;

CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

0805

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

Mr. Eugene Czolij (National President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress)

0810

0815

0820

0825

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

0830

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

0835

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0840

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

0845

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

0850

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

0855

Mr. Eugene Czolij

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Eugene Czolij

0900

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eugene Czolij

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eugene Czolij

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eugene Czolij

0905

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eugene Czolij

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eugene Czolij

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau ( As Individual)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

0920

0925

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0930

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0935

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Louis Béliveau

0945

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

0950

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

0955

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Louis Béliveau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1000

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1005

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1010

Mr. Louis Béliveau

1015

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Louis Béliveau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 044

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0805)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I will call the meeting to order. The purpose of the meeting today is Bill C-18, the act respecting Canadian citizenship.

We have Eugene Czolij with us today, representing the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.

First, Mr. Czolij, I very much respect the fact that you've had opportunity to come and share your time with us. It's a great help for us and we appreciate it. I have a copy of your brief here, which we will ask permission to circulate as it is not in both languages, but because of the short notice the committee gave, very few people were able to translate into both languages. So we have to ask permission as a course of action.

Mr. Czolij, I think best process is if we could have a brief synopsis of your ideas. The committee members can read more of the detail in the full presentation. It would be helpful for us if you took the main points and in ten minutes or less were able to give us the nuts and bolts of what you're trying to do. Then we can go through discussion. When the committee has time, they can read the presentation as well. The floor is yours.

Mr. Eugene Czolij (National President, Ukrainian Canadian Congress): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, also known as the UCC, is the national coordinating body of the Ukrainian Canadian community, which began settling in Canada well over 100 years ago. According to the latest census statistics, there are over one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

Since 1940, the UCC has actively participated in the development of national policies and programs that impact not only on Ukrainian Canadians but on Canadian society as a whole. Throughout its 60-year history, the UCC has taken a proactive approach on such issues as multiculturalism, citizenship, immigration, justice matters, constitutional development, and foreign affairs.

[Translation]

It gives me great pleasure to appear before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on behalf of the Ukranian Canadian Congress and to present our community's viewpoint on Bill C-18 on Canadian citizenship.

[English]

Since December 1998, three bills concerning citizenship legislation have been tabled in Parliament. The UCC monitored their progress and appeared before this standing committee of the House of Commons on March 30, 2000, as well as the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on September 26, 2000, to make its submissions regarding Bill C-16.

¾ (0810)

[Translation]

When we appeared before these parliamentary committees, the UCC recommended, among other things, that any revocation or annulment of Canadian citizenship should, firstly, be carried out within an equitable judicial process; secondly, include a right of appeal not contingent on obtaining leave to appeal; thirdly, require a high standard of proof; and fourthly, be subject to a five-year limitation period following acquisition of citizenship.

Clause 3 of Bill C-18 correctly notes that the Citizenship Act must have as its purpose:

b) to encourage the acquisition of citizenship by all who qualify;

c) to protect the integrity of citizenship;

d) to reaffirm that all citizens, no matter how they became citizens, have the same status;

[...]

f) to heighten the awareness of citizens that the acquisition of citizenship is a significant event worthy of celebration; and

to promote respect for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society.

We also warmly approve the following statement on the rights and obligations of Canadian citizens in clause 12, and I quote:

All citizens have the same rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties, responsibilities and status without regard to the manner in which their citizenship was acquired.

This important statement of principle by Parliament should surprise no one. It is an implicit tribute to the contribution that naturalized Canadians have made to this country's prosperity and its current demographic reality.

[English]

Indeed, in its January 21, 2003, newsletter, The Daily, Statistics Canada reported that:

The proportion of Canada's population who were born outside the country has reached its highest level in 70 years, according to new data from the 2001 census.

As of May 15, 2001, 5.4 million people, or 18.4% of the total population, were born outside the country. This was the highest proportion since 1931, when foreign-born people made up 22.2% of the population.

[Translation]

When he tabled Bill C-18, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said this, and I quote:

Canadians have asked for citizenship legislation that requires potential Canadians to make a strong commitment to this country. We have listened to these concerns and they are reflected in this bill.

The Ukranian Canadian Congress supports this strong commitment to Canada. However, we deplore the fact that Bill C-18 does not provide for an equally strong commitment on the government's part to Canadian citizens, including naturalized Canadians.

[English]

In the recent denaturalization case of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Odynsky, reported at 2001 FCT 138, the Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay of the Federal of Court of Canada stated that:

While the ultimate issue for determination appears relatively simple, its resolution is complicated by reason of the lack of records maintained by the Minister concerning Mr. Odynsky's admission to Canada and his subsequent obtaining of citizenship. Its resolution is complicated further by the quality of evidence concerning, and the difficulty for witnesses asked to recall, events and processes that occurred or in which they may have been involved more than 50 years ago.

Surprisingly, this was not an isolated case where the government initiated denaturalization proceedings against a Canadian almost half a century after granting him citizenship, even though, first of all, the government employees had already destroyed the necessary immigration files in accordance with the government's policy of disposal of unnecessary records after a fixed period of time, and, second, relevant witnesses had long since passed away.

The UCC believes that after a reasonable period of time, naturalized Canadians should not feel that their citizenship is indefinitely conditional and subject to challenge by a minister or any person delegated by a minister, nor should they feel they must preserve at all times the necessary evidence to be able to prove, independently of their age, on a balance of probabilities, that they acquired Canadian citizenship in accordance with our laws. Therefore, the UCC recommends that Bill C-18 provide a limitation period of five years from the date of acquisition of citizenship for all types of revocation and annulment of citizenship proceedings under the act.

Furthermore, in the case of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Bogutin, reported at 1988 144 FTR 1, the Honourable Mr. Justice McKeown analyzed the requisite standard of proof in revocation of citizenship proceedings and declared that:

A high degree of probability is, in my opinion, required in a case of this kind. What is at stake here is very important; the right to keep Canadian citizenship, and the serious consequences which may result if that citizenship ceases.... For some, such as those who might become stateless if deprived of their citizenship, it may be valued as highly as liberty.

In view of the fact that revocation and annulment of citizenship proceedings are not regular civil proceedings and may be described as quasi-criminal proceedings, the UCC recommends that Bill C-18 be amended to provide a higher standard of proof in such proceedings, namely, that of “beyond a reasonable doubt” instead of a “balance of probabilities”.

We are also seriously troubled with subclause 16(6) and paragraph 17(4)(j). Subclause 16(6) stipulates:

In a proceeding before the court under this section, the court...is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive and base a decision on any evidence adduced in the proceedings that it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.

Paragraph 17(4)(j) stipulates that:

the judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is appropriate, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law, and may base the decision on that evidence.

These legislative provisions introduce a dangerous element of arbitrariness in a judicial process and contravene the fundamental principles of the rule of law defined as follows in Black's Law Dictionary, which states that the rule of law, sometimes called the “supremacy of law, provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application”.

¾ (0815)

Therefore, the UCC recommends that provisions such as subclause 16(6) and paragraph 17(4)(j), which subject the admission of evidence to arbitrariness, be struck from Bill C-18.

Moreover, the UCC stands for the principle that our legislation should ensure due process before the courts for naturalized Canadians in cases of revocation of citizenship, including full appeal rights without the necessity to obtain leave to appeal.

We are pleased that subclause 17(3) of the previous bill, Bill C-16, which provided that a decision of the Federal Court Trial Division made under subsection (1) is final and, despite any other act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal, has been struck from Bill C-18 in clause 16.

The UCC also believes that Canadians should be able to examine and challenge the reliability and probity of the evidence used against them.

[Translation]

In our opinion, clause 17 infringes the principles of natural justice, fairness, transparency and respect for as fundamental an acquired right as Canadian citizenship.

[English]

Indeed, clause 17 of Bill C-18 first authorizes the use of secret evidence in its examination by a judge in the absence of the person named in the certificate and their counsel; second, allows for the introduction of evidence, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law; and third, stipulates that the decision of the trial judge is final and may not be appealed or judicially reviewed.

Canadians should not face this kind of justice, which lends itself to abuse. Therefore, the UCC recommends that clause 17 of Bill C-18 be completely struck.

As for clause 18, it is also problematic, since subclause 18(3) provides that a naturalized Canadian can “make written representations to the Minister” who, under subclause 18(1), should already have been “satisfied that a person has...acquired...citizenship in contravention of section 28 or by using a false identity” as to why his citizenship should not be annulled after all. The law should not force a minister to be a judge and a party initiating the proceedings.

We took note, however, of the fact that subclause 18(4) gives an individual a “right to apply for judicial review” from the minister's annulment order under the Federal Court Act.

The UCC recommends instead that clause 18 of Bill C-18 be struck and cases dealing with the acquisition of citizenship in contravention of section 28, or by using a false identity, be dealt with in an impartial hearing before the Federal Court.

The problems we raise regarding clauses 17 and 18 of Bill C-18 are compounded by clause 44, which provides that the minister may delegate to “any person”, and I will quote again, “Anything that is required to be done or that may be done by the Minister under this Act”. It is also illogical, at best, that section 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits the same minister to delegate certain powers, which could have a serious negative impact on permanent residents and foreign nationals, whereas Bill C-18 does not contain any restrictions regarding Canadian citizens.

Therefore, the UCC recommends that the minister should not be allowed to delegate his powers concerning processes dealing with, first, legislative prohibitions to acquire Canadian citizenship, and, second, any form of revocation of such citizenship.

¾ (0820)

[Translation]

Finally, in news release 2002-38, issued on October 31, 2002 to mark the tabling of Bill C-18, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration stated that:

The Minister can consider humanitarian factors before undertaking revocation procedures or at any stage in the process, including during the removal process.

And yet there is nothing in the bill that provides for this type of consideration.

[English]

The UCC recommends that our courts take into account humanitarian and compassionate circumstances in deciding whether to revoke someone's citizenship. The UCC also recommends that the minister should be permitted, under the new citizenship legislation, to consider such humanitarian and compassionate circumstances in all the cases of denaturalization and deportation that are not fully completed.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, citizenship is one of the fundamental tenets of any nation. Throughout our history, Canada has opened its doors to the people of the world who are looking for a tolerant and free society based on democratic principles.

The proposals brought forward by the UCC attempt to strengthen our citizenship legislation, enhance the value of Canadian citizenship, and ensure that the core values of our justice system are utilized to guarantee fairness, transparency, and justice for all Canadians without regard to the manner in which their citizenship was acquired, as envisioned by section 12 of the bill.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

¾ (0825)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Mr. Czolij. I really appreciate the fact that your brief was very clear and very to the point. I think you've done a great job at putting that forward.

Many of my committee members would, I'm sure, be interested in asking questions. With the amount of time we have, approximately an hour, I am looking at a reasonable time for each member. Possibly we can even get around a couple of times.

Diane, would you like to start the questioning?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this brief. It makes points that have been brought to the committee's attention previously, but I have some questions for you. First is with respect to the submission you made on page 12 of your brief, and this is with respect to evidence even if it is inadmissible in a court of law.

I understand from discussions on this point that previous citizenship acts have always had this type of provision, because when it comes to background or security concerns respecting an applicant, sometimes information is provided to the Canadian government confidentially or under an order that it would be used only for certain purposes. This is necessary in order to use confidential international intelligence that is extremely relevant to the security of an applicant but which cannot be revealed.

I wonder if this is a rationale that you are aware of, and what would your response be to that necessity?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: My response is the following. I have not seen language that blunt in the current citizenship legislation. If there is anything that resembles what is stated in subsection 16(6) and paragraph 17(4)(j) with respect to the use of inadmissible evidence in the current legislation, I think this House has the opportunity to improve the legislation and should not use that type of language.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: If the bill used language such as “international intelligence or confidential security information from other governments provided on condition can be taken into account by the judge”, would you have any problems with that?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Excuse me, if the bill would state what exactly?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This is with respect to information concerning the background of an applicant, information provided by other governments as secure intelligence or provided on condition that it not be made generally public because it was obtained through intelligence operations, something to that effect, probably a little bit more succinct, but being specific about the type of information that may be taken into account.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Let's put it this way. If it were much more succinct and much more restricted in scope than something as broad as any evidence that is inadmissible in a court of law, that is something that may be discussed or considered further.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You also mentioned, and we spoke about this before the hearings opened, a proposal on the issue of limiting Canadian citizens' exposure I guess to having their citizenship revoked past the five-year window.

Was that in your brief or did I just miss that?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: That is in my brief on page 9.

¾ (0830)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I'd like to discuss that a bit further then.

Given the mobility of some very dangerous and very abhorrent people in this global society, I have a problem with that recommendation. For example, I mentioned to you the news item this week of a Haitian general who had ordered the slaughter really of thousands of Haitians, who was known for ordering the torture of Haitian citizens, and who is now residing in peace and comfort in Florida.

I think it would be apparent to citizens of any democracy who find that an individual is living peacefully among them, protected by citizenship in their country, who has that kind of record.... If those sorts of facts came out after a five-year window, it seems to me that should not protect the individual from the fullest sanctions, including being tossed out of the country. To have Canadian citizenship conferred on such an individual would certainly be repugnant to any fair-minded Canadian.

You mentioned that such people could still be brought to justice, but I wonder under what Canadian law could an individual like that be sanctioned. The crimes didn't take place here and they didn't contravene our laws in Canada. It just seems to be that five years and your “get out of jail free” card are completely unacceptable. I'd be interested in your response to those concerns.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: It's not a “get out of jail free” card. Let me start by putting it in the right context.

First, when we talk about five years, let's not forget that paragraph 7(b) provides that citizenship is acquired by a permanent resident who has, during the six years immediately before applying for citizenship, resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days, calculated in the manner provided. That individual has already been in Canada for three years. We are suggesting a limitation period of five.

Now contrast that with the fact that the government has been currently using the denaturalization proceedings against 70- and 80-year-old individuals under the guise that they apparently committed war crimes during the Second World War, but it has not been able to show any element of criminality in those proceedings. It is essentially going on and bringing in additional cases where the debate is whether 50 years ago an individual said or did not say certain things, on a balance of probabilities, without the benefit of any documentation. That has been going on in the cases of Vitols, Dueck, Katriuk, Podins, Oberlander, and Odynsky.

I'm saying the government has given itself the tools if it wants to prosecute criminals. There is a Criminal Code. Canada has passed a Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Those are the tools it should use in order to go after individuals who have committed heinous crimes in the past.

The suggestion that there be a limitation period of five years could in no way be similar to a “get out of jail” card in a Monopoly game, but it could protect an individual who, after a certain number of years, should know he is fully a Canadian citizen; no one can challenge that citizenship, and he no longer has to preserve evidence to demonstrate in civil proceedings that he acquired citizenship according to our laws.

¾ (0835)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I guess I'm just concerned about making law for individual cases that you and I would agree have not been dealt with in a way that would satisfy the concerns of natural justice. To make law based on those, that narrow segment of exposure, seems to me to open more problems than it might solve. I would be very concerned about five years. In five years we would have to accept these people in the country, like the Haitian general, just as an example. I'm not talking about people who might have 50 years ago done something in an occupation or war situation that was a matter of survival, as I understand is the situation with some of the people you mentioned. I'm talking about far more serious things than that.

In order to limit the exposure in a small number of cases, it seems to me we're actually limiting the exposure where it ought not to be limited, and I have a continuing concern about that. I fully support your concern in the narrow segment of cases you've mentioned, but I think it shouldn't lead us to give too much consideration and too much aid and comfort to people who are really repugnant as members of our own country and society.

I'm willing to be convinced. I want to be fair and reasonable, but I really have a concern.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Let me ask you this. First, the current legislation treats citizenship proceedings not as we have suggested to treat citizenship proceedings, as quasi-criminal proceedings with a higher standard of proof, namely that of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That I agree with.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: That's not in the current legislation. The current legislation or current bill provides that you can lose citizenship by using the criteria of the balance of probabilities, which is a civil proceeding and a civil standard of proof.

The current legislation treats these proceedings as civil proceedings. I've enumerated several current cases where the government has gone after individuals 50 years after the fact. You agree with me that would violate the principles of natural justice. So I'm asking you--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, not in every case. In these particular cases, given the lack of evidence, yes, I would agree.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: I'm saying that if you prosecute someone in a civil proceeding without having complete documents regarding the admission of a particular individual into a country, without being able to raise any issue of criminality 50 years after the fact, that violates the principles of natural justice.

If you agree with me on that and if you agree with me that Bill C-18 treats revocation of citizenship as a civil matter, then what, according to you, would be a more reasonable period of time? We agree that 50 years is unacceptable. You're saying that five years is too short. Can we agree somewhere in between?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It seems to me that the issue isn't time. The issue is weight of evidence. That's why I agree with you that a balance of probabilities is not acceptable. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt because the sanctions are some of the most severe that our society can provide to a person. Stripping someone of their citizenship is an incredibly serious sanction, but I'm not sure, if evidence exists of a person having engaged in serious crimes against humanity, even 50 years after the fact, why that exposure would be limited. In our law there's no statute of limitations on murder, for example, or other serious crimes.

I think there should be a limitation of exposure only on those kinds of very thin grounds. On a balance of probabilities, you might not have said something at an interview 50 years ago. That kind of thing is, I think, not acceptable. However, if as a general you ordered thousands of people shot and killed for no good reason, I don't think 50 years down the road, or even 75 years down the road, you should be home free for that.

¾ (0840)

Mr. Eugene Czolij: However, let me tell you that if someone has lived in Canada for the last 15 years, then Canada should not dump that problem on somebody else. I'm not suggesting for one second that somebody who committed a heinous crime, because of passage of time, should go unpunished. The UCC position, which has been sent to the government consistently on DND proceedings, always states, and I quote:

The Government of Canada should prosecute Canadian citizens who are seriously suspected of war crimes before Canadian courts of criminal jurisdiction, in accordance with Canadian criminal law and Canadian standards of evidence in criminal proceedings.

I'm not suggesting for one second that somebody who has committed a heinous crime, because of passage of time, should go scot-free. On the contrary, I think if an individual has lived in Canada for 15 or 20 years, Canada should not initiate denaturalization and deportation proceedings and then dump the problem on another country. It should assume the role it had when it promoted its own statute and introduced the crimes against humanity legislation in Canada; it should prosecute such individuals and punish them for having committed a war crime.

There is a distinction. I'm not suggesting that because we are recommending a limitation period in the citizenship legislation that individuals be given, after five years, a “get out of jail” card. On the contrary, I'm saying if Canada has evidence that a Canadian citizen, especially a Canadian citizen who obtained citizenship 15 or 20 years ago...they should be dealt with in accordance with Canadian criminal laws.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It's been a good discussion. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We're out of time. If you want to continue with that we can come back to that later.

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

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

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

That was a very nice presentation. I like the fact that you highlighted the recommendations and then you went ahead and gave us some suggestions.

Just quickly, I want to continue with what Diane was saying. I have a problem as well with the five years. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but does it say it's just war crimes? If somebody obtained their citizenship falsely, it doesn't necessarily mean it's because he was a war criminal. Is that not one of the issues as well?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: We were just talking about the five-year limit that you have a problem with if we decide to take away someone's citizenship. If we find that someone's citizenship has been given to him under false pretences, or we become aware of certain facts that came about prior to him obtaining his citizenship under false pretences, are those conditions only based on war crimes? Isn't it any type of evidence? Even if he committed murder, why does it have to be that he slaughtered millions of people?

If we find these facts 10 years after, he still has his citizenship based on...I don't know if you want to say false pretences, but based on information we didn't have prior. Why do we have to put that five-year limit?

I don't think Canada is the type of country that is going to say, “Listen, we think you're guilty. There's not going to be any judicial process and we're going to take away your citizenship.” I think it's as Diane said. After five years we're just going to give free passes to people to maybe just lay low on the radar screen and after five years they will have got away with it.

¾ (0845)

Mr. Eugene Czolij: I'm suggesting to you that, yes, whether somebody committed a murder or a crime against humanity, he can be punished in Canada for that crime. That's one issue.

I'm suggesting that when you cease recommending there be a statute of limitation of five years in the Citizenship Act, an individual in a civil proceeding should not have to preserve evidence until he dies to be able to demonstrate in a court of law that he acquired citizenship in accordance with the law, especially if the government policy is to destroy documents after a fixed period of time. The debate very often then becomes what an individual said or did not say 20, 30, or 40 years ago.

If we were today debating whether there is a possibility that a country that is democratic, that is governed by the rule of law, such as Canada, would ever use these proceedings against citizens 50 years after the fact, without the cases I've enumerated had naturally occurred, I would have told you I could not fathom or imagine that the government would actually do that.

Unfortunately, notwithstanding that it is incredible, at best, it is happening. It is happening and the government is using denaturalization and deportation proceedings against 70- and 80-year-olds.

The debate is essentially this. In a court of law the government brings a civil servant and asks him, on the balance of probabilities, what did this individual say or not say? What was the policy at the time? Then the court, on the balance of probabilities, after having examined what an individual can recall 50 years after the fact, decides whether the act was violated or whether there was misrepresentation in acquiring citizenship. That is the kind of situation we are living, and this legislation allows you to correct such injustice by providing a limitation period.

Now if you are telling me that five years for you is too short, I'm not necessarily married to five. I am telling you, though, that there has to be a period of time after which a Canadian citizen should know his citizenship will no longer be challenged.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: My only comment is that it's unfortunate that it took 50 years, but if they're guilty, I think it's commendable that we took action against them. It's unfortunate that it took 50 years. That's the way I view it. I'd hate to think that because we placed a 45-year limit we decided not to take action against them. The fact that they're 70 or 80--it's not up to me or us to decide if they're guilty or not.

As Diane says, I'm open to hearing some arguments about that, but I have a problem with putting a time limit on it. I would have to agree.

In some of the other recommendations...it's not a recommendation but a quote, the court “is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence”. When we're looking at reviewing citizenship, do you recommend that we do this through the courts or through some type of judicial informal court? That wasn't too clear.

¾ (0850)

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Let me just correct your first statement when you said that if they were guilty it was commendable that Canada took those actions, because I can't leave that unanswered. Let me bring you into the proper context with respect to the injustice that has been committed.

The Canadian government was asked or pressured to go after individuals who could have committed war crimes during the Second World War. The government spent millions by convening the Deschênes commission, which presented a report.

The government has taken an individual--and the case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Finta case--and four additional individuals to court for war crimes. Notwithstanding the fact that it has spent millions of dollars, the Canadian government has not been able to successfully convict anyone of war crimes during the Second World War--not one individual.

The government keeps stating that Canada should not be a safe haven for World War II criminals. Canada is not a safe haven for World War II criminals. Canada has spent millions of dollars and has never been able to convict anyone of such crimes.

In 1995 the government announced a new strategy by initiating DND proceedings against individuals suspected of war crimes. At the time, conscious of the fact that it would be going after individuals for events that occurred half a century ago, the government stated, and I quote, “The key criterion in all these proceedings”--that is, DND proceedings or denaturalization and deportation proceedings--“is the existence of some evidence of individual criminality. If that cannot be proven, no proceedings will be considered.”

In the case of Vitols, Dueck, and Katriuk, the government admitted, sir, that it had no evidence to support allegations of any war crimes or crimes against humanity, yet it nevertheless prosecuted individuals using the civil standard of a balance of probabilities, without having the necessary immigration-connected documents to debate whether someone, very often using what the former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Sopinka, said, namely “innocent misrepresentations”...and it prosecuted such individuals under the citizenship legislation.

That was an abuse that you have an opportunity to correct in Bill C-18. There's nothing commendable about having used those proceedings against individuals who had not committed any war crimes or that the government was unable to demonstrate that it possessed any evidence to that effect.

As for your other question about which forum should be debating the admissibility of evidence that would not be otherwise admissible in a court of law, I'm not really sure what you're asking me.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: If I'm not mistaken, I think we're saying that it's not going to be a civil court or it's not going to be a judicial court, but it will be like an immigration judge or committee. That's what I thought we were going to recommend, or that's what's in the proposed code. You're saying you don't have to be bound by the same evidence as in a court of law.

¾ (0855)

Mr. Eugene Czolij: No, I'm suggesting that Canadian legislation should not have any such provisions as subsection 16(6), which very broadly states that a court, in this case the Federal Court dealing in a citizenship matter, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. I object to the fact that paragraph 17(4)(j) states that a judge may receive into evidence anything, even if it is inadmissible in a court of law. Those statements are too broad and they introduce a dangerous element of arbitrariness that violates the principles of the rule of law and the supremacy of law.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to apologizing for arriving late. Once in ten years isn't so bad.

I did have an opportunity, though, to read through your submission quickly. One good thing about it is that I can read the text without having to don my glasses. That's quite amazing. As you can well imagine, we've heard much the same thing from many other, highly credible witnesses.

There's something about this whole issue of citizenship revocation that disturbs the average citizen like myself. It's the realization that the rules of law that apply to all persons charged can be disregarded for reasons of national security, with everything this applies. Obviously, we'll take your suggestions into consideration.

On page 15, you mention a news release issued to mark the tabling of the bill. You recall a reference in the release to the minister's prerogative to consider humanitarian factors before undertaking revocation procedures. Nothing in the bill provides for this type of consideration.

I want to thank you for pointing that out because all legislation grants ministers fairly broad powers and this is to citizens' advantage. In this instance, we want to ensure that this is spelled out clearly in the act.

I don't recall other witnesses bringing this to our attention as you have. Therefore, thank you for the suggestion and for coming here today. Since I agree with much of what you have said, I don't really have any questions for you.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Thank you very much.

I wish I could take full credit for this, but unfortunately, I cannot. The National Immigration and Citizenship Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association notes the following on page 13 of its November 2002 submission, and I quote:

[English]

When the Federal Court determines that there has been misrepresentation in obtaining citizenship, the result is that citizenship is revoked. If the misrepresentation was in obtaining permanent resident status, then permanent resident status is lost as well.... The person concerned ceases to be a citizen or a permanent resident, and they are removable from Canada.

In our submission on Bill C-63, we noted the inconsistency between enforcement proceedings against permanent residents for misrepresentation leading to obtaining that status, before obtaining citizenship, and enforcement proceedings for the same misrepresentation taken against the same person after they became a citizen. When enforcement action is taken against a permanent resident for misrepresentation, there is a right of appeal to the IAD and consideration of humanitarian and compassionate considerations, before the removal order becomes enforceable. This is appropriate. But when the same misrepresentation in obtaining permanent resident status is taken against a citizen under the Citizenship Act, there is a complete loss of all status without any review of humanitarian circumstances.

It is illogical that a person whose misrepresentation is found out after years of residence and acquisition of citizenship be in a less favourable position than one whose misrepresentation is discovered during their permanent resident status.

¿ (0900)

[Translation]

We agree with these criteria.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you. Mr. Czolij, in your presentation regarding section 17, in particular the authorization of secret evidence examined by a judge in the absence of the person or counsel, could you comment on the thoughts about an advocate for this person who certainly would be dealing with the secrecy issues and the other issues around it, yet there to protect the rights of someone? Is that an area where an advocate could add to what we're dealing with here?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Are we talking about an advocate who would want to challenge that provision?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Advocates who would do everything they could to make sure there was fair representation without the lawyer-client privilege, regarding the process itself. Many people have challenged the fact, certainly beyond fairness, when neither the lawyer nor the client can deal with something.... If there were an advocate for the lawyer and client in that particular case making certain there was protection there, yet guaranteeing security or confidentiality issues that may be required, would that help in any way?

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Let me begin by saying this. If I were the lawyer representing an individual who was subjected to section 17 proceedings, where secret evidence would be examined by a judge in the absence of my client and myself, and if on top of that I was uncertain whether evidence that was inadmissible in the court of law was or not used because I obviously had no access to such evidence, I certainly would at the very least challenge this process under the charter, namely section 7, which states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I certainly understand that, and there probably will be challenges under the charter. I'm not trying to debate this issue. I'm trying to ask, is there justice if this passes, if this goes forward? Is there a mechanism like an advocate for the accused and the lawyers to make certain the process is not only perceived to be but is in reality more fair and less one-sided? An advocate may help in that case.

That's all I'm asking. What are your thoughts? There have been many witnesses who have come forward and said it's just too wide open and it doesn't leave the guarantee of protection we need. I only throw that out as a thought, that somehow we can't leave the whole question in a vacuum.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Let me answer in this way. I cannot tell you honestly that I know of the best way to deal with that evidence. The reason I have not gone further into verifying what kind of mechanism would best serve, if such a provision were to be introduced, is because the UCC is suggesting that it be struck.

What I can say I found interesting is the proposal by the National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association in their November 2002 submission, on page 19, where they recommend the following two items.

One, a review committee as defined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act should have the mandate to investigate the reasonableness of evidence or information underlying a section 17 certificate, alleging inadmissibility for terrorism, security, or organized crime against a citizen. Provisions equivalent to subsections 39(2) and 39(3) and sections 43, 44, and 48 to 51 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act should apply.

Two, evidence or information found to be reasonable and provided by the review committee would be referred to the Federal Court for consideration under section 17 proceedings, with the additional caveat in their paragraph 2 that the “protection of information” provisions in section 17 should be applicable only to the determination of terrorism, security or organized crime inadmissibility, and they've put in bold, in capitals, “NOT to the initial determination of loss of citizenship for misrepresentation”. I find that proposal interesting.

¿ (0905)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): That really does deal with it in a different way. It puts a group of people in a position to make some determination and recommendation.

I guess I was looking further, saying an actual person who looked at it and then could advocate for the process may have some other. I think one way or another you can't just leave it in a vacuum, and that's just what we're dealing with here.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Mr. Chairman, not only in a vacuum, but certainly not with such broad strokes as we currently see in Bill C-18.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I hear you. I think a lot of folks have mentioned that. That's something we'll have to look at very carefully.

Are there any other questions from committee members?

I want to say thank you very much for coming forward with your presentation. We certainly appreciate it. The information you've brought forward will be examined by the committee very carefully. We will put together our recommendations. In the final strokes we'll be back to the minister. I'm not sure on the timeline of that because we have a fair amount of work to do before we get everything together and have to merge the hearings from western and eastern tours, as well as all the evidence we have in Ottawa. I assume the committee will be working at this for some time still.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Eugene Czolij: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ladies and gentlemen, we have a few minutes before the next witness. If you would like to have a break for 15 minutes, we do have that much time. It's 9:30 when it's supposed to get under way. We'll basically suspend for 15 minutes, if you have telephone calls or other contacts.

Also, as I understand it, there are no votes scheduled in the House tomorrow or the next day, or later today, of which I'm aware.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Can we suspend for five minutes?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): If we have the witnesses. If you would you like to just pick up and go, that's fine. If the witness is here, let us go ahead.

Just take a minute or two, grab a coffee, and we're ready to go.

¿ (0909)

¿ (0915)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call the group back to order.

Monsieur Béliveau, I'm pleased that you could take time to come to the committee to present your views on the national identity card.

I would prefer it if you could at the beginning just give us a capsule of the major concerns you wish to bring forward, rather than read the whole brief, which I think all members can do. Maybe we'll try to keep your presentation within 10 minutes, and then we'll go to some questions.

Mr. Louis Béliveau ( As Individual): I outlined some major points I wanted to raise in particular, so I'll go through those.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chairman, could we just have Mr. Béliveau's background so we know what his perspective is?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): That's a good idea; thank you very much, Diane.

Your presentation says you are appearing as an individual, so we are not really aware of what your background may be. I think it would be a good idea if you just outlined that at the beginning.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Currently I am a law student. I'm an individual. I'm a concerned Canadian. That would probably be a good definition of my background. I have a keen interest in human rights, liberty, and privacy. That's probably about the best background description I can give for this purpose.

[Translation]

I just have a few comments to make.

First of all, I want to say that I'm opposed to this idea. I think those who had a copy of my presentation understand that.

I'm opposed to the idea because personally, I don't like it. Issuing a card and a number to people amounts to treating them like cattle. People become a number and lose their identity as human beings. I just don't like that. I'm not making a legal argument, but merely voicing a personal opinion. I'm just not comfortable with the whole idea.

Everyone does agree, however, on the need to strike a balance between privacy and freedom, on the one hand, and security, on the other hand. The problem is, we can't seem to agree on that balance. Is the present situation acceptable? Should there be less overall surveillance? Should people be required to carry with them at all times a mandatory ID card when they leave home? Should we use in public places personal identification systems linked to a centralized data bank to track people's movements? Where do we draw the line? I think that at some point, everyone begins to feel uncomfortable, like cattle. If we're not careful and set limits, we're going to find ourselves on a slippery slope. At some point, we have to realize that freedom comes with a price. I believe it was Franklin who said

[English]

that those who are willing to give up liberty for security will have neither.

[Translation]

He said something to that effect and it's absolutely true. Personally, I think we should set some limits, in light of the situation.

I have a few other comments I'd like to make.

[English]

The current citizenship card, which is available to all Canadians, is a proof of citizenship that doesn't have a birthplace on it. Typically it's used by new immigrants or Canadian citizens who were born outside Canada as proof of citizenship, because usually a birth certificate is acceptable for people who were born in Canada. That being said, it's available to all Canadian citizens and seems to fulfill all the purposes anyone has suggested for the new identity card on a voluntary basis. Anybody can get it, although it's extremely rare for Canadians who have been born in Canada to obtain one because it has very little use.

We have a tradition of an open society in the Anglo-Saxon model and in the civilian tradition model. I have two comments here. In most countries of an Anglo-Saxon tradition we don't have too many cases of countries that have identity cards--it seems to go together--or military conscription, and there are certain other typical protections that go with common-law regimes.

As to Quebec, we can see that the Quebec Civil Code has a couple of articles that are very, very interesting in this matter.

¿ (0920)

This is from the Quebec Civil Code:

[Translation]

3. Every person is the holder of personality rights, such as the right to life, the right to the inviolability and integrity of his person, and the right to the respect of his name, reputation and privacy.

35. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy.

No one may invade the privacy of a person without the consent of the person or his heirs unless authorized by law.

I would just mention that civil rights are a provincial responsibility, pursuant to the Constitution.

I'd also like to add that no one has an unblemished past. I think we've all done some things in the past that we would rather forget. However, the greater the number of files and regulations, the harder it is to forget. I'm not necessarily talking about old criminal records that should eventually be expunged, but a poor employment record of being fired, records of sexually transmitted diseases that a person once had and would now rather forget about, and so forth. The greater the number of records kept, the harder it is to forget and the past comes back to haunt us. Consider, for example, how press photographers and reporters hound film stars and the impact this has on their lives. One extreme case is Lady Di. It's disturbing in and of itself to be followed and spied on. Anonymity and privacy are elements of personal freedom. While limitations are necessary, they must be reasonable when it comes to personal privacy issues.

I'm also deeply disturbed about one other thing. Of all the pieces of identification routinely used in our society, such as driver's licences, credit cards, health insurance cards, and so forth, none mentions a person's citizenship status, except for the passport which isn't routinely used. And that's a good thing, in my view. New immigrants have the same pieces of identification as other citizens. They do not carry a card indicating their immigrant or citizenship status. Of course, they have their Maple Leaf Card, or immigrant card, and I'm not so sure I like that either, but let's not go there right now. If it comes to a point where people either have a citizenship card, or an immigrant card, and they're routinely asked to show the card in their possession, it will be possible to distinguish immediately between immigrants and citizens. As I see it, this could lead to discrimination in housing, jobs and other areas. I think it's a very bad idea and I think the first step would be to back away from the idea of a mandatory identification or citizenship card.

[English]

In my opinion, the best protection for private data, and it is connected to this, is not to collect it in the first place unless it's absolutely necessary. Once it's collected, abuses seem to come, sooner or later. I'm thinking, for example--and this is an American example, but I think it's a very good one--of the census data that was used to intern Japanese Americans. Census data was apparently confidential, but when the need became one of finding out who they were, census data wasn't confidential any more.

¿ (0925)

[Translation]

I for one am concerned about my hospital and medical records. We all have things we'd rather forget about, things we should be able to forget about. That's why there is such a thing as a judicial pardon. Once a person has been pardoned, there's no need to admit to a past criminal record. It's history, done with, forgotten.

[English]

One of the other things that bothers me a lot is the biometric identifier issue. I have noticed that in the last couple of days the Commission d'accès à l'information here in Quebec has also come out against it, saying it would violate Quebec laws, but I'm sure somebody else brought up that issue.

I don't like the idea of collecting fingerprints. I just don't like it. You pick up a glass and you leave your fingerprints on it. You have a national fingerprint database from the ID card or for whatever else. At any crime scene, anybody starts looking for all fingerprints, and everybody who was there for any reason, legitimate or otherwise, starts getting interviewed and starts ending up on lists of suspects: “You were on three crime scenes already. What kind of a coincidence is this?”

It starts to reek of a police state the more we go down that road. I'm not saying that's the proposal today, but that's sort of the next step down the line. I always worry about the next step because it seems that the next step always comes.

I have just one more general comment. It seems to me that by overreacting to September 11...and I'm not saying we shouldn't react. I notice that we've increased security around airports, for example, in searching baggage and being more careful. That sounds like a good idea. But as for overreacting and starting to track everybody as if they're by default suspect and becoming a very paranoid society, in a way it destroys the liberty and the freedom we're trying to protect. It does so much more effectively than any terrorist act could. In a way it almost seems like the events of September 11 had the desired effect, but indirectly, in that they're causing society to self-destruct.

I've noticed this a lot more in the United States. Canadians are typically more reasonable. We haven't gone off the deep end as they have in the U.S., but that being said, I think we should see it as a warning and an example not to follow.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

[English]

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

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, I have questions. The story of my life is to have questions--and maybe some answers.

I do appreciate this presentation. You actually have raised points that I don't believe have been raised by other witnesses. That's extremely helpful for us. I congratulate you.

I want to make a comment about your fifth point: “Nobody has a perfect past.” For example, on a talk show last week I heard this, and we hear it all the time from a lot of Canadians as members of the committee, “I've got nothing to hide and I'm quite happy to have a national ID card with biometrics on it.” The point I make is the same point you made. We all have things in our past that we wouldn't want published among our friends and neighbours, things that we'd like to keep private. If they were published, hopefully we would simply be very embarrassed and chagrined rather than having our reputations completely and utterly destroyed.

We all have things that we wish had never happened, choices we've made that we wish we hadn't made, and difficulties in our relationships that we've worked on and we've gotten past. We wouldn't like to hash those over again. As you mentioned, there are medical problems. Some people may have sought psychiatric counselling or therapy for personal emotional problems. The list is endless. The point is, and I agree with you, that part of the human condition is dealing with difficulties, mistakes, and poor choices in our lives and moving on.

You mentioned movie stars being very vulnerable to this kind of combing through every detail of their past. Politicians, of course, are also very vulnerable to this. I know--and I'm sure my colleagues do as well--people who would be excellent members of Parliament but who will not run for public office because there is some mistake they've made, even an inadvertent mistake, an accident where they killed somebody or injured somebody, or there are things that just happened. No drugs or alcohol were involved, but it's just something that they feel is a blemish on their past so it keeps them from making a full contribution to public life. I think this is an extremely important point.

However, in opposition to those concerns, I have heard the argument raised, and I think it's a valid one, that this kind of detailed information gathering and possible exposure of those kinds of details of life is not the purpose of this exercise. It's simply to bring new technological possibilities to bear on making the use of our identity safer and more convenient, and Canada is not the kind of place where we need to worry about these kinds of excesses or abusive use of information.

I'd just like to have your response to that argument: that we could be too alarmist about the use of these new technologies and that we really don't need to worry in a country like Canada about them being abused in the ways you have suggested in your presentation.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I understand the proposal isn't directly related to intruding into people's privacy, digging through their medical records and all those kinds of things, but it indirectly makes it easier. Once everybody has one standard piece of ID, with a very easily trackable record of themselves, it becomes easier and easier to put together various databases.

Even if it's not necessarily done, the feeling that it might be done can actually be a problem. I always pick on the example of sexually transmitted diseases in this case. It's often something you don't want people to know about. You would want to see the doctor, I assume--I don't know, I've never had this problem--but you'd want to go see the doctor and be sure it never goes beyond that. You'd want to give a false name and pay cash and forget about medicare in that case, for example. There are many legitimate cases where people want to do that, and a national ID makes it harder for them.

And about the need to worry--well, I guess we do have the need to worry, and this worrying is part of the reason we're here today having these hearings. We do worry. We've seen more and more data matching experiments ongoing. I remember that about two years ago an HRDC database was dismantled and there was a bit of a scandal over that.

I think the Quebec government has been engaging in quite a bit of data matching--that isn't nationally relevant, but I think it's a good example, nonetheless--between Revenue Quebec, medicare, and driver's licences. There are some implications in that that are disturbing sometimes.

The general feeling is that we do have less privacy than we used to and that more of our actions can be tracked. Whether they are or not I think in a way isn't as much of a problem as whether people feel they are or not. It's self-censorship that's often the biggest issue here.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I don't know if you read the Montreal Gazette editorial on Monday.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Unfortunately not.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I can't imagine you not doing that regularly every morning, but I recommend that you read the analysis and the various commentaries on this. The part that struck me was the suggestion that bureaucrats at all levels would soon start to roll this into one omnibus card so that you could use it instead of a driver's licence, medical cards, citizenship cards, and all those things.

Some people say that's really being alarmist, that this card would be an identity card and nothing more. You'd still have the separate cards rather than having information that would normally be tied to your driving record, your medical record or whatever, rolled into one card.

How do you think the identity card would be used if it were not used in addition to a driver's licence, a medical card, a birth certificate, or a passport? What would be the purpose of the card? Have you thought about whether there would be a legitimate use for such an identity card with biometrics in addition to the cards we already hold, or would you see it being used more and more as the one catch-all identity card?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I suspect it would become the one catch-all identity, the thing people would insist on seeing all the time, the thing you couldn't really manage to function without, in a similar way that a driver's licence has become like that a little bit, with the exception that not everybody drives, so it becomes impossible to insist on seeing a person's driver's licence.

The minute everyone had a card, which would be pretty much mandatory or expected or whatever, then the expectation becomes that you always have it. Whether it's the law or not, the expectation becomes that you always have it and that it's weird not to have it. You don't even have to think only of the police-related incidents, like the jaywalking ticket, but in general life it's expected that you have it. People generally expect that you have some form of ID even as it is now, and that sort of happened de facto. However, this would make it worse. This would become a bit more of a bureaucracy-happy society. I don't think there's really any use for it. I think sector-specific cards are entirely appropriate. Passports are a generally recognized travel document. I don't really see why we need anything else.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Wouldn't you think biometrics would make a document more secure, safer, and less open to theft and abuse?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Perhaps, although we'd probably have abuse of different kinds. For example, there's always the question of what biometrics would be used. I think I've gone into why fingerprints are a particularly bad idea, plus the fact that I just don't like the idea of being fingerprinted. I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way. We just don't like it. I don't want my fingerprints in some database somewhere.

Signature recognition is a biometric that's relatively not that intrusive, as far as these things go.

Iris scans can't really be picked up remotely, so it's relatively non-intrusive, but at the same time there's something I don't like about it.

Would that additional security, which may or may not be that great, really be worth it for the few cases of fraud that might get caught that way? There's a certain level that you just end up living with in a society. You end up living with the fact that you get your bike stolen if you don't lock it. Do you always put on a huge lock? No, you kind of take that risk a little bit. I'm not saying we should just ignore the problem, but we can also go too far the other way. I think biometrics is going too far.

Even having digital images starts to become problematic, with face recognition technology being out there. It's actually becoming possible, although it doesn't work that well yet, but it's becoming technologically possible to have a camera looking at faces in a public place and comparing it against a database of known images. Figure probably five or ten years of technological development and we could have cameras in public places comparing people going by with the faces in the national ID database and keeping a record of it fairly easily. I don't like that. I suspect other people don't like it either.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I was at a taping of the Royal Canadian Air Farce, I think it was, Mr. Chairman, and I remember the MC saying “If you're here with somebody you don't want to be seen with, just be warned that the camera is going to pan the audience now. You might want to look the other way.” Everyone laughed, but there are times when we would like to keep our movements from general scrutiny. It's interesting.

I appreciate this discussion, and I'm sure others have questions as well.

¿ (0940)

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

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

A nice presentation. You actually do bring some additional points. From when we spoke to the minister--I'm going to repeat what I said yesterday--he's open to any suggestions we're going to hear, so I'm hoping he does have an open mind.

I guess your feeling is that there's no need for an ID card. My feeling is that I'm for it, but I'm not really sure what I'm for. I'm only for it if I get to get rid of my wallet and I get to replace all my cards. My personal feeling is that I use this gadget; I got rid of my agenda and I'm trying to get rid of my phone. So that's the same idea with the ID card.

I'm surrounded. You just said it yourself. There are video cameras and Interac cards. I can see you have an e-mail address, so I'm assuming you have access to the Internet.

Don't we already have that in place? Don't we have all these mechanisms already in place, these intrusive...?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: To an unfortunate extent, yes, too much. That's not a reason for having more. That's a whole separate discussion, but I think we should control more and more how much intrusion we have. There have been some good developments: the recent privacy legislation at the federal level, which largely duplicates what we have at the provincial level here, trying to get a bit of a handle on private data collection, credit bureaus going wild and so on.

We do have a problem. We have too much of a problem. This is just one step to making the problem worse.

As far as emptying out your wallet, I don't think it's really going to happen. I just think it will be an additional piece in your wallet. That's the way these things usually tend to happen; you'll end up with an additional card in your wallet.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Well, I'm hoping it's not going to be like that. I'm hoping we can have different uses for it.

Can you really stop somebody from accumulating the data, the fact that you visited their Internet site, that you've taken money out of their Interac machine, that you've gone to a certain establishment? I agree with your point on fingerprints and the fact that you can be traced at every place you've been. It's a very good point. My personal feeling, of course, is that this is the next step. I think we should work toward finding a solution to prevent that.

My personal feeling or my intuition is that all this data will be accumulated in a place that will be supervised by individuals who have access to this information. I agree, we will always have either public servants or a private company that will have access to this information, but we have that today in all other aspects.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: That's an argument in favour of trying to control the current problems more and trying to avoid new ones, such as whatever we would get from a national ID.

We do have too much data accumulation. There's a bit of a difference, I think at least conceptually, between private data collection and public authorities collecting data. If the bank keeps records of where you withdrew money, that's one thing. I'm not sure public authorities should be doing that. That becomes a bit equivalent to having a cop on every street corner taking notes all the time on everybody who comes by.

I like the idea that there has to be a bit of a resource threshold to how much people can be watched. If you're going to have somebody followed...it costs money to have somebody following you around. The fact that it costs money means it will only be done if there's a legitimate need for it or at least a serious need for it.

When the cost barrier isn't there any more, it can become pretty much the norm. It's like, yes, let's just put up another camera because the marginal and incremental cost of it is very small.

That's why we actually need to have legislation to restrict such things, largely due to technological change, I think. The possibilities for tracking people are just greater than they were. That's why we have privacy legislation. That's why the privacy commissioner is being engaged in efforts to try to stop cameras in Victoria, I think, or somewhere in British Columbia any way.

I agree with you, but I don't come to the same conclusion. I come to the conclusion that we need to be more careful, and starting from there.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: That is a different point of view, but I think we will need to come to some kind of a compromise as to where we want the future to go.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

Good day, Mr. Béliveau. It appears many parliamentarians received and read the letter accompanying the summary of your presentation.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Yes, I believe I sent that letter to everyone.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Apparently some even responded to it.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Apparently so.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Did you write to Mr. Coderre and did he respond to your letter?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I received a note from his office.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: However, I didn't receive a note from him personally.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: However, that's not bad for the minister. Had you told me that he had not acknowledged your letter, I would not have been pleased.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Unfortunately, I can't say that he did. The acknowledgement came from his office.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I understand.

I have a number of comments I'd like to make. Not long ago, I read that in so far as the use of cameras is concerned, Britain, or London, leads the way. Interestingly enough, while they may not have ID cards, they are still quite good at controlling people in a certain way.

When we consider the actions of the paparazzi and the impact on the Royal Family, we can't help but reflect upon the circus atmosphere that prevails in England. It sells newspapers and the Brits buy them up. I've nothing against the British, except that quite often, they adopt the moral high ground by expressing their opposition to the ID card. I can understand that.

The French are not the hardest on or the most demanding of their politicians. That honour goes to the American people. I won't give you my take on the Clinton episode, but the fact is that most people were only too pleased to see what happened.

There's been some interest in the debate initiated by Mr. Coderre further to the events of September 11. Clearly, the majority of people find the context rather troubling. Tell me if you agree with me, but the good thing about this debate is that it will raise people's awareness of the fact that privacy is slowly being eroded. I'm not certain that we recognize this fact as a society. The considerable advantage to having a debate on the subject of an identity card is that it will heighten people's awareness of the times in which we live, of this increasingly technological era.

Occasionally, I receive a phone call from VISA or some other company informing me that they have reviewed my transactions and are willing to increase my credit limit to $15,000, $25,000 or whatever. Clearly, they've been looking at my spending patterns and making the connection.

Yesterday, a person who purchases books over the Internet told me how one day, she logged on to a site, only to receive the following message: “Good morning, Ms X, we're delighted that you logged on to our site. We have several selections that we think might be of interest to you”. All of the proposed selections were in fields of particular interest to her.

When I used to shop at Henri Tranquille - you're too young to be familiar with that particular business--Henri Tranquille was happy to see me and because he knew me, he would show me books that he thought I might enjoy. It's not the same as a computer screen. We're being treated less and less as human beings and that's something we need to be aware of. Can we turn back the clock? No, unless we go back to the Stone Age.

Do you not think it's time for us to debate the matter and come to an enlightened decision as a society?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I've taken some notes and I would like to share a few thoughts with you.

Unfortunately, the British are also embroiled in a debate over a prospective ID card. Cameras don't seem to have helped much. Apparently they were used in response to the terrorist attacks. Several years ago, the British were wild about photographing people and the situation became quite disturbing, particularly as there were few laws in place to prevent abuses. Some private entrepreneurs have even taken to selling photographs of people out of their apartments. It's crazy.

In Quebec and in France, where civil law prevails, individual privacy is more highly regarded and protected. For instance, violating professional privilege in France is a criminal offence.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's also a crime to write an NSF cheque.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Yes, but that's perhaps a little extreme. All I'm trying to say is that in Quebec, persons enjoy certain civil law safeguards and that's a good thing. I'm not just talking about lawyers and doctors, as in the case in some provinces, but about psychologists, engineers and so forth. Members of these professions are held to standards governing the privacy of the companies and individuals with whom they transact.

A slightly different tradition applies. We are better equipped to fight the paparazzi and intrusions into the lives of politicians. As politicians, you must often run into situations where to avoid being bothered in a store or elsewhere, you use a pseudonym.

When reviewing my work history, I neglected to mention that I was employed as a computer systems administrator for three years. I saw first hand how computer data could be used and that's when I started to get scared. In total we had 3,000 or 4,000 e-mail accounts. Some incidents led us to the realization that dealings were not very private. When an e-mail message is sent, the worst we can expect is to have its contents splashed over the front pages of tomorrow's newspaper. Information flows freely, whether by accident or legitimately, or simply because of the actions of computer hackers. I have to admit that some individuals responsible for these computer systems are tempted at times to snoop. That was a problem at the university where I worked. I witnessed such things first hand. It's human nature. That's more or less what happened in the case of Michel C. Auger. An official with the Société de l'assurance automobile gave out his address to someone with ties to a biker gang which later shot Mr. Auger. When people have access to information, there's no doubt that there will be instances of abuse.

Computer technology also makes it possible to do more and more things. Sometimes, I even scared myself when attempting to link up student registrations with lab accounts. Or when I automatically deleted their accounts when they no longer attended classes. These are operations that I would perform myself. Sometimes, I would deliberately stop myself from doing this because I felt there were limits. There were many things we opted not to do for the sake of people's privacy, so they wouldn't feel like they were being watched.

I totally agree with you that this debate is about privacy and the right to anonymity. That's good, but I'll never be in favour of an ID card, regardless of the outcome of this debate. As I see it, this is a good opportunity to highlight the extent of the problem in today's society. I'm thinking here about credit checks. These are worse than any government inquiry. Credit bureaus know a great deal about people, such as their current and former addresses, their spending habits, whether they pay with a credit card, their travel destinations, etc. Credit checks provide a wide range of information. It's a problem, but we do have the necessary legislation in place to control this phenomenon.

Generally speaking, I think people are unaware of the extent of the problem. I fully agree with you.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The next few months will be hectic.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Yes, it's important to get that message across to people.

I've observed that there are many laws on the books in Quebec to govern activities in the private sector, but perhaps too few to control public sector, that is government, operations. The government has realized that this could pose more of a problem than elsewhere in Canada, even if the other provinces are making up ground. Nevertheless, the situation is somewhat disturbing.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine, thank you.

Monsieur Béliveau, I appreciate you coming forward. You referred to a lot of lists that exist today. You talked about credit card lists and consumer rating lists. When people make applications for credit cards, whether it's a banking institution or somewhere else, or with a corporation from which they buy goods, they agree to share the list or have their credit rating checked. All those lists exist in our society.

You apply for health services, which is the right of Canadians. If you are a resident in this province or Ontario, you have some means by which you receive health care and you have some identifier that says you're entitled to health care. That list exists here in the province the same as lists exist in Ontario or every other province in this country. It is the same thing with drivers' licences.

For most functions where you draw upon some type of service, those lists presently exist. That's not debatable, is it?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: No, there definitely are a lot of lists, I totally agree with you. Whether, for example, we should have computerized medical records, I don't necessarily think it's a good idea. There's something good about the fact of a doctor's office.... That's a whole other debate whether these things should be expanded, but they're definitely there, yes; I don't think there's much doubt.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): When I think about computerized health care lists, I think of a means by which we can efficiently record uses and make sure that payments to doctors are made, that payments to the system are made, and that people who are receiving the service are the people required to receive the service. All of those things are part of the lists, I guess.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: We need that to some extent. I'm just getting back to the example that there's some sicknesses you might not want showing up in a health file accessible to all your doctors or whomever else has access. We need a list for people entitled to get health care. That seems self-evident.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): There are some lists of which you'd rather not be part. There are criminal lists out there, there are folks on them, and they would prefer they weren't part of those lists. That makes sense to me. I think it makes sense to every person.

I guess there are lists that exist, and I don't know that a national identity card would change the fact that there are a set of lists in this society. However, I believe what I'm hearing from you is that you have a major concern that all information would be integrated into one list that could be shared by a lot of people. Is that what I'm hearing?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: That's certainly one of my concerns. We've seen that happening to some extent and it's quite disturbing.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Where have we seen that happen?

À (1000)

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I can give just one example. Why do some provinces want a social insurance number for people applying for a health care card? That's a question you ask yourself, what happens with that--this province being one them actually. Some don't; it depends on the province.

We see a certain integration of lists. Here are some further examples. There was an aborted attempt a couple of years ago to use entrance records to the country from I guess what was then Customs, to match them up with UI recipients to see if any of them were out of the country. They're not necessarily the things you would expect to be happening. That one was ruled illegal, but we've seen more and more attempts to merge lists like this.

To some extent, the federal-provincial divisions have prevented it from happening to as much of an extent as has happened in some other countries, but that's not a reason to encourage it to happen. I think a national ID card would in a way encourage it to happen more and more.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): You're speculating on that, but do you have any evidence? Has anybody in an official capacity...?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: There is a link, for example, between drivers' licences in Quebec and health care cards.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): No. You said that a national identity card will merge these lists.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: No, I'm not saying it will. I'm saying it has a very big possibility of leading to the fact that all these lists will become interlinked much more easily.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Has anyone officially, in any capacity, said that? Or are we at a stage at this point in time where a minister has said, let's have a national debate on a national identity card, and has not laid out parameters? There are a lot of assumptions, I guess. I'll put it that way.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: That's correct--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): There are a lot of assumptions that are taken as to what the card will be or will not be. I think you've very clearly made your case that in your view you do not wish to see a card that would be all encompassing and would take into account all the lists we have. I hear that loud and clear, and I've heard that from other groups as well, but I guess at this point I have to ask why on earth any responsible person would suggest that we have an identity card...it seems to me that with the right of Canadian citizenship and things that we delve in as Canadians, there is a tremendous number of services that are paid for by the private-public sector out there. It's not my money. It's not the minister's money. It's not the money of members of Parliament. It's the Canadian public's money.

When we talk about health care delivery, we're always under the gun to spend more money. Just yesterday there seemed to be a few dollars that were put on the table for health care, for the escalating costs for health care, drug care, and all of those kinds of things. Then there are the stories I hear: that we don't necessarily have the best means to identify whether a person is entitled to that service or not.

Now, I don't care at all whether there is a list linked to a car. That doesn't matter to me. We could have a national identity card and it could say you're citizen number whatever, the same as a SIN card, the same as a passport. You have identity, you're a Canadian citizen, and you're linked to that list and that list only. But wouldn't that list be really good at proving who you are, at proving that you are a Canadian citizen and that you, as a Canadian citizen, are entitled to all those benefits the public pays for?

À (1005)

Mr. Louis Béliveau: You see, I worry that it will expand and expand. That is an assumption, but it is probably an accurate one: that with time the use of these various lists will be merged, and if not as an actual merge, by the fact that, for example, there's a number on this card and it will start to be used as an identity number more and more. You start to see links that are doable between various services, which is not necessarily something that's desirable. I can try to think of some examples in some ways, to see what we don't want to see happening. We can look south of the border, where they've engaged in some fairly disturbing things recently. They've been picking up driver's licence photographs in digital format and storing them, in some cases, it seems, with a view to making them accessible throughout the U.S.

Things like that could happen with a national identity card as well. Do we really want our photograph to be accessible to whoever has access to this database?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Could I ask you, on that example you just gave, are you relating two separate types of things? Anybody who wanted to do what you just said can do it whether or not a national identity card exists. I don't see how it relates. Apples and oranges don't mix there.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I see what you're saying. You're right. It's a little bit hard to come up with a perfect example on the spot. That's part of the reason.

I do see what you mean. There could be a use for such a thing, but I don't think it's necessarily better than any of the documents we have available right now as a proof of citizenship, whether it be a birth certificate, a citizenship card, a passport, or whatever. We have that already. I think it really brings nothing additional that's very useful, and perhaps it even brings in the potential for fraud in obtaining this card. While everybody is rushing to get them, there might be some people who have forged primary documents or something and who get the card but shouldn't.

It's probably better to rely on the primary documents every time we need conclusive proof. It's probably better to ask for the actual birth certificate if somebody is claiming entitlement to something based on citizenship, rather than asking for a passport, which is derived from a birth certificate, for example, or for a national identity card, which would probably also be derived from a birth certificate. We do have these documents. I don't think another one really helps that much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I have a birth certificate and I carry it in my wallet. Quite frankly, because of the way it's been tattered, I was born a couple of years ago. It's in bad shape. They stopped issuing my form of birth certificates probably before you were born.

Anyway, a birth certificate can be copied. I think we've had people come forward in this committee who've said that we can copy anything, that we can copy whatever. I believe that to be true. I believe that people eventually will be able to copy anything.

However, what this committee has also been told, and I would accept this testimony, is that there are means by which we could develop cards that use algorithms, fingerprints, the digital algorithms, to use as personal identifiers. Whether it's iris scan or fingerprints or using a digital representation of something, mathematical formulas could be put in place. The types of security that could go with it, the inks and the types of three-dimensional things they build in, the kinds of photos where...just this morning, a gentleman mentioned to me that they could place a photo front and back exactly in place. They could have slots in the card where it couldn't be...they can put all kinds of security measures into that card. I'm sure that over a long period of time, someone might be able to break that code.

We heard witnesses the day before yesterday who, with examples, showed us these cards and said that according to the experts in the field, the best hackers in the system, those who really have an interest in winning, the likelihood of breaking it within 20 years is rather minute, and they can always upgrade and work on technology.

My concern, and I think it's the concern of a lot of people, is to identify that Louis R. Béliveau is who Louis R. Béliveau says he is. A card, a simple machine, however they take the biometric or do the scan...and there may be other means, but however they do that, they can snap, you're there, and they can use the card and the symbol. They can pick you up and say, “Yes, you are who you say you are.”

Now we all know that this in itself is a tremendous security for a lot of our systems that we're paying huge dollars for. I'm not saying the records are attached to it. Don't get me wrong. That's an assumption a lot of people have picked up on. They've said, “Well, I don't want Joe Smith and John over here and Bill over there knowing anything about the records that are attached to me.” I don't view the records that are attached to that card. I believe those records do exist. That's a question that is somewhat part of our society.

There are huge records of all the things we do, the programs we belong to, and the things we need to have to function. If I didn't have a record at one of the banks or financial institutions I deal with, I might have been desperate a few days ago when I ran out of money. But I can go to the corner and pick up that money because I'm on a list. I may object to being on that list, but I'm rather happy to be on that list when I run out of money standing in Quebec City and I don't have enough money for supper. I'm really happy. Or I could pop in and buy a pair of shoes when I don't have the money, but I have voluntarily come onto that list too. I'm trying to separate, as you can see.

À (1010)

For the national identity card, my view of the function is you identify without question who that person is. I believe it's far different from what we're talking about with a birth certificate. I believe the technologies today can be a lot more safe than the technologies we had even five years ago. I believe the demonstrations, if you've seen them, have some rather unique ways and purposes in that.

Do you object to having for sure, guaranteed identification, or is it the other argument, that you object to a whole bunch of lists being put together to take potential information where other people can share it? By the way, you did mention a statement about government. We do have a Privacy Act, and even one department can't share information with another department in the federal government. We have rules that separate those groups, and it can't be done.

Anyway, I'm trying to focus on what your concern on the objection is.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I actually object to both. I object to the card in good measure because I'm afraid it can lead to list sharing and matching and so on, but I actually object to having the card as such.

À (1015)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Why?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I guess deep down it's for the same reasons we all do or don't object to things. I just don't like it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): You don't like it?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I don't like the idea of having an identity card. That's my personal feeling.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I was looking at the basic things about saying, “I don't like it because”.

Mr. Louis Béliveau: It's the gut reaction. I don't like it. We all seem to make decisions on the basis of gut reactions that we then try to justify by coming up with good arguments. The gut reaction is, I just don't like it.

If I can put in a comment about document security, what you're probably thinking of is one of these public key type encryption signature verification things, which can be made to verify that a card legitimately is a card because it encodes a number or a feature in such a way that is a one-way encryption and can be verified but not reverse-engineered. Those are probably fairly good security features, although they probably will eventually get broken like most of these things do. Fake holograms are now fairly widely available.

The amazing thing is that paper documents with watermarks and micro-print made from metal plates are actually still one of the most secure things out there. If you look at bank bills, for example, I know there are a lot of fake ones going around. I've never actually seen fake bills, but from what I understand they are not very good because the copying methods don't copy the micro, micro, micro-print. On close examination, paper documents are actually quite secure.

I don't know where you were born, so that birth certificate may be of varying quality, but if it has micro-print and a watermark, which was fairly common even 20, 30, 50 years ago, it's probably quite hard to forge correctly. It may not be that hard to pass off a forgery. On the other hand, it may not be that hard to pass off a fairly good forgery of a national identity card either.

When you look carefully at a paper document that has a lot of security features in it, you should be able to tell whether it's a fake.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Just one quick last question. Each of us sitting in the room here has 100,000 or so people that we represent. They come to my office every day and they come to these same folks' offices every day and say they hear a lot of stories about fraud in different systems.

I feel somewhat responsible to do what I can in order to minimize the fraud, which will help public taxpayers have the best service at the best rate they can. I have heard stories of very large amounts of, I guess, fraud in some systems. Whether that's accurate or inaccurate, it comes to pretty significant numbers, I believe, in this province alone.

From your view, are we as elected people responsible to do what we can to minimize the illegitimate use of services, and if we turn this down, are we stepping back from some of our responsibility in minimizing fraud within a system? If this has any benefit, and I'm not saying it will or won't, are we responsible to examine these issues, as the minister has put on the table, to make sure we are at least debating the main issue of security in this country on costs of services?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: It's certainly a big issue, and I think historically there have been years where there was quite a bit of fraud, although I get the feeling it's under control quite a bit recently. Of course, I think you have a responsibility to do that, but not at any cost.

It's a fact of life that we will have some fraud. It's not necessarily worth taking every measure possible to avoid every fraud. There's a cost-benefit analysis, and it's not just in terms of dollars; it's also in terms of freedom. This is probably not something anybody would actually dare say in Parliament, but we may come to the conclusion that having .5% fraud on whatever it be, welfare benefits, medicare, something or other, is worth the cost of not being overly intrusive and is worth the cost of operating the system. In some cases, preventing the fraud may be more expensive than the fraud. I'm not saying I'm in favour of fraud or anything.

What I would suggest is that people who are caught fraudulently abusing systems maybe should have some more interesting jail terms. That doesn't really seem to happen that much currently. Generally, it seems you can get away with these kinds of things. You won't really have very serious problems.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Do any other members have further questions?

Mr. Louis Béliveau: I would suggest that fraud be dealt with more through the criminal justice system rather than by assuming that everybody is potentially suspect. If the penalty for these kinds of frauds is high enough, the temptation to engage in it will be fairly low, while not inconveniencing or intruding into the lives of other people. My suggestion would be that we go specifically after the people who are perpetrating the frauds.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Mr. Béliveau, I am really pleased that you were able to come and be a witness for us. It gives us a clear view of your thoughts. We appreciate all Canadians who take the time and energy to put together a brief and come before us and present that material. Thank you very much. The information you brought forward will certainly be within our areas of study, and we'll take the thoughts you brought forward in mind as we look further into that question of a national identity card.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Béliveau: Thank you and have a pleasant day.

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