Bryon Wilfert

[Taxation, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the members on the other side are more used to being in Alice in Wonderland than they are in reality.

That is the party which on any given day asks us to raise taxes and says to spend more money, $3 billion, and on another day says to cut by $4 billion.

The reality is that, as the Prime Minister indicated today, we are reducing taxes. We are investing in Canadians. The record speaks for itself.

[Taxation, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in case the member has been asleep, I remind him that tomorrow at four o'clock in here a budget will be delivered by the Minister of Finance.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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

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

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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

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

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

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

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

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

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

[Gasoline Prices, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government needs no lectures from the other side on tax reduction. The government has continued to reduce both personal taxes, corporate taxes, and again I would point out the large portion of provincial sales taxes. If members want to see a freeze in the price they need to talk to their premiers.

[Gasoline Prices, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, fuel taxes go into general revenue. If there are concerns about the price of gasoline, that is a provincial responsibility. In 1975 the Bill Davis government, instead of raising it 5¢ a gallon immediately, put in a 90 day cap. Therefore, constitutionally, this lies with the provinces. If the member is concerned, she should phone her premier.

[Airline Security, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to emphasize for the member that there was a review process. Over 300 submissions were made, including from WestJet and Air Canada.

If the member listened carefully, although it seems he is not interested in the answer but is only interested in asking the question, the reality is that it is under review. The budget is on February 18. We are taking this issue very seriously. Stay tuned.

[Airline Security, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the member across the way knows, on November 8 the minister announced that he would have a review of the air security charge. Over 300 submissions were sent in. I would tell the member that currently that is under review.

As the member knows, February 18 is budget day, as was mentioned earlier. I hope the member will stand and applaud the government for the type of budget we will bring forward.