Debates of Feb. 13th, 2003

Supply

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the very relevant points that the member for Louis-Hébert made, many of which I can understand are legitimate aspects to the larger debate, I would ask her if she feels that the introduction of such a card warrants the overall costs.

In 2000, HRDC dealt with the idea of bringing in a national identity card. It was rejected by cabinet for two reasons: one was the privacy issue and the other was the projected cost of $3.6 billion.

With the merits that she put forward in her speech, does the member think this is so necessary and so critical for the country that we should spend an estimated $3.6 billion on a pig in a poke? We do not even know if it would achieve what it sets out to achieve.

[Hélène Scherrer, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In my speech, I talked about economic factors that have to be taken into consideration both in terms of the cost of such a card and in terms of the current costs related to the fraudulent use or falsification of various identity documents.

This debate will give us the opportunity to consider both the cost of producing such a card and the costs currently incurred because of the false documents that are in circulation and that are used to gain access to government programs. This is very costly for the economy, for consumers and for businesses.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when looking at the systems that were put in place by the federal government, we can remember that, last year, the government had a program to help with the cost of heating fuel. Cheques were sent to people who were dead or in jail. Does the member trust the government to implement yet another system over which Canadians will have no control?

[Hélène Scherrer, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must trust most Canadians not to try to defraud the system. There will always be people who will try to cheat, but let us trust Canadians. They will certainly be honest in using the system.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this opposition day. I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

First I wish to congratulate my colleagues from the party to the left—figuratively to the left, always to the left—the NDP, for the motion they introduced before us. That said, I will take the time to read it before discussing this issue:

That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of a national identity card offends the principle of privacy and other civil rights of Canadians and this House therefore opposes its introduction.

It is important, in my view, to debate this before the government implements this type of tool to identify the public. First, let us remember that on November 13, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration launched this idea of creating a national ID card.

Some citizens already have this card, landed immigrants or permanent residents for instance. Nevertheless, what the government wants to do with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's idea is to expand this measure, this identification tool, and to create a card. It will probably be an electronic card; that is what the government is saying. It is a smart card—a memory card—that would contain certain information about citizens.

Take fingerprints for example. This card would contain a person's fingerprints. Questions come to mind.

What are the government's true intentions with this measure? The government says that naturally it is to facilitate travel to the U.S., to make it so that Canadians will not have to have a visa to travel outside the country, especially to the United States.

We need to think about this. The government's idea raises some questions.

First, how should we define identity? Second, with respect to this national identity card, who is it for? Third, how important is it?

Let us recall a number of things, if this card is to exist. Let us not lose sight of the current system in which we are living. We, in this modern society, are not living in a police state. On the contrary, we live in a constitutional state, in a society that abides by the rule of law, which recognizes the right to anonymity, more specifically the right to privacy. This is recognized in societies that respect the rule of law, in societies such as ours.

Therefore, there is a real danger—I will quote the privacy commissioner in a moment—that we could shift from a constitutional state to a police state. I am sure that this is not the intention of the government, because we must protect the privacy of citizens.

I remind members that on November 1, 2002, the privacy commissioner said that in Canada, it has been well established that, and I quote:

—individuals do not have to identify themselves to police unless they are being arrested or unless they are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving.

He added, and this is exactly what I was referring to earlier in my comments:

The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right.

Under the rule of law, protecting this privacy is fundamental. As far as I am concerned, it is clear that this type of national identity card could lead to a significant shift from a constitutional state to a police state, something that worries me as a citizen.

We all remember the HRDC megafile fiasco, where information on the public was gathered, to the great consternation of Quebeckers and Canadians. There was very strong pressure to abolish this centralized file. It is important to remember that the public mobilized on this issue specifically to put a stop to a centralized file, to put an end to a Big Brother state in a supposed democracy. So Quebeckers and Canadians thought that this centralized file violated their privacy.

The second important aspect relates to costs. In my opinion, the implementation costs of this kind of tool, that the state wants to use as a means of control and of centralizing information on its citizens, should be considered.

We must remember the past errors of this government. Think of the firearms registry, a program that should have cost only $2 million according to the government's estimates. But the costs spiralled upward. Instead of the estimated $2 million, this kind of program cost Canadian taxpayers over a billion dollars. This was a single-purpose program.

One may well be concerned about the cost estimate the government over there is going to give for a national identity card.

There is another aspect as well: the cost of identity fraud. It is wrong to say that this card cannot be counterfeited. We know the estimated annual cost to consumers, banks and credit card companies of card fraud is estimated by the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus at $2.5 billion.

We feel that there will be costs, not only the cost of implementing this program, this measure, but also the cost related to fraud. I think therefore that it is important to have a clear estimate of those costs.

The danger in this card is that it is not restrictive. There is a risk of this just being the first step on a slippery slope, with the government expanding its uses later on. The danger lies in the fact that we have a government that would put in place a measure that would start out just identifying citizens but could end up encompassing identification, medical records and banking information. This we are rejecting.

I will reiterate in closing the need for caution. Prudence and caution in a matter such as this are a far better route to take than excessive haste.

So, the reservations we have on this are many. I personally am completely opposed to the creation of a tool such as this one, which will eventually turn a constitutional state into a police state, where big brother can intrude on our fellow citizens' privacy.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and all members for participating in the debate. I have a question for the member. He totally opposed the concept of an ID card. As he knows, we are only discussing it today. There is no decision on this, or bill or motion whatsoever.

For the purpose of discussion, I would ask the member to consider the following.

First, The objectives of this ID card will be set by Canadians. As he knows, the committee is travelling across the country to hear witnesses. Second, the information on the card will be put there by Canadians. We will put information on the card that we want, not information that will be forced. That is the purpose of these discussions. Third, the purpose of this card is to serve Canadians. We have to define what purposes this card will serve.

If all these three objectives or points are satisfied in the system, would he support the concept of an ID card or would he still be totally opposed to having an ID card in the country?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, there is a real danger of losing control. The danger is that a restrictive card will turn into a multiple use or multi-purpose card.

I would like to quote the Privacy Commissioner who had the same concerns. He reminded us, not so long ago, and I quote:

Just remember that income taxes were supposed to be a temporary measure to help finance the First World War. And Social Insurance Numbers were only supposed to be used for administering the social insurance system.

So we have to be very careful whenever someone proposes to limit our right to privacy, just for a little while or just because the benefits will be very attractive.

I would also point out that the privacy Commissioner told us, and I will quote only one passage:

I cannot find any justification for establishing a national identity card, especially because it is totally useless in the fight against terrorism.

We must be careful with this kind of card because there is a clear danger of using a restrictive card for multiple purposes. I think that protecting privacy is the underlying foundation of the rule of law, which Canadians and Quebeckers espouse, and I think that this card would be the first step on the slippery slop to invading that privacy.

I do not believe that this kind of card can resolve the various problems that exist, naturally, and I am convinced that it is not the best way for the government to reach its objectives.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his intervention. I more or less share his view on privacy.

I think he developed this point and the issue of related costs extensively. Just look at the gun registry. With that boondoggle as an example, we can imagine that to create a program of this importance and magnitude, the related costs would be off the chart.

I have a question for him, I would like his opinion. Does he not believe that this card is perhaps just to satisfy our American neighbours? They could easily identify us by scanning our cards and thus keep tabs on their little neighbour, their little cousin, Canada.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are mechanisms in place for a citizen to apply for a visa. The risk is in information sharing.

Canadian sovereignty is not a virtual thing. There is a definite risk. As my colleague reminded us, the Americans want a central database. There is a risk this data will be shared. I think this is simply being done to please the Americans. We can do without this measure, this kind of tool.

I am quite serious when I say that Canada has to maintain its sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States. I think we would be going down a slippery slope with this card. Everyone who promotes Canadian sovereignty has to beware of the risk that Americans will be able to obtain certain information.

There is a clear risk of falsifying a database. I think the government is doing this just to please the Americans.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. Indeed, we must also congratulate the New Democratic Party for the motion that was moved, and which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of a national identity card offends the principle of privacy and other civil rights of Canadians and this House therefore opposes its introduction.

We have assessed this situation. Obviously, we know that the national identity card is in the planning stages. However, it is important to remember that a few months ago there was another plan in a completely different area, a draft bill to tighten the disability tax credit. The type of action we are seeing today is what led the government to back down and withdraw that bill that made no sense.

In fact, it was learned that a judge had ruled that persons with disabilities had a right to the credit. Instead of listening to the courts, the government tried to tighten the criteria. Efforts were made similar to today's motion. So far, unless the budget contains surprises, we will have managed to protect persons with disabilities from the government's plan.

Today's debate is similarly important. The Bloc Quebecois is against an obligatory national identity card. I would like to relate a personal experience of mine.

A few years ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was looking into the social insurance card. We reviewed the situation. We wondered why there were hundreds of thousands of social insurance cards that had problems. Cards belonging to deceased persons were still active. Particularly since the card, which was created for government purposes initially, such as income tax and employment insurance, had become the norm in the private sector. The whole banking industry used it; it was used in credit investigations and in all sorts of areas, when that was not the original intent. Because we were not careful enough at the beginning, we had gotten to this point.

So, we need to ensure that we never run into the same problem with a national identity card. The best way to avoid that is not to have such a card, because we do not really need it. It is not an essential tool, especially if it contains information like social insurance number, date of birth or, with today's technologies, all kinds of other information that could be used eventually to monitor individuals, even law-abiding citizens who have never been trouble with the law.

This card, however, could be used to take control, collect information and ensure that Canadian citizens are required to carry at all times a card that is not really necessary. We should always be very careful when dealing with such requests.

We all remember the fiasco with the megafile of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Human Resources Development Canada. Information that had been collected for a very specific purpose was being used for all kinds of things. There is no need to make matters worse.

It must be kept in mind that the idea for this card dates back to last November 13, when an immigration agreement was signed between Ottawa and Manitoba. The minister took advantage of that opportunity to voice the opinion that an identity card similar to the one now issued to landed immigrants and permanent residents might be used by all Canadians, and of course all Quebeckers.

The minister ought to have explored his idea in greater depth, asked for research to be done into it by his department, and looked into the consequences before tossing out such an idea. Now everyone is up in arms about it, hence this opposition day to let the public know and clearly understand the danger of such a measure.

Creation of a national identity card raises a number of issues. At the present time, there is no card used specifically for personal identification. People can use their driver's licence, their health card, their Maple Leaf card, their passport. The reason there is no such card is that we live in a constitutional state and not a police state.

A peace officer cannot, for example, demand that we identify ourselves simply because we are walking in a park. We are entitled to anonymity and privacy; this is an acknowledged right and one that distinguishes us from other countries. We know that from what we see in movies, or when we travel abroad. Here, individuals feel truly protected. They feel that they are full-fledged citizens. They do not feel that someone constantly has an eye on them, nor do they feel obliged to behave in such a way as to please the state.

It is understandable that an extraordinary syndrome has developed in the United States in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, and we can understand their reaction. We must not end up going beyond the objectives set, particularly when even those objectives are not necessary.

Then there is the whole matter of the costs relating to such a card. We have the example of gun control. We remember the debate on the principle behind gun control. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned, by looking at the consequences of having a very restrictive law with numerous obligations. We cannot tell where the introduction of this card might lead us, as far as unnecessary additional obligations and costs are concerned. The card in itself is not essential.

Creating a national identity card would mean having a computer system containing information. If the card contained biometric data, the system would have to be able to read these data and compare them with a central registry. If only names, addresses, gender and height appeared on the card, this would not be too problematic, but this kind of information on a national identity card is almost useless and would not justify significant government expenditures on such a program.

If such a card is desirable, it is because it has a purpose. This purpose is not desirable. It is not viable; it is not appropriate in a democracy such as ours.

Essentially, the authorities will not say that a whole lot of information would be kept on this card, as this might frighten the public. But what about in five or ten years, when people are used to carrying around a national identity card? Why not add additional information?

In this regard, the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, who is the watchdog, if you will, concerning this kind of government policy, has issued a warning. He said:

Just remember that income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to finance the second world war. And that social insurance numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the social insurance system.

These two examples show just how necessary specific guidelines are with regard to such a card which, at most, could be voluntary. On one hand, if the card were issued and it were impossible to add information considered essential, then why have it; however, if this information were integrated into our legal system, why create such a card when it is not needed?

Overall, the world has taken a balanced approach. Some countries have national identity cards, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, and Kenya. Other countries do not have national identity cards: Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Korea and Taiwan.

Both lists include models of democracy and others that are not really considered models of democracy. The card in itself has not brought about any improvement in this regard and can be a dangerous tool.

Getting back to the Privacy Commissioner, in his 2001-02 annual report, he clearly opposed the concept of a national identity card. He said, and I quote:

Given the Government's current behavior on other privacy matters, it is difficult to avoid fearing that this means that it wishes to introduce such a card.

He obviously has very serious concerns. He then added:

I can find no justification for a national identity card—

He further added:

Rather than a “debate” about a grave and needless intrusion, Canada needs clear acknowledgement by the Government that the fundamental privacy right of anonymity as we go about our day-to-day lives is too important to abrogate for no apparent reason.

I think that all this criticism should prompt the minister to put this idea on hold, to study its relevance if he so wishes, to see what is being done in other countries. However, I think that this idea has not been properly thought through and that, basically, it does not meet the standards of a democracy such as ours.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes that, as stated in the motion:

—the introduction of a national identitycard offends the principle of privacy and other civil rights ofCanadians and this House therefore opposes its introduction.

That is the position of the Bloc Quebecois in this debate.

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to see the Bloc Quebecois take such a strong position against this proposal by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which I think deserves to be debated thoroughly.

We know that, ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, security concerns have prompted governments to put a lot of emphasis on formal proof of identity throughout the world, including in Canada.

In the near future, the ability of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to cross international borders will increasingly depend on the integrity of their identity papers and their travel documents.

Would it not be realistic to think that we could make greater use of our advanced technologies, such as biometrics, to guarantee the integrity of these documents while enhancing privacy?

I want to ask this to the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Does he not think that the strong position that he and his party are taking today against this proposal could hurt the ability of Canadians to travel freely, given the fears that exist across the border?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, currently there is no card and we travel freely. I do not think that there is any problem at this time.

As for what the Americans want, I do not think that we should constantly do whatever the Americans want of us. We have to be able to stand up to them The current government has not set a good example when it comes to Iraq, but it should at least do so on issues like this, and stand up for its national sovereignty.

The member is heckling me, but I would like to give the position of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, as set out in his annual report. Mr. Radwanski is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois, but someone who was appointed by the government. I will quote him briefly.

Given the Government's current behaviour on other privacy matters, it is difficult to avoid fearing that this means that it wishes to introduce such a card.

That would be another huge blow to privacy rights. In Canada, we are not required to carry any identification—let alone to identify ourselves on demand—unless we are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving. Introducing a national identity card, even if it were “voluntary” at first, would push us toward becoming the kind of society where the police can stop anyone on the street and demand, “Your papers, please”.

The notion of the Government of Canada fingerprinting or eyeball-scanning every citizen for such a card is, of course, all the more abhorrent.

I would like to finish with the last sentence:

I can find no justification for a national identity card—

This is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois who wrote this, nor a member of the New Democratic Party, nor a government member, this is the Privacy Commissioner. He was appointed by this government. I think that, in his capacity as watch dog, he deserves to be listened to.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his speech.

I find it interesting that he is not open to the idea of a identity card, now that we have the gun registry and blenders and screwdrivers have to be registered too . What kind of system is this? This system was supposed to cost $2 million and now it is up to $1 billion. Imagine what it would cost to implement an ID card in Canada.

I would like the member to answer the following question. Why would we have to have an ID card when the Americans are not even ready to have one? Why can we not have our own Canadian sovereignty? Do we always have to listen to the Americans, just because the Liberals say so?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Acadie—Bathurst may have just put his finger on a big problem, which is that the minister proposed this idea without necessarily giving it much thought.

If he had given it any thought at all, he would have realized that if we ever decided we wanted a card, we would at least need the reciprocity of our neighbour, for whom we our doing this. If not, we really look like someone who falls all over himself to please his neighbour without ever being asked to do so or having his efforts reciprocated.

That would be like saying that even though I have a lovely home and garden I am going to build a wall around it so as not to make my neighbour feel bad. My neighbour would at least have to ask first before I decide to do something like that.

That is where I will conclude. I think the minister is doing quite a bit of winging it on this one. Nevertheless, what the public wants is a guarantee that his plan will be shelved and that we will not have this issue hanging over our head for years to come.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

First, this is a good opportunity to discuss this particular issue. I am a bit surprised at what is said in the New Democratic Party's motion about the introduction of a national identity card. There has been no discussion or comment made about an introduction of any such card. There has only been a theoretical discussion about this issue. I think it is important. If we cannot have that kind of discussion in the House, then it is a sad day. Clearly there are discussions as to whether or not Canadians would be interested in this for various reasons.

The first question that comes to mind is: What would be the purpose of a national identity card? Why would we have one and, if we had one, what information would be put on that card?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Good questions.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

My colleague across the way says that those are good questions. Yes, but they are fundamental questions. They are fundamental because we live in an information society. We live in a society where we continually get all sorts of information. We carry all sorts of identification on us, such as a driver's licence. We see the misuse of SIN cards. I often see people who produce a SIN card to sign a cheque. That was not the purpose of it. It was to be used for social policies and for the government to retrieve information.

As some of the members know, the human resources development committee reviewed this issue a few years ago. We reviewed it before 9/11. Since 9/11 there has been increasing discussion about this. For example, we have looked at the implications of Canadian citizens going to the United States. Some members of our society have been randomly taken aside and had their identity and documents questioned. That obviously raises serious questions in this country. It raises questions as to whether or not we should be looking at producing some kind of information that would be clear and of the highest technology. In fact, the minister has talked about that.

We want a secure system for Canadians. We want Canadians to feel secure, but we also want to make sure that those kinds of situations do not occur either crossing the United States or anywhere else. That is important.

We have a smart card to some degree already. We have a card for people who travel often to the United States on business. They have an access card that allows them to go back and forth, again for very limited purposes.

I for one am very concerned about the amount of information we give out to government on all kinds of topics. In the United States it is said that the government has 15 to 20 active files on every American. That obviously is a concern.

Therefore the question comes back to the purpose of the card. If we had a card, what would we use it for? Presumably, we want to cut down on fraud. We want to cut down on Canadians being hassled at the border. We want to make sure that the card itself will be used for a purpose. It may be a voluntary card or a mandatory card. Again, we have not gone down that road and we may never go down that road.

However we are at the point of discussion. Since 9/11 there have been and continues to be concerns about security. I am concerned about the kind of information that would go into the card. We heard colleagues today say that they had lost their wallets. It only happened to me once but it was like my life passed in front of me because I lost everything. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have never lost your wallet, but if you have you know that you have to contact all sorts of agencies with regard to your driver's licence, health card and you name it. That obviously is a problem. Everything could be on one card, but again it would require the type of technology that would be important in terms of making sure that it could not be tampered with.

The minister has talked about the sophistication of technology. He talked about dealing with the issue of counterfeiting.

Some of the tools, which I know the minister has mentioned in a hypothetical situation in speaking about what other countries have been looking at, are biometric identifiers, iris scans, fingerprinting and other techniques, whether it be at airports or at border crossings.

Every country faces new challenges and they are responding. In fact, the United Kingdom is considering the introduction of a voluntary entitlement card for those citizens who would feel more secure if they had that card for identification.

The United States is considering biometric identification for travel documents and uniform standards for state drivers' licences. Again, these are in the discussion stage.

In a recent poll in the United Kingdom, 60% of respondents strongly supported the introduction of an entitlement card incorporating advanced biometric features.

What kind of technology would be used? We have come a long way from the days of having paper documents. Therefore we would have to see the advances in terms of that technology and how that could be applied.

There are indications that Canadians in every region of the country are concerned about security issues. I know my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will probably expand on this, but Citizenship and Immigration Canada commissioned a telephone survey of Canadians to gauge the attitudes of Canadians with regard to a national identity card incorporating biometric features and to get some feedback.

The responsible thing to do is to get public opinion and to see what the public is saying about this. Those surveyed expressed a range of opinions, as one might expect, as to whether a national identity card should be mandatory or voluntary, and whether it should have biometric features or not. The overwhelming finding was that nearly seven out of ten Canadians supported some kind of card. It did not matter what their age, gender, education or income level. Identity was seen as problem particularly in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

However we again go back to the kind of information that would go into a card. I have heard provincial governments speak about this as well. The card could contain the health care card, the driver's licence and so on. That might make it very secure because of the nature of the technology, but what happens if it is lost? What are the backups for that? Those are issues that we have to talk about.

I think it is important that we have a fundamental discussion on this, but I want to assure members that no one, and certainly no one on this side of the House, has suggested for a moment that there will be an introduction of anything. What we have suggested is that in light of security concerns since 9/11 that such a fundamental discussion is important. It is taking place in Great Britain, Australia, the United States and elsewhere.

On the issue of biometrics, four out of five Canadians believe that the use of biometrics would make it harder for illegal immigrants to use fake documents to abuse social programs, such as employment insurance and health care. Those are comments that the department has heard.

This is not to say, of course, that we have unwavering faith in technology. I for one do not believe that technology is the be all and end all but I do believe that where there are advancements we should look at those and that our thinking should also advance to look at how that technology might be used.

I will go back to my point earlier. I am very concerned about the amount of information we give away. If we decided to introduce a card we would have to be very clear and very restrictive about the kind of information Canadians would want to see in that card. I think that is important.

I was a little concerned that the NDP motion suggested that we would not even talk about an introduction. I think it is at least fair to have the debate. I congratulate colleagues on the other side for raising the debate, although I was surprised that they said that we should not even talk about the introduction of a card. Otherwise, I guess there is not much to talk about. I think there is and I think the concerns that Canadians have raised are worth debating. I appreciate the issue being discussed here today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague across the floor, but is he not worried?

We know how the registration of guns has gone. It was supposed to cost $2 million and it cost $1 billion for registration. The member talked about the technology of today. Is he not worried about this type of a card, if the technology is good enough to produce an identification card such as the one about which we are talking?

It is good that we are having this discussion and that is why we brought this motion to the House of Commons.

Is he not worried that with the technology of today, if somebody loses a wallet or a card, people who are smart enough will be able to decode and use that card? They will have all the information on the person and that person will lose his or her privacy. We have thousands and thousand of social insurance numbers which the government cannot control those.

I am not trying to blame the government, but those are facts of life. Can we afford to make the mistake of having a card that will give information to people who we surely do not want to have it? Why be dictated to by the Americans? They are not willing to have a card like this yet they are suggesting that we should. Where is our sovereignty as Canadians? That is the question that we have to ask to ourselves. That is why it is good to have this discussion. Could the member comment on that?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First, I believe the discussion has not been prompted, and I hope it has not been prompted, because the United States or any other country is suggesting that Canada should have an identity card. It has to be a made in Canada solution to a made in Canada issue. The Australians had this debate more than six or seven years ago. At that time they said no.

On the issue of technology, I do not have the answer on whether the card could be reproduced if it were lost. With the state of the art technology which we have today, we would have to be pretty sure. As members know, we now have new passports which are supposed to be 99.9% effective against reproduction. Again as technology advances, we will have to look at those things.

The member raises an important point. It must be a made in Canada decision. However if we do that, and we should, we have to ensure that the value of the documentation is beyond reproach, whether it is passports or whatever it happens to be that we might use to identify ourselves.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my friend on the Liberal side.

First, why does the government feel it would be necessary to create this new data base, this new card program, to address a security concern, when it mainly would deal with law-abiding citizens? If the government has a problem with security and terrorism, it should focus its efforts and concentrate on that area rather than create this huge new registration of people through a national identity card program.

Second, does he not think that the minister should come forward with at least some proposals on how much this might cost or perhaps do some test runs on a voluntary basis with the kind of technology about which he talks? Does he not think this would be helpful in swaying people to think his way about the idea of a national identity card?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, all the minister has done is asked for a public discussion. He wants to engage Canadians as we are engaging parliamentarians. There has been no proposal. Maybe the question the hon. gentleman asked about cost would be more appropriate if we came to the conclusion that we wanted to go further with this issue.

I point out to the hon. gentleman that we had an issue about too many SIN cards and the difficulty with that, whether we should reproduce SIN cards and whether we would use the same type of SIN card, which is questionable, or go to new technology. That was the debate a few years ago. Again in light of 9/11 we are having this new debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin, The Environment; the hon. member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis, Softwood lumber.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members who have participated in the debate today because it is an important discussion.

I would also like to mention that this is the very first time in my over nine years of parliamentary life that we have a minister asking us our opinions before drafting any line in a law. That should be applauded.

Most members of Parliament complain, backbenchers especially, saying that they have no say in what is being proposed. They say that everything is done in the back rooms with the bureaucrats, that it is presented that way and that they have to work with their party or else.

Here we have a new system. The minister has proposed that we have an open and frank discussion with parliamentarians. Also the committee is travelling across the country to get input from citizens at large to ensure we know what they think before we go any further.

The motion we are debating speaks to the introduction of a national identity card. There is no such thing being introduced today. We are only asking for a debate, discussion, ideas, how to do it, where to do it and what to put on the card, if we were to have a card.

The way the hon. member of the NDP has proposed the motion on the introduction of an national identity card is, at best, misleading. We should take into consideration the fact that this is not the introduction of anything. It is simply a discussion of an idea.

Many people have mentioned that the U.S. has not asked for the ID card so why are we discussing it. That is fine. If the U.S. asked for it, then we could say that we were caving in to the U.S. policy. Because the U.S. has not asked for it, people want to know why we want to have ID cards. Either way, the opposition's job is to find us guilty but I do not think the technique will work.

As was mentioned earlier, over 100 countries in the world use the cards. Eleven of the fifteen EU countries have ID cards. People are using them. The issue is what kind of information we would like to have on the card or for what purpose it would be used. That is the key question we have to answer.

I believe in October last year the U.S. proposed fingerprinting Canadians who were born in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and Yemen. Canada is a multicultural country. We have hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were born in those countries. When they crossed the U.S. border they had to be fingerprinted for no reason.

A businessman from my riding of Brampton Centre travelled across the border to the U.S. He has plants in Connecticut, Philadelphia and in Europe. He went with his staff to the States and then from there to Europe. He was stopped at the border. They wanted to fingerprint him and get his mug shot as if he were a common criminal. This is totally unacceptable.

If we ever have cards, we have to ensure that every Canadian has one regardless from where they come, or where they were born, or in what province they were born or in what province they live. It has to be one card, one ID available for everybody, if we ever have these cards.

I met with U.S. Ambassador Cellucci to raise the issue of fingerprinting Canadians. He agreed with me. It was a wrong policy but the Americans needed to do it, he said. At the end of the day I think they realized it was the wrong and they changed it. They no longer fingerprint individuals based on the place of birth. Rather they base it on what people have been doing or what they may be capable of doing in the future, if they go the States.

It was mentioned earlier that a survey was done on this issue. It said that 70% of Canadians supported a voluntary ID form. While there is a huge support for this, we do not know what kind of information we would like to see on the card. If it is used for border crossings only, then it would probably only need to contain fingerprints. In the scanning of the card, if the fingerprints matched then there would be no need to ask for a name, place of birth, country of origin, religion, et cetera. It would take 10 or 15 seconds and the person could then cross the border. They would be home free like everybody else.

In committee last week the member for Laval Centre said that her credit card had been stolen and she had to pay a lot of money. Whoever stole her card abused it and she was out a few thousand dollars. I can give the House an example of what happened to me.

Last year I received my American Express bill and there was a charge on it of $729. It was for travel from Ottawa to Winnipeg. I did not buy the ticket. I did not know the person who bought the ticket and had never in fact heard of anyone by that name. I was charged $729 for travel I did not take and for a ticket I never bought. It took me six months to clear that file. I phoned American Express and Air Canada. I had to get a lawyer. I had to sign documents stating that I had never benefited from the ticket. It took me six months to clear my name. This is the kind of hassle people go through when they lose any kind of ID.

The identity card we are talking about today cannot be forged. Every person has fingerprints that belong only to them. Nobody can duplicate somebody's fingerprint. Safety wise this is very important.

There are about 12,000 fraud cases annually. Those 12,000 victims have to pay both in inconvenience and money, along with the headaches. This fraud costs Canadian taxpayers $2.5 billion every year. If we can save Canadians money and headaches, then everybody will be happy. There is no point in saying that we cannot do this because it will infringe on human rights. It all depends on the purpose of the card.

As I mentioned earlier, we are only having a discussion today. Nobody is proposing anything. We would like to get input from all members of Parliament. Some members are for an identity card, others are against it. That is fine. However, at the end of the day, the real issue is what kind of card would a person like to have? What information should be on the card? For what purpose will it be used?

In Canada we have 13 different birth certificates and 13 different licences, one for each province and territory. It is a big headache for people who go from one province to another. After September 11 last year there was an issue in Quebec with regard to Quebec birth certificates. Some were not accepted by the passport office. There are lots of problems.

This card could be one uniform ID card for every Canadian citizen. We will not force anything on anybody. For those who do not wish to have the card, that is their prerogative. I personally would like to have it, but that is my decision to make. Nobody can force me to have an ID card.

If there is a need for this identity card, I hope every person will take advantage of it. This is the way to go. At issue is what information will this ID card contain and what purpose will it serve?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see the need for identity cards. I find it amazing that the Liberals would even suggest this grandiose proposal without putting an estimate of the cost on it. Who would ever buy a house or a car without knowing the cost? I sold cars for 20 years and nobody ever bought a car without first knowing the price. It just does not work that way. Only the Liberals would come up with a plan like this.

This is the same group that invented the gun registry and said that it would cost $2 million. Some people now think it might cost only a billion and some think it will cost a lot more than that. How can the Liberals ask anybody to pass opinion on this issue if they do not put a price on it? If they cannot register firearms that do not move, how will they ever register 30 million people who move around and have transactions and travel everyday? How will they ever track them if they cannot even register firearms?

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we cannot give any estimate if we do not have any details.

The purpose of this discussion today is to find out from members what should be put in the card, if we ever have a card. Once we know what we want in the card and what it will be used for, then it will be easy to estimate how much it will cost. It is unfair to ask for an estimate for a card, if we do not know for what it will be used.