Debates of Feb. 13th, 2003

Supply

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, government representatives are saying that, in seeking to create such a card, they are leading the way.

Are they not leading the way to destroying democracy and freedom, both in Quebec and Canada, in seeking to introduce a card chock full of private information? How can people think they are leading the way if they want to destroy something as fundamental as the right to privacy in a free country such as this? I am sure that members do not want to just hand over their private life to the government on a silver platter. How is that progress?

I would like to know what the hon. member for the New Democratic Party thinks of this.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern that we do not know exactly at this point what all kinds of information would be included on such a card. Maybe we will all have a bar code and that bar code may be related to a database that will tell us all kinds of things about ourselves or tell others all kinds of things about ourselves, but whatever it is, whenever that code is accessed or that card is lost, it means that that much more of our personal information is available in a way that it ought not to be.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the argument raised by our colleague from the New Democratic Party. He says he is against an identification card, when all we are doing today is debating the issue. He must suspect that the minister is in favour of it, although it is just a suspicion at this point. He says he is against it; he does not know what an ID card would entail, but he is against it.

Is that how he would contribute to the democratic process? Would it not be more reasonable to agree to a debate and, if there are good arguments against this plan, they will come out when the committee considers it and hears from witnesses? We, too, have some concerns. All the parties have questions.

Why would he not agree to a debate? If he is so sure of himself today, why are we not voting on the motion, since we are obviously launching into a debate.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did say at the beginning that I wanted a debate and that even though I have a position of my own and we have a position as a caucus, we certainly will be listening to what other people have to say. We realize that today is not the last word in this debate, so in keeping with the spirit of the advice offered by the hon. member, we will listen with an open but nevertheless skeptical mind to those who think that this is a good idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the member from Anjou who just spoke was quoted on this topic when it first came up, saying that he did not think that the government had a stellar track record on this issue, that there are millions of additional social insurance cards in circulation, that passwords have been stolen from Canadian offices abroad, and I think he even asked, “Can you ensure this won't be another bureaucratic nightmare?” In light of what the member has just said, how would my colleague respond to our other colleague?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way will have an opportunity to participate in this debate and perhaps express some of the concerns that he has already expressed about this particular idea.

It raises another point. Why not have the government focus its attention on getting those systems which are already in place running properly? Passports, social insurance cards, et cetera, are examples of the kinds of things we worry about. If the national ID card were to be as available as social insurance cards are, then we would have a real problem would we not? It would seem to me that the government should get its act together on these other files before it even considers anything like this.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the New Democratic Party for introducing this motion and for allowing this issue to be debated.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Winnipeg—Transcona; I would have liked him to keep the debate on a higher plane.

It is some cheap political point, but that is his problem. He will have to live with it. We all want to keep our credibility. However, I thank him for some of his work.

The time has come to look at ourselves and to talk about fundamental issues to define the Canadian way, to take a stand and to protect our way. Today I am not only a minister, I am a Canadian citizen who fears what is going on in the field internationally and domestically. I believe that the world has changed.

If the debate today were based only on innuendo and fearmongering, the same people in the past probably would have believed that the world was flat. The time has come to really protect our way.

This is not about attacking privacy. It is about protecting it.

Last week, I explained to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration why I believe the issue of a national ID card is worthy of public debate. I told the committee that I am eager to know what Canadians from all fields, experts and non-experts alike, have to say about this concept.

I am happy that the committee thought the issue deserves serious, thoughtful discussion. By seeking out the facts across the country during their current consultations, they will surely help us distinguish reality from myth.

There are some who have publicly railed against a national ID card without having listened to all the arguments. They are closing the door on democracy.

When I hear the Privacy Commissioner say that he is against debate even before listening to the arguments, what kind of democracy is that? My definition of a democracy is to put everything on the table and have some debate. We are not talking about making a decision today, we are having a debate.

It is not about a card; it is about finally having an identity policy in our country. I hear people talk all the time about big brother and so on. They should look at the banks, the social insurance numbers and all the databases that exist. They should look at the insurance companies, the Internet and the computers. We are everywhere. That is why we need to have a real debate among ourselves on how we can protect our identity and our Canadian way.

On the other hand, of course there is an international situation. There is a situation at borders, not only with the Americans, but in Europe too. We have to decide among ourselves what is sufficient to protect our identity, how we can remain ourselves and protect the Canadian way. That is what it is all about.

I thought our country had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To talk about a police state is fearmongering. Let us keep our powder dry and decide among ourselves. It is a non-partisan issue. It is not a government issue. It is a Canadian issue. That is why I salute the motion. Everybody will have a say and we will talk about it. Instead of the government coming to the House and saying what we will do, we will decide among ourselves what we think about it and then we will make a decision.

I respect the standing committee. It is so important to respect members of Parliament that I asked the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to take a look at it. It is a non-partisan issue. There will be many statements from people on the other side who believe it is a good thing. There are some people who have concerns but a lot of people will support it.

We polled 3,000 people. Seventy-six per cent believe that the time has come to protect our identity and our privacy. If it takes a card, and it depends what we want on it and I will talk about that, then so be it. We will decide among ourselves.

What is important is that we have a national debate on a national identity card. A lot of questions remain unanswered. That is why all of us together need to decide what we want to do. The world has changed, as I have said.

There is no doubt that the terrorist attack on the United States, on September 11, 2001, changed the world. The countries of Europe closed rank. The Europe of 15 just keeps growing. Since the Schengen accords, there has been a protection movement among European countries. They are protective of one another. They have agreed among themselves on some commonality in terms of identity.

Identity cards exist in 100 countries around the world. It is not a matter of reacting to the U.S., but rather of saying that if everyone is asking for this, is there a way to ensure that we can remain what we are?

Much is positive about identity. There is the whole issue of international security. Yes, it will prevent terrorism. It may be possible to put the technology to friendly use, with biometrics for instance, so that we can be sure that the person in front of us is really who that person claims to be.

Biometrics belong to us. I do not know if Steven Spielberg has made a sequel to Minority Report or if there will be another James Bond movie on that subject, but what I know from the experts is that my thumbprint and my iris belong only to me. Is there a way to use biometrics in a friendly manner to protect ourselves?

Our colleagues travel all over the world. At the Amsterdam airport there is a special program called Privium which is an iris scan. Those who use it for efficiency purposes have a card which they put in the scan and they look at the scanner and there is a red light or a green light. That is what it is all about.

An issue which is very important to me is that of identity theft. Since 2001 almost 12,000 people in Canada have been victims of identity fraud. According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, identity fraud is the fastest growing fraud in North America. We talk about money. How much is it worth? The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus estimates that identity theft costs $2.5 billion a year to consumers, banks, credit card firms, stores and other businesses. These are staggering numbers and they are expected to grow. That is $2.5 billion a year and it is not even sanctioned by the Criminal Code. We have to take a look at that.

The issue is not just about whether or not we need an ID card. With all the databases that exist in our country and with all the problems we are facing in the domestic field, we need to stop burying our heads in the sand and have a debate on identity policy.

The biggest threat to individual privacy is to have one's identity stolen and used by someone else.

Our fellow citizens have every reason to demand tools to protect what is uniquely theirs: their identity. Is there a way to protect our seniors? Is there a way to protect our youth? Is there a way to develop prevention tools to protect once and for all our most precious possession, our identity?

There is an implicit, if not explicit, expectation that governments need to look at current practices and systems of establishing an identity and evaluate their effectiveness. This is where the need for a public debate on a national ID card fits.

I have proposed that we examine the pros and cons of a national ID card. Do we need to examine whether any such card should be voluntary or mandatory? What technologies, if any, can help to secure identity? Do these technologies present unmanageable threats to privacy or can the technologies be used to enhance privacy? How should biometric identifiers be stored?

What have we recently learned? Recent developments suggest the time is right for a debate.

Within a few years, maybe much sooner, the ability of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to cross international borders will depend more and more on the integrity of their documents.

We live in a changing world. Of course in the United States there will be an entry and exit program. My friend, my parliamentary secretary, himself witnessed this and said he felt ashamed because he was asked for his fingerprints when he went to the United States. Is there a way to prevent racial profiling? Is there a way to protect Canadian citizens? Is there a way to protect our permanent residents, 80% of whom will become future Canadian citizens? This is what I am interested in.

We are not living in our own little bubble here. When people go to the United States and are fingerprinted, do we not think it is important to have that kind of debate beforehand among ourselves and decide if there is a way to prevent racial profiling? A thumbprint or an iris does not have a race or a religion. Is there a way to make sure when those people are going to the United States they will not be asked where they are from and told, “Oh, you were born in Syria? You're on the bad list. Please step aside”? This is what it is all about: to protect the Canadian way, to protect the fact that we are different, that we celebrate that difference and that we want to be what we want to be. We want to remain Canadian, to be proud of it and to make sure that nobody will touch that, ever.

We can forget about going through with a driver's licence and saying “this is me”. Okay, let us say it is a picture of you, but is it really you? That is why we need to use biometrics. There are many ways to use biometrics in a friendly manner. If we have a card, it is up to us to decide what we will put on it. We spoke about a bar code. I agree with that. That might be a good way.

We have what we call off line and on line. Off line means all we need to do is to reproduce an iris or a fingerprint on a bar code. When the person is scanned it is not for accessing a database. It is just that it confirms that the cardholder and what is on the card are the same. The person puts their finger on the scan, red light, green light, and go for it. If there is a green light, that is all right. It can take something like 15 seconds per person to go through. Imagine what we can do. In the past some people felt that computers were bad for us, that technology was bad. These are the same kind of people who felt that Galileo was wrong, and that is their problem.

During the course of the debate on a national ID card, the protection of privacy should be and must be a paramount consideration. We must also guard against rushing to judgment. We have already seen that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate. Some people say to go for it, that yes, it is important. I know that at least 70% of the Canadian people feel that this is a good idea, but they want to make sure that it is risk free. How can we manage that? What we require is objectivity, an open debate based on facts and reason, not innuendo and myth.

In fact, as we look outside Canada there are some countries that are carefully considering this issue. In Europe every country has an ID card except Ireland and the U.K. Last July the United Kingdom launched a public consultation on the introduction of an ID card. In releasing the discussion paper, Home Secretary David Blunkett established a very significant point:

...any debate about ID cards should not centre exclusively on issues of national security. Far more important are the issues of citizenship and entitlement to services--

Belgium recently announced it will include smart card technology on its national identity card to protect the integrity of this document and better protect personal information.

What we can learn from countries such as Belgium is that these advanced technologies have the capability to increase privacy and protection.

The lesson has been registered by some. Australia has a privacy commissioner, too, Mr. Malcolm Crompton, who has stated:

...biometrics have the potential to benefit individuals and society and indeed could have privacy enhancing capabilities.

Do members want some quotes from civil rights activists? Alan M. Dershowitz, the famous law professor from Harvard, said:

...I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms--

Hey, not bad.

--especially racial and ethnic profiling--that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

He also said that we should not mix “privacy and anonymity”. People are talking about the right to be anonymous and I do not know if they have filed their income taxes lately, but in this world I think that everybody knows who everybody is. The time has come to take a stand.

I want to hear from everyone before any decisions are made. My driving motivation is to serve the legitimate interests of Canadians. No, I have not taken a decision. What I would like to have is a clear, fair and objective debate. I think that it touches everyone, that it is everyone's business. Instead of reacting to a situation, I think that prevention is the essence. Together we should decide among ourselves what is good for Canada. It is a non-partisan issue.

I believe that it is in the interests of all Canadians that we do not jump to conclusions on this issue before the facts are out. There are important questions involved. Some of those questions do not have simple, ready made answers. The motion we are discussing today takes issue with the idea of a national ID card. The motion implies that the card would be incompatible with our civil rights. I hope that I have showed the opposite today. I do not believe this is true, but that is precisely what I am asking for, an open and informed debate.

Before drawing any conclusions, I would rather let Canadians hear the facts and better understand the issue. We do, after all, live in an information society, and this debate is about democracy.

This is a debate that will define us as Canadians and also define us as Quebeckers. It is a matter of looking at what is going on in the world. We must stop being hypocrites and saying, “I can see nothing, therefore nothing is going on”. Together, let us make a decision and ensure that this country is indeed the best in the world and remains so.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for coming to the House and laying out his plan for a national identity card, or at least for consultations with Canadians as he considers the pros and cons of such a card.

In the annual report given by the privacy commissioner, he brought out some huge concerns that he has with regard to privacy issues that would stem from having a national identity card with a fingerprint or retina or whatever else for identification. It has been said that social insurance numbers could become the basis for such cards. As we know, over the past little while there have been problems with the social insurance numbers. There have been more issued than there are people to receive them. Many people have more than one card.

Is this foolproof? How are we going to enforce such a card with the amount of importance that would be placed on that one card? How are we going to address privacy concerns, theft, the fraudulent use of a card, counterfeiting and biometrics?

Some people are very concerned and I know the minister understands this. Some are very concerned about the big brother approach that this may bring. Some have said that even without a card we have the ability to affix a little chip on our hand or under our skin that would never be lost or stolen. Certainly that is feared by most Canadians. Could the minister give us some wisdom?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not have to put a chip in my hand or something like that.

I believe that the social insurance number is not an ID. It is not an identity issue. It is a number. There are several kinds of databases, not just in the government. When we go for a medical, when we buy insurance, when we buy a car, when we go into a bank, there are databases everywhere.

When we are talking about identity we are talking about authenticity. It is an authentication process. We want to know who a person in front of us is without asking a lot of different questions, and that is the bottom line. That is why we need these kinds of ID cards.

Do we need that? Are we ready for it? It is up to us. I am open for it, but when I look at identity theft, and experts can tell the House better than I, I see that cards can be counterfeited unless someone is Q, from James Bond. We cannot counterfeit our own fingerprints because it requires a mathematical calculation, not just a reproduction. There is some science attached to it. It is also the same with the iris of the eye. So unless I cut off your finger and use it, and I do not know how long I could use it, basically I believe that biometrics can be used in a friendly manner. That is why we need a debate. We need to have all those people who secure us tell us if this is the best way to work.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the minister talk about this. In the European situation where they have that card, it has medical information on it. I was in Switzerland and actually saw it being used when an individual arrived at the hospital with chest pains. His card was put through and within six minutes that person was checked into the ward and a heart surgeon was there. It was a matter of health and safety. I wonder if the minister is thinking about that, because that is certainly the positive side of this. That person's life was saved because all of his medications, his x-rays, everything, were shown on that card.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and that is why we need the debate. I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona: This is a cultural issue and this is a matter of whether we are ready for it.

This kind of debate is no place for bafflegab, demagoguery and ready made designs.

It is important to have this kind of debate, with the pros and the cons, and look at the positive approach to an identity policy. First we have to decide among ourselves if we are ready to have an ID card and, second, we have to decide what we want in it. I am very jealous of my privacy. I believe that it is up to us to decide what we want to do with the card. I believe there are a lot of people like the one the member just mentioned for whom, for medical reasons, a smart card would be a good thing.

In my own Province of Quebec I remember that we had a major issue with regard to the health card with a chip in it. There were a lot of pros and cons. But I believe that the world has changed and this is the right opportunity for us to discuss among ourselves what we want to have in the way of an identity policy. When we are ready to make a decision, and if we believe we should go further, I think that because we have great examples in Europe and other countries, maybe that is a good way concretely to apply it.

I do not have any preconceived ideas. I am not here to tell members whether or not we should have a card and what will be on that card. I am asking if we believe that we need it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to comment on the speech made by the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The minister told us that we were here to have a debate. However, we heard comments in the House such as “Yes, but you have to do your homework”. We did hear such reactions. I am quite prepared to have a debate, but I hope the minister has not already made up his mind.

I find it dangerous to include such information on the national identity card. Will the card be compulsory or optional? It is very important to know that as well.

For what reasons do we still not have an identity card in Canada and in Quebec? This is 2003 and we have never needed an identity card because our identity, whether we are Canadians or Quebeckers, is ours alone. We are entitled to our privacy and to be who we are.

The government is trying to put on a card information that has no business being there, such as medical information, or other information on a person. We are not just talking about the person's name and address. We are talking about biometry, and we are even told that the card will protect us from the theft of various other cards. We are told that it will make things safer.

However, if a person's fingerprints already appear on a card, it is not just to protect his identity, but also to provide information, whether to the police or CSIS. My identity is my very own. It is mine and it is free. My fingerprints belong to me. But now I will have to put them in the hands of the state and several others who will be able to get information on a card.

I think that—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Châteauguay knows very well that I never said we would have a card with medical information on it.

I said we should have a debate to see if we are ready to have an ID card. I explained at length that biometrics cannot be considered only for online access but also offline. It would basically be an authentication process.

The member for Laval Centre described an unfortunate experience where someone had used her credit card. She always buys her gas at the same location. Her credit card number was taken. Someone copied it and maxed her card. Speaking personally and not on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, she said “This does not bother me and I do not lose sleep over it”.

How many average citizens have experienced this type of problem? How many people have their identity stolen at ATMs? How many people have their identity stolen when they go to the post office? More than 12,000 people, to the tune of $2.5 billion. It is not just the government. Imagine all the problems this can cause.

I say that for an authentication process, we have to have a debate and decide what we want out of an ID card. I agree with the member for Châteauguay that we must protect our identity.

I think the time has come to have this type of debate because the world is changing. We have to take our heads out of the sand, because this a problem that we have to address once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate today. I want to thank the minister for speaking to this topic and laying out his thoughts. He raised a number of questions during his debate, which I believe he should have answered. It has really left us wondering more about the topic rather than quenching our thirst for answers within this whole notion of a national identity card.

I also thank my colleagues from the NDP for bringing the motion forward. I thought they may have chosen their opposition day today to talk about the conflict in Iraq, but they have chosen this topic and we will certainly entertain debate on the topic.

The Canadian Alliance is supportive of the NDP motion. We have some serious concerns about the national identity card.

I will begin by first examining the minister's reasons for bringing the initiative forward. He says that we need positive proof identity that offers personal and collective security in light of the events surrounding September 11. People may agree or disagree with that but the debate is about whether this national identity card solves that particular question.

Second, the minister said that global travel would increasingly depend upon the integrity of travel documents, that the United States was considering this and that Canadians may no longer be able to use their drivers licence to cross the border. That is possible and we do need to be concerned about that, but again, is a national identity card the way to solve that particular issue?

The third reason the minister gave for entertaining the notion of a national identity card was that the federal department was responsible for issuing immigration and citizenship documents. He said that because the provinces issue birth certificates which are the basis for passports for travel, drivers licences and health insurance cards, and that these documents were not security proof, we needed one universal card with biometrics. We heard him making that argument in the House again today.

I ask, in rebuttal to that claim, is this the way to go? Is this the card that will solve that particular question?

The minister also said that Canadian companies were at the forefront of these technologies. When my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Transcona asked the minister which possible contributors to the Liberal Party may be involved in producing these cards, he received a wrath of scorn from the minister and Liberal colleagues. However I believe that is a valid question. The minister referred to that as a cheap political point. I would suggest to the minister and to the government that when there have been so many concerns about friends of the government benefiting from government programs or the contracts that go along with any development of any program, that is a valid question.

I also found it disappointing that the minister, while deploring that comment from our colleague from the NDP, then engaged in the same kind of activity by referring to members of the Alliance.

The minister also said that the new permanent resident card would be state of the art, that we needed to keep an open mind and that we should not rush to judgment. He said that we required objectivity and that we needed to consider other countries and what they were doing. The minister is putting a lot of faith in biometrics and he is asking Canadians to take a giant leap of faith, not only in his idea but in his government, with the notion of biometrics.

I was going to include a quote but I will skip that and basically summarize what we heard from the minister this morning. He claimed that putting biometrics in an imbedded chip or in a card would be a fail safe way of protecting Canadians' identities. That is a claim that is not provable at this point because the technologies are not at the point where that can be verified.

In making that claim and in placing so much importance on the issue of biometrics being the way to protect our identities as Canadians, the minister has missed a key point in the argument, that being, to believe this point is to put faith in something that is not yet there in the way of technology.

Given the track record of the government and what we have seen in the past with other programs, as my colleagues alluded to this morning, we have some serious concerns. We do not need to look back too far to see where there were some serious concerns about the administration of government programs by the current government. Now the minister is asking us to put our faith in him and his government to put together a national identity program that will actually protect the identity of Canadians. I would simply say that we are not ready to do that.

A number of concerns have been raised, not only today but in the past. One of the major concerns was brought forward by the former minister of immigration and the current Minister of National Revenue. When this idea of a national identify card was brought forward she said:

It makes me nervous. I don't think we need it. That's what I would worry about--police--somebody coming up asking for your ID card. If you're walking down the street minding your own business, nobody would expect in a free and democratic society to be stopped and asked for ID papers

That was said by the former minister of immigration, the current Minister of National Revenue, on the topic. She went on to say:

It's premature to suggest that this would be acceptable to this Cabinet. We haven't had a discussion about it. It's not on the table

Given what has been going on in cabinet lately, we are all very well aware of what is going on in terms of the Prime Minister who is on the way out and a prime minister who is on the way in, the debates that go on in caucus and the turmoil that has been there. It is no wonder that this has not received approval of the cabinet yet.

I would be interested to know whether or not it has been on the table at cabinet yet and whether there is even agreement among ministers. I do believe that if our NDP colleagues had a votable motion today it would be a very interesting to see exactly where members would stand, in fact, where members of the cabinet would stand on this issue because there certainly does not seem to be agreement even within cabinet on this topic.

What the minister said in the House this morning, just minutes ago, raises all kinds of questions that should have been answered by him but were not. I will dig a little deeper into that in a few minutes.

I want to focus on what some of the other government members have said in terms of the national identity card idea. The member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said that the federal government did not have a stellar track record. I referred to that earlier in the House. He said that millions of additional social insurance cards were in circulation, that passports had been stolen from Canadian offices abroad and that the firearms registry had experienced cost overruns. He then asked the minister if he could ensure that this would not be another bureaucratic nightmare. That was a member of the government asking that. It is no wonder that he had those concerns.

I was surprised a few minutes ago when the minister of immigration told us in the House and told all Canadians that he did not believe the social insurance card was an identity document. What a surprising revelation in the House today. My goodness, a social insurance card is an important document. We know that not too long ago all kinds of databases were being gathered around Canadian social insurance cards and social insurance numbers. All kinds of information was being databased and collected without anybody knowing exactly what was going on. When it came to the light of day that this was going on, the government had to backpedal and try to find some explanation for gathering information around our social insurance numbers. That was an interesting comment that the minister made.

However I am straying from my comments and I will get back to the very important comments that have been made by Liberal colleagues on the topic.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel said that he had difficulties with both the privacy and moral aspects of identity cards. The member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock said, “I have this big brother problem”. He noted that the federal privacy and information commissioners both expressed deep concerns about ID cards. The member for London North Centre is the chair of the immigration committee. Many of our colleagues are travelling with the immigration committee, and they will not be able to participate in today's debate, which is unfortunate. He said that he had honest scepticism about this whole issue.

Certainly this whole big brother concern, this privacy issue concern, is one that has been raised by others in this place, and which I and my Alliance colleagues raise as well. Placed in the context of the track record of this government in handling other sensitive information about Canadians, the government is asking us to trust it. It has given us more than ample reason in the past not to. The government's track record is really one of utter incompetence when it comes to the administration of important programs.

There was an important witness at committee, Mr. Morris Manning, who is one of Canada's leading constitutional lawyers. He warned the committee that the ID cards would increase racial profiling, do little to combat terrorism or identity fraud and invade people's privacy by creating a huge database of information.

That claim goes directly against what the minister said earlier in the House today. He told us that these national identity cards would protect our identities and decrease racial profiling. There are arguments on the other side of that issue, so really there is no conclusion. The minister is making assertions without proof that his assertions are in fact true.

There are all kinds of things I could get into but I want to focus on rebutting some of the comments that the minister made this morning in the House.

He said that the topic of a national identity card is not about a card, it is about an identity policy in our country. He asked us to look at the information that banks gather about us, our social insurance numbers, which again he referred to as not an identity document, and to look at the computer, the Internet and all the information out there.

It is because of those kinds of technologies and that information that is out there that Canadians have concerns about the privacy of their own information. We have seen identity fraud. The minister referred to it. Those kinds of concerns are not alleviated by the idea of bringing in a national identity card. In fact they are likely magnified because we have seen many examples of Canadians' information being used in ways that have come back to cause them great concern and great damage.

The minister referred to 12,000 people who have had their identities stolen. I believe that is what he said. It does not take much for us to look at that as a serious concern and something that we do not want to have happen to ourselves.

The minister said that creating this card is all about how we can remain ourselves and protect the Canadian way. I would argue, how can Canadians remain themselves if their identity is not securely protected?

If we do put our faith in this system and the system fails us, what have we gained? Nothing. What have we lost? Quite a bit.

The minister referred to a survey in which 76% of Canadians said that they want to see the protection of their identity. That is a large number of people. That survey he referred was of about 3,000 people. The minister then took a giant leap and said that these same people agree that his notion of a national identity card is the best way to protect their identity. That is illogical. The minister is getting a conclusion from a piece of information taken for another reason.

Yes, 76% of people want their identities protected, but does that mean they agree that the national identity card is the way to protect their identity? No, absolutely not. For the minister to make that conclusion I believe is illogical and one that we should take into consideration when examining this idea of a national identity card.

The minister has a lot of other priorities he could focus on and we are wondering why he is proceeding with the national identity card. My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona mentioned that earlier. Let us fix the systems that are in place now before we embark on a new one.

I could go on for an hour about the refugee determination system. I am sure members would love to hear me go on for an hour on that topic. It is one that I have studied over the years as a member of Parliament. There are all kinds of problems within that system. There are problems with the IMM 1000 document, with our passports and the security of very important identity documents. Those things have not been cleaned up. Why now embark on a new program that has so many questions left unanswered for us?

The minister also raised all kinds of questions. Can this technology help? How will the biometric information be stored? What about the cost? What about the management of this information? These are all valid questions that we have for the minister. We had hoped he would answer those kinds of questions rather than pose them.

If he is at the point of bringing this idea forward, we hoped he would have some kind of cost estimate as to how much this program would cost, given the debacle with the gun registry, another one of the government's billion dollar boondoggles, given what has happened with the HRDC information surrounding our social insurance numbers which I referred to earlier and given any number of mismanaged files on the government's part.

We even had the amazing event not long ago in the House where government members would not approve the estimates for the gun registry. That came to light again in the House yesterday when it was raised that money is still being spent on the gun registry. Where is that money coming from for the Minister of Justice when it was turned down by members of the House, including government members?

I had hoped the minister would bring forward in his debate today the idea of at least a trial project on a national identity card, of running some kind of small scale voluntary program where individuals could test the model before launching into a full scale initiative. It certainly would have been prudent. I think it would have helped his case had he done something like that ahead of time. He could have come to the House with accurate cost projections and information about how a trial project would have worked in terms of the biometrics that he talked about, rather than asking us to take a giant leap of faith in the whole area of this card being the protector of our national identity when the indication is quite clear from many individuals that these concerns have not been addressed.

The minister said he was glad we had this opportunity for debate today. However, if this idea has come this far down the pipeline without having had a full debate at cabinet and without having had these kinds of questions answered, I wonder if it is not just a way for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to trumpet something that likely will not see the light of day.

I thank my NDP colleagues for bringing forward this motion today. I look forward to what other members have to say on the topic. Certainly I would have hoped to have had a vote on this topic to see where members stood on the issue because I do not think there is a consensus. I hope the minister takes from this debate that there are serious concerns about the idea of a national identity card because it has not been clearly thought out by the government and given its track record, we cannot put our faith in it to administer such a program.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week when the minister spoke about this issue in the citizenship and immigration committee, he used the phrase that it was for discussion purposes only, that there was no commitment. I commended the minister then and I commend the minister now. Backbenchers often complain that everything is done from the top down. This time the minister has gone from the bottom to the top in asking us to have a discussion on this issue and again the minister is being blamed.

Would the member comment on the motion itself? I know that the motion was introduced by the NDP member for Vancouver East, but I think there is misrepresentation here somehow. The motion mentions “the introduction of a national identity card”. There is no introduction of a national identity card, there is a discussion only. Perhaps the member could comment on the motion.

The hon. member also spoke about the meeting we had with the minister last week and the minister's discussion today here in the House. The minister has not made up his mind. He is just asking us for consultation. As a matter of fact the minister will be travelling across the country to get points of view from Canadians. I would like the hon. member to comment on this point too.

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

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the technicality of the motion itself, I believe the intent of the motion is to enter into a debate. Our colleagues from the NDP are saying that they are not in favour of a national identity card program whether or not it is just at the debate stage. I would say the Alliance agrees with that. I cannot speak for my colleagues from other parties, but certainly the questions I raised today go a long way in sending a message to the minister as to where he needs to go with this idea.

I am glad the minister has not made a decision. That is good. I am surprised the debate has gotten this far down the road without the kinds of questions I asked earlier being addressed. As a minister of the crown, I would have hoped he would have had some cost analysis for us on what it will cost. I would have hoped he would have set down some ideas for doing some test trials on a voluntary basis on this program. I would have hoped he would have had some very specific outlines for us before bringing it forward as an idea and saying, “Hey, what do you think about this?” A time and a place for that is fine.

The fact that the minister is putting so much of his time and energy into this idea signals to us that it is more than just an idea. It is something into which he is putting his time and effort. He just said he wants to show leadership on this issue, so I would argue that it is more than just a point of debate; it is something that he wants to see happen. He is now expending his energy to try to solicit support for this idea. He has said that if it becomes clear that there is not support for the idea, he will not move forward with it.

I am simply saying that there are a lot of questions to be answered about this program before we can proceed with it. If the minister wants our input, he will get it. He is getting it today. He has had it in committee. He will have it when he travels to other areas of the country.

I repeat that what the minister should be doing is focusing on the programs that are not working very well right now in terms of our identity documents. He could work with his colleague from foreign affairs on the whole issue of passports. I know he wanted to move on the maple leaf card which a previous minister introduced to try to solve the problem around the IMM 1000 documents. However, the whole issue of the security of our documents has not been addressed.

Whether it is a national identity card, a biometric card or a combination of both, there is no way we can say that fraud will never happen again if individuals can have access at the ground level to those documents and fill in false information from the very beginning.

I would say let us look very carefully at what the minister is saying, because there are some very big holes in the claims he has made here in the House and across the country. This is a good place to bring those questions forward.

I thank my colleague for the question because it gave me a chance to expound a little bit more on the details of my arguments.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this important topic and say that I agree with him. The NDP is also concerned about the concerns of Canadians regarding the loss of identity and protection of identity. When we find out that in a poll of 3,000 people 75% are concerned about that loss of identity, we take that seriously.

The fact that there is a leak requires us to protect that identity by going the route of a national identify card. It does not however address the issues that people are concerned about.

Recently, thousands of Canadians received letters from their insurance company saying that there was a theft, in Regina, of a hard drive and there may have been a lot of important information that was stolen, and that they should keep an eye out at their banks and at various places where they do business to see whether any material had been accessed.

It is disturbing for Canadians to suddenly realize that their information is being moved around and that it can be stolen. As it turns out, it looks like this hard drive may have been stolen for reasons other than for information theft.

I would like to ask the member, how is it that a national identity card would allay the fears of those thousands of people who have had the experience of identity theft in that respect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is no way that having a national identity card would alleviate those fears of identity fraud. There was a day when none of us really thought about that whole notion, maybe even five years ago.

However, I even find myself wondering, when I am on the Internet, if somebody is now scanning my computer as I am on it, do I have the proper firewall and do I have the proper protection against identity theft.

Certainly, this card would not ensure that there would be no identity fraud any more. I think it is false faith. The minister is asking us to put our faith in a system, in a technology, that has not even been developed yet and is saying that this is the answer, this will end identity fraud, when in fact he cannot verify that.

He is asking Canadians to take a giant leap of faith. I would say, wait a minute, let us stop and take a very close look at this first. Let us solve the problems with the systems we have now before creating another one which could then suffer from the same kinds of problems.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to address this subject more fulsomely when I speak, but I was intrigued by the member's reference to the example used by the former minister of immigration who made some comments, if I understood correctly, that the possession of this card would somehow enable the police to stop someone on the street to demand identification.

Could the member explain that to me? Is there something that prevents the police from stopping people on the street and asking for their driver's licence today or asking people to identify themselves? How would the possession of another piece of identification change the powers of the police?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly raised that point. In fact, I gave a direct quote from the former minister of immigration just to highlight that there are concerns among government members about the whole notion. The member would have to take that up with the minister to find out exactly what she was thinking when she said that. I cannot answer for her.

A more salient point that was made by the former minister of immigration, the current Minister of National Revenue, is:

It's premature to suggest that this would be acceptable to this Cabinet. We haven't had a discussion about it. It's not on the table.

That is the whole issue of the national identity card itself.

In terms of whether having another card would stop the police from being able to ask for it, no, I guess it would not. However, I do not know exactly what the minister was driving at with that particular point. I only know that when a former minister of immigration raises concerns about a program being introduced by a cabinet colleague it should raise a red flag for all of us that there is not a unanimous moving forward from the cabinet even on this idea and that there are a lot of questions to be answered. And when cabinet colleagues have questions, we should have them too.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask for the unanimous consent of the House regarding a motion concerning private members' business. I wish to move that notwithstanding Standing Order 87(2), the draw for private members' business which is scheduled to be held today at 1:15 p.m. be postponed until Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 1:15 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.