Sarkis Assadourian

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, roughly 3,000 people were surveyed and 70% of them supported the idea of having some form of ID card.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

He is not a minister.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I followed the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. He asked what kind of information would be on the ID card. Nobody knows what kind of information will be on the card, and that is the purpose of this discussion.

First, it is totally unfair to ask the minister or anyone on the very first day of discussion what kind of information will be on it. It would be up to him, up to me, up to everyone here and up to Canadians to tell us what they want on the card, if we have the card. I would like him to comment on that.

Second, last week we had a committee meeting. The member for Laval Centre gave an example, and the minister repeated the example again here today, that her credit card was stolen. She may be one of the victims of 12,000 fraud cases. The credit card was then used without her knowledge or approval. If it is possible that this ID card would prevent at least the vast majority of this kind of fraud and if we could prevent 12,000 cases of $2.5 billion fraudulently charged to consumers, among other benefits, would it not be a worthwhile effort?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

That's a bit too low. Come on.