a mixed racial background. My mother is Icelandic, and her father came to this country as a result of an immigration issue, her homeland having been consumed by volcanoes. The homeland she came from was the place that founded democracy, so I am rooted in one side of democracy and I am rooted in customary laws that deal with heredity and also situations around honesty and bringing forward these areas.

    I don't wish this to be partisan, which is why I was very clear about saying who I was, to begin with, so that it would not be a difficult situation. Because I am a descendant of people who founded the first legislative assembly and also the hereditary system, I feel quite blessed to be here to describe this.

    Now, I am also part of an aboriginal community where, when we have elections on reserves, there is no transparency. It's handled totally by bureaucrats and by politicians. I am aware that it is not a form of democracy that I've seen in any other part of the world. It is because of this that I'm asking that neither politicians nor bureaucrats be part of this policy and that the courts handle these things in a transparent and judicial fashion. I am too aware of how systems on reserve eliminate that kind of judicial process and the harm that it can cause.

    It is imperative that we remove those kinds of processes that actually leave it to an individual. I believe that is an infringement of a right. I don't think we should have politicians who could potentially be influenced, as I have been attempted to be influenced here today. I don't think that anybody's credibility should be at question when they are dealing with a social justice issue. A social justice issue belongs in a higher body, with rigour, with transparency and standards that are consistent day to day, not consistent because of political whim or because of an election coming up or because of leadership debates.

    I'm actually kind of happy to be part of a party that allows me to be as rigorous an advocate as I can for different areas. I am also very proud of the other parties that sit around this table that do the same thing. It's important that those kinds of advocacy issues and the kinds of influence that we can have on politicians be removed and that it be left to the standards of a court and judicial system. Living on an Indian reserve, living within systems where it is left in the hands of bureaucrats, I know that human rights are infringed upon, as they are in a lot of my day-to-day life.

    Thank you.

¿  (0935)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much. Bienvenue.

    Let me start by commenting that less than 2% of the Canadian public is involved in political parties, which is a real democratic deficit and is really the lowest in any of the mature democracies. It is really a democratic deficit in terms of our body politic. Now, any person from any political persuasion can come to any meeting of Parliament and take a position. That's just only right and that's only democracy.

    To my colleagues and for the opposition parties, let me say that what Ms. Recalma is saying here today is that she fought within the Liberal Party of British Columbia to have the revocation issue be a priority resolution and it came out of something like 400 resolutions debated. Ten of them got sent to the national convention. The initiative that started here also got picked up by the Liberal Party of Ontario, where again a priority resolution was passed, again from about 400. Then it went on to the province of Quebec, where the resolution was passed again. Then it went on to the province of Alberta, where it was supported again. Eighty-five per cent of the country is represented by those four provinces.

    I think Chief Recalma is being rather brave in coming forward and saying that we are fighting this within the ranks of the Liberal Party and we are not being listened to. The role of the opposition, I guess, could be to pick that up and say to the government, this is what your membership is saying; how can you deny basic human rights to naturalized Canadians?

    You know, what is very interesting--and I mentioned this in the hearings on Friday--is that as we were going around this country from Toronto to Victoria, a consistent message that came forward from groups representing naturalized Canadians was that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply. The charter is very clear in section 7, under equality rights, when it talks about life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

    When this issue was debated in the House of Commons--and Lynne has been with the tour and she will have heard--I gave kudos to the Alliance and the Bloc because I said they were two parties that recognized the significance, that you do not decide on basic human rights issues in a political fashion that is not transparent and that is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It certainly is contrary to the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bloc and the Alliance were unanimous in supporting the resolutions to make this legislation better.

    I wish you were a little more vociferous in the House of Commons to hold the government to account, because this is a real injustice.

    What has been interesting is that the people who have known oppression are the loudest advocates for this. Certainly, having the Aboriginal Peoples' Commission supporting this shows a degree of understanding and it shows that they care about the fundamental rights. Politicians can play a role, and normally the role they play is in humanitarian and compassionate decisions where they believe that clemency should be granted, if you will, but they can never, ever play a role in denying basic human rights.

    The present act, with no appeal rights, where we decide on a balance of probabilities instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, and having the cabinet make decisions in secret, is just incredibly unjust. I mentioned on Friday that in some ways Pierre Trudeau must be smiling because he sees that the Charter of Rights that he enshrined in the Constitution is being defended by the people from the communities that he tried to empower. And we have seen that right across the west.

    So it's not a political issue. If somebody came from the Bloc and made a presentation on it, I would not hold it against them; I would applaud them for it.

    In terms of the present situation of the first nations, I want to pose a question.

¿  (0940)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Yes, that's fair, but--

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it is important to address it, because everybody--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Yes, and I let you go to the end.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think what the members need to understand.... I wear this pin, the 60th anniversary pin of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, and I want to have Chief Recalma tell us what the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia was and to tell us about the kind of rights that they had to fight for, some very basic human rights. I wear this with pride, because I feel a great affinity to the struggles they have gone through, and I very much appreciate that they came to the defence of the six million Canadians who were citizens by choice, not by birth.

    Is there a comment?

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: I too am a member of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, and before we pass judgment on what it is, it is not an organization like the Assembly of First Nations or any other of the modern aboriginal organizations that you see today.

    In 1927 the Indian Act was amended to disallow aboriginal people to speak of the land question. British Columbia was the last part to be colonized in Canada, and treaties were never signed in that area, apart from a few Douglas treaties that were signed at the time of a proprietorial colony being established in the 1850s. The Native Brotherhood was established three years after the fundamental rights of aboriginal people to assemble were denied.

    The Native Brotherhood began as a covert Christian organization that used as its battle hymn Onward, Christian Soldiers. Any time the government officials came to see what they were rallying about...because the only manner in which our people could assemble from 1927 to 1951 lawfully was for Christian purposes. So during those organizational meetings, if they were raided or if they were discovered, they broke into hymn. We still now have a really large population that is very fluent in singing hymns, because it is the way that we plotted and worked toward recapturing inherent rights that were fundamentally ours prior to the immigration beginning in this land.

    So the issues around the right to vote were argued in private. The issues around the treaty were argued in private. The fundamental old age pension was not granted to aboriginal people until the Native Brotherhood worked toward that, nor was the family allowance.

    At the time the grant finally was passed in 1960, a political organization called the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs stepped in, in the late 1960s. It voluntarily began to split the issue of talking about the land question, and the Native Brotherhood assumed a role and a responsibility to deal only with aboriginal fishing rights in the commercial fishing industry.

    It is the oldest aboriginal organization in North America and it is the only one that continues to exist from that time of oppression until now. I dare say most of those people worked underground with whatever political organization they could to have their voice heard and to work through advocacy, because they understood that the foundations of democracy were what they had to live with, and they embraced it, worked with it, and they sent members.

    The former president of the Native Brotherhood was the second aboriginal person ever to sit in Senate, Senator Guy Williams. He was the man who fought vehemently for the old age pension, and he fought at that time for the vote as well. Len Marchand was elected as the first aboriginal MP from the ranks of the Native Brotherhood as well.

    My late father was the business agent for the Native Brotherhood for many years. It is with that voice of the fundamental oppression of human rights, which I have inherited generationally, that I speak today as an elected chief.

    Thank you.

¿  (0945)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much for your answers. I have just one last question, and you don't have to answer it right away. You could send it to us in writing, if you'd like.

    The minister is putting out feelers for a Canadian identity card. You've probably heard a little about it. It's just an idea. Quite often we have problems identifying people. It would probably be something with biometrics, like fingerprint, photo, eye scan, something like that. We'd love to hear comments on it. It's very pre-operation. There's nothing on the boards yet; it's just an idea floating out there.

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Well, I don't want to chat too much about this, but I have lived with an Indian identity card for my entire life. I don't have my number tattooed on my arm, but out of protest some of my relatives have. I worry about that, about having to pack those kinds of things around for even access to medical care and that type of thing. I worry. I can recite my Indian identification number in my sleep.

    I'm not sure whether this is a response to terrorism and 9/11 or whether this is something that is actually needed in Canada. If it is a response to that, I have issues about that, but I'm a little leery because I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I carry an identifying mark now, and I'm not entirely happy with that.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): As I say, it's probably a combination of very many things, but probably the main thing is that there has been a demand from a lot of people to have some way of identifying people a little better, because right now, with just a photo, it's too easy to cheat on that. There's many issues around it, and I agree with you.

    We would like to hear from you. If you'd like to send us a submission in writing about what your thoughts are, we would appreciate it very much and the minister would appreciate it very much.

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Thank you.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: By saying you do have some reservations, I think you did say something there.

    I would like to thank you for coming. As I said, you were the first witness as an aboriginal, and I think that was great. As I said earlier, you taught me something and I think that's important. It's too bad you kept it within the confines of the Liberals and did not come in--

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: Actually, I didn't keep it in the confines of the Liberals.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Perhaps we should have invited you to join us in some dialogue, because we're also interested in some of your concerns.

    Ms. Kim Recalma-Clutesi: As a point of clarification, I did not keep it within the confines of the Liberals. Most of what I spoke about came from my ethnicity and the issues I and my father have had to deal with, as a result of being status Indians.

    I actually am a bit offended by that comment, because that was one extremely small aspect of what I spoke about. I spoke about the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. I spoke about the issues around enfranchisement, the right to vote and many of those things. I apologize if I'm feeling a bit passionate about that now, but I always accept the opportunity to do meaningful consultation.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That was my question, then. Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Just as a comment to my confrères here today, since we have an extra person with us we're going to have to tighten up a little on the time. I aim that mostly of Andrew, of course, but I'm sure he understands that.

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Our friend from the Bloc wasn't here before, so--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): So he's going to steal a little of your time, then.

    Good morning. It's nice to have you here. You'll be speaking on settlement and integration?

    Ms. Jean McRae (Executive Director, Inter-Cultural Association of Victoria): That's correct. We've got a few comments about some of your other areas.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Okay. I'll also have the final question for you, as you probably heard. Please go ahead.

    Ms. Jean McRae: Thank you.

    I'm Jean McRae, executive director of the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria. ICA is a multicultural and immigrant services organization formed 32 years ago by ethnocultural groups in the capital region. ICA has carried on its dual purpose of welcoming immigrants and assisting their needs for language and settlement services and working with the broader community to build a place that is fully inclusive of newcomers. We do this through education and community development and we also do it through the presentation of arts that reflect the traditions as well as the current experience of multicultural groups that form our community. After 32 years, there's still a lot to do.

    I wanted to speak about several issues. One is about that of destining immigrants outside of the Lower Mainland. There is a dawning realization in this province, and I think indeed across the country, of the increasingly critical role that immigration will play in the future of our labour market and, by extension, in the social makeup of our communities and our nation.

    The minister has indicated that one of the priorities of his ministry is regional dispersion and retention of immigrants in communities outside of the country's three big metropolitan areas. This initiative is important for a city like Victoria, with above-average population of seniors and retirees, a baby boom workforce headed into retirement over the next decade or so, and an economy heavily reliant on the services provided to both residents and tourists.

    The questions for this community will soon become who will do the work. Immigrants clearly will be an important part of the answer to that question. In thinking about that, think about whether we offer immigrants that here in Victoria. Obviously we offer them all the other things that attract Canadians and others to move. You can look out the window and see part of what we offer, at least in February. As well as the natural setting and schools, often family members and the majority of people who immigrate to this particular community tend to be family-class-sponsored immigrants who are coming to join their families.

    We also offer, I think, inadequate access to services specifically designed to meet their needs. Our schools in greater Victoria have closed their reception classes. This is an important shift in terms of what we are able to offer.

    ESL students now go directly into the classroom, and that's very significant in a community that has a fairly low level of immigration. That means that students are going into classes where they may be the only ESL student. We will start to see, I'm sure, situations where a child who would be going into grade 6 is going into grade 3 because of their English level and not getting the support that they need.

    When we did have a reception class, it was very helpful. Students were bused to a particular central school so that there were enough children to form a class. They were able to build up their English skills and their familiarity with the system and make friends before going into their regular classrooms, and we were able, as an immigrant service organization, to make excellent connections there.

    I mention that to give you a bit of a sense of the environment here for immigrants coming in. There aren't a lot of immigrants, and generally speaking, services are not well prepared to deal with immigrant clients. As we increasingly want to destine people to smaller communities, we are facing those sorts of challenges.

    Employment opportunities at the moment are not great, especially if you do not qualify or your credentials aren't recognized in the province. I know a lot of important work has been done on that and there seems to be some movement in that area, but it has been very slow. We certainly see in this community many professionals who have come and left the communities because they can't find work, outside of menial positions, for professionals, and that's not a very satisfactory response to immigrants coming into the community.

    I think it's important, as we talk about retention of immigrants outside of the major centres, that the government take some leadership in engaging the communities fully in the discussion. The municipalities generally seem to be unaware of what's happening. They are not involved. In the bigger centres they certainly are, because the pressure is there from the numbers, but it's not part of the planning regime.

    I think partnering Canadian Heritage with the multicultural program is a logical approach, and I know the minister has mentioned this. I think there are some real challenges to that. Canadian Heritage has moved to project funding from program funding. This has had a terribly detrimental effect on the capacity of organizations like mine to build the kinds of ongoing partnerships in the community to ensure that new immigrants and visible minorities are treated with respect and afforded the same opportunities of respect as the other Canadians in terms of access to services, employment, housing, and I do think it's very important. We often hear, well, you know, citizenship can only do this, and CIC is in this little area. I think it's terribly important, if we are really going to attract immigrants and retain them in communities, that there be a strong attempt at working cross-departmentally in terms of these issues.

    About 10 years ago, perhaps a little longer than that, Citizenship and Immigration stopped destining government-assisted refugees to Victoria as well as to other smaller communities around this province. Now all GARs are destined to Vancouver. I know this is not a huge number of people, but it's an important group. What we tend to see now, as I mentioned before, is family class. Many of the family class people who are sponsored into Victoria are sponsored by the GARs who came here many years ago and are now looking at sponsoring their family members to come in now that they are established.

    I think it is worth re-examining destining GARs outside of the major centres. Victoria was one of the destinations for the Kosovars, and we have very high retention rates compared to many cities in Canada, including some of the larger cities. We have only had just a very few people. If they didn't go to other cities in Canada, they went back to Kosovo, some of the few people who did go back.

    I think we have the capacity certainly to welcome GARs. We have a very strong contingent of volunteers, partly because of the democratic makeup of this city. We have absolutely no difficulty in getting well-meaning citizens out to work with refugees and with immigrants and to help them make the adjustments that they need. I think there are strengths here, even though there are some weaknesses as well.

¿  (0955)  

    I want to bring up the permanent resident card and the implementation of it, because the pressure that has come to settlement agencies like my own is significant. We have, with no orientation, with no special access to information, been asked essentially, or it has been demanded of us, that we help people apply for permanent resident cards.

    Our workers are overburdened with this. The system is set up so they can't get more than 10 application forms. They have to go through the same 1-800 number that is absolutely impossible to get through. I've got workers sitting with their phones on hold for hours in order to get an answer to a simple question. When we have talked to CIC about this, we haven't had satisfactory responses. I know that across the country other settlement agencies are feeling the same thing.

    CIC has set up a system where the expectation is that permanent residents will phone and get information from the centre in Sidney. Those services are only offered in English and French, and the immigrants don't understand. They want some explanation for why there is a sudden demand for a different kind of identity card and why they have to pay. For many of them it is a financial burden, especially since we're talking about landed immigrants, many of whom haven't been in the country for two years and don't have people in the country who have known them for two years and can verify their identity.

    It is a big issue. It has put an incredible pressure on organizations and I think created a sense of uncertainty for many immigrants, who really wonder just exactly what's behind this. A lot of our job ends up being to calm people's fears and concerns that this somehow means they are going to vary their status in the country. It has not been handled as well as it might have been, and I think it is incumbent upon the government, as it brings in a program like this, to look to its partners in the community and to recognize that we will be facing increased workload.

    Provincial use of settlement funds is another area I want to touch upon. Immigrant services, as you know, are delivered in British Columbia through agreement with the Province of British Columbia and the federal government. We've been very proud in this province of the work that we've done in settlement, of the innovative programs, and of the collaborative way we've worked with our government funders in order to improve the delivery of services.

    With the change of government, there has been sort of a reeling back of some of those programs, and certainly it has raised concern in the settlement sector. The provincial government recently has stated, for example, the intention to go to a request for proposal model for delivery of services, which means that organizations like my own, which have been delivering these services since the early days when CIC approached us to do this work, are being asked to compete to do that work with for-profit organizations and with other organizations with little history or background in doing this work.

    I don't mind competing in some sense, but it is very destabilizing to the community. We need to be able to plan as organizations to work into the future. The more we chip away at the stability in the sector, which is not big and not terribly strong and is not over-funded by any stretch of the imagination, it makes it very difficult for us to provide the quality of services that we hope to provide for immigrants.

    The other issue, of course, in B.C. is that 50% of the money that comes to this province for settlement services goes into the general coffers. We've asked the provincial government to provide us with information about how this money is being spent and if it is indeed going to help immigrants, in particular, with the specialized services they need. We haven't been satisfied to this point that we've got answers that let us feel assured that this is going on, particularly at a time in this province when, as you know, there are considerable cutbacks in terms of access to social services, to education, to day care, you name it, to legal aid, all the things that have been of assistance to immigrants and that immigrants have been able to take advantage of in the past. They've got the money, but I'm not sure the services are coming to the people for whom they're intended.

À  (1000)  

    The other piece of this, of course, is the federal funding formula. As a province, not as many immigrants choose British Columbia as Ontario. You're aware of that. The federal funding formula is based on the percentage of immigrants who choose any particular province. We have had situations in the past, and I'm sure we will in the future, where we may have a lower percentage of people choosing the province, but we may actually have more people coming into the province. I think it is important to look at the formula and ensure that it is one that meets the needs and again leads to a level of stability so that we can provide the services necessary in the community.

    We're to touch on the citizenship act. I think, as we realize the importance of immigration and immigrants, that we have to take responsibility for ensuring that immigrants are truly able to become full citizens of Canada. This is certainly something that Canada boasts about when we talk to our counterparts in other countries. One of the things we say that we provide to immigrants is full citizenship.

    Under the new bill, I think we are not offering full citizenship to immigrants. When people can have their citizenship revoked without even going through the rigours of the judicial system, I think we are not providing immigrants with full citizenship rights that they deserve. I understand that issues have come up around security, but I think it is incumbent upon the government to strike a balance between security and providing citizenship in a real fundamental way to people who are coming into this country, who are choosing to be part of this country and who are making a tremendous sacrifice to do so.

    In closing my comments, I'd ask that the committee consider the importance of immigration and use its influence to ensure that the federal government take leadership in helping Canadians understand the important role that immigrants play in our community, past, present, and future, and that the necessary funds be committed to ensure that Canada can successfully compete against the rest of the industrialized world in attracting immigrants, which is what we are beginning to do and we will be doing more into the future.

    I'd also ask that the provincial government be held fully accountable for the funds that come into this province for the provision of settlement services and that we afford immigrants full citizenship rights as they qualify.

    Thank you for your attention.

À  (1005)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much for your presentation. You certainly covered a lot of material there.

    We'll get on with the questions right away. Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm going to just pick up on a statement here on Bill C-18 where you talked about encrypted identity cards that would open the door for increased racial profiling. I just want you to explain that, because what we're supposed to be eliminating with these cards is racial profiling. Why do you think it's going to increase racial profiling?

    Ms. Jean McRae: When we have identity cards that carry with them encrypted information that is not accessible to the people.... If I look at my card, for example, I can't tell what's on my card or what information is there, and I have no control over the use of that information. I think having that information, whether it's the intention or not, can certainly lead to a situation, when we have a particular group of people--at the moment there is anxiety about Muslims--in which there is the ability to look and see where people are. In this community we certainly had police asking about people with certain kinds of names. I think what we have then is that it becomes suddenly easy, whether it's the intention or not.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I want to go to your comments that several years ago Canadian Heritage moved to project funding from program funding. Would you explain that? What was funded in projects and what was funding of programs like? I don't see much difference in the two.

    Ms. Jean McRae: There is a difference in terms of this ability, again, of being able to provide the service. It started to shift about five years ago. Canadian Heritage provided funds to community groups like ours around the country to help communities provide ways to help reduce racism through education and to help build understanding and sharing of experiences. That was provided on an ongoing basis so groups could plan, form partnerships, and move ahead.

    As the counter-example, moving to project funding, in this community we've had funding for three projects that are interrelated, working with recreation facilities in Saanich, one of our municipalities. As an organization, we've worked very hard to build partnerships, to build trust, to build projects, to build interest in having the organizations educate themselves about being more accessible and how they can do it, and to start to change their policies, etc.

    We had the first year of funding. Then we waited a whole year for Canadian Heritage to get its act together to fund the second part of the project. Then we've waited another seven months for Canadian Heritage. In the interim, we've got our partners in Saanich saying, well, don't you care about this project? What the heck's going on? Are you really involved?

À  (1010)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: The program was longer funding or was more stable, and that's the only difference.

    Ms. Jean McRae: Yes.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Do you visit much with your counterparts across the country? I understand British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba have the best nominee programs in the country. Do you agree with that? You have talked about the funding and that the provincial government just puts it in the coffers, which leads me to ask whether perhaps the provincial government should be out of the picture. Maybe there should be just municipal governments dealing with the federal funding.

    Ms. Jean McRae: I would be unlikely to think that would be the best way.

    I don't want to suggest that the provincial government has not managed much of what it's doing very well. I think we have worked very well in this province. If you had asked us not too long ago.... We've been very proud of the relationship with the provincial government and with our ability to work very much more hands-on with it to do innovative programming. This is difficult at a federal level because obviously the federal concern is trying to create some balance across the country, which should be a concern, but it also needs to be moulded a bit to communities. The provincial government has tried to do that.

    It's the shift in terms of a whole philosophy about how this particular government approaches services and social services compared to the previous government. We're certainly at the mercy of those shifting tides, but I would suggest that we're at the mercy of those shifting tides as long as any political body...I guess it's maybe not too likely, but it's possible that the federal government will shift and similar shifts could happen as well. I bring that up in terms of the accountability question.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I can only say that we don't even want to tell our immigrants about British Columbia, because we'll never get them to stay in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I'm not taking your story anywhere. We have many immigrants in Saskatchewan who talk about going to B.C. some day. I think you're going to get them.

    Ms. Jean McRae: We certainly see secondary migration from Saskatchewan. We're not trying to lure them away, though.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm always taken aback somewhat when someone mentions an identity card to me. This is not the official topic of discussion, but... Would you prefer that I wait until later?

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Mention was made of an identity card for immigrants. We're talking about a Canadian identity card.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I seriously question the need for an identity card, but at the same time, I have a Muslim friend who was stopped by the police. Had he had an ID card in his possession, he would not have had any problems.

    My views on the matter have changed a little, because I used to think the opposite was true. However, an ID card would have helped him. He presented identification such as a credit card, but was told the card was fake. Had he had an official ID card, this wouldn't have happened. I'm not sure what the solution is, but there are two sides to every story.

    A while back, I wrote to one of the credit bureaus that checks the credit rating of Canadians. I wanted to check up on my own credit rating. I asked them to send me my report, the report sent to credit unions and banks when I apply for a loan or credit card. The report contained the following information: divorced in year X, father of two children; made final payment to wife on such and such a date.

    The credit company knew everything about my personal life and no one in Canada questions the fact that they have this personal information on file. People have concerns about an ID card and what this would mean. However, information about people's lives is already public. Just about all that was missing in the credit report was what I ate for breakfast. The details were truly incredible. Moreover, some of the facts listed were erroneous. I wrote back to the company to set the record straight. That was about all I could do.

    Therefore, to answer your question about the ID card, it may help, or it may hinder people. I haven't yet decided where I stand on the issue. What are your feelings on the subject?

À  (1015)  

[English]

    Ms. Jean McRae: Certainly that is the issue. It's not necessarily the intention. It's the possibility. Certainly our idea is that it's misused tremendously. Social insurance numbers, which are supposed to be basically between you and Revenue Canada, are routinely asked for in terms of whether you can write a cheque at the grocery store. When you suggest that perhaps they shouldn't be collecting this information and you don't want to give it, they say, fine, go shop somewhere else. They are misused, and obviously it is the balance.

    I agree some people are very used to carrying identity cards and that in many countries that's the normal course of events, that you don't leave the house without your identity card or your carnet on your person. I think the real issue with this is just that they carry so much information. Certainly our credit cards and other cards are capable of carrying that information as well, but that is the concern, when we don't know what it is they carry. It's kind of a shock to know that they know quite so much about your life when it really is your credit that is of interest.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

    On the cards, oftentimes banks ask you for your SIN card and you can tell them you are not supposed to have it. Of course, whether you get your loan or why you get refused is another matter.

    I'm interested in housing availability, particularly for refugees in this area. I know when we came to Canada in 1957 virtually anybody who had a full-time job could buy a house in Vancouver. Obviously that's no longer the case, and that's obviously a very strong point for why people might go to Saskatoon, besides the fact that it is a very nice place but lacking the ocean and what have you. We are all jealous of your climate out here.

    I'm curious as to how they manage getting established and buying a house, or is it beyond their means?

    Ms. Jean McRae: In the first years of establishing, it is well beyond people's means, but certainly there are many clients we see five and ten years down the road--they are no longer our clients--who have pooled their resources, like many immigrant communities and immigrant families. Everyone has contributed to the pot and they have managed to put a down payment.

    Certainly the housing costs in Victoria have risen dramatically, and our availability of low-cost housing for people initially is very restricted at this point. Generally speaking, we have been able to find resources to house people, but there are certainly lots of indications that, as a community, we may be reaching a point where we really need to invest in low-cost alternatives for people.

À  (1020)  

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

    The other one is, of course, you mentioned revocation. If the government insists on sticking to a bill such as this, I wonder if it can actually win a vote in the House on it should we not get rid of the clause that says that once you become a Canadian you get the same rights and obligations as every other Canadian, which is kind of false advertising.

    Ms. Jean McRae: That certainly is the issue. If we're saying to people that they have the full rights of citizenship, then we should ensure that they have the full rights of citizenship and not a watered-down version that can be revoked with insufficient rigour.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Under clause 17, it talks about a real draconian process with rules of evidence not applying. It talks about denying the accused the right to know what the evidence is. We could have a situation that is decided on a balance of probabilities in a star chamber with no right to appeal.

    It mentions terrorists, it mentions organized criminals, and it mentions human rights abusers. The thing that really strikes me about that bill is, if it really was meant to address dangerous people, then picking somebody up and deporting him is not a very satisfactory solution anyway, because if somebody's a danger to the country, you can get them out of the country and they can come back.

    We had the situation with Air India, where somebody was just recently sentenced. Obviously putting him out of the country is not as satisfactory as putting the individual in jail so that the community can be protected, because as much as we might get somebody out of the country, they can always get back in.

    If we had a situation where we said to the world, if you come to Canada and you rob a bank, we'll take away your visitor's permit and kick you out of the country, it seems to me that would encourage people to come. In the case where they didn't succeed at robbing the bank and they were caught, they would know that they could get here with a one-way ticket because the government would pay their air fare out.

    The reason I mentioned that is that the whole nature is so ridiculous. As for using secret sources, we have seen what happened in the United States with secret sources: five people coming through Canada were terrorists, and there was a big red alert. The recent alert was triggered by misinformation that was given out by the secret services, and that was proven to be false.

    I mention it because it seems to me that if you don't test the evidence, you really are going to be working on rumours and they have not proved to be satisfactory. That's one of the reasons the ability to have a rigorous hearing in a court of law is a fundamental part of human rights.

    I don't know if you have a comment on that.

    Ms. Jean McRae: I would comment that I think there's been a general shift in the citizenship legislation as well as in the immigration refugee protection legislation to more bureaucratic reviews and less scrutiny and rigour in a situation where evidence needs to be presented. I think that's certainly of concern in terms of the protection of refugees and the protection of Canadians.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It seems to me that the best thing we have going as a country is to make sure we are inclusive so everybody feels they are part of the solution, versus targeting some groups and then all of a sudden there is no cooperation with the police because the group feels they're targeted by the police. That happens in so many countries, and we certainly don't want to go there.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you, Andrew.

    Do you want to comment?

    Ms. Jean McRae: Just to say it's certainly of issue. There's no question that post-9/11 in this community we have started to see things that we don't want to see in terms of groups that the public identifies as being somehow connected to this act of violence that occurred and somehow responsible, even to the point of young men of Sikh origin being scrutinized on the street, not because they have anything to do with a Muslim background but because people think they might.

    I think the more we, as a country, go to the balance of protection against terrorism, we create a situation where people feel justified in that kind of thing instead of working more strongly toward moving away from the stereotypes and educating people to the reality that not everybody of Muslim descent is responsible.

À  (1025)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): That leads a bit, at least, into the last question.

    I think you have been very clear as far as your feeling on the immigrant card itself goes, but what we are talking about here is the possibility of a national identity card.

    Granted, what we are looking for in that is not a gathering of information. I think what the minister has in mind is a card that is able to say this person is really this person, which we really don't have now in any of our cards, even the immigrant card itself, its photo. You know it's too easy to cheat on those cards. This would be biometrics; we don't know what yet. It could be a thumbprint, an iris scan. There are many different ways of doing it, but it would be a combination so that you could assure yourself that the person who was in front of you was really that person.

    I know the minister has nothing in mind about somebody walking around and having to have their card with them all the time or anything like that. It's not that type of situation.

    We would love to hear from you if you have a couple of words now, or if you would like to send us a message on it, we are very interested.

    Ms. Jean McRae: One of the things I would say is that no system is foolproof, as sophisticated as the Government of Canada might be in creating a card that presumably captures certain information. We know about identity cards. It doesn't take much; lots of people have access to computers, and if they are intent on faking identification, they can fake it. I do wonder really about how much this actually provides.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I don't want to provide really arguments toward it. But just to go a little into it, it is like what we have done with our passports. We do really have one of the safest passports in the world, particularly now with the digitalized pictures we have on them. They are very difficult to forge. We are really in the forefront of that, and it's a question of keeping a step ahead all the time. There is no doubt about that.

    Right now we really don't have anything, and that's what we have seen in the last little while. Our whole system is so insecure. We are just trying to tighten it up and we're looking at different ways. This time we are really looking for input from the public to see what they think about it.

    Ms. Jean McRae: I have reservations about the utility of that kind of instrument in terms of providing secure identification.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much.

    Ms. Jean McRae: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We will suspend until the next group.

À  (1020)  

---

À  (1041)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I would like to welcome the Information and Privacy Commissioner of B.C. Thank you very much for being here.

    This is the first submission, I believe, on the national identity card, which is just an idea floating out there at this point. I will be very interested to hear what people have to say about it.

    Please go ahead.

À  (1045)  

[Translation]

    Mr. David Loukidelis (Commissioner, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia): Thank you very much. I'd like to extend to all of you a very warm welcome to British Columbia and Victoria. I'm delighted to be here today to discuss with you a subject that raises some fundamental questions about the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

[English]

    Before beginning my remarks and inviting questions from members, perhaps I could bring to your attention the fact that I did today bring copies of a submission. My apologies for not having got it to the committee on time for French translation or a summary to be prepared. Certainly I will be forwarding the original of this submission to Ottawa today by courier, and you have copies before you.

    I would like to begin my remarks by underlining the three areas that I propose to cover.

    First, it's my submission, with deference, that the minister's proposals for a national identity card are overly vague in that, quite frankly, meaningful consultation on what it is the minister may have in mind is not possible until the proposals are considerably clarified in published form. I would urge the government, as part of that, to undertake a privacy impact assessment and lay out in writing what is actually being proposed.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): To clear it up a bit, this is what the minister calls a pre-pre-pre-consultation. It's just a floating idea, and he really wants input to know in which direction to go forward with it or whether to even bother with it. It's at the very starting point.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: I'm gratified to hear that. I said what I just said in part because I read the Hansard of the debate on February 13 in the House and certain remarks, and I realize that when one is in debate, things are said that may not necessarily--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): That came out of another party that put in a debate for the day. It was not at any point where we were even ready to start such a debate.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: That's good to hear because, again, I just wanted to be clear that as welcome as this process is, and I would like to underscore that fact, the difficulty remains that in responding to what the minister has said--and I understand that it is, as you put it, a pre-pre-consultation--obviously it's difficult to address remarks to something when you don't have a very good outline of what exactly is being proposed.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Did you see the minister's appearance before the committee on February 6?

    Mr. David Loukidelis: Yes, I did.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): You probably saw in that too that he was also very vague.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: I guess that's by way of caveat in terms of the submission that you have in front of you. It does address some of the issues that arise in relation to two possible kinds of identity cards, and moving into that now.

    The second point I wish to make to you today is that a unique identifier, an identity card that has associated with it an individual universal identifier, is neither necessary, in my submission, nor acceptable in our Canadian democracy. If an identity card is being contemplated that would simply provide a more secure form of identification, including perhaps using biometrics as opposed to an identity card that carries with it a universal identifier, then my submission is that the investment that would be required to create a new national identity card scheme would be massive, undoubtedly into the billions of dollars based on estimates from other countries, and that federal tax dollars would be better invested working cooperatively with the provinces and territories in enhancing the security of existing forms of identification. I'll return to that point in a few moments.

    Before I go through those points in any detail, I'd like to spend a few minutes, if I could, underscoring for you the nature of privacy and why it is in fact important in our modern Canadian democracy.

    The right to privacy is multi-faceted and encompasses, among other things, both the right to anonymity and also what is described as the right to informational self-determination. Anonymity is the general right to decide when to reveal one's identity in the public sphere to other individuals in order to transact business in the public or private sector and in the public sector in order to obtain services from or to fulfill obligations to the state. Informational self-determination is the claim to control the collection, compilation, use, and disclosure of one's personal information. The so-called right to informational self-determination is really at the essence of statutes such as the federal Privacy Act and the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

    I don't think the importance of privacy can be understated. Certainly since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently acknowledged that privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state. It is said, for example, “privacy is essential for the well-being of the individual and is therefore worthy of constitutional protection”. Those comments come from a case known as R. v. Dyment in 1998. The Supreme Court has also characterized privacy as having profound significance for the public order, noting that “the restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizens go to the essence of a democratic state”.

    It is often said that if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. I would like to take a moment to rebut that often-repeated contention. In my submission, that stands things on their head.

    As I understand the nature of our liberal democracy, as you are all of course well aware, our society is made up of individuals who have liberties to do as they wish and to come and go as they please unless a clear state interest exists that demonstrably justifies an incursion on or infringement of that essential field of liberty that we all enjoy. To assert that if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear stands things on their head by placing the onus on each of us and all of us as a collectivity to justify why the state should not in fact intrude upon our private lives and our sphere of liberty.

    Again, I think this is contrary to the approach taken certainly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes under section 1 that the state has no business infringing on our liberties or curbing our rights unless and until the justification has been demonstrated, and then only to the extent absolutely necessary to achieve a clear and compelling state interest.

    These considerations are relevant when one considers a national identity card proposal. Certainly over the years many Canadian privacy commissioners, ombudsmen, human rights commissioners, and others have from time to time warned against and resisted universal identification card schemes. Certainly if one is talking about a card that would have attached to it a universal identifier that would allow unique identification of individuals, the case for resistance has often been repeated, and successfully so, across the country.

    A unique identifier would enable data from disparate databases, both public and private, to be retrieved and linked or analyzed and also to be used to track people through transactional data, interactions with the police or other authorities, or interactions with state agencies for the purpose of obtaining services--for example, at a provincial level, the use of a unique identifier to identify an individual who is seeking employment assistance or social assistance. The privacy implications of a unique identifier can indeed be quite profound.

    Even if a national identity card scheme were to proceed using a universal or unique identifier of the kind I've described--and the social insurance number is a good example of that--I would argue that there are several imperatives that cannot be ignored in proceeding with such a scheme. One, identification should not facilitate increased government surveillance. Two, identification should not have multiple purposes; it should only be for the purposes of identification. Three, an identification card should not become an internal passport that Canadians must carry in order to go about their business within Canada.

À  (1050)  

    The other possibility of course, as I mentioned, is that what the minister has in mind is simply a more secure form of identification. The permanent resident card, the maple leaf card that the government has recently proceeded with, is an example of this use of biometrics and other technical security measures to guard against forgery and to better assure that the bearer of a card is the individual the card purports to relate to.

    I have no objection to increases in the security and authenticity of identification used by Canadian citizens. There may in fact be an argument that identity theft would, for example, as the minister has indicated, be a phenomenon that could be better combated through more secure forms of identification. My concern, as I indicated at the outset, is about the cost of a new, if you will, greenfield federal identity scheme that could not be undertaken except with the cooperation of the provinces and the territories, given their responsibility for the issuance of birth certificates, death certificates, drivers' licences and so on. I would argue that if a case exists for more secure forms of identification, our tax dollars would be better invested in working cooperatively with the provinces and territories in trying to improve the security of those kinds of identification.

    Indeed, a new federal identity card scheme, it seems to me, couldn't proceed except with the cooperation of the provinces and territories, given the responsibility for birth and death registration and certification. Certainly there is already a precedent for this. The Council on Identity in Canada, which is a federal-provincial-territorial working group, already exists and has been working with the vital statistics agencies, the provinces and territories.

    I have been working with federal government representatives on exactly the kind of initiative that I am describing, which is a cooperative venture to standardize procedures for the issuance of identification, to improve the security of forms of identification as they are issued, and to better protect against phenomena such as identity theft.

    I again would argue that it would be better to take the model of perhaps the Canada Health Infoway Inc., which has considerable taxpayer funds devoted to a cooperative venture with the provinces and territories to develop pan-Canadian solutions for an electronic health record. Similarly, a joint venture of that kind, it seems to me, could offer great benefits in improving the security of identification in Canada without having to start from scratch at the risk of a very great cost.

    I believe most recently in Quebec the proposal for a new smart health card was going to be in the range of $288 million, and that was a few years back. The U.K. is talking in the billions of dollars, and the same in the United States when it looked at this soon after 9/11 before abandoning the proposal.

    I would note, by the way, that there are arguments--and the National Research Council in the United States has noted this and I have mentioned this in a full submission--that reliance on a single, supposedly secure form of identification could in fact increase the dangers of identity theft, for example. Sweden has had this experience with its unique universal identifier, which it has had for about half a century. Because people come to rely inappropriately on the single form of identification, the risks are greater, because of course there is a greater reward for criminals to actually compromise the validity of an identification number or card and to use it for their purposes.

    The concerns about a universal identifying number, just to underscore those, are many and have long been noted.

    First and foremost, universal identifiers are critical elements of surveillance, and again, the experience in Sweden with its unique personal identification number has demonstrated this phenomenon. There is a well-established phenomenon in data protection or privacy protection circles of function creep, namely the expansion of uses of an identifier, possibly--and indeed, inevitably, some would argue--for surveillance purposes.

    Again, the social insurance number is an excellent example of this. It was originally conceived, I believe, in 1964. It's an identification number for unemployment insurance, Canada pension plan, and Quebec pension plan purposes. At last count, in the 1999 twentieth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it was reported that at least 20 federal statutes and programs mandate the use of a social insurance number, and it has crept into the private sector time and time again. Here in British Columbia, for example, Pacific Blue Cross, which is a private sector extended health care provider, uses the social insurance number as a universal identifier.

À  (1055)  

    Over the years many have called for legislation against this abuse of function creep, but successive federal administrations have failed to take up the challenge, including as issued by the federal Auditor General on a number of occasions. Identity cards carrying a unique identifier could therefore be used unacceptably to facilitate state surveillance of Canadians. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's air traveller surveillance database is a prime example of a new program to aggregate large amounts of detailed personal information about Canadians for open-ended surveillance purposes, purposes that I have argued are unacceptable, or a broad, open-ended program that I have previously argued in another context is unacceptable.

    Privacy protection legislation, such as the federal Privacy Act, is not necessarily good enough to guard against this kind of function creep. For example, in 2002 the Customs Act was amended by adding section 107.1, and it is that section that facilitates the development and operation of this open-ended CCRA surveillance database.

    Similarly, even if effective, clear, strong legislation were enacted to limit the use of a universal identifier and to prevent them from being used for surveillance purposes, legislation would only be as effective as the enforcement tools given to an oversight agency and the resources given to monitor compliance.

    In conclusion, there is no evidence, in my submission, that a national identify card equipped with a unique identifier would be, as section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires, demonstrably justified in our free and democratic society. I would argue that there is no clear and compelling state interest in such a surveillance tool, and it has not been shown that such an instrument of surveillance would minimally impair Canadians' constitutionally protected privacy rights. A national identity card carrying a unique personal identifier therefore is not supported at this time, and I would oppose it.

    I should note as well that in the United Kingdom, the home office, which has been trying for a number of years now to introduce a universal identification scheme of this kind, has recently acknowledged in a public report that the case for a unique universal identifier on anti-terrorist or identity theft grounds is at best weak and that there would not be appreciable benefits from such a scheme.

    To paraphrase the late Justice Thoroughgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court, in times of urgency civil rights and liberties seem too extravagant to endure. We risk losing our rights by acceding to small and almost invariably well-meaning measures whose overall impact only appears with less than rosy hindsight. Privacy is not a luxury. It is not and has never been an obstacle to good government or a healthy community. It is, in fact, indispensable to those things.

    A national identity card that can be used to track us or to collate data about us would not make us better citizens, nor would it make Canada an appreciably better place. It would diminish each of us and all of us. I urge you to recommend that a national identity card of such a kind not be pursued any further.

    Thank you for your attention today. I'd be happy to take any questions.

Á  (1100)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much. That was interesting. Just before going to the others, I'll shoot a question of my own.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Go ahead.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I find it really interesting. I guess the one line that I really noted says, “I will note here, however, that I'm not against the use of biometrics for ID purposes”.

    On a personal level, I go along with your idea that it's really more of a provincial matter. In Quebec our driver's licence and our medicare card are both...I want to say the whole operation is done in one place and yet we have two cards, which I find rather ridiculous. If, let's say, in Quebec, as an example, we were to have our driver's licence and our medicare card on the same card with biometrics to ensure that the person is the person identified on the card, would you be comfortable with that type of thing?

    Mr. David Loukidelis: Yes, it can be done properly. A unique card like that can in fact have segregated data elements on it so that, although your medical insurance information is on the same card as your driver's licence, they are in fact compartmentalized and remain segregated, whether on the card or in the databases that are associated with the different functions of that card.

    Biometrics can be used, for example, to provide anonymous but well-authenticated identification--a card that is swiped and says, yes, the bearer of this card is authorized to transact the following business, but without even having to identify who the authorized or authenticated bearer of the card is. So it can in fact be done in an anonymous fashion. It's a different approach from the combined driver's licence and social or medical insurance cards. However, yes, it can be done properly as long as the systems are well designed in order to preserve anonymity and keep the data segregated.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): One of the small problems that we have had to deal with in Quebec, in my particular case right on the border, is that you have part of your family living on one side of the border and the other part living on the other side. Although they live in the United States, they have the same names and quite often use the medicare card to come to Canada to get services. And it was very easy to do. Even with a photo it's not very clear. Family members resemble each other quite a bit. I see a way there to help out our system using biometrics rather than just a photo ID.

    I'll move on to questions. Lynne.

Á  (1105)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

    Most of all, I agree with you on the cost after seeing where our gun registry went. I know we're getting tired of hearing that, but I think it's a fact. I think it's a reality that it's almost unaffordable to think this could possibly be done without a huge investment. So that's one of the reasons.

    The other reason is that I took a complete turnaround on this whole ID card. I thought, much like perhaps my colleague from the Bloc mentioned, it shows who you are. There's no doubt in your mind. You just hand over the card and it probably would even prevent some happenings that aren't very pleasing.

    However. we have to look at the theft in Regina where a whole hard drive was taken. I don't care if they want to tell you that there was no harm done; it's still a big concern. A lot of personal and private information got into the hands of somebody outside of the gamut that should have had it.

    Can there be identity fraud? What's to say that person's biometric is the person who he says he is? If he gets a birth certificate and takes it in and then has a fingerprint, then that name is embedded. How would we be able to prove that it was not fraud? Do you see that could be a possibility? Is there a fear at the onset, before we get into all the reasons why we shouldn't? You've given very good reasons today. We had another witness in Toronto who gave us a similar lengthy presentation that also told us a lot of good reasons why these cards would not be a good thing to have.

    Can you see other ways where fraud could happen so we can convince the minister that this is really stupid? Not only are the costs and the privacy issues a problem, but where else do you see that fraud could become a problem or an issue? ID theft is indeed a big problem.

    I know somebody who lost his ID and it took years and years to clear this up. He is still haunted by Revenue Canada. His social insurance is still being used. He lives in B.C. now. It was stolen while he was in Saskatchewan but he just cannot recover it. The government doesn't help very much. It just says that its your problem. I'm just wondering whether you see other places where fraud can happen besides hackers on computers.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: In response to your point about the recent theft of a hard drive from a facility in Saskatchewan, that illustrates the irony of the dangers that come with our ability to aggregate data and to store them in one sort of singly accessible point, which could be a feature of, or certainly one use of, a universal identifying card.

    Files that are kept in segregated databases by their nature tend to be actually more secure, because if you hack into a single large collection of data, then obviously the risks can be that much greater. A single hard drive compromised roughly a million individuals, if I remember correctly. It was pretty detailed information that would be of great use to an identity thief.

    As I mentioned during my initial remarks, the experience in Sweden suggests that when you come to rely too much on a single form of identification using a unique identifier of that kind, it can in some ways and in some instances increase the risk of identity theft, because people don't tend to question it, for one thing, and it is that much more valuable because there's that much more data available using that single identifier.

    In terms of the costs that would be involved for a stand-alone federal program, again you'd have to have cooperation from the provinces and territories to do this. I think it would be massively expensive, not least because of the concerns about authentication and making sure that the biometrically enhanced identity card was in fact properly issued in the first instance.

    As I've already indicated, with a unique identifier version, even a card that doesn't have the universal identifier linked to it and it's merely biometrically enhanced, there can be a tendency to rely on that perhaps and inappropriately provide assurance of authenticity if you haven't covered it off in the first instance. You have to be very careful at the point of issuance.

    Identity theft is indeed a growing concern in Canada. It's a huge problem in the United States. I think the private sector is only now really beginning to respond. We're seeing Experian and other large credit-rating agencies in the United States responding by offering products. Basically, people can better protect themselves, be their own privacy watchdogs, by going to an Experian, for example, and, for a fee, putting a monitor or a flag on their credit report.

    I do that myself. I write to Equifax and other credit-rating agencies fairly frequently and ask for a copy of my credit report just to keep watch on how my credit rating looks, and you can do it online. You can also try to protect yourself by simply being much more careful about who you give your personal information to, where you store it, with whom you share it and for what purposes, and how much you share.

    Those are stopgaps. I don't have any proposal in mind for government intervention, but certainly I think the private sector is in the early days of responding to this. Unfortunately, there is a lot of onus on individuals to try to deal with this on their own.

    Again, a biometrically enhanced form of identification wouldn't get around the practices that are associated with the granting of credit and so on, the benefit from theft of large data stores, as was the case in Saskatchewan, taking all of that data and over the phone establishing a false identity in some instances. It doesn't rely on my walking in with a false birth certificate. I can do it over the phone.

    A lot has to happen in the private sector before we get there. An identity card that is better secured through biometrics, for example, or other security measures might assist in some respects, but the practices of the private sector have to come along as well.

Á  (1110)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Just one more quick question. You did say proposals for identity cards have failed in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. Is there anything else you'd like to say about that? How did they fail, other than that they didn't get off the ground? Is that what you're saying?

    Mr. David Loukidelis: For example, in 1999 or 2000, pre-9/11 if I recall correctly, the Australian federal government proposed--it has been said for immigration-related reasons--that there be an Australian national identity card to distinguish Australian citizens and legal residents from others. There was widespread public outcry and opposition, and some of the privacy commissioners of the various states expressed concern as well. There was simply a public outcry.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

    In a very diplomatic way, I think you said that the suggestion by the minister was a dumb idea. Let me say that I believe Eleanor Caplan agrees with you because she didn't see the need for this thing. I don't know why we're proceeding with going out to get feedback on a question without defining where we're going. I think it's quite irresponsible.

    My colleague referred to the criticism we got from Morris Manning. I copied his address for you.

    I'm very glad you came to make this proposal. You know, I think the whole thing gets into security and the concern over security. I can only quote Thomas Jefferson, the signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence. Basically what he said was that those who give up freedom in the name of security deserve neither security nor freedom.

    We talked about passports being fairly sophisticated, yet we have thousands and thousands of passports that are missing the blanks. The evolution of technology right now is incredible. There's the whole area of quantum computing, and when that comes into place, it's going to destroy every security device that exists. It's going to be totally a new revolution.

    I guess in terms of security of information, we have a real problem in that insurance companies could get DNA samples of all sorts of folks. All of a sudden, people are denied insurance for possible diseases that they might get down the road, about which they didn't even know. You can obtain that by going into your insurance agent and having a cup of coffee, and they can take a swab. The technology is there.

    The whole issue of privacy is of paramount importance. Even on the positive side, if there were a positive side, what do you do? Once you have the supposedly super ID that is secure, then that will give you unlimited access, because if it's that secure, somebody will get their hands on it. Is it a false sense of security because now somebody has this supposedly super ID card and we find out later on that there's a problem with it?

    I'll finish off with a quote from Washington, who said that eternal vigilance was the price we paid for freedom. I think it's really a dangerous road we are treading down. I want to commend your office and privacy commissioners right across the country. I know sometimes you feel as if you're fighting a losing battle because of this whole thing, that if you have nothing to hide, then you should give this information. Well, sorry, we see it all the time. We had thousands of people in the United States detained on rumours. They have trampled all over their constitution, and those folks are walking free.

    Perhaps you would just comment on the downside. I see the biggest downside is the false sense of security being created by something. Unless you put it online, you can replace the smart chip or whatever within the card.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. David Loukidelis: First, thank you for your kind words about our office and the work of other privacy commissioners' offices.

    First I'll comment on the example you gave of the loss of passport blanks and compromises in the system through inadvertence or inadequate security of that kind. There is the example of the theft of the hard drive in Saskatchewan, with so much information on it, where it appears that none of the information on the hard drive was encrypted. It appears that information from different sources, both public and private sector insurance and investment companies, on the hard drive was not segregated within the hard drive, so it was all commingled.

    Those are both examples of how we might better invest in security by ensuring the administrative or business practices that we follow fully exploit the technology that's available. Certainly in the case of hard drives, it is the recommendation of my office and our published guidelines that you encrypt data of that kind on hard drives. It should be segregated source by source. Good practices will go a long way to providing better security for forms of identification and to reduce some of the risks about which we've been talking.

    I am concerned, and it has been argued before, that overreliance on a single form of identification does in fact lose the benefits of redundancy or back-up systems by having different kinds of identification. I know the registrar of the Data Protection Inspection Board in Sweden made the argument back in 1993 that it had been the experience in Sweden because of an assumption that as long as you had the individual identifier for someone, you were dealing with that person. This is in the public and private sectors in Sweden. There have been numerous instances where there were tragic consequences for individuals when that single form of identification was compromised.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you.

    Have you any other questions, Andrew?

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I am fine. I'm very pleased.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much for your submission. We appreciate it very much. For most of the other witnesses, I've been asking that question at the very end. Your presentation was on it.

    Do you have any other comments, maybe on Bill C-18?

    Mr. David Loukidelis: Certainly, if I might, time permitting. Thank you very much for your questions.

Á  (1120)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): You got a very lucky break because our other witness is not here, so we have a little opening.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: I appreciate that. I'd be happy to make available to the committee whatever resources of my office might be of assistance to you as your work proceeds.

    If I could take a moment, I'd like to invite my colleague Mary Carlson, who is the director of policy and compliance in my office, to fill you in a little on the work of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Council on Identity in Canada, because again, I think that if there is any benefit in proceeding to enhance the security of different kinds of existing identification in Canada, it would be through this body.

    Ms. Mary Carlson (Director General, Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia): Thanks.

    It was in the fall, I guess, that our office was invited to attend what was actually one of the first meetings ever of the vital statistics agencies across the country, which included people from the motor Vehicle Branch and the Passport Office. There were federal and provincial representatives. What struck me was this fact, and my question to them at that point in time was this: how often does this group meet? The group had never met before.

    My comment about a national identity card is that it's very premature, in my opinion. If the issue is secure identity, that's an issue that is different from a single number that all government services will be issued for tracking.

    In fact, it's remarkably easy to get a birth certificate. It just takes a couple of critical pieces of information. From what I learned from just observing at that committee, most people get the information from obituaries. In fact, obituaries are the number one source of information for people who are stealing identities. They're actually stolen identities. They're not forged ones, where people simply get birth certificates reissued.

    There was a lot of discussion around that table about how they, as a group, could tie off some of the holes. They don't communicate a lot in terms of who's dying if you're born in one province and you die in another. There actually isn't a system in place to notify the other jurisdictions. So I do believe that from this committee has sprung the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Council on Identity, and I understand that they do have a draft report in place, although I'm not exactly sure how their activities are going to parallel any discussion about a national identity card. But until the people issuing these base documents have had the opportunity to try to figure out amongst themselves where those holes are, I don't think a national identity card is going to solve it.

    Lynne's comment earlier about the problem was, how do you know, even if you have a biometrically encrypted card? People will steal the identities right upfront, and then, as David said, you'll have a card that everybody's relying on as the best, most secure piece of identity, and that's not the case.

    I just want to comment on how biometrics can in fact be extraordinarily privacy enhancing. I know that in Europe, post-9/11, some countries have a card whereby you can pay $90 a year and get a card biometrically encrypted. All it is is an algorithm that goes into the computer. You run your card and put in your fingerprint. There is no database of your fingerprint; it just matches up your print from your thumb. It will say, yes, this is who this person says it is, without anybody having to keep a database of all of the fingerprints. So there are certainly mechanisms out there in terms of biometrics that really can provide some certainty of identity and still enhance privacy.

    Just as another aside, there are certain biometrics that are considered more reliable than others, but for things like retinal scans, you can imagine just the optics of some of the difficulties around them. Citizens don't want to stick their eyes in things to have their retinas scanned. There are all kinds of problems around them.

    Those are my comments on that committee.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much. That's quite interesting. I wasn't aware of that set-up.

    You're probably aware of the situation we had in Quebec for people born in Quebec and the problems with the birth certificates there. It went under baptismal certificates, and they were just all over the place. Now we do have a system there, and it's quite a good system, but of course that only takes care of the people born in Quebec. We do have quite a good birth certificate and you really have to use that.

    There's an interesting thing I have found in my own case. My wife is an immigrant and has this great little Canadian citizenship card. That's all she needs for anything at all. Sometimes I get a little jealous because I need to have my birth certificate and I need to have this and that. All she needs is that card. So in some ways I'm the second-class citizen. I find that bothersome in some ways. I wouldn't mind having a nice little card like hers that did everything, but granted, the base information in that case has to come from the provinces. I think it has to start there.

    Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your submission. It will be taken into consideration, for sure.

Á  (1125)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I would like to ask one more question, just because this was brought up. What if the Americans want us to have this card?

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): We're a sovereign country.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, but in order for us to travel there, which has been brought up by certain people, maybe we're going to need to have that in order to travel to the States. I realize the Americans themselves have found that this isn't that easy to implement, but I just wondered if that has ever crossed your mind. What if they say, unless you have a really good national identity card, you won't be travelling to the States?

    Mr. David Loukidelis: My understanding is that under the anti-terrorist legislation enacted soon after 9/11, there is a time line for the establishment of requirements for all foreigners travelling to the United States to have secure documentation. I believe this may include the requirement for biometrics. The Americans have not, however, as far as I understand it, mandated any particular form of identification. They have not, for example, said that a country must have a national identity card. This would take us back to the point I made earlier: that if we're concerned about the security of passports, for example, then we would do well to ensure that passports are better secured.

    For example, I know the minister had commented that because of the developments in the United States we'll no longer be able to travel to the United States just using our drivers' licences. You now can, as I understand it, use a birth certificate or passport. I didn't know that you could still use a driver's licence to get into the States, but--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Only at land crossings, not in the air.

    Mr. David Loukidelis: Yes, so I think, then, that the question obviously begged is, well, why a new national identity card, then? Why not better secured birth certificates or passports, as the case may be? It may be that they will want passports to be the means of doing it.

    Of course the Americans are already collecting advance passenger information on all travellers entering the States. In fact, the minute you take off from Toronto, the passenger manifest probably has already been transmitted to the homeland security authorities in the United States so that they know who's on the aircraft as it gets into the air. Again, that's another aspect of their homeland protection system that doesn't necessarily require a national identity card.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you, David.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): You're welcome.

    Thank you very much. We're closed down until one o'clock.