HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 28, 2002

Á

1115

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General)

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development)

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Á

1125

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. John McWhinnie (Assistant Deputy Minister, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1130

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1135

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

Mr. André Hurtubise (Director General, Investigation and Control, Department of Human Resources Development)

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. John McWhinnie

Á

1140

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mr. John McWhinnie

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

Mr. John McWhinnie

Á

1145

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Á

1150

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Á

1155

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. André Hurtubise

Â

1200

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.)

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Tony Ianno

Â

1205

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Tony Ianno

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Tony Ianno

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Â

1210

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Â

1215

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. André Hurtubise

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.)

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. John McWhinnie

Â

1220

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Â

1225

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. André Hurtubise

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. André Hurtubise

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Â

1230

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. André Hurtubise

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. André Hurtubise

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. André Hurtubise

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. André Hurtubise

The Chair

Mr. Peter Simeoni (Principal, Office of the Auditor General )

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Â

1235

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. John McWhinnie

Â

1240

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

Â

1245

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

The Chair

Mr. Tony Ianno

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Tony Ianno

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Â

1255

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

Mr. John McWhinnie

Ms. Sheila Fraser

Mr. Tony Ianno

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John McWhinnie

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. André Hurtubise

The Chair

Ms. Sheila Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Maryantonett Flumian

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 004

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    We have two groups of witnesses with us this morning. We have three witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General. Ms. Fraser, perhaps you would introduce the members of your team. We also have witnesses from the Department of Human Resources Development. Ms. Flumian, please introduce your witnesses when you begin your presentation.

    Ms. Fraser, I think you were given five minutes to make opening remarks. Then I think lively discussion will follow. I turn the floor over to you.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today before your committee to present the results of our audit on the integrity of the social insurance number. With me today are Peter Simeoni and Suzanne Therrien, who were responsible for this audit work.

    Since its creation in 1964, the social insurance number has systematically become one of a handful of personal identifiers used in Canadian society. Several of the federal government's largest programs use it. For example, in 2000-01, the SIN was the key-in account number for about $53.6 billion in payments under employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, and old age security.

    Many businesses also use the social insurance numbers of employees and clients for a variety of purposes, anything from serving as file identifiers, to making loans, to renting videos. Some provincial ministries and city governments also appear to be using them. In short, many organizations collect SINs from Canadians for a variety of uses.

    The widespread use of the social insurance number gives it more value than the government intended. As a result, it is particularly important that it only be used by its rightful owner. When it is not, government benefits, tax refunds, or consumer credit may go to the wrong person.

    We carried out this audit to determine whether the government was safeguarding and strengthening the integrity of the social insurance number. Our work followed up on the concerns we had raised in our 1998 report on SIN management. It was also based on reports to the House of Commons on the SIN by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. These reports were very useful to us in the course of our work.

[Translation]

    When we began we expected to find that the problems reported in the past would be largely resolved. Instead, we found that while there had been progress on certain issues since 1998, many others had not been addressed.

    On one hand, the government has reaffirmed its policy that the SIN is to be used only as an account number for authorized federal programs. To help protect personal information, (including the SIN), outside the federal government, it is implementing the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. In addition, HRDC has examined the use of the SIN in the private sector and has made modest efforts to raise public awareness about how the SIN should be used.

    On the other hand, we again found serious weaknesses in the control and issuing of SINs, which led us to conclude that HRDC has not done enough to safeguard and strengthen the integrity of the SIN.

    In our view, HRDC is not meeting the intent of the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations in issuing SINs. HRDC asks applicants for one document as proof of both identity and citizenship. Since a single piece of identification is usually insufficient to check both, we are concerned that for the majority of the SINs issued since 1998, the applicant's identity and citizenship status were not checked properly.

    We question the reliability of some of the documents that HRDC accepted as proof of eligibility for a SIN. For example, we found that HRDC would accept expired passports, baptismal certificates, and photocopies of these and other documents. We are also concerned because HRDC does not check the validity of most documents it accepts with the authorities responsible for issuing them.

[English]

    We found there was inadequate control over SINs issued to people who were not Canadians or permanent residents--what is known as the 900 series. Like regular SINs, these numbers do not expire, although they are likely needed only temporarily. Again, like regular social insurance numbers, HRDC did not take adequate steps to establish the identities of applicants, nor did it ask these applicants to show why they needed SINs, even though it is required by legislation. Over time, HRDC has issued close to 1.6 million of these social insurance numbers in the 900 series, and more than 900,000 of them are still usable.

    Since 1998, the department has stepped up the number of SIN-related fraud investigations. However, there is little basis on which to judge whether the new level of effort is adequate, because the department has not done a comprehensive risk assessment as a basis for its investigations.

    The reliability and completeness of information in the social insurance register, that is the database of all SIN records, also remains a problem. While HRDC made some improvements after 1998, there are still several issues that it has not dealt with adequately. For example, the number of usable SINs for people over 20 years old exceeds the related census figure by some 5 million. Although the department has declared 2.6 million SINs dormant, these numbers can still be used to access federal benefit programs without triggering investigation.

    I am pleased to note the department has accepted all of our recommendations. Minister Stewart has announced several measures that, if implemented fully, should address a number of our concerns. While I am encouraged by the department's commitment to manage the SIN better, we have not seen the details.

    I think it's important that the department develop a complete action plan addressing all of the issues we have raised. To do that well, the department should assess what risks there are in managing the social insurance number, and devise appropriate program controls. It is equally important that controls, while effective, not become excessive or unreasonable.

[Translation]

    Madame Chair, it is clear that HRDC has to make a better effort to strengthen the integrity of the social insurance number. While HRDC recognizes there are problems and has taken some steps to address them in the past, we are here today because it did not follow through.

    The first order of business is making sure that HRDC respects the intent of the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations. The committee may wish to ask officials from HRDC how they plan to determine the identity and citizenship status of SIN applicants and to obtain proof that applicants for 900-series SIN actually require them.

    The committee may also wish to ask the officials from HRDC what their plans are for: increasing public awareness of how to use the SIN; addressing the risks of the 900-series SIN; assessing the reliability of documents it accepts as support for application and checking their validity with the authorities that issued them. Providing staff with the training and tools they need; improving the Social Insurance Register and, finally, doing risk-based investigations on SIN related fraud.

[English]

    The committee may also wish to ask the department to provide it with an action plan against which the department would report its progress regularly to the committee.

    Madam Chair, that concludes my opening statement. We will be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

    I will now turn to the Department of Human Resources Development, Ms. Flumian.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Maryantonett Flumian. I'm the associate deputy minister of Human Resources Development.

    I have with me two colleagues. John McWhinnie is the assistant deputy minister of the insurance program. André Hurtubise is the director general for investigation and control in the department.

[Translation]

    I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to speak to you about the measures Human Resources Development Canada will take to protect the integrity of the Social Insurance Number.

[English]

    The Government of Canada agrees with the Auditor General's recommendations on the SIN and has already started implementing measures to protect its integrity.

    Before I outline most of these initiatives, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to some of the myths about the social insurance number and restate the government's position on the role of the SIN.

    Since 1964, the SIN has been used as a file identifier for specific government programs. The number and the card are not meant, nor are they designed, to be used for personal identification. Since 1998, HRDC has undertaken a campaign to communicate this proper use of the SIN to holders and businesses alike.

[Translation]

    The Auditor General noted that the Social Insurance Number was established outside the federal government to serve various interests of the private sector. However, the Auditor General also noted that the government had introduced the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to provide better protection for personal information. She said she is satisfied with the progress made by the government to deal with the widespread use of the Social Insurance Number.

[English]

    The AG report also refers to the discrepancy between the number of SINs and the adult Canadian population recorded by Statistics Canada. The Auditor General is concerned that these additional 5 million SINs can be used to access federal benefit programs. We will ensure they are not. The following is the reason for the differences in some of the numbers we've heard.

    Since 1998, HRDC has established that 3.2 million of these SINs have not been used in at least five years and has noted them on the social insurance register. Almost a million more SINs were issued between when the census figures were produced and when the Auditor General counted the number of SINs on the social insurance registry.

    Finally, the number of Canadians living and working or studying abroad, but who are not represented in the census, easily makes up the remaining difference. However, HRDC does share the Auditor General's concerns for the integrity of the SIN program. Since the 1998 audit of SIN, we have verified approximately 5.6 million SIN records; tripled the number of SIN investigations, as the Auditor General has already stated; introduced a monitoring and review program for SIN applications; provided training and tools to investigators and our front-line staff; and initiated a public awareness campaign to better inform Canadians on how to protect and use their SINs.

[Translation]

    The auditor mentioned many of these achievements in her last report. In fact, when the SIN program was reviewed in 2000, the Auditor General was confident about our ongoing progress. She stated that other measures we were planning would contribute to improving the integrity of the SIN and to informing Canadians about its purpose and the way in which the number should be used.

[English]

    Let me now turn to some of the initiatives that have been implemented, both in response to what the Auditor General has focused on as well as the department's more general concern for the safety and security of Canadians in general.

    Let me speak to the original documents for the proof of identity. Since October 8, 2002, HRDC has accepted only original identity documents as proof of identity for a SIN, and we are reducing the number of documents we accept for identification purposes. As well, the department has recently made changes to the proof-of-identity program, so that it no longer accepts baptismal certificates. This change was put in place in August 2002. We accept that these new measures will present a little inconvenience to our clients. But they will improve security by reducing the risk of identity fraud.

    In terms of deactivating SINs that have not been used for the last five years, since October 8, 2002, we have also deactivated any SINs that have not been used in the last five years, so that they cannot be used to access benefit programs without showing proof of identity. Individuals who have used their SINs in at least the last five years for any authorized federal program—such as employment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, old age security, the Canada education savings grant program, or a tax return—will not have their numbers deactivated. The vast majority of Canadians access at least one of these programs.

    If deactivated SINs are used by authorized programs, HRDC will conduct a follow-up verification to ensure it is being used by the rightful holder of that SIN number. By greatly reducing the number of usable SINs, we will help to guard the integrity of the SIN and improve security for all Canadians. This measure greatly reduces the number of usable SINs.

    In terms of expiry dates on the 900 series,

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

HRDC is also seeking authority to introduce expiry dates for all SINs belonging to people who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. The expiry date for such a SIN will be linked to the immigration status of the applicant.

    These SINs, which begin with the number nine, are issued to people who need them for employment or to comply with other authorized usage such as income tax filing. Holders of these SINs include temporary foreign workers, foreign students and refugee claimants.

    Once the new measure is implemented, all new 900-series SINs will be valid until the expiry date. This measure will also greatly help in reducing the number of usable SINs.

[English]

    HRDC has initiated a comprehensive risk assessment on the issue of SIN fraud investigations and will share and, indeed, work with the Auditor General on the results of this initiative. We continue to ensure that these actions taken speak specifically to the recommendations of the Auditor General. We're moving to improve controls on issuing SINs, to raise awareness about authorized use of SINs, to streamline and strengthen the SIN application process, and to pursue vigorously those who commit SIN-related fraud and abuse. We'll also continue to work closely with federal and provincial government officials, police services, employers, and other partners in combating SIN-related fraud and abuse.

    HRDC is committed to ensuring that its SIN policies strike the right balance among Canadians' many legitimate interests. On the one hand, the total number of SIN-related investigations has tripled since 1998; on the other hand, we strictly follow the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which safeguards Canadians' privacy and guides the use of the SIN in both the public and private sectors.

[Translation]

    HRDC continues to work with other federal partners—such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada—to ensure that public safety and security remains at the forefront and that Canadians' SIN-related needs are met.

[English]

And we would agree that we would work to table an action plan with the Auditor General, as well as this committee, if you were to so wish, to make sure we continue progress along all these lines.

[Translation]

    Thank you for your attention, Madame Chair.

[English]

My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions about these new measures or the program in general.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll now turn to members of our committee. I think we'll try seven-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Solberg.

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to both presenters.

    First of all, Ms. Fraser, I want to thank you for your work on this file. I think you've exposed something that's important and of concern to taxpayers. I trust that we can look forward to follow-up reports on this file. Is that part of the plan?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes. Should the department produce an action plan with timelines, we would do a follow-up audit in an appropriate period when action was to have been completed, and we will most certainly revisit this issue in the future.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Ms. Flumian, I guess my first question is, why are we still talking about this all these years after so many of these recommendations were made?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Well, sir, as I outlined earlier, we have been making progress on these fronts for some many years, and since 1998, when the Auditor General's predecessor and his staff paid us a visit, we have implemented changes to the way we manage the SIN program. Events of the last many years have asked us to accelerate the progress that we've been making, and I think you've seen on our part far more aggressive action in the last period of time to deal with the issues that have been raised with the Auditor General.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: But some of these problems are very serious. I appreciate the fact that the department is making some changes now. That's good. But it strikes me as odd that, when these issues were initially raised, they didn't become a top-drawer priority. If they were, then they would have been addressed after four years, but they're still out there. We still have all these SIN numbers floating around. We have the 900 series number problem. We have, actually, what looks to me like maybe a dispute about the training that you do provide. The Auditor General says there needs to be better training, and you're saying you're providing training.

    My point is that I don't understand why, when this was red-flagged a long time ago, the department has failed to deal with this completely.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I guess, as I reiterate, we have been making improvements to the program, especially since 1998. I think events of the last little while continue to indicate that we're making those improvements at a more accelerated and aggressive pace. We can only speak to the measures that are before us now.

    We don't disagree with the points that have been raised by the Auditor General, and we are moving as quickly and as aggressively as possible to deal with them.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Well, let me be very specific, then.

    On something like all the excess SIN numbers that are out there, I would think people within the department would be quite alarmed about that, because of the potential for the invasion of privacy, fraud, and all those sorts of things. So why weren't more resources put into that to deal with it within a year, for instance, instead of, four years later, our still having all these problems with it?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Go ahead, John.

    Mr. John McWhinnie (Assistant Deputy Minister, Insurance, Department of Human Resources Development): Back in 1998, as Madame Flumian has indicated, the Auditor General raised a number of concerns, and we acted fairly immediately on what we felt were the key concerns. I think this issue of the discrepancy between the number of active SINs and the population is a concern to Canadians, and we did move very quickly.

    What we put on was a flag that made them dormant. In other words, they weren't being used. From our perspective back in 1998, we felt that this was good from a risk perspective, knowing that they were dormant and not being used.

    What has happened in this recent audit is that the concern was raised, particularly due to the events of the last year, that maybe that's not good enough. I think that's what we're responding to. Now, rather than just a flag so we know they're dormant, if those numbers try to come back into circulation, we will prevent that, without doing an investigation that it is in fact the individual the SIN was initially delivered to. So we would do an investigation, look at proof of identity, and make sure those numbers could not be picked up and used for fraudulent purposes. That's what the Auditor General's concern was, and that's what we addressed.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: My concern is that I don't get the sense that this has been a priority for the department. There are so many glaring problems that don't seem to get addressed. I hear reassuring words that we're moving aggressively, but it has been a long time. Presumably if the department were serious about addressing these things, given the amount of time that's passed, you could have addressed them all.

    Is it a problem of resources? What has prevented the department from dealing with all these sorts of concerns? Are there no internal checks to make sure things are getting done? What is the problem?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: Obviously we have a lot of competing priorities. I think it's important to go back to the follow-up that was done on it in the year 2000 that indicated the measures that we had been putting in place since 1998. We're going in the right direction. I think it's really important to understand that, with the events of the past year, the bar has been raised. I think we have redirected our priorities to raise the concern around identity fraud that's linked to the SIN.

    The Chair: Ms. Fraser.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madam Chair, I have to raise a point of clarification.

    When we did the follow-up audit in 2000 we used a form of practice where we would simply review with the department the progress that they were making or not making on recommendations. We did not go back to re-audit. We have now changed our process and we actually go in to re-audit the issues that are being brought to us.

    I would say at that time, in 2000, we felt that the department was addressing the issue. We noted in our report, too, that there was a request for additional funding, which was not given to the department. Our impression is that the efforts tailed off after 2000.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay, thank you. That's helpful.

    If it's the question of resources that's not permitting the government to deal with this, surely given the seriousness of the situation, and perhaps since September 11 last year, but even before then, because of the potential for the invasion of privacy and the potential for fraud, why is the government not making this a priority within the department? There always seems to be money for new programs of all kinds, but when it comes to basic administration, I'm concerned that there's not a high enough priority placed on addressing these sorts of problems that have the potential to really cause serious damage.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: I think the reality is this. In terms of the issues that we've talked about today, it is a priority of the department and the department has made it a priority. We take very seriously the observations of the Auditor General. Again, we are working aggressively to deal with those issues, and to put them in a state that the Auditor General could concur with us is the appropriate one, as quickly as we can.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: So we will get a report, I trust, from you on how you're progressing with all of these things?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: As I said in my opening remarks, we would be happy to meet the Auditor General's request that we commit to an action plan, with a timetable, and to ensure that not only with the Auditor General but also with the committee.

    The Chair: You'll get a second round.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you.

    The Chair: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to take a slightly different tack, if I may. Although my question is directed to Ms. Fraser in the first place, Ms. Flumian might care to add something as well.

    I would like to talk about the card with respect to its use for identification. You were saying, Ms. Fraser, that the card is often used as proof of identity and citizenship. As you know, there is a debate in Canada, and perhaps among committees, about a biometric card which would be used as an identification card and perhaps as a citizenship card as well. It would replace all sorts of other cards in use at the moment.

    Would you care to make a few comments on the introduction of such a card and its use with respect to the protection of personal information and the replacement of the SIN card?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Madame Chair.

    I would like to start by saying that the introduction of a national identity card is really a political matter on which I cannot comment; that is rather the role of parliamentarians.

However, I would like to say that the proof of identity and proof of citizenship are requirements under the Employment Insurance Act. Parliament stated clearly in this Act that in order to have a Social Insurance Number, the department had to check the identity and citizenship of the applicant. It also said that a number of documents could be used for this purpose. It is difficult to have one document that can meet both needs. A birth certificate, for example, may be used to check an individual's citizenship. But how are we to check his or her identity? That is the question we asked the department: How are you complying with this Act?

    In 1998, when we did our initial audit, we raised the issue of the use of the Social Insurance Number. Since that time, the government has clarified its position by stating that the Social Insurance Number is nothing more than an identification number for certain authorized government programs.

    Consequently, if we use it as an identification number, its uses are obviously very different from those of a national identity card.

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Going back to the SIN card, the number on the card isn't meant to be used for personal identification, nor was it designed to be used for that purpose, for the reasons you have raised. We have our hands full right now just dealing with the administration of the SIN. We have not been involved in any discussions about national identity cards in the guise of what we're working on. The issues you raised and the issue raised by the Auditor General are also the reason we were actively out there with a public information campaign to ensure that the private sector and individual Canadians actually understood the usage of the SIN and the importance of protecting that number for the reason it was meant and designed, not for the purpose of personal identification.

    The Chair: Are you finished your round?

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, I am.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you, Ms. Flumian and Ms. Fraser, for your presentations.

    Luck seems to be on your side because the report was to be tabled in September but it was only tabled around mid-October and you introduced measures that came into effect October 8, 2002. You had four years to take action, to try to correct the weaknesses that had been decried by the Auditor General, Mr. Desautels, in 1998.

    You say that since the 1998 audit, you have checked approximately 5.6 million SIN files, that you tripled the number of SIN investigations. How many investigations did you have? Three times as many is not a specific number.

    Mr. André Hurtubise (Director General, Investigation and Control, Department of Human Resources Development): This year we will conduct between 6,000 and 7,000 SIN investigations.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: On what grounds would you conduct an investigation?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: There are many reasons to conduct an investigation. For example, there are many requests from clients and citizens to check a possible fraudulent use of the SIN. It is also based on the programs we have on SIN requests at our offices.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: The report is very clear on the question of investigations: there are 4 million excess cards in circulation. Will you be investigating to see why that is so?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: If you consider the explanation provided by Mr. McWhinnie and Ms. Flumian to justify the difference in population and the number of cards, yes, one of the purposes of our investigations is to ensure that the right cards belong to the right people.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Flumian, would an action plan contain timeframes and figures? We know that the report drew a lot of publicity, that there 4 million cards too many, that some of the 900-series SINs were used, etc. Do you have any corrective measures in place? In 1998, some facts were denounced, and you only took steps four years later. Now I am asking you what your action plan is: what do you plan to do in the next few years?

    The media applied so much pressure to have these problems corrected. They also talked about the credibility of the SIN, as well as the entire security issue. If we no longer have control over our SIN and there is talk of a citizenship card... After all, there must be some consistency for all of these types of cards.

    So in light of the denunciations made by the Auditor General, what measures do you propose and what will your action plan be, with specific dates? How many of the 4 million excess cards and the 900-series SINs will be eliminated? The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I am a member, and all parliamentarians must be able to conduct a closer follow-up.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Thank you, Madame Chair. Mr. Desrochers, I will ask Mr. McWhinnie to explain the various facets of the action plan.

[English]

    Mr. John McWhinnie: In her opening remarks, I think Madame Flumian indicated three very significant actions that we're taking, and not coincidentally, October 8 was the date that the Auditor General tabled her report. This flowed from our management response to the Auditor General, and we had been working with them in terms of that response.

    We have been doing a number of things, as we've said before, that were already in place since 1998 and I think an action plan could very clearly spell that out. But from here, already action has been taken in terms of only accepting original documents. That's done. It was out in the field on October 8. That is in place.

    What is being done with the deactivation is already in place, so that any of those deactivated since then that come back into circulation will be looked at.

    As of April 1, 2003, anybody applying for a 900 series SIN or a temporary SIN will have an expiry date linked to their reason for being in the country and their proof of need for a SIN. We'll be working very closely with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to make that happen. We will then give one more year, until April 1, 2004, for anybody currently holding a temporary card--

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: But those are not measures, Mr. McWhinnie; those are not measures.

[English]

    Mr. John McWhinnie: —to come forward and get a new card with an expiry date on it.

    The Chair: Would you please go through the chair?

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You mentioned some wonderful action plan principles, but I asked you whether you had any measures. The Auditor General provided us with some figures. What will be the picture a year from now? I know that you are making an effort, but I want to know what efforts you will be making in the future and I also want you to tell me how the problems are going to be resolved. That is what the public wants to know. I endorse your great action plan principles, but the media spoke of 4 million cards, series 900 SINs, and even a place that had received 225 cards. Those are the problems that must be resolved. It is a matter of perception and also one of your department's credibility and that of the SIN. I would therefore like to know whether your action plan contains any measures to address that.

[English]

    Mr. John McWhinnie: What I was talking about were measures, and I think the Auditor General's concern was where we had SINs that weren't accounted for. First of all, there's been a lot of misconception in the press around the 5 million more SINs than there is population. The first answer is that it's perfectly legitimate for there to be more SINs than population, because many Canadians live, work, and retire abroad and need a SIN in order to keep their CPP and their bank accounts and do business in Canada. So a good portion of those are not at risk.

    The concern is for those where we don't know what has happened to them; we identify them as dormant. We have taken action to ensure that those numbers will not be able to come back into circulation without an investigation.

    One of the other things the press raised was the number of SINs going to the same address. We monitor those. For the most part, those are perfectly legitimate. It's very normal for a number of SINs to go to a certain address. There are agencies out there that handle settlements for refugees, for example. They will come in batches and we will send the SIN cards, with appropriate citizenship and immigration clarification, so those are legitimate and valued. Those people need those SINs, and they will go to one address. We regularly monitor those, and if we see anything suspicious we turn it over for an investigation to be launched.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madam Chair, I obviously cannot speak to what actions the department may or may not have taken since the release of our audit report, because we would not have looked at that in detail. What I can say is that at the time of our audit the department did not know why there was a discrepancy. We admit that there could be very valid reasons for part of the discrepancy. But at the time we did our audit they did not know what the discrepancy was or why it was there.

    The dormant cards could be reactivated. One of my staff members told me that they were at a processing centre and saw a transaction come through. They asked the person doing it what this cue meant, and they said that it was a dormant card. But there was no process in place then to question whether or not it was a valid transaction.

    I would say that we also have had serious concerns about the follow-up on what we would call unusual transactions, such as 225 cards going to an address, which at the time of our audit were not being followed up adequately.

    The Chair: You'll get a second round, Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

    Ms. Flumian, when someone comes to Canada and wants to get a 900-series card, what must he or she do?

[English]

    Mr. John McWhinnie: When people come to Canada for various reasons--such as as a foreign student, or a temporary foreign worker, for which we have a number of programs in place, or a refugee--they will be processed by Citizenship and Immigration. The determination will be made by that department as to their valid reason for being in the country, the length of the time they'll be in the country, and whether or not they would need a SIN.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What kinds of documents do they need to provide in order to get the card?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: For a SIN card you'd need two fundamental documents. If you're a Canadian citizen, you'd need a birth certificate. If you're a temporary resident, you would need a legitimate.... There is a range of documents that we would accept from Citizenship and Immigration. It is their determination that the person is legally in the country for a period of time.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Canada has an educational program for children. I believe it's called the Canada education savings grant. In order to open one, you need a SIN number.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: That's correct.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Here's a case in point. A child was born last February, and the parents made an application for this program, but the Province of Ontario to this date--and we're getting close to December--has not yet provided a birth certificate. Therefore, the $2,000, which could get $400 added by the government to this child's program, cannot be utilized. The interest it could have compiled since February cannot be compiled, all because the province cannot deliver a birth certificate. The bank won't open the account until you have a SIN number. Since you're involved indirectly--because it's SIN and it's okay, or no SIN and it's good-bye--what can be done? It cannot be a singular case, because I believe that in Ontario they get hundreds of thousands of applications for birth certificates.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: You're raising a very important point, and one that I think is probably most fundamental in terms of some of the integrity of the SIN, and that is appropriate linkages to vital statistics records in the provinces. We are doing a lot of work with the provinces through the Vital Statistics Council, which all the provinces sit on, looking at trying to get better linkages so that we can deal directly with vital statistics records and increase the integrity and speed with which we can issue a SIN when people ask for them. But we can't issue a SIN without having that documentation.

    So it's a problem that the province is somewhat behind in their birth certificate applications. But we are working with them to try to get better coordination. It isn't just us in HRDC; the passport office and all the other government departments that need that connection to vital statistics data are working together to try to improve that capacity.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So tough luck for the moment.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: In that particular situation, yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Ms. Fraser, you say there are four, five or six million SIN cards in circulation that have gone missing. You are concerned there may have been some fraud. Do you know whether any fraud was used to obtain a passport? The other type of fraud would be of a financial or monetary type. Do you suspect or do you have reason to believe there may have been fraud in those two areas? Do you have any examples thereof?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Madame Chair.

    During this audit, we looked specifically at the question of fraud, but like all committee members, I read the newspapers and I know there is sometimes reference to cases of fraud that were uncovered by the department through its audit program or another program. It is hardly surprising that there may have been fraud in a program of this size. The employment insurance program, the pension fund, the old age security program and others represent huge sums of money, over $50 million.

    In our audit, we highlighted the importance of having an audit program that thoroughly assesses risk and focuses its efforts on the areas of greatest risk.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Ms. Fraser, a discussion will soon begin on the possibility of a national identification card. I realize this is a political matter, but it will be up to the government or Parliament to decide and it is not within your jurisdiction. However, I would like you to answer my question to increase my understanding of all this.

    The SIN card is currently used as an identification card. Would it be risky to write the SIN on this national identification card? I want to help you. I think there is an inherent risk in that, because people working in stores could then say they know someone's Social Insurance Number. All the storekeeper needs to know is whether the person in front of them is indeed the person he or she claims to be, and whether he or she can be identified.

    So can you combine the Social Insurance Number with the national identification card? I admit it is a hypothetical question.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madame Chair, I will admit I am no expert in the field, although I do know that questions are often raised about personal information. In our report, we also mentioned there is growing concern in our society about identity theft. The more information is collected in one spot, the easier it becomes to steal someone's identity. Before collecting several pieces of information on the same person, one must recognize that possibility and take appropriate steps.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Ms. Fraser.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Davies, then Mr. Ianno and Mr. Solberg.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Chairperson, and thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

    I think most Canadians think of SINs as a very basic part of Canadian life, so it's quite alarming that four years after the initial audit was done we're still raising some fairly fundamental questions about the control of the program, about possible misuse, fraud and so on. It makes me wonder if we can't get this right. It raises a lot of questions about a lot of other programs as well, because this should be a fairly standard, basic way of conducting public business.

    A lot of questions have been raised today. I'd like to focus on three things.

    First, I'm really surprised to hear that there isn't yet an action plan. When the first audit was done, I would have thought that the first order of business would be to put into place a timeline and priorities. Of all these things, I still don't have a sense of which the department considers to be the most critical and so on down the list. There's no sense of the order of things, what your timelines are. Why hasn't there been an action plan? Why are you now only considering doing it as a result of this status report?

    Secondly, the Auditor General has told us today that there are 2.6 million dormant SINs that can still be used to access federal benefits without triggering an investigation. Perhaps you can explain that.

    And thirdly, I'd like to question you on what we heard is a modest program to deal with the private sector or even with Canadians about what is the appropriate or inappropriate use of SINs. I am always amazed at how frequently, when you're interacting with a bank or a business, when you go anywhere, you will be asked for your SIN--and I'm sure each one of us has stories about this. I always refuse to give it.

    If it's a policy of the program to only use it for access of government benefits or government purposes, then why are we even allowing the private sector to collect those numbers? I don't understand this. Should this not be something that is actually a legislative requirement? In your presentation today I think you said it is the government's policy that it not be used beyond those parameters, but clearly it is.

    So I have another major question. I am not aware of any awareness program, as a consumer, that would tell me what's the inappropriate use for me to provide information on my SIN, and I don't know what you're saying to the banks or anybody else. So perhaps you could address that question as well.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Certainly, Madam Chair. Perhaps I'll begin and Mr. McWhinnie can follow on, as well as Mr. Hurtubise.

    First and foremost, as I began by saying, we do agree with the observations made by the Auditor General. And by way of the actions we've taken, we do consider those to be a very active and aggressive action plan.

    What I was referring to earlier is that we'd be happy to table with you the specifics of that action plan. We'll make it available to you as quickly as possible in some detail so that you can follow the timelines that we will be following in terms of achieving these measures.

    I might also say that all the measures we spoke of today have been put in place, save for the regulatory requirements required to activate the measures that we will be taking on the 900 series, which do require regulatory changes. Therefore, following the prescribed rule of making those changes, as soon as those have been received...we have already put administrative measures in place, and as soon as that regulation has passed, we will move to conclude those elements.

    So I didn't by any means try to leave you with the impression that we have no action plan, that we have not already acted to put these measures in place, either in August or October of this year. We're continuing apace to make this one of those priority areas. We have to ensure that we've put all the appropriate safeguards in place and tightened the administration.

    On the issue of dormant SINs, dormant SINs do trigger an investigation, and Mr. McWhinnie and Mr. Hurtubise can speak to this in greater detail.

    On the issue of public awareness, I will also say that the program that we ran is now concluded. In light of what we've learned on that public awareness program, we're now evaluating the results. It's probably fair to say that in light of the issues that have been raised involving the SIN in the last few months, we should probably be stepping up our awareness campaign. We should be making sure that we're out there reaching individual Canadians on how to safeguard the use of the SIN and the requirements of when to and when not to use the SIN. We should also be reaching the private sector in terms of who is eligible and who is not in terms of the usage of the SIN number. As well, we should be informing Canadians in general on SIN-based programs, if I can put it this way, where it is a requirement to have a SIN in order to receive an entitlement.

    So I'll turn to Mr. McWhinnie for greater detail, but I want to show you that we are acting on all those three fronts.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: And maybe just to clarify, it isn't entirely true we haven't had an action plan. In 1998, we put together a very comprehensive action plan, and I think it's been indicated that we were not able to access all of the funding that we had hoped we could at that time to do everything, but in a way there has been an action plan in our departmental plans and priorities report every year in terms of what we've been doing in addressing those issues. In fact, that was a lot of what was referred to in the 2000 update report.

    So I think what we're talking about here is that we have, as part of our response to the Auditor General, in essence laid out an action plan of a very significant reaction to the main concerns, and what we've said today is that we'd be happy to share a detailed plan with milestones and how we're wrestling with that, and regular updates.

    There is some legislation that is relevant to this whole issue of the use of the SIN in the private sector, and I'll ask Mr. Hurtubise to respond to that because he's a little more familiar with it.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It's very much a concern of ours that the social insurance number is often used outside of the parameters for which it was designed, and that was very much at the crux of the publicity campaign we had put forward previously and that we will continue to do.

    When we addressed this issue as a result of the 1998 Auditor General's audit, along with the publicity campaign, the government was putting into place Bill C-6, which is the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act, which talks about personal information and includes the social insurance number as a very important piece of personal information for all individuals. Bill C-6 is the piece of legislation that protects the personal information for all individuals both in the public and the private sector. It defines very clearly the usages and how and if that type of information can be accessed by anybody.

    It does have a remedy section in there, and the privacy commissioner has played an important role in the development of that legislation and the enforcement of that legislation as it becomes incrementally in place up until I believe January 1, 2004, when it's finally in place across the board.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Could I have a brief follow-up?

    The Chair: I'm hoping I'll get you at second round.

    Mr. Ianno.

    Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Thank you.

    My question is further to the discussion of the use of the SIN number, one, within the departments within the Government of Canada, and also in terms of the concern about employers and their rights and obligations and the study that you've put out in terms of determining how it is being used. The concern I have with all of this is that if one applies for a job, generally the employer will ask for the SIN number. What is the obligation on the employer to actually ask for the SIN number, not necessarily for your department but for the government at large? For employment insurance, for taxes, for all of that, for citizenship, for the ability to work, what is the procedure and what are the rights and obligations?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: Obviously an employer normally would have to take CPP, EI, and tax deductions, and the SIN number is the connector that allows that to happen. So in a way, it's an obligation of employment.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: What happens if an employer does not take that information, the SIN number? Is there a penalty?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: There would be a problem with CCRA, and I can't speak for them.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: That's part of my question.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: They would have to do source deductions as part of the agreement.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: That's part of my question. What does your department, which gives out the SIN numbers, do with CCRA in terms of who in the end has to receive some form of payment? Are you still receiving moneys for employment insurance? Who actually receives that?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: What do you mean, receives it?

    Mr. Tony Ianno: When an employer sends the money in, the source deductions.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: CCRA does the source deductions for CPP, EI, and, of course, tax development.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: And where does that information go? Does it stay with them?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: They manage that for us. We have a memorandum of understanding with CCRA. It's part of the EI act.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: So HRDC gets the information, or some form of information. Correct?

    What I'm trying to figure out is... Here, for example, a SIN number given to a person's granddaughter. Aside from the money he's putting in, eventually she's going to use the SIN number for employment. Someone hiring this person is possibly, or more than likely, using this SIN number. This SIN number for a Canadian citizen, or permanent resident, etc., is then used for source deductions and income tax. There should almost be no one with a dormant SIN, even if they're abroad, if they're doing Canadian income taxes, if they're still Canadian, right? But you have to know their citizenship and the CCRA rules.

    In effect, what I'm wondering is, does the government speak to itself, and taking into account privacy issues and interdepartmental communication, how does it all flow so that we know that the person who is working is working legally, is paying taxes--from the source deductions plus income taxes—and doesn't have a dormant SIN because their SIN is not being used for any of these processes? Who has the rights and obligations in this whole process?

  (1205)  

    Mr. André Hurtubise: It's a very complicated question, but I think we have some answers.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: But that's life.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: Yes.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: So if you can't deal with it, then you have a real problem. The Auditor General has a problem.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: No, we can deal with this.

    As Mr. McWhinnie indicated, CCRA is responsible for collecting premiums for EI, CPP, and of course their taxes. They also are fully legitimate co-owners of the social insurance registry. They have access to, and the ability to update the files contained in, the social insurance registry. Every year, on our behalf, they will tell us who on their records has accessed CCRA. So this will help us determine whether a number should become inactive or not.

    So if someone has worked, and they have the record of that work—for example, the person has made remittances, contributions to CESG, or remittances to EI, or CPP, etc.—CCRA will update the social insurance registry to reflect this. Therefore, this social insurance number will not go dormant, because there is this activity happening. This will, and does, happen on a regular basis. So we have this ongoing connectivity.

    You mentioned in your question the issue of whether a person is legally in Canada or not. Our relationship with Citizenship and Immigration is such that their determination of the status of someone and whether or not a person has authority to work in Canada will be passed on to us on a regular basis. The determination of whether a person, if they are a new entry into Canada, requires a social insurance number will also be determined by Citizenship and Immigration. They are the ones who decide if a person can work or not. So we will follow their lead in this respect.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: You didn't answer my question. Who has the right or obligation to ensure that the employer is recording the SIN number?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: The obligation of an employer to request a social insurance number at the beginning of employment is included in the Employment Insurance Act.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: Okay. Where is your survey determining that employers understand this?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: The last survey we did showed that the great majority of employers did ask. We have not seen this as a high-risk issue at this point.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: Okay. You used the word “high”. What is that percentage—80%, 75%?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: I don't have those figures.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: Okay. How do you ensure that it's 100%? Is there any penalty for the employer?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madam Chair, could I add a piece of information for Mr. Ianno?

    In paragraph 1.29 of our report, we mention a study the department carried out in conjunction with Statistics Canada. It indicated that 94% of employers asked for a social insurance number when hiring an employee; 86% of employers did not know their obligations related to the SIN's 900 series; and 6% of all businesses surveyed, and 20% of businesses with more than 250 employees, had been given a false social insurance number by employees—although few reported any losses.

    It goes on. There is a series of statistics we mentioned in the report.

    The Chair: Mr. Ianno, perhaps we can get back to it.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: I'll come back to it.

    The Chair: Mr. Solberg.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    I wonder if someone from the department can explain to me the process when someone loses their card or their card is stolen. What happens when that occurs?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: I can answer that, Madam Chair and Mr. Solberg.

    It's not as simple as just saying we will reissue that person a new card immediately. It's important that we have a look at all the circumstances surrounding that.

    We ask the person, first of all, the circumstances around the loss, we conduct a verification investigation into those circumstances, and we also try to assist the person through the difficult times if their whole identity has been lost or compromised, of course. If there are any difficulties whatsoever as far as the loss of identity is concerned, anything around a financial issue, there will be a new card and a new number issued to that person.

    The old number will be identified on the database as having been a problem number. Should it ever resurface, we will know it's being used by the wrongful person.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay. The reason I ask is that we received an e-mail from a woman whose wallet was stolen. She phoned the local HRD office, and basically, they didn't offer to cancel her number. So we followed up on this. We made some calls from our office. We phoned HRDC, and we were told that there really isn't a mechanism to just go ahead and cancel the number. The only way you can guarantee that your number will be cancelled and you'll get a new one is if there's a police report filed. Is that sort of the procedure?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: It's one of the items we suggest, that the person go to the police and report this theft or takeover. It certainly solidifies the file and indicates that this is a serious matter.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: What we were told when we phoned, by the person on the other end, is that the reason it was like that was...as the person said, “Do you know how many people lose their cards?”, suggesting that this would be just a huge hassle for the department if all of a sudden start they had to cancelling old cards and issuing new ones. That sort of underlines to me that perhaps there's an attitudinal problem in the department, or the department isn't taking this very seriously, and that may account for the discrepancy in numbers.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: I can certainly assure you that when people come forward, we do take them very, very seriously. We do have procedures in place for our offices. I'm unable to comment on this specific case, but I certainly would be willing to have a look at it if you forwarded it to us.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: We can absolutely do that.

    My follow-up question ties into this. There is a legitimate use for employers, obviously, to have social insurance numbers. The government requires them to collect information. So there's a tremendous amount of paperwork that employers have to do on behalf of the government--and at great expense to them, I'm sure.

    But what about situations where one of the things the department tells you to do when you phone about a lost number is to phone Trans Union and Equifax, the credit agencies? They tell you to phone them right away and make sure they're informed so that your credit isn't compromised in some way. So that's something your department is doing. I don't know if you're aware of that.

    But what it underlines to me is that, in some ways, the government has lost control of social insurance numbers. Now it has become something that people use to keep track of people's credit. I'm not certain that's what it was originally designed for, and I'm wondering how you police that. If that goes beyond the authority of the act, is that not some violation in the law? Is there a way to stem that? Are you concerned about it at all?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: We actually have had discussions with the credit companies, such as Equifax, around their using the social insurance number and companies asking for the social insurance number upon credit application--exactly what you're talking about--and the concern we also have that the social insurance number is used much beyond its original scope. In these discussions we have been assured, first of all, that the social insurance number is not required by these credit companies as an absolute condition.

    Secondly, when anybody comes to us and tells us their social insurance number has been stolen, lost, misplaced, whatever, we do advise them to contact these credit companies, not necessarily only because it's a social insurance number involved but because of the larger picture, that their credit could certainly be abused very seriously. That's where we see the stories in the papers about the serious financial losses individuals can incur very quickly when their credit is taken over. We suggest, for the protection of the people, that they let the credit companies know immediately.

    We have discussed these issues with Equifax and the other credit companies. They have told us the social insurance number is not required. We have told them that they should not be asking for the social insurance number and we try to advise all of our clients, through our publicity campaigns, that if they do ask for the social insurance number, they are not required to give it.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: I simply want to understand this. If I phone Trans Union or one of these credit agencies, presumably they can give me a record of what my credit history is; is that right? But I've never talked with these people. I've never given them my social insurance number, but presumably they have it. Is that right?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: There's a very good chance they have it.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Where does it come from? How do they get it without my permission?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: We're into the financial exchange of information at this point, credit cards, banks, etc. I can't comment any further on that.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: So there's no prohibition in the law that prohibits somebody who legally acquires a social insurance number, because they have to do paperwork for the government, from passing that number on to people like these credit agencies.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: The piece of legislation that I mentioned before, Bill C-6, is the legislation that protects that information and, I'm told, will look after those matters when it's fully implemented. An individual could complain if that procedure happens, if the information is shared without the individual's consent.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Forgive me, but that sounds a little vague and a little late. I apologize--

    The Chair: And we're going to move to Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Since the original poll was published, more than 250 cards have been issued to the one address. What type of action has the HRDC taken so far, and what type of campaign has been done to educate the public about this type of irregularity?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: As I think I mentioned earlier, it's not necessarily inappropriate for a number of SIN cards to go to one address. We do a regular scan of our SIN registry, looking at circumstances under which multiple cards would have gone to an individual address. It is very common for lawyers to act on behalf of people, and you'll see a lot of cards going to certain people who are acting on behalf of others.

    The particular incident that was mentioned that we had come across--the number was 225, and everybody seems to have that in their heads--did in fact go to a refugee organization that was working on behalf of new refugees to Canada in their settlement and in getting them orchestrated to start a new life in Canada and were perfectly legitimate.

    However, we do have to have a process. I think what the Auditor General has concern about is that we don't know upfront, when we issue a SIN, that somebody already has one at that address and that we have to come after the fact and look. We do that on a regular basis, and if anything looks suspicious, we launch an investigation.

    The Chair: I think Ms. Fraser has a response.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'd like to add, Madam Chair, that I'm pleased the department has instituted this procedure, because at the time of our audit there was not a systematic review of unusual cases like that. If anything has been done in the last month or so, I'm happy.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: In some cases the social insurance number has been issued for dead people. What type of cooperation or communications do you have with the provincial governments to obtain death records from different sources?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: As I mentioned earlier, we've been working quite diligently with the provinces and particularly with the national Vital Statistics Council to get, not only for HRDC but for the government generally, a better capacity to get up-to-date vital statistics information. This is a critical issue, particularly in terms of death records, so we know when somebody has died and so we can terminate the SIN.

    I think we're making some very good progress. We have some pilot projects in place, and we also do runs with other programs. For example, our CPP pension program within our own department sometimes gets very timely data in terms of a death, because people are applying for benefits. We match our files with that so we can update our registry. Those are some of the examples Madame Flumian mentioned we have done since 1998 in terms of having a better ongoing update of the SIN registry.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: I have another question for Madame Fraser. You mentioned earlier that some employers are using false social insurance numbers. Are there any penalties if they knowingly use false numbers, or what type of recommendation do you have for that situation?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: As we noted in our report, there was a survey conducted of employers. In fact, we note that 19% of businesses have shared social insurance numbers with insurance companies, but only 5% did so at the request of the employee. There is much more sharing of the information, of the social insurance number, than had been foreseen in legislation.

    What we also note in the report is that while the department did conduct some public awareness activities, the activities tended to be fairly limited and were not directed to the general public. I think it's important to inform, as I think Ms. Davies mentioned earlier, the general public of what is an appropriate use. Even though companies will say they don't require it, they still probably ask for it, and people should know not to give out this number unless it's for very specific purposes. There need to be more general awareness programs that go to people so they control the use of it too.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Desrochers, I would remind you that the second rounds are five-minute rounds.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Madame Chair.

    Ms. Fraser, you heard the question I asked at the end of my intervention. I said that I really wished that we could take measures to see whether concrete progress had been made with regard to the problems you denounced. Does the answer provided by departmental officials satisfy you?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madame Chair, I have to say I'm pleased to see that the department seems to have recognized the issues we raised. However, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I was also hoping for a concrete action plan containing deadlines and a detailed course of action, so that some time in the future we would be in a position to judge whether anything had changed.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Did the department tell you when it would table this plan of action?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I found out today, as did members of the committee, that the department was prepared to produce such a plan. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask that question of...

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Ms. Flumian, when will you produce this plan of action?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We will share the action plan with Ms. Fraser tomorrow or perhaps even this afternoon, Madame Chair.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Is your plan ready?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, we are working on it. We are still working on it.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's all very well and good, but does it contain any concrete measures?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, it contains concrete measures, sir.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Can you tell us in advance what these deadlines are?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: In the action plan, we will...

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You don't seem to understand what I'm asking. Have you already established any deadlines or are you still working them out? Can you tell me what these deadlines are?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We have already implemented some of the measures contained in our plan of action and we will give you all the details as well as relevant dates.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Listen, here...

[English]

    The Chair: Would that include regular reporting, such as a quarterly progress report?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We'd be happy to do so.

    The Chair: I understand that you are prepared to table an action plan with the committee so members of the committee could then study it. Perhaps we could have you back if there's some concern about the action plan, the timetable, and all that.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Certainly. We'd be pleased to.

    The Chair: Okay, great. Thank you.

    Sorry. You can continue.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: You're saying—this is good news—that there will be quarterly deadlines. You've also told us that your report is done, but when will we actually be able to see it?

  (1225)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: On Friday.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: On Friday. Will Ms. Fraser also get a copy?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, certainly. We are working together.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand you have concerns, but so do we. The whole Social Insurance Number affair has damaged the credibility of your department, which has been largely decried by the media. I admit that you have been working hard at this issue since 1998, but people expect more concrete and measurable results, since you are accountable to members of Parliament. Further, the credibility of the Social Insurance Number system depends on you and you must also meet the expectations of the Auditor General. That's why I am insisting as much as I am on a concrete plan of action containing dates, deadlines and measures.

    Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

    My question is about the 900 Social Insurance Number series. You mentioned, Ms. Flumian,—I'm sorry if I am mispronouncing your name—that from now on, to have access to a Social Insurance Number, one will have to prove one really needs it.

    Let me tell you about a real case, because you say that this has been done in offices since October 8. About two weeks ago, a student from my riding needed to renew his card and he saw how it worked. A foreign student was there to get a card and the department employee asked her why. As she needed a card, but did not know what for, the personnel in your office then asked whether it was for opening a bank account. They did not seem to check any further into the reason why and she will be getting a card.

    Is this the current official procedure in all your offices? Is this a unique case, or are the measures not efficient? In any case, there seems to be some kind of adjustment problem.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: You spoke of a few cases involving the 900-card and more specifically, the fact that new Canadians need a social insurance card.

    Students represent one of the categories of people coming to this country. The work we did since Ms. Fraser tabled her report made us realize that we probably gave cards to students who did not really need them. We are currently working out the details so we can be better informed about people's needs, especially students. Currently, students who need a Social Insurance Number are only a minority. A certain number of students are allowed into the country, but they are only allowed to work at the university or school they are attending.

    We intend to get information from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with a letter from the university showing that they are allowed to work. Thus, as far as students are concerned, the rules for getting a card are certainly tighter.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Are you collaborating with the Department of Immigration, to get them to inform the students about their rights?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: We are constantly in touch as we develop methods and procedures so that we all know what we are doing and so that we all give the same information, as this is very important for new Canadian citizens.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I have a second question...

[English]

    The Chair: Before you go on, I think Ms. Fraser had a response to your first question.

[Translation]

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Let me just point out that in our audit, we saw that there was a wide variety of different practices among the offices.

    One of our recommendations is to give the personnel more training and to ensure more consistency in the way procedures are applied in the department's offices as a whole.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: They should all have the same understanding...

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes, indeed.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: With regard to the awareness raising campaign, I would first like to know what was done; I personally never heard of it. When did it take place and if it took place some time ago, have you been able to assess its impact? Was it positive? If not, do you intend to change your methods or will you carry on in the same way?

  (1230)  

[English]

    Mr. John McWhinnie: It was done during 2000 and 2001, and we did receive funding from the Treasury Board to do that. We have subsequently been in the process of doing an evaluation of that. Mr. Hurtubise probably has some more details around that evaluation.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Hurtubise: Certainly, especially if Ms. Fraser helps us to assess the impact of our campaign. It is currently going on, and we need to asses not only the impact of the previous campaign but also to see where we should focus our effort in preparing the next one.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But what has been done?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: We have prepared correspondence and communication material for employers in which their role in SIN management is defined. And the citizens are informed about their role and responsibility with regard to their SIN. This includes the general explanation of how the SIN works, where one can apply for it, the places where the number should or should not be disclosed, and the names of persons to contact if there are any questions or problems.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: We should not alarm the population, but has the seriousness of this issue been duly emphasized? As far as I am concerned, when I was young, I could never have imagined a thing like SIN fraud. Are people aware of the fact that it should not be disclosed indiscriminately and that it must be closely safeguarded?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: Certainly, people are told not to disclose their Social Insurance Number indiscriminately. The card has since been modified.

    In the beginning, we advised people to carry their card with them. Now, we are telling them to keep it at home when they do not need it. It is much safer this way. Basically, as much as we can, we provide people with simple ways to become aware of their rights with regard to their SIN.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Ms. Fraser, have you anything to add to this?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Let me simply add that during the audit, we noticed that some specific groups were addressed rather than the general population with regard to social insurance card problems. I think it is important to give the population at large better information about proper use of the card.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Madame Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Just for clarification, Mr. Hurtubise, I seem to hear you say there was something that had been given to the general public or was available to the general public. Is there's anything in print that you might possibly circulate to the members of the committee? I, and I'm sure the members of the committee, would like to see it, because I don't recall ever seeing it if it was aimed at the general public.

    Mr. André Hurtubise: I could certainly do that.

    The Chair: Good.

    Mr. Simeoni.

    Mr. Peter Simeoni (Principal, Office of the Auditor General ): I'd like to talk about the other side of the coin just for a moment. While it's probably good and useful to inform Canadians about how to use their social insurance numbers, I think it's also true that they're under constant pressure to provide them. In the course of doing our work, we've been quite aware of the number, something I've taken for granted before. You start to talk to people about it and you realize just how many times in the course of a year you're actually asked for it.

    My own experience was that I knew to say no, but I'm not sure all Canadians know that. I think there is likely to be a fear that something will be withheld from them if they do say no, even if they have a vague notion.

    So I think the public awareness challenge is a significant one, and it cannot be focused only on Canadians who hold the number, but also businesses. They need to stop asking for it. They need to change their practice and find other ways of identifying us.

    The Chair: I agree with you. I think the average citizen needs to be able to say, with all confidence, that no is no, and that you're not entitled to it. I think people are always going to ask for it, so no is no.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I want to say that I really agree with your comment, and I would add further that the poorer you are, the more pressure there is on you to supply your SIN. If you're a lawyer and you're going wherever, they're not going to ask you for your SIN. And if the person says no, that's the end of it. If you have very few resources and you do not have a lot of ID, there's enormous pressure and a feeling that you're not going to be able to access what you legitimately are able to access because you don't provide your SIN. I know that from experience in my own riding and I have not a shadow of a doubt about that.

    I want to come back to the action plan, though, because I think this is very important.

    Originally we were told quite clearly that there was not an action plan; in fact, the Auditor General raised this as something that the committee needed to follow up on. When I questioned about this, I believe we were told by HRDC that there was an action plan. The Auditor General has since further said she'd like to see the action plan.

    You're now saying that it could be tabled next Friday. So I'm curious to know if this is something that's going to be put together. Does it exist? And if it does exist, why would it not have been made available as a result of this status report being done? It seems to me that it's central to the whole thing. So why would the department not have made it available as evidence of the progress that's being made or the progress still to be made? Obviously that didn't happen, because it was raised again here today.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, in response, it may be a function of terminology. We assume that the reporting of the measures that we're undertaking and that we have been undertaking for some months now constitutes the elements of our action plan. Clearly for management purposes internally, we do have a plan in place about what we're expecting on a whole bunch of fronts, from the way we expect training for staff to be undertaken to the way these measures are being implemented, to the manner in which they were implemented, to the regulatory matters that we're still working on, as I mentioned, on the 900 series. So it may be a matter of the terminology we're using. Of course we have managed our way through the elements of this, and in my mind, that would constitute an action plan. And that's what we intend to make available to the Auditor General and to the chair of the committee, for you.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Ms. Fraser, has the Auditor General's department seen an action plan that you would characterize as an action plan, with timelines, with goals, with measures, with outcomes, etc., which most of us would understand an action plan is?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No, Madam Chair, we have not seen an action plan. To clarify, I would expect an action plan to be more future oriented, to say, recommendation by recommendation, what are the actions to be taken to address the recommendation, who is responsible, what time, what are the resources required--the details of doing it. And that's what we would expect to see. And if that is available, that's great.

    Ms. Libby Davies: And is this what HRDC is now saying they will produce by next Friday, all of those things that have just been listed?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Well, we look forward to it.

    The Chair: And we look forward to receiving it.

    I have Mr. Tonks and Mr. Simard who have not yet spoken.

    Mr. Tonks, have all of your questions been...

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I'm happy.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I apologize for not being here for the presentation--I had another meeting--and you may have answered this question already.

    I guess my concern is with the four million or so SINs that are floating about out there. And while I was reading some of the information here I noticed that series 900 and regular SINs don't have an expiration date. When I look back at the card in my wallet, I see it's in four or five pieces, so that is accurate.

    I was wondering if the department had ever considered putting in place an expiration date and changing the numbers periodically. It seems to me it may be a bit of an administrative nightmare, but it would accomplish two things. It would take those four million cards out of circulation, because eventually they would expire. Secondly, it would provide better internal controls, I think, because on a periodic basis everybody would have to have their cards renewed. With an audit system in place, a process in place, it would ensure that only the valid cards are being renewed. So it would give us a clean slate.

    My question is this. Has the department ever considered that? Is that something that could be done in the future?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: I think we did touch on that earlier, but it's good to reiterate the situation.

    Obviously we've looked at expiry dates in a number of different ways. For the regular SIN it really doesn't make sense to have an expiry date, because often people get it as children and keep the same number and the same card right until death.

    We talked earlier about the interpretation of the fact that there are cards that aren't accounted for. This is about the difference between the population numbers and the number of active SINs, and there are very legitimate reasons for people outside the country, people who wouldn't show up in the census, to need SINs. They could be collecting pensions in other countries, or they may just be working abroad yet have business dealings or other activities here in Canada. To expire them would create a bit of a difficulty.

    What we want to do and what the Auditor General is concerned about is that for those whose whereabouts we don't know, we somehow close their SINs down. Earlier we had those flagged as dormant, and what we've announced and are working on is to deactivate those so they're not in circulation. If they do come back into circulation, we have a way of following up and making sure they're for the same people we issued them to in the first place.

    What we have done on the 900 series, which are for temporary residents in Canada as either temporary foreign workers, students or refugees, is that we have moved to put an expiry date on them. That's a very important move in keeping track, because in the past, when the cards didn't have an expiry date, once the people left the country we didn't know what happened to that card or that number.

    That's a really important aspect, probably the most significant thing we're doing. It will be linked directly to our front-end activity with Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the time they are in the country, the reason they are in the country, and the legitimate need to have a SIN. In fact, we're looking at linking that directly in matching our databases to do that. It takes out that step of their coming from Citizenship and Immigration to our office with a piece of paper that, in the past, could have been forged

  (1240)  

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Madam Chair, I might just add that I think, as Mr. McWhinnie has pointed out, it would be appropriate to have an expiry date for those people who are only temporarily in Canada, but not for all the rest of us here who have started contributing to Canada Pension Plan, filing tax returns, and contributing to employment insurance. Various agencies have to maintain that history over time--the revenue agency has to have our history of tax information for many years for various reasons--and I think it would create a very large administrative burden to be changing those numbers on any sort of regular basis. I think it's important that we not go beyond that.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you for that response. I didn't realize that we had identified the four million cards. We do know where they are, basically?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: No.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: We don't know where they are? So how do we get them out of circulation?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: This analysis we did was just to indicate an issue with the control over the cards and the register. The department has identified a certain number of dormant cards and, as was indicated earlier, is taking action to deal with that. One of the other recommendations we have in here is that some sort of analysis of the register should be done and that the department should be able to say with some assurance that the number of cards in circulation is appropriate.

    The Chair: Just before I let you go, I have a couple of questions. How many SIN numbers have been issued to folks under 20? Your audit talks about those over 20. I'd like to know how they're tracked and if they were a subject of the audit at all.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: We used "over 20", I think, simply for purposes of ease. It was comparing--and we have details age group by age group--people over 20, but also cards issued to people over 20, so it is sort of a comparative--

    The Chair: So there is some tracking of those cards that have been issued to folks under 20.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes. It's just that we didn't include it in our information because of census data. We cut it off at that point.

    The Chair: The other thing--and maybe the folks from HRDC could answer--is that you've referred several times to those people who weren't captured by the audit because they were living abroad. Do you know how many people are in that category and how many of those people who are living abroad have dormant cards or active cards?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: I think that's the point the Auditor General was making. We don't know precisely. What we do know, though, is--

    The Chair: No. The reason I'm asking is that you continually say, I don't think there's a problem because we know there are a whole lot of folks abroad who aren't captured by the census. With all due respect, it is a problem if there are only a quarter of a million; if there are two million, then it's not a problem. But if we're trying to reconcile the number of cards in circulation that we can't account for, then I think it's really appropriate if we're going to say, well, a lot of those folks are abroad.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: The problem is that we don't keep exit data when people leave the country. If we're looking at people working under NAFTA and looking at different aspects where we can get access, such as with people studying abroad, our best estimate is in excess of a million. Those people are still actively accessing bank accounts, and some of them are retired, so they're getting CPP benefits. Those are legitimate SINs, legitimate people. They're just not here when we take the census.

    But where they have disappeared--we haven't seen them and we don't have a death notice--that's where the concern is. When there's been no activity for five years, that's where we can flag them as dormant and we can take those out of circulation. If the person turns up legitimately, we just put them right back in.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: That leads me to my final question. So you've deactivated or flagged the dormant cards. We're assuming that all the additional dormant cards were legitimately obtained and that they haven't been deactivated for some reason. Yet there have to be a whole lot of people who have applied for cards illegally, and their cards are active. If I'm going to go to the trouble of applying for a card knowing I'm not entitled to the card, the chances are I'm not going to leave it dormant. Chances are that I'm using it and that the reason I applied for it was to access something I'm not entitled to. How are we tracking down those active cards that are illegal?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: That is why, Madam Chair, we have agreed with the Auditor General's comments and recommendation that we establish a risk management framework that will give us a basis against which we can identify these high-risk areas and then move to investigate them so we maintain and increase the integrity of the entire program. We're working with her and her staff to ensure that we have a risk management framework that does cover off all these concerns, and then we'll move to implement investigation programs and control programs that support it.

    The Chair: I can appreciate that you're doing it on a go-forward basis, but I'm concerned about those that are past and the same kind of thing when--

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: We could probably look at it on a go-backwards basis too, if I can put it that way.

    The Chair: Well, that's what I wanted: assurance that we're doing that.

    My final little bit is, how quickly do you think you'll have regulation to look after the 900 series? We're talking about having those that go forward expire, but I'm also concerned about those currently in existence for which you require regulation. How quickly do you think we might see that regulation?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Go ahead, John.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: The regulation is working its way through the regulatory process as we speak. The starting date for that will be April 1, 2003--

    The Chair: That's the go-forward.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: --when people will get the go-forward, and for anybody who applies then an expiry date will be required.

    What we're going to give is one year, until April 1, 2004, for all those people out there who now have a legitimate 900 series card to come forward and replace that card with one with an appropriate expiry date. If they're not here, then that card will expire in 2004.

    The Chair: So then you don't need regulatory information. You already have determined that there's going to be one year--

    Mr. John McWhinnie: One year of grace.

    The Chair: --from April of 2003 to 2004.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: That's right.

    The Chair: So at the end of 2004, all 900 series cards will have been reissued with an expiry date.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: Or cancelled.

    The Chair: Or cancelled.

    We have a couple of minutes left. Mr. Ianno.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: We're here until one o'clock, aren't we?

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Okay. Go.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: Thanks.

    I'm going to state a few things now because the last time I let everyone else speak and I wasn't able to get to my point.

    First, I'd like to compliment the department for moving on a lot of these items. We, as members of Parliament, understand logistics from a campaign perspective, when you're dealing with several hundred volunteers and items and so on, but when you're dealing with thousands and millions of pieces, it is so difficult to get everything right down to the t to track, especially if you come into my riding, where there are some transients and others. Good luck if you find you can send 100 there, because maybe 100 live there in a matter of two months or more. So it is very difficult.

    I guess the social insurance number, in effect, is probably one of the most important pieces of identity or documentation, more important than a passport. I'm sure there are millions of Canadians who never travel, so they may never need a passport and may never get a passport. I notice that the passport is not even included as a piece of identification to get the SIN number. So we understand the SIN is very important.

    The next point I was getting at is, if it's the Treasury Board that authorizes who gets to use it, how did the government not have provisions in place to restrict who uses the SIN number, who could request the SIN number, who could pass on the SIN number once they've received it, and why is it discrimination in terms of banks versus credit...? Why any of them? You can answer all of those questions at some point. The question is what kind of penalty should be put in place for anyone who is not authorized by the Government of Canada to use or request the SIN number?

    Along with the question that I was asking earlier, if the employer treats that as delicately as a passport, then when they ask for that they understand the obligations and the rights that they have with that piece of documentation. Then if you go to the intergovernmental agencies, the government will be able to know that someone is actually employed, whether legally or illegally, because there's a penalty to the employer--bigger than one can imagine--for not having taken the proper information down.

    There would not be that attitude of, well, it's a SIN number that really doesn't mean anything; yes, you're responsible for doing it and the Auditor General is wasting her time trying to get you to do it properly. In the end, it gets used as if it's just another piece of paper and not like a passport.

    How do we know that you're going to be able to speak...whose responsibility is it? Is it Treasury Board, is it you, is it CCRA? I can probably think of another two or three departments that may utilize it in some form. In effect, the buck has to stop somewhere. If that is done, people will then know their rights--I'm talking about Canadians knowing their rights--so that when someone is asked for their social insurance number.... Yes, I say no all the time. But if we have to get something and you need that something and they ask for the social insurance number, no matter how educated or intelligent or whatever else you want to say, you give it, because we too need things in society.

    As you go down the scale, of course, it's worse and everybody gives it up. If we know our rights as Canadians, and the government knows its obligations and who is authorized, etc., then the whole system works in a complete circle. And your job would be so much easier.

    In fairness to what I was saying about the department, the Auditor General can ask for all of these things, but if no one respects that documentation it's very difficult for your front-line staff to understand the importance of it, because as Ms. St-Jacques said, someone will come in and say “Oh, you need it for school” or “You need it for a bank” and it's therefore given.

    The Chair: Mr. Ianno, we've already lost quorum, so I'm really stretching it. I'm going to cut you off and let them respond.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Those are the legislative parameters in which we work. This is not by way of saying that we want to pass the buck, because we ourselves, and CCRA, are the owners and managers of the social insurance registry. I think the onus falls to us, as people have said, and we have concurred with the Auditor General that it will be our job, now that we're evaluating the results of our public awareness campaign, to get out there and, under the current parameters, inform all Canadians of their duties and responsibilities--and employers, and anybody else who might be out there using these numbers. It's our job to manage that social insurance registry, and all of the applications that flow into it and all the documentation that is processed through it, including keeping it current in the best fashion possible to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the program.

    I understand the nature of your question, but that's where we are at this point in time. Therefore, it is our responsibility, along with CCRA and with our colleagues at Treasury Board, to ensure that we're putting the measures in place that allow us to manage this in the best way to safeguard and protect Canadians, understanding the limitations of what we need to work with.

    The Chair: Ms. Flumian, you've indicated several times that it may not be the purpose of the card to be used as ID; however, don't you need to make certain that you have appropriate ID before you issue the card?

  (1255)  

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Absolutely.

    The Chair: At the end of the process it's not used as an ID card, but you have to be responsible enough to have the appropriate ID to issue the card.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Madam Chair, we agree 100%, and that's why we put some of the measures in place that we have.

    The Chair: Will we see that in the action plan?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes, those are already in place.

    The Chair: The proof of identity?

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Yes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm sorry, Ms. Fraser.

    Mr. John McWhinnie: I would just add, on the tail end of that answer, that the Treasury Board is currently reviewing the SIN policy as well.

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I want to add a piece of information, and it is that the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for the use within the federal government, not beyond that, and that the social insurance number is, if you will, legislated by the EI Act, which comes back--

    Mr. Tony Ianno: If it's not Treasury Board, who is responsible for the general public?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: It's under the EI Act, which is the responsibility of HRDC.

    Mr. Tony Ianno: So the buck stops there?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, very briefly.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have two questions, but they are very brief.

    The Chair: Go for it.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If the SIN cards are not meant to be ID cards, why supply cards, which creates a problem where there are four, or five, million that are loose?

    Mr. John McWhinnie: You raise a very important question.

    I think part of the reason that some people have taken the SIN as a de facto ID is that there is in fact a card, when in fact the number is what's important. The EI legislation, as stated right now, does state that a card will be issued with a number on it. In a way, that's a bit problematic, because it's not a secure card and was never intended to be.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare My last question is, if someone dies and had a card, a Canadian citizen, how do you know they have died? Are they the four million people you can't find?

    Mr. André Hurtubise: We receive information from many different sources. For example, the vast majority of people in Canada who die have access to CPP benefits. CPP will update the social insurance registry, for example, with that information. The estate will have to do a tax return, for example, and CCRA will update the social insurance registry, so we have a variety of sources.

    Our social insurance registry also receives information from the various vital statistics areas of the provinces; they are notified of deaths, also. We receive quite a bit of information already. That's generally how we're notified of deaths.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

    The Chair: Before I close, are there any closing comments from either the Auditor General's office or Human Resources Development?

    Ms. Sheila Fraser: I would just like to say, Madam Chair, I really appreciated the hearing today. I think the questions were good, and interesting.

    If I could, I'd make a couple of points. Our main issues are compliance with the EI Act and the requirements that are set out there. We strongly encourage the department to take a risk-based approach generally to the number, not just to audit and inspection but overall. We look forward to the action plan as well.

    The Chair: Maryantonett.

    Ms. Maryantonett Flumian: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Again, we concur with the Auditor General's recommendations and are working aggressively to implement them, and we look forward to tabling the action plan.

    The Chair: On behalf of committee members present and those who have had to leave, I thank all of you for your cooperation with us today.

    The meeting is adjourned.