House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

An hon. member

That's not so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

It is so, but given the knowledge on the other side of the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, I should ignore them.

There is one more point that Mr. Manning made, and I want to go back and acknowledge the work he has done, which I think is very helpful to this discussion. He did look around the globe. He looked at some other countries that have looked at this in their court systems. Specifically, although he said they were not the only ones, he drew to our attention both the Philippines and Hungary, which have taken the issue of a national identity card all the way up to their supreme courts, their courts of final decision making. In both of those cases they were found to be unconstitutional. My question was why not, and this, I believe, will not survive a challenge under the charter. We cannot impose this on our system.

My final point is that both England and the United States have given consideration to this. England is currently looking at it and, as Canada is so far, is getting very negative reactions to the concept. The U.S., as we heard in one of the earlier commentaries, has in fact rejected it. It attempted a few years ago to expand its driver's licence system into a national identity card. It was shot down overwhelmingly in that country. The countries that we are most close to in terms of our jurisprudence and our legislation have rejected it or are about to do so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Brampton Centre Ontario

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about racial profiling of Canadians of Arab origin. I have seen him at many Canadian Arab functions. I am sure he agrees with me that most Canadians of Arab origin are very upset with the U.S. policy to ask only them to be fingerprinted. I am one of them. When I cross the border I must be fingerprinted despite the fact that I have been a citizen here for 35 years and I am a member of Parliament, but the law says because I was born in a certain country I have to be fingerprinted.

The discussion we are having about proposed ID cards which we may or may not have in the future cannot prevent racial profiling of Canadian citizens at the border.

Would the member still oppose the fact that I cannot cross the border like anybody else in the House without having to be fingerprinted because of my place of birth? Would he support the concept that I be equal to him when I cross the border to the United States because I would have an ID card as would he? My thumbprint, as the minister said, does not have a colour, religion or faith. My thumbprint is mine. Nobody can fake that. It is the same for the member. He could cross the border based on his thumbprint and I could cross the border based on my thumbprint.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, it will not work. The Americans will not recognize that. If someone has a criminal record and is pardoned in this country, they will not recognize that. They have already decided they will not do that.

The other reality is that the card does not protect someone from informal racial profiling.

I rose in the House on a number of occasions and challenged the Minister of Foreign Affairs to deal with this issue, to complain to the Americans, to protest, because of the humiliation and the abuse that was occurring at the border, particularly to people of Arab and Muslim backgrounds. I was brushed off most of the time by the minister.

The reality finally got through to the U.S. and it has backed off in the formal programs, but informal discrimination and racial profiling is going on.

One of my constituents, a very fair featured woman with black hair, a citizen of Canada for 12 years and a resident for about 16 years, was constantly being stopped at the border as she went back and forth every day to work in the United States. She could not figure out why. Finally she realized it was because she still had a Middle Eastern accent. That is how they were identifying her. One day she happened to be wearing a crucifix, because she is Christian not Muslim, and she was not stopped that day. From then on she wore a crucifix when she went across the border.

Is that what we will have to do? That is the alternative to the card if we are to really try and deal with it. That is what is happening at the border and the card will not change that one iota.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of my colleague's statements. First, I believe I heard the member correctly in that he referred to the card as being either voluntary or mandatory. I can assure him that if it is a national card it would be like the social insurance card and it would have to be mandatory for it to work properly.

There was one statement that really kind of shook me and I would like the minister to explain. I believe I heard the member say that consumer fraud was not the business of government. I thought the function of government was to protect its citizens and the government has to move to do something. Above all, our citizens should be protected from consumer fraud. Consumer fraud is not just the business of those conducting the fraud.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

He is not a minister.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is right, I am not a minister and I certainly would not want to be a minister in that government.

To deal seriously with the question, the member is correct in that the government does have a role. However, prevention is the responsibility of the people issuing that credit. That is not anything the government can effectively do anything with.

Sure the government has a responsibility. Consumer fraud is a crime. Under the Criminal Code there is a responsibility to make it a crime and to enforce it in our courts.

The point I was making is that the issue of prevention of consumer fraud is not one that should be the government's responsibility. It should be the responsibility of the company that is issuing the credit to those individuals.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP opposition day motion which states:

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

I am proud that it was our House leader, the member for Vancouver East, who introduced the motion, seconded by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. Both have spoken very well on the subject and have articulated clearly what some of the NDP's reservations are about the introduction of such a measure.

I thank my colleague from Windsor--St. Clair for sharing his time with me and for so eloquently speaking to this subject just a moment ago.

I will open my remarks, as have some of the other members, with a quote from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, not just because he puts the point so well but because it gets up the noses of the Liberal MPs so effectively. Some clearly disapprove of Mr. Radwanski's comments. His comments irritate them, so it is all the more reason for me to dwell on them extensively in my speech.

In 2002, Mr. Radwanski in a speech to the Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs said that in a free society:

We need to make loss of privacy the exception, not the new way of doing business. And we need to have an attitudinal change that both recognizes the threats and places limits on them. The burden of proof must always be on those who say that a new intrusion on privacy is necessary to meet some important social need. Every such proposal should be calmly and carefully assessed on its own merit. It should be tested against four key criteria.

It is important to put these tests forward here today. We must ask ourselves if the introduction of national identification cards will meet these tests to see if the cards are truly necessary or if there is merit to them.

The first test that Mr. Radwanski suggested is, is there a demonstrable necessity to address some specific problem? What is the goal, what is the objective, what is the Liberal government seeking to achieve? We have not really heard clearly from the Liberal members to date, other than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who pointed out that for the narrow purposes of the immigration file, he sees the need in terms of immigration.

Second, is it demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing that problem? We have heard members, such as the member from St. John's, Newfoundland, who seriously doubt whether the introduction of the card would even achieve what few specifics the Liberal government was willing to share with us. It was pointed out as well the very real concern that the introduction of the card by the government's own estimates would cost about $3.6 billion and that is if everything went perfectly smoothly. If recent examples are any indication, such as the disaster of the gun registry, we could expect cost overruns of god knows how much over that $3.6 billion.

Surely it is not demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing even the narrow range of problems that have been brought to our attention by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Third, is the reduction in privacy proportional to the benefit to be derived? Most of us would argue that in a free society the minimizing and trivializing of the issue of privacy is not equal to any benefit that might be derived.

Fourth, is there no other less privacy invasive alternative that could accomplish the same purpose? In other words, have we exhausted every other avenue of recourse to achieve the goals as outlined or the reasons that ID cards should be put forward? I would say that the answer is no, that we have not exhausted this idea.

We have seen member after member rise today to express concern at the loss of privacy, the erosion of our personal freedoms, and the very things by which we define ourselves as Canadians. We have heard very little from the government side as to why these cards would be necessary, other than a professed convenience. We would be lumping all of the other forms of ID into one information card.

Some people are offended even more than I. People were speaking to me in the lobby, asking why we would stop at this national ID card, why not have a microchip implanted under our skin and we could pass by some kind of a screen and the government would have all the information it needed on all of us. Another even more cynical person said we should have a tattoo of a bar code on our forearm and it could be scanned. Maybe having it across our foreheads would be more applicable, especially in the case of the member for Winnipeg South. It would cover up part of his expansive forehead.

Many people view the introduction of a national ID card in much the same vein as these comments about a microchip or a bar code. I guess it is clear from all of the speakers here that Canadians are not willing to forfeit any of the personal freedoms we enjoy as Canadian citizens, especially when no one has made the case as to why it is necessary to do so. We should always tread very carefully when we go down the slippery slope of the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. In the absence of a compelling argument as to why it is necessary, we probably will follow the lead of other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom which have considered this issue, contemplated it, given it serious debate and rejected the idea.

I suppose that using our opposition day motion is pre-emptive in a way. We are hoping to convince the ruling party that Canadians stand fairly united and have reached a fair consensus that this is an intrusion into their personal freedoms that they are not willing to accept.

Other speakers before me have mentioned valuable comments from one of the country's leading constitutional lawyers, Morris Manning. He recently joined immigrant and multicultural groups in denouncing the proposal for a national identity card. He said that Hungary's constitution bans it and it has been ruled illegal in the Philippines. These are countries that contemplated the introduction of such a card. As I said, the government of Australia nearly collapsed over plans to introduce such a card 15 years ago. Mr. Manning warned the immigration committee chair that the ID cards would increase racial profiling, would do little to combat terrorism or identify fraud, and would invade people's privacy by creating a huge database of information.

As a Manitoban, I have a graphic illustration of how personal data can be compromised. When the Filmon Tory government was in power, it privatized and contracted out, sold if you will, the health data on Manitobans, the private personal information about their personal health. The government contracted that out to a private firm, much against the hue and cry of many Manitobans.

That firm, as companies will do, then merged and was sold to another American firm. Now my personal health information is in the hands of a private company in Houston, Texas. I do not know if it is going to sell my personal health information to a drug company that might want to solicit me to buy a certain product, or sell that database to a magazine subscription company. How do we know, once it gets into that realm, if it is really secure?

There is no perfectly secure database system that cannot be compromised. The more important data that is put on that card, the more interesting it is for those who would have nefarious purposes for that card to access that information and steal it. It makes it a target for those who have the wherewithal to compromise the cards.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, tempted as I am to respond to the health questions and point out that the member's health information is only as secure as the lock on the dumpster behind his doctor's office, let me venture into the civil liberties debate.

I too have a quote from a civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, from the Harvard law school. He said:

Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same.... A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping.... From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few.

How would the member for Winnipeg Centre respond to that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is the very question that I was just asking myself. Actually the two competing authorities that were quoted, Manning and the authority that the member for Winnipeg South quotes, went at each other on that very issue and disagree. There were two opposing points of view.

In my point of view we do not compromise personal freedoms. I believe that freedom and dignity are things that we can afford and maintain in this country. We do not have to sell or compromise them to achieve greater safety in the community. I do not believe that we have exhausted every avenue of recourse in terms of tightening up the Canadian system as it pertains to terrorism and I do not accept the argument that the national ID card would take us any further down that road to safety and security within our borders.

I do not buy the argument, and I do not even hear the argument being made by the Liberals, why sacrificing personal freedoms or how sacrificing them would make us any safer or more secure. If I were to hear a compelling argument from them I may even be willing to concede that we could give up that little bit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I noted the question posed to my colleague from Winnipeg Centre by the member for Winnipeg South. While I am not trying to respond to his question, I think he needs to be reminded that Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski, who has spoken extensively on the topic, stated quite clearly that the right to be anonymous is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom, and that we should resist the idea of being fingerprinted for a national identifier. However benignly it starts it might require us to show our papers on request at any time, sort of an internal passport.

I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre about the position as we understand it at this point with respect to our neighbours, the United States. It is being suggested to us that actually we may have to do this in the end because this may be what the U.S. demands of us.

Could the member comment on the fact that the United States, we are told by a Globe and Mail editorial earlier this week on the same subject, is so wary of such a card that congress actually inserted the following line in the bill creating the U.S. department of homeland security. It said:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card.

Could the member for Winnipeg Centre comment on the argument that seems to find a lot of favour with Liberal members these days, that in the end we would just have to do what the U.S. wants us to do so we might as well give up the fight?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Halifax said, there does seem to be some contradiction. The Americans see themselves as rugged individualists, an Ayn Rand type of school of philosophy that they themselves would never compromise their freedom and dignity in such a way.

In fact, if we were to raise the idea of them having to carry their papers to go out to buy a newspaper at the corner store, they would be horrified, but yet they seem to be putting some pressure on this country, that they want Canadians to be identifiable in that way.

The hon. member raises an important point, that they even have a clause in their homelands security bill that says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card.

However, we do feel the pressure. The editorial in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, February 11, acknowledged that senators like Hillary Clinton have openly and publicly expressed concern that Canadians should be easily identified and labelled et cetera. It does make us wonder where the motivation comes from. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is introducing this when he cannot put forward a good case or argument as to why it is necessary. What then is compelling him to do this at this time?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Brampton Centre Ontario

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House 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.

There is no bill, motion or private member's item to be introduced. Maybe he could agree with me to add the words, “possibility of introduction” or “discussion of national identity card” rather than making a firm statement saying “introduction of national identity card“ because there is nothing being introduced.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are interested in entertaining that as a friendly amendment at this time. Negotiations like that are usually done behind the curtains.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened, but frankly not surprised by the tenor of the debate today. It is an incredibly important debate. It is one I suspect that we are going to come back to frequently over the next few years.

I would say that by and large I agree with many of the fears that have been raised on the other side and I will come back to them in some detail. I think they may lie at the heart of this.

The issue of forms of unique identifiers and the use of technology in public space is an incredibly important issue. It is an issue that I research and work with a great deal, both in the U.S. and in Canada.

I am not surprised by the fear. Fear is encountered all over the place. I have a little thing I do with crowds when I talk about this. I ask them to imagine themselves going to a group of their friends and starting a conversation on government use of information technology. How many lines would have to be spoken before the words “Big Brother” or “George Orwell” would be on the table or raised? This malevolent, all controlling, destructive image of government is a very powerful image. The problem is that there is no other image.

We do not have this light, cuddly, and citizen friendly view of government. It does not exist. When members say things such as, “I do not trust the government to do this”, I say that I agree with them. I do not trust governments just yet to do this. When they say, “I do not think they have the technological competence”, and there are examples of that, I agree with them. I think those are good arguments.

Unfortunately, the text of the motion that was put forward seems to be a 21st century equivalent of book burning. We will not talk and think about it. It is wrong. Do not do it. Let us back away. And that is also wrong.

Part of this is rooted in a human tendency to fear change, to fear difference, and to fear thinking about how we might do things in a different manner. Part of it is a fear of technology. Most of the members in the House are of an age cohort who did not grow up with technology. They do not have that kind of day-to-day comfort that our children are acquiring right now.

It is interesting in that context, and if we think about the world wide web, that the most recent version of the Internet that most people know, really did not go live until after the government was in office. Netscape, which was the first truly consumer friendly graphical interface, was launched in November 1994. It is that recent. Our capacity to adapt, enhance, and to integrate what all these changes and new powers mean are quite limited.

I am not concerned or I am not saddened so much by the fears that come up here. I think there are grounds to have those fears.

I am, though, concerned about the nature of public debate. How do we, people who represent the citizens of Canada, have a discussion about a topic like this that just does not dissolve into they are bad, we are bad? We will just harangue each other with old images that fit old stereotypes without ever getting down to saying that there might be some ways in which we could do some things differently that would enhance government, that would make government more transparent, and that would make government more accountable.

It is passing strange to me, frankly, that a couple of members have spoken and referenced the current Privacy Commissioner as an authority on this. This is the same Privacy Commissioner when the access to information commissioner said that members should be allowed to see the schedule of the Prime Minister as an accountability measure. This Privacy Commissioner beat him up for it, for something that can be done in other countries.

This Privacy Commissioner, if we note editorial opinion around the country, does not have the kind of credibility necessary to champion a cause as important as privacy. I think the right to a private life separate from government is a right. It is a right that is not extended in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it should be. I think the right to privacy is my right to do things separate from my government and without its control and direction.

Historically, though, it has been confused also with the right to anonymity. My right to practice my religion in certain contexts in the not too recent past may have imposed a price on me that I did not want to pay, an ability to get a job or in some more odious cases in pre-war Germany, much more serious consequences.

The right to my exercise of private freedoms were often confused with anonymity and secrecy and I think it has created problem. What is one of the big problems in public management today? What is one of the big problems in how citizens or legislators relate to government? It is the virtual impenetrability of government. It is the culture of secrecy that exists within our public service. It is the inability to see what is happening in government.

What is the answer whenever one tries to expose that information? It is that the information could not be accumulated because it would violate privacy. Privacy gets used as a protection in a club to prevent good democratic leadership and good public accountability.

The other thing that is important to think about is that privacy in the form of anonymity is largely a myth. We give it up every day. I am one who weeds out the cards that I carry because I hate to carry a lot of plastic in my pocket. I think I carry a minimum of 16 cards. I carry one for my health plan, one credit card, one bank card, an Air Miles card, and a Safeway club card because I can easily go in and get all kinds of discounts when I buy groceries for my family. In doing that, I give up a huge amount of personal information in terms of my buying patterns, my consumption habits and all of that. That is the purpose of those cards.

In private space we are only beginning to get our heads around what this does to our rights to exist as individuals separate from either the demands and desires of the company or of government. The concept of privacy that we see promulgated by our current Privacy Commissioner, and as I hear repeatedly on this side of the House, is that it simply does not exist. It is government in a number of forums and other organizations. It is argued that credit card companies know more about us than anyone else because they can see where people are and what they do on a daily basis.

Because of our instant reaction to privacy good-change bad, we have not allowed ourselves to explore how privacy could be, and I would argue needs to be, reconceptualized to deliver the right of privacy to all citizens, but allow us to enhance our right to hold our government to account. I see a reconceptualization of this as an enhancement of democracy and our rights as citizens.

When we look at the narrow issue of the identity card, I agree. I am an agnostic on this. The establishment of one unique identifier that is mine and mine alone has a huge advantage in terms of the kinds of changes that could come about in terms of my ease of service. I like the Quebec model, which was essentially a voluntary model, that said people could simply sign up for it and they did not want it, they did not have to have it. People had the right to refuse and remain anonymous.

For this I applaud the minister. He is a personal friend of mine. I know he has thought about and struggled a lot with this. He genuinely sees this not as sneaking in some form of public policy. He says this is an important issue. He can see a value to it and is saying he wants to have a discussion about it. If the discussion were to simply spend a few hours saying it is a bad thing and we should never discuss it again, I think we would have missed a huge opportunity. The House should take up the challenge and members from all sides should spend some time focusing on this.

I am reminded and should inform the House that I am splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

The establishment of a national unique identifier is an important enhancement to public life in Canada. There are four preconditions for me: first, that we take the reform of government and public management seriously; second, that we enhance public accountability through reorganizing and changing the laws and structures that govern how we hold public information; third, that we strengthen democratic leadership and accountability from the public side to this chamber; and fourth that we challenge the culture of secrecy that exists within the public service and that we accelerate. We have a chance now. There is new legislation on the table on access to information. There is a chance to review the privacy legislation.

I think we should take up that challenge and review both those bills with an eye to centring both of those important pieces of legislation around the rights of citizens. I think that within that we will find that having a unique way of identifying citizens will be a huge enhancement to the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of the government that we as Canadians enjoy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, of course I dispute the premise on which the member is justifying this national ID card. Of all the cards that he mentioned he has in his wallet, only the social insurance number card is imposed by the government and of course it is restricted in its use to delivering social benefits. It cannot really be used for anything else.

The national ID card is one that in fact creates a type of police state. In this regard the member mentioned George Orwell and Big Brother. The government would require individuals to possess a national ID card. The police would have the right to demand that card from somebody innocently walking down the street. There would be no reason other than the fact that people would have to have the card and the police would have the right to demand it. There would of course be a penalty for not having a card. An investigation would start and presumably an arrest would be made because the person would be detained until fully checked out. If an investigation were to show that the person did not have an ID card the penalty would be a fine or possibly jail. To me, that does equate to a police state, to a big brother, to an infringement on our personal liberties.

I would ask the member to address that. Would there not have to be a mechanism to force Canadians to have that card, and if they did not have it, would they not be jailed?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, 3 of the 16 cards I have in my wallet are in fact government cards. For example, I have my health card, my birth certificate and my driver's licence. Nobody suggests that it is an infringement on my privacy rights to have a driver's licence that the police can demand.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

You do not have to have that, though.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

But if I wish to exercise certain activities I have to have it.

The member said that it would be a requirement to have a national ID card, a requirement to possess it and a requirement that it be produced for police on demand. He said there would be a penalty, possibly including jail time, for not having it. Where is that written? I have read the minister's speech and statement and have discussed this with him, and nowhere can I find that. Maybe that is the Alliance view as to how this kind of policy would be delivered.

That is not what is being addressed here. What is being addressed here is that it is time for us to stop saying that the way to deal with things is not to change anything. It is wrong-headed. It is foolish. There are benefits here for citizens in getting government right.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue for a moment the comments made by the member for Winnipeg South in which he expressed dismay that too many Canadians do not think of their government as being their friend, as being on their side. I could not agree more with the member that this is a lamentable fact.

But would the member not agree that in part this results from a sad record of the current Liberal government far too often acting not in the public interest but very much to advance private interests, which is not at all the purpose of having a government in place?

I want to commend the member for his candour in saying that he actually would not trust government currently with such an identity card. Therefore, I find it somewhat contradictory for him to say that we should nevertheless see this in the context of ensuring that governments are more accountable, and with certain restrictions, then, he in fact would be in favour of moving ahead on that basis. I wonder if I could ask the member to respond.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The response is huge, unfortunately, but I will try to respond a little bit.

I think we are on the verge of a big change in how we manage public space and how we manage government. I think that some of the problems that all governments face, including this one, derive from excessive secrecy and a lack of accountability; yes, it is a simple one. I think the Chamber serves a real purpose as a national values clarification place for the nation, where true values are debated and national consensus is arrived at, or could be, but this place has become increasingly irrelevant to how we govern ourselves. I think that is wrong.

The question is, how do we turn around something that is as large, complex and cumbersome as government? One of the tools is to re-frame the information environment, which means we have to be open to a number of things, including re-framing how we deliver privacy protection. Otherwise, it becomes a tool for continued bad government.

We cannot just respond to this by saying “we dassn't do it”. We need to open it up a little bit. Is protection of personal privacy important? Yes, exceptionally important. But is breaking down the culture of secrecy and giving us tools that allow us to really manage government important? I think it is, vitally important, and I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House knows that from time to time the Chair is reluctant, and I personally am reluctant, to ask someone to take the floor for a couple of minutes. With the co-operation of the House I will entertain another question for the hon. member for Winnipeg South. A supplementary from the hon. member for Halifax.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and I know the member for Winnipeg South has had a real interest in the whole question of the use of technology, about how to balance the public interest and private considerations and so on. I welcome his full participation in this issue.

I would nevertheless like to raise the question with him of whether he is not somewhat concerned about the possibility that in the particular environment where security has become such an overwhelming concern of people, is there not the danger that government will, in that environment, seize the initiative on this question of a national identity card, so that before we know it, it is just in place? Then people are left saying that they do not like giving up their privacy and they do not really like the notion that we end up creating almost an apartheid situation at some point, that we could be called upon to give an accounting of ourselves when we are doing absolutely nothing that is anybody's business, because there is such a fear and insecurity in this society generally.

I want to add to that. It is perhaps not so much a question as a comment. I believe the member was chastising the New Democratic Party for its unwillingness to discuss this issue, but I would just have to state the obvious, that if we were unwilling to discuss the issue, we would not exactly have used our opposition day to bring forward the issue out into the open and under the spotlight in public view through Parliament, which is exactly what we are here for.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, again we have an interesting couple of questions. One of my statements along the way was that if the government said today it would introduce a national identity card, I would oppose it. I would absolutely oppose it, and I would vote for a motion like the one the New Democratic Party put forward, for exactly the reasons the member raises. I think that in this atmosphere of fear about terrorism and a demand for increased security there is exactly that problem. The problem is that we will willingly let go of a whole bunch of cherished liberties in order to get one potential good.

At the same time, what I worry about and what I am always listening for is this: Let us keep our minds open to the fact that the use of technology, the relationship of data within government data banks et cetera, may be a good thing if it is done under the right conditions. Part of those conditions for me would be--

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. The Chair has been generous, and I appreciate the co-operation of members, but I must now proceed to Statements by Members.