CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 10, 2003

0820

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour (Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants)

0825

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Fung (Vice-President, Chinese Canadian National Council)

0830

Ms. Colleen Hua (National Executive, National Office, Chinese Canadian National Council)

Ms. Gloria Fung

0835

The Chair

Mr. Prasanna Hetiarachchi (Former Adult ESL Student, Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL Classes)

0840

The Chair

Mr. Norman Beach (Co-chair, Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL Classes)

0845

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

0850

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Gloria Fung

0855

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

The Chair

Mr. Norman Beach

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Ms. Colleen Hua

0900

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Colleen Hua

The Chair

Mr. Norman Beach

The Chair

Mr. Norman Beach

0905

The Chair

Mr. Norman Beach

The Chair

Mr. Prasanna Hetiarachchi

Ms. Colleen Hua

0910

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Fung

The Chair

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

0915

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

Mr. Joseph Volpe

0920

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

The Chair

Ms. Gloria Fung

0925

The Chair

Ms. Amy Casipullai (Coordinator, Policy and Public Education, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants)

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

0930

Ms. Colleen Hua

The Chair

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour

The Chair

0935

Mr. Norman Beach

0950

The Chair

Mrs. Anna Chiappa (Executive Director, Canadian Ethnocultural Council)

The Chair

Mrs. Anna Chiappa

The Chair

Mr. Ron Poulton (Staff Lawyer, Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants)

The Chair

Mr. Morris Manning ( As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Morris Manning

The Chair

Mr. Morris Manning

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Ron Poulton

Mr. Morris Manning

The Chair

Mrs. Anna Chiappa

Mr. Morris Manning

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Ron Poulton

The Chair

Mr. Ron Poulton

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Morris Manning

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Ms. Debbie Douglas (Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants)

The Chair

Ms. Debbie Douglas

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Debbie Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Morris Manning

The Chair

Mr. Ron Poulton

The Chair

Mr. Ron Poulton

The Chair

Mr. Ron Poulton

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 021

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0820)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): We're discussing Canada's settlement and integration programs and are happy to have with us the Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL classes, Prasanna and Norman; the Chinese Canadian National Council, Colleen and Gloria; and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, Morteza and Amy.

We'll start with Morteza.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour (Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants): Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to be here to raise our concerns, and also some of the opportunities in front of us.

I am a board member of OCASI and also executive director of an agency in Hamilton, a settlement and integration services organization. OCASI was formed in 1978 to act as a collective voice for immigrant services agencies and to coordinate responses to shared needs and concerns of the agencies. OCASI is a registered charity governed by a volunteer board of directors, and its membership is from 150 community-based organizations in Ontario.

Before we start to talk about concerns and recommendations we have, we would like to highlight some of the issues. From the beginning OCASI, on behalf of the settlement agencies, has advocated for accessible and appropriate settlement services for all immigrants and refugees in Ontario. We recognize that settlement is not just one shot, but a process with different stages, settlement, adaptation, and integration. We do all three levels of this work. Also, as you may know, Ontario receives a high percentage of immigrants coming to Canada, and the agencies are serving in the large and small cities in Ontario, thus dealing with most of the immigrants coming to Canada.

One of the issues we are facing right now is federal level coordination. Settlement agencies receive different funding from different levels of the program. Even though the mandate is to create the way for newcomers to settle as soon as possible and integrate successfully into Canadian society, there is a lack of coordination between the different federal government levels. Places like Industry Canada, HRDC, CIC, and Canadian Heritage have their own funding criteria, so for agencies dealing with these issues it very often becomes more challenging. It shows the lack of common understanding between different departments when you consider the issue of settling the newcomer. We talk about that where it shows itself in other places.

One of the things we are strongly recommending is better coordination between different federal government departments. When it comes to the issue of funding, all the programs are being funded on an annual basis, and our sector has advocated for multi-year funding. We would like this to be considered, because it makes it difficult for agencies to plan in the long term, and it also compromises organizational stability.

Also, we recommend that the federal government consider an increase of funding for settlement. I am sure you hear that on any committee, that people ask for increases in funding, but in the last few years the federal government has increased the number of immigrants coming to Canada, and their projected number is close to 1% of the population, yet there hasn't been a significant increase of the money for support services to provide assistance for newcomers to settle. We recommend, based on the number of people who are coming to Canada, that the federal government increase operational and core funding for the sector.

The second area that is a big challenge in front of many of the agencies and newcomers to Canada is the eligibility criteria. Unfortunately, the same issue applies, a lack of consistency between federal government departments. It reflects how they see the eligibility criteria for us serving different clients. For example, some of the programs allow us to serve refugee claimants, some don't. The process for refugee claimants may take 18 months. The federal government provides them with a work permit, and we at the agency encourage refugee claimants to start to work as soon as possible in Canada. They become taxpayers, but at the same time they are not eligible for most of the services funded through the federal government. It creates problems for them in the process of settlement and integration. Programs like the settlement workers in the school program, newcomers' information centres, and the settlement.org site are accessible for everybody, but when it comes to programs like the immigrant settlement adaptation program, the HOST program, or the LINC program, they are not eligible. This creates gaps for refugees trying to settle in Canada.

Services structure is the third area we want to raise. Service delivery has moved in last three years from case management to information and referral. Many of the immigrants coming to Canada are foreign trained professionals and are fluent in one of the official languages, and having the referral and information process can help them to adapt as fast as possible, but many of their family members may not be at that stage, and there are other immigrants who do not have the same language level or the same information or skills required to adapt as fast as possible. Case coordination is a part of the issue that has been in front of us, and that's the way we have delivered services, but very often, because that's not recognized by the federal government, it becomes unpaid overtime on the back of the settlement counsellors. We are recommending that there be not just one model of service delivery. The model of the service delivery should be based on the needs of the communities and the newcomers.

The fourth issue I would like to raise on behalf of OCASI is the permanent resident card. These PR cards have started. The cost for newcomers is between $50 and $300, because it needs to be notarized and go through the application process. It has increased the load on the settlement counsellors and put extra expense on newcomers' shoulders. We recommend that the PR card become a part of the services for newcomers, with assistance to immigrants in completing the permanent residency card and application becoming part of settlement.org, and that notaries public and lawyers and commissioners be engaged to administer this process with no cost.

So we have four recommendations: dialogue and collaboration among federal departments to ensure consistency in supporting settlement and integration; dialogue between federal, provincial, and municipal governments to address gaps in service for settlement and integration and to make the best use of the settlement dollars; reviewing eligibility criteria, so that services are available for those who need them, particularly refugee claimants and naturalized citizens; a streamlined PR card application process, as described before and in the Canadian Council for Refugees resolution of November 2002.

Thank you.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you, Morteza.

Gloria.

Ms. Gloria Fung (Vice-President, Chinese Canadian National Council): Good afternoon.

On behalf of the Chinese Canadian National Council, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for providing us with this opportunity to present our concerns on settlement programs. I am the vice-president of the Chinese Canadian National Council. Beside me is my colleague Colleen Hua, who is also on the national executive of the Chinese Canadian National Council.

The Chinese Canadian National Council is a national non-profit organization with 28 chapters across the country. Our mandate is to promote equality rights and full participation of Chinese Canadians in all aspects of Canadian society. At CCNC we always believe settlement and integration services are vital to the success of Canadian immigration and refugee policy. Appropriate and timely settlement and integration services accelerate the process by which immigrants and refugees are integrated into our society and contribute to the building of our nation.

Today our submission covers four areas of concern, core funding, interdepartmental and intergovernmental dialogue and collaboration, service structure, and language instruction services. Colleen would like to present our first two issues.

¾ (0830)

Ms. Colleen Hua (National Executive, National Office, Chinese Canadian National Council): Thank you.

As Morteza already covered core funding and interdepartmental cooperation and coordination, we'd like to re-emphasize those two issues, but also add to the issue of core funding. Newcomers and immigrants are people, and they have holistic needs and continuing need for services. The funding set at present does not address those needs in a very holistic way and doesn't see them as people with different kinds of needs. The annual funding formula is shortsighted and addresses very specific needs of a very diverse community. Many agencies deliver a variety of services, because they do recognize that, even within the constraints of the funding formulas the government gives them. The current funding formulas also do not recognize the costs organizations have to sustain these programs, program costs, administrative costs; financial costs to the organizations are not built into the funding formulas of many of these programs. As well, as Morteza mentioned, the funding hasn't changed in the last few years. It has stayed as a stable amount and has not taken into consideration the increased cost of living, cost of rent, cost of utilities, which agencies must deal with to deliver these services on a day-to-day basis. So we are calling for the federal government to commit itself to a significant increase in operational and core funding for settlement and integration programs.

Second, to address again the continuum of services needed by newcomers, Citizenship and Immigration, HRDC, Heritage Canada, and Industry Canada have different pots of money that agencies have to go after, which are short-term annual funding, piecemeal in the amounts that are given, and they are very uncoordinated. Many agencies are applying for all four areas of money, and they're probably proposing very similar kinds of programs to each of the different departments. If there were some coordination between the departments, agencies wouldn't have to be spending so much time writing four different proposals for the same project for small amounts of money that they put together anyway to deliver the services. So again, we endorse OCASI's recommendations regarding the need for dialogue and collaboration among the federal departments and the three levels of government to address gaps and inconsistencies in the provision of settlement and integration programs.

Ms. Gloria Fung: The next issue I'm going to present is on service structure. The settlement programs funded by CIC generally remain very generic, with emphasis on orientation at the initial level. They do not meet the adjustment and integration needs of immigrants and refugees, who seek meaningful and in-depth services facilitating access to employment, trades, and professions. Citizenship education is alarmingly lacking. There's no plan to facilitate the meaningful participation and contribution of immigrants and refugees in Canadian society. Therefore, we recommend that CIC take a more innovative and consultative approach to settlement and integration service delivery, providing front-line agencies with greater flexibility in organizing programs that will meet the specific needs of immigrants and refugees and allowing diversity in programming.

The fourth issue is language instruction services. We always consider language instruction services to be an essential building block of a prosperous, innovative economy and a healthy population involved in all aspects of social, economic, and political life. It enhances intercultural and interracial understanding and racial equity within Canada, which has just confirmed its standing as one of the most diverse nations in the world. However, to our surprise, the current language instruction services are not accessible to naturalized citizens or refugee claimants in many provinces. As well, the language programs do not address the specific language needs of people entering the labour market. In some provinces federally funded language instruction services being offered are only up to level 3 or 4. I think the Campaign for Stable Funding can probably tell you more about how serious the problem is later on. Occupation-specific and bridging to employment programs have not been incorporated into the language program. The government's evaluation of language instruction services is largely based on the number of newcomers being served, rather than the appropriateness and effectiveness of the services in helping them integrate.

We therefore support the recommendation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that federal funding for language instruction services be increased to accommodate innovative models of delivery that will meet the diverse needs of immigrants and refugees. We also recommend that eligibility for language instruction services be expanded to include naturalized citizens and refugee claimants.

Thank you.

¾ (0835)

The Chair: Thank you, Gloria and Colleen.

Prasanna and Norman.

Mr. Prasanna Hetiarachchi (Former Adult ESL Student, Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL Classes): Thank you.

Twelve years ago I was a refugee claimant from Sri Lanka. I arrived in Toronto with $69 in my pocket. I didn't have any family members, I didn't speak any English, but I was not eligible for the federally funded language training. Luckily, I found a provincially funded ESL program, and it was a big relief for me starting life anew here. As a newcomer, if you cannot start your life right away, you will lose your hope. Maybe you escape from a very difficult situation when you come here. If you can start your life, it will be a great relief for the newcomer. Three years later I had reached an advanced level class, and I took the co-op program. Finally, I got my convention refugee status, then I started community college. I worked with one of the leading food service companies, and I ended my career in that company as a division manager in the Montreal division. Today I have two Great Canadian Bagel franchises. I have around 30 people working for me. If I didn't have ESL training, none of this would have happened.

In the future, people who come here as refugee claimants may not have the same chance. I know for a fact that the co-op program I took is finished. The school I went to is threatened with closure right now. If you can do something for refugee claimants when they come, so they can start life here, it would be good. Most refugee claimants leave their country without English, because they never had it. I never had any dream to come here. I lived a very good life back home. More than 20,000 people knew who I was and what I was doing. All of a sudden, in the middle of the night, your life may be changed. If you want to save your life, you have to leave the country. You leave everything behind, you come here.

I decided to come here because when I was a kid, I heard about this country. I had the opportunity to go to United States, but I decided not to. I came here because I heard Canada treats everybody equally, you're not going to be a second-class citizen, and I believe that now. What I did within this 12 years, if I went anywhere in this world, I know I couldn't do. If you provide refugee claimants with two or three years of English learning, they will give you 20 years of schooling from back home. You can use those skills--think about it.

Thank you.

¾ (0840)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Prasanna.

Norman.

Mr. Norman Beach (Co-chair, Campaign for Stable Funding of Adult ESL Classes): I'm co-chair of the campaign for stable funding. There are 40 local, provincial, and national organizations involved. We don't want to discount the importance of a range of federally funded settlement services in both official languages, but we're going to focus on English language instruction for adults.

We agree with what OCASI and CCNC have said about the need for intergovernmental and interdepartmental cooperation. We'd like to give you one example of where this did not happen. During the 1990s HRDC found that many laid-off factory workers, often including citizens, needed language training before they could be retrained for other work. However, HRDC did not allocate any funds for this, and we believe this is part of what you might call jurisdictional tunnel vision, where jurisdictions say, it's really someone else's responsibility, it's not ours. Another example of this actually relates to Prasanna. I wanted to make sure you heard Prasanna to show that there are serious problems involved with people when they don't get access to programs.

Only in British Columbia are refugee claimants eligible for federally funded language training. So in nine out of our ten provinces, while the children go to school, the parents of these children may not be able to effectively communicate with the teachers or other staff, and I believe this is not helping these children in their opportunity to learn. The parents' job prospects are often limited; lack of official language skills has been recognized as a major barrier to newcomers' labour force integration. So it's no surprise that non-permanent residents have the highest poverty rate of any group of newcomers. When you look at the critical factors in a child's readiness to learn, two of these are language background and family income. So giving language instruction to refugee claimants would be a vital support for Canada's early learning agenda, besides its obvious benefits for their families and for our economy.

So we recommend, as the others here in the panel have, that refugee claimants should have access to federally funded language training, along with other necessary settlement services.

The people in LINC classes are predominantly newly arrived immigrants, but people who could not gain access to LINC when they first arrived are unlikely to be served by the program if they need language training several years later, and citizens are not eligible at all. Without language training, it may take many years to develop adequate official language skills, but in a knowledge economy workplace skills must be coupled with good language skills. If you're not fluent in an official language, you will be disadvantaged in most workplaces in Canada. Statistics show that immigrants and citizens born abroad eventually catch up to national income averages and, in fact, exceed them, but the process takes many years. We believe it would be better if this process were shorter, and we believe second language learning would help to make this process shorter. It is a long-term, not a short-term, investment.

Who should be responsible for citizens' second language training? We recommend looking at the Commons finance committee recommendation that the National Literacy Secretariat administer some official language instruction. We would believe all permanent residents and citizens should have access to federally funded second language training.

We know CIC would like to achieve a uniform quality of language training across Canada, but levels of instruction vary greatly from province to province. Federally funded language instruction is available at an advanced level only in Manitoba. In the Atlantic provinces even intermediate level classes are limited. In B.C. federally funded instruction is offered at a basic level only, although LINC level 4 could be considered to reach as high as low-intermediate. These discrepancies must be addressed if the skills immigrants bring here are to be fully utilized.

We recommend that federal funds support advanced-level language instruction Canada-wide, including bridging programs to employment.

¾ (0845)

There's some evidence that federal funding of settlement and language services has not kept pace with increases in immigration and has, in fact, declined on a per capita basis. Coupled with provincial cutbacks in these areas, this does not bode well for newcomers or for our society as a whole. So to follow up on what Mary Williamson of OCASI said this morning, language training should be seen as an essential investment in the human resources that will help our society become successful economically and socially.

We recommend that federal support for official language instruction be substantially increased.

Thank you very much for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you, all, for your direction and suggestions. We know you're on the front lines of helping refugees and immigrants when they come to this country, trying to get the support, the adjustment, and the programming they need to make sure they can be full participants and achieve their fullest potential as citizens, just as you have, Prasanna. Your experience is one we would like to make sure is there for everyone, and even enhance it.

So let's get down to asking some questions.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, all, for your presentations.

I'm wondering what you think when the minister wants to introduce the process of compelling immigrants to settle in smaller centres. I see a possibility of some of your language barriers being somewhat resolved, and the reason I say this is that in my small community of 300, when we did bring in 15 immigrants, five adults and the rest children, the children went into the system, and the mothers were allowed to go into the school system. There was no federal funding for that, and I think perhaps that's the role the province can play when it comes to access to English as a second language or our other official language. I wonder what you think of that. I can see that having immigrants go to smaller areas for the first year would be very helpful, and it would help our communities as well, because for the first year you are federally funded. For us who've sponsored immigrants ourselves, that's all our dollars.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: I believe things happen in life. As an executive director, you do it by default or by design. Right now the process is by default. As a result, many of the people end up in the larger cities, and there are reasons for that, the community support, the services available, and the perception.

Hamilton is a mid-sized city. They amalgamated two years ago with neighbouring areas, and we are around 500,000 people. There was a study done by the chamber of commerce in the city of Hamilton looking at the economy in southern Ontario, covering from Niagara and Fort Erie to Hamilton. They talk about a shortage of skilled workers in the next 20 years and the impact of that in the economic area. Interestingly enough, in the area of the building labour shortage there are three recommendations affecting the more immediate situation, talking about the mid-sized to small communities, attracting more immigrants, making services available for them, and a licensing process. If we choose to force people to go to a smaller city, are they going to stay there? No. If there is no support system for them, there is no reason for them to live in that area. So it's not just an issue of deciding where to send people, but is a matter of designing the system for people going to a smaller city. To survive economically, they need to have immigrants there, but what is our system to support them and make them live there?

¾ (0850)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Especially if they're older and they want to just get out there and support their families, I find that many of them don't become integrated as far as the language goes. They get themselves jobs so they don't have to be in the public very much, or they shy away from that.

I wanted to bring up the federal funding. You do not believe federal funding is staying in step with what our immigration is actually encouraging, which is that we want 1% of our population coming to Canada. Do you think we're far below what we need, and by what percentage? Do you definitely have a formula in mind? Is there any particular formula as to where we should increase? You spoke on the annual funding and their not recognizing the costs.

Ms. Gloria Fung: We don't have a specific number in mind, but one of our chapters in B.C. has conducted report cards on the settlement services being delivered in different provinces with other agencies. The survey results indicate that in many provinces the funding per capita has been declining over the last couple of years. It is anticipated that this will get even worse in the future with the increased number of immigrants. In many provinces the provincial governments, after they have got the money in the form of transfer payments, haven't fully used it in the design of settlement services. For instance, in B.C. a great percentage of the transfer payments has actually been transferred to the Consolidated Reserve Fund instead of being used on settlement services.

I think the government should review the entire picture of our immigration policy, what is needed to enable our immigrants and refugees to be successfully integrated into our society and contribute their part to the building of our nation, their specific needs, so that the government, through dialogue and collaboration within government, can really come up with services that will meet the specific needs of immigrants and refugees.

Second, the federal government should have a stronger monitoring role over the transfer payments. I fully understand that an agreement has been signed, but it seems the federal government has lost control over how transfer payments have been used by the various provinces. I think that is a policy that needs to be reviewed, and we expect the federal government to play a much stronger role in that regard, to make sure the money will be used to demonstrate the best value.

¾ (0855)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's exactly what I was wondering, if there is a big difference in provinces. Also, I want to know if English as a second language should be more provincial, because of our school boards. We don't have access to smaller communities, which is part of the reason people do not want to come to the communities, especially if they have no language at all. You would have done really well in our community. You would have had your English and you would have had access, and your children too. So I'm wondering about LINC.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: There are also a couple of facts we need to put on the table. There are different partners, like OCASI, community agencies, CCR, the federal government. We need to bring the different stakeholders around the table to say what they are in, but there are some facts. There is the $975 landing fee that was introduced a few years ago. That money is supposed to go to settlement and to facilitating services for newcomers, and it didn't happen--at least, it didn't happen fully. When we are setting the numbers, when we talk about the 1% of the population, we have to look at the cost of that. Is it 1% of the federal budget we are talking about? I am not suggesting that, but we need to have the money to help us to achieve the goals.

If we want to make sure people are going to smaller communities, again, where are the resources? That's one of the things we are hearing from people on a daily basis. People go to the places where there are resources. Also, people, when they go to a smaller city, build their community support too, but in the beginning there needs to be a system and there needs to be an allocation of the resources in that regard.

The Chair: Norman.

Mr. Norman Beach: We provided a statistical overview in our presentation. The cover will be the one with the postcards on it. As Gloria was saying, one of the member organizations of CCNC was involved in putting together some statistics. I'm not a statistician, but this provides some of the numbers we can work with. We do know immigration numbers have been rising, so there should be a substantial increased investment if the government wishes to fully integrate people.

The Chair: Thank you.

Joe.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Ms. Fung, with the shortages you were describing in administration dollars, how are you managing now? Are you doing separate fundraising?

Also, you raised in your brief, and I think you said it verbally as well, the quality of language training, saying it needs to be more flexible, more diverse. Could you expand on that a bit, because I don't understand in what direction you're going?

And Mr. Beach, why is B.C. paying for language training for refugees and the rest of the country is not?

Ms. Colleen Hua: I'll respond to the first part of your question. Most agencies right now do have a variety of funders they apply to. There are lots of different pots of money you can go for to support the different programs you offer. Any shortfalls in finances usually are picked up by local fundraising, other foundations, other government pockets of money, but it's haphazard, piecemeal--grab what you can get. The United Way sometimes also funds programs like that. So there needs to be recognition of the fact that these kinds of services cost money just to deliver, to hire the people, to find the space, to give people access. We're not running it out of a park somewhere, but in a building where it's warm and people need to come in and do things in different languages. We need interpretation, translation of those materials. We need to do outreach. So it's all that kind of stuff where we're looking for recognition from the government. It's not just a person you're funding, you're funding a whole bunch of things to help that person secure those services.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Prasanna mentioned that one of the schools he went to is actually closed. Are there agencies in financial difficulty to the extent that they're either half-closed or on the verge of closing?

Ms. Colleen Hua: Yes. There are lots of school closures. There's redefinition of how community space is used. Schools are now charging agencies to use those spaces. So all these costs are adding up, and that's not being reflected in the funding formula whereby people apply to provide those services.

The Chair: To follow up, I understand your wanting money, because of base funding. I know we have to do a better job of coordinating among the departments. If you're all spending time to find every dollar, I think we probably could do a heck of a lot better in that area. There's no doubt that delivering quality services is crucial. I will ask each one of you. Do you think the programs we have in place are the right ones, but we have to invest more and to raise the quality, do a lot more with it? I understand that language is one element.

Also, we're spending approximately $330 million a year now on the settlement programs. I don't know how much we're raising in landing fees, but we'll get that amount. I want you to take me through the scenario if you could. I think this would be helpful to the committee, because you are the people on the front lines, you know. Give me a typical refugee family that comes in or a permanent resident family or an immigrant family. How much should the Government of Canada invest in that person and that family so that they can move in a continuum from arriving in Canada to being successful? You have to help us, you know your clients. Tell me how much of an investment you want. You can't just say, give me more money, because I don't know how much that is. I would like you to tell me how much of an investment governments have to make in that person, in that family, and then, whether it's a federal contribution, a provincial, a municipal, or something else, we can figure it out. If we are going to go back to the finance minister and say, listen, you take $975 a person in landing fees, but we are only taking x number, I would like to be able to say, with your expertise, how much of an investment we have to make in these newcomers to Canada who are going to pay big dividends down the road. We know that. It's good economics, it's good socially, it's good culturally. We're going to make an awful lot of money from immigrants, we know that. They will start paying their fair share in taxes, big time, but I want to know what that initial investment has to be for of language, integration, all those services you are now talking about delivering.

Mr. Norman Beach: I was wondering is if I could answer Joe Comartin's question first?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Norman Beach: He asked about the B.C. situation. British Columbia operates its own language training system, ELSA, through a separate agreement with the federal government. However, although the eligibility is much broader in British Columbia, the levels offered are lower. So it seems like, you pays your money, you takes your choice. You can either have a broad eligibility with the money available or you can serve a smaller number of people to a higher level. It seems they have chosen to have a broader level of eligibility and a lower level of language that is funded. The other point about B.C. now, though, is it is really running into a crunch, because the province is going to be funding much less of the language instruction. So I'm concerned that in British Columbia ESL will really be problematic in the future, and you know it's one of the major areas.

On the subject of provinces, there are huge shortfalls. In Ontario here we are more familiar with the situation, because the provincial government provides not a penny for our classes, for heat, light, or caretaking services. It's a tremendous problem. Now classes are closing and schools are closing. Prasanna gave an example of that. The program that served him is at risk, the co-op program has disappeared completely, and that's because of an accommodation grant problem. If you want to talk about ways of solving things, with the provincial government at the moment not providing accommodation, the federal government might consider stepping in to provide it. It would make it possible for classes to work in schools, to bond the children and the parents, bond the parents to the school community, and I think it would be good. Our estimate is that about $10 million would be needed. Of course, it's a ball park figure, but we can connect with you in the future if you would like. The $10 million would be needed to provide the accommodation for these classes. LINC, for example, will pay accommodation money for people who are eligible for LINC in programs that are accepted by LINC. The Province of Ontario will not. So that might be a provincial-federal arrangement that could solve a problem for us, certainly in Ontario.

¿ (0905)

The Chair: Have you got any comment on my question as to how much of an investment we have to make?

Mr. Norman Beach: For the total investment, I could not--

The Chair: No, I want you to break it down per family. When we start talking about $350 million, $500 million, that's a big number. Maybe Prasanna can answer the question. How much money would it have taken as an investment?

Mr. Prasanna Hetiarachchi: It depends on the people, their circumstances when they come here, what language and other skills they have. I know people who came from Sri Lanka. I know one surgeon; he's now cleaning apartments. How many people like that are there? I heard in Ontario alone there are 4,000 doctors cleaning apartments.

Ms. Colleen Hua: I'm no great mathematician and I didn't come with a number, but I just did a quick calculation on the amount that was perhaps collected last year from the landing fee, which was around $243,750,000, assuming that 250,000 people came in, which I think is about right. So if you're investing $300 million, you're not really investing $300 million, because people are bringing that money in, they're paying to come here. You're really only investing another $60 million, if you look at it that way, a very simple kind of calculation. That's not so much money, if you think about it.

I don't know an actual number for what we look at investing per person to ensure shelter, employment, and all the kinds of things that make people happy when they live in Canada, but I would imagine it's quite substantial, probably--I'm being hopeful--about $10,000 per person per year. But again to emphasize the language thing and the diverse needs, we can't be looking at people in a homogeneous way.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: No, you want a case management study. Maybe you can, as an interesting exercise between now and a month from now, when we have to bring down a report, give us some studies or some examples of how much an average person or family within your cases would need as an investment. It'll give us a guide. I'm not trying to put one number for everybody, because everybody is different, based on their language skills, their employment skills, and so on, but I'd like to have some idea of what you've encountered in your experience.

Ms. Gloria Fung: I would like to expand a little on the social costs each year from not providing sufficient settlement services to immigrants and refugees. We have had an influx of immigrants from China over the last couple of years, and because of the language barrier, because of the lack of integration services available in our community for these people, many of them end up in despair, and many of them have actually returned back to their country of origin. This will result in a total loss to our country. We have already invested at least part of our money on these people, and yet we're not going to benefit at all from them. That is really a pity.

Also, many services have actually pointed out that language is one of major barriers preventing people from successful integration into our society. In this regard, I would also like to point out that in recent years, with the changes in the points system for skilled workers, most of the newcomers in that category have become more and more educated, skilled, and professional. They are in need not only of superficial language training or settlement service, they also need occupation-specific services to enable them to get access to employment, trades, and professions. This is probably quite different from the case of the other family members who came with them.

So we are actually facing a very diverse group of immigrants and refugees in our country. We shouldn't only look at one specific sector, but we have to look at the entire picture and see what their diverse needs are and how we are going to meet the needs to enable them to fully utilize their skills and contribute to our country. This is what we would like to stress. We hope very much all of them will be able to stay here and contribute to Canadian society.

The Chair: Morteza.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: Do we have the right program? I believe we have the right framework. In some areas we need to make it better, but the general framework, I would say, is not bad. We are not just sitting here saying we need more money, we need more money, we need more money. We are making a series of recommendations to make the system more efficient. When we are talking about coordination between different departments and different levels of government, we are talking about making the system more cost-effective. It's not making our life easier, but making the system work better.

From time to time different levels of government have asked me questions. When we ask for money, they say, it's your mandate to serve them. I tell them we don't pay our staff or our rent with mandates, we pay with money. We need to change our vision about the system. Settlement work is not charitable work. We are doing a good job for poor immigrants. We are building the future of Canada, we are building a better country. That's why many of the immigrants choose to come here. This is not charitable work, it is professional work, fundamental work for Canadian society, for our culture, and for our economy, and we need to consider that.

The money is important. It has to be reflective of the number of the people coming, the same as when we talk about the hospital system. Every system needs to reflect the number of clients being served. But at the same time, we are recommending a better system that is more efficient. And we need to be transparent. We understand that there is an accountability framework the federal government is pushing forward, but the accountability framework is two-sided: we must make sure there is enough funding to make the system work efficiently.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Okay.

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): I would pursue this question of numbers and band-aids, but before I do, we're talking about integration and settlement programs in the context of legislation that's almost exclusively about citizenship, rather than settlement and immigration. So I'd like you to make the connection for me. I think I can make it myself, but I want to see the connection in your mind between settlement programs, integration programs, and citizenship and citizenship legislation. I don't mean to be unfair. I realize that you weren't invited to make a presentation in this regard.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: In my presentation I said the settlement process has three steps, settlement, adaptation, integration. Settlement is meeting the immediate needs of people as soon as they come. Adaptation is the period in which they try to adapt to Canada. Integration is when you participate. Civic participation is a part of that, and we talked about full participation in all aspects of life. I think that's the citizenship part. The people become not isolated citizens, but contributing members of Canada. People ask me sometimes why people who come here stay around their own communities. I say, if people wanted to stay around their own communities, they would just stay back home. But they get isolated socially.

So it's not just settlement, it has a long-term impact. It has impact on the people practising their citizenship. I don't believe citizenship is a card, I don't believe citizenship is a name. It is how you practise it, how you conduct yourself an a daily basis, and that same thing affects the children.

I hope I am not barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: No. I just want to be taken down this path to understand the complete logic.

Should I infer that the process that leads up to an application for citizenship, which addresses an issue raised this morning, where you begin to understand what it means to be Canadian, you absorb Canadian values, or at least you adapt to them and adopt them, can only come through a process of integration that's as systematic as the three steps you raised? Is that a logical thing for me to conclude? Is the responsibility on the aspirant to citizenship or is it on the state that welcomes the aspirant into its fold?

¿ (0920)

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: Again, it's a two-way street. I see my commitment as an individual, but also, when I am citizen of Canada, how am I being treated? One of the main issues we have seen in the last 20 years relates to changes in immigration demographics. Two-thirds of immigrants right now are in a visible minority.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: The rest of us are invisible, we can't be seen, is that it? I'm sorry, I have a problem with that definition.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: I understand. I know people have--

Mr. Joseph Volpe: You're either an advocate or you're not, eh?

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: I have no better word for that.

Many of the people who come here, for example, experience racism or discrimination when they are applying for jobs or they go for housing. I am a good citizen, I am working, I am volunteering, I recycle, I do everything, and I expect to be treated equally, and my kids too. Others talk of how the government is promoting that.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: How is that verified or tested in a citizenship application test?

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: In my previous life I went to medical school and I passed the exam. It didn't make me a doctor, life made me a doctor.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: The test gave you the certificate.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: The test gave me the certificate, but that test doesn't make people become a good doctor or a bad doctor.

The Chair: Morteza, I know what Joe is getting at. We wanted to follow up, after our immigration policy, with our settlement programs and integration. In the Canadian Chinese National Council presentation there is one statement I wanted to ask about: “Citizenship education is alarmingly lacking”. Yet it is supposed to be part of the settlement programs and part of the integration program. Who's supposed to pick up that bridge? That's what Joe's trying to get to. In 1954 there weren't any programs when my father and I got here, absolutely nothing. There wasn't English as a second language, there weren't settlement programs. He went to work the day after he arrived, and he had to learn at night school, and so did we. Things have changed, and we want to make sure integration is far more important. There is a bridge Joe's trying to get to between landing here and becoming a good citizen, and one of the statements was that citizenship education is seriously lacking in respect of some of the work we all collectively want to do.

Ms. Gloria Fung: I would like to elaborate a bit on our statement that citizenship education is very important. We always think the best way to deal with immigrants and refugees is to enable them to understand how Canadians share common values and to participate actively in all aspects of political, economic, and social life in our society. However, under the present system, the kind of settlement services provided by the federal government remain at a very generic level. It emphasizes the initial orientation of immigrants and refugees by provision of information and referral services, but it does not touch the important citizenship education of our immigrants and refugees.

I think we should understand the importance of providing sufficient funding to language instruction services. It's not just language training, but when you are up to a certain level, particularly at the advanced level, it is also integrated with citizenship education. I have participated in some of the classes conducted by the ESL instructors here, and they integrate daily meals in our society in their teaching, and they also teach the students how to exercise their rights as citizens in all aspects of Canadian life. This is what we mean.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Amy, can you answer on that one?

Ms. Amy Casipullai (Coordinator, Policy and Public Education, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants): I want to pick up on your example, Mr. Chair. You were talking about your father. When he came here, there were no language training programs, no citizenship programs. He went to work right away. Norman referred earlier to the situation HRDC faced with all the factory layoffs, and now there is this whole population of people who've had jobs ever since they came to the country, but never went to language education. HRDC had huge problems trying to retrain this population precisely for that reason, and at that point they were citizens, they had no access to language training programs.

So I think what we're talking about is the need to look at client-centred service, to have a holistic view of settlement programs. Whether that's the jurisdiction of the federal government, the provincial government, or the municipalities, again, we need to have intergovernmental and interdepartmental coordination to make the best use of the resources you have. You were asking earlier about putting a dollar value on the services. That's precisely the problem you're faced with, it's needs-based. A lot of people, when they come to the country and are eligible for programs and services, try to find work right away, so they are not able to take advantage of the services we have. If we don't look at who needs the services, why, and under what circumstances, I don't think we're ever going to be able to address the gaps we see right now.

Settlement is a linear process, it's different for each person. You look at the obligation of the citizen to the state and the obligation of the state to the citizen. They both exist, it is two-way. So what we're looking at is more efficient use of our dollars to make sure people's needs are being met, so that they can continue with their lives.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So you came in 1964. Did I get that right?

The Chair: 1954, before you did.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: The number on your citizenship card is smaller than ours.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You beat both of us coming here.

There's a real cost in not providing services. At the time the chairman's family came, getting jobs was very easy. When I went to school here, a lot of kids were dropping out in grade 8, grade 9, grade 10, and they could go out and find jobs, usually in the resource sector. But it's not the same world we're living in now. We've got such a mix. We've got some refugees, some cases of very high need, some cases of professional people who fit in right away, they've got jobs, they might speak the language, what have you. For the ones who don't fit in and need help we're not having it available. It ends up costing, through dropouts, possible trouble with the law--I was involved in that kind of work before--but also some even more critical cases.

Just recently I dealt with a constituent who came to see me. They came from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they started off okay. The husband got a job in an engineering firm. A couple of years later he had a stroke. His disability expired, the wife was left trying to take care of the husband, who was in a nursing facility, and raise two kids, and she just didn't have the help. One of the things we talked about with the staff is that if this woman doesn't make it, it's not just her, but her kids are at risk too. So there's a real cost for not having assistance available. My father-in-law is in a nursing home, but I look at the whole network there to help him, and this woman had none of that. There really aren't services there for her, but if she doesn't make it, the family falls apart.

Here's my question, and if you don't have the answer now, I hope you think about it and send it in to the committee. Given the lack of preventive or emergency help because of cost, what would be the cost, not necessarily to the federal government, it could be the provincial government, it could be the local government, it could be our social service system if things really break down?

¿ (0930)

Ms. Colleen Hua: At the agency I work in I had a very similar situation, and this woman still got service, because we had other kinds of services available that weren't slotted into this settlement and integration funding formula. A different part of the organization ended up servicing this woman, but it cost the other part of the organization that was funded from somewhere else to service her. I'm not sure if you are asking whether people like this always fall through the cracks. I don't think they do, but unfortunately, agencies are having to pick up those costs and find different ways of jigging each case.

Right now I think the funding issue, specifically with immigration settlement, is dictating the kind of person you can serve with specific dollars. It's very stringent. I think that's what Gloria was referring to before with flexibility. You're just serving the client who's been here for three years and is this and this and this--it's a check list; otherwise, we can't service you and you have to find help somewhere else. That's what we want to change.

The Chair: I'm sure that's what Andrew was looking for.

Morteza, quickly.

Mr. Morteza Jafarpour: People should get support in a timely manner. The federal government and different governments try to define us in small boxes. This is the framework. We all agree on the federal government as service provider. If we have the framework, most immigrants and refugees will quickly become contributing members of society, paying tax, recycling, doing all these things. We are not against accountability. We are not saying, throw money on us, we know what we can do. But the current system says, you just do one thing, and as a result, it becomes more expensive, because it doesn't address the needs of the people in the correct way.

The Chair: That's what Andrew has asked you all to think about, and I asked you about a model that one could look at. It has got to be client-based, I understand that, but also I like, Morteza, what you were talking about, this continuum: you want to settle someone, the middle step is adaptation, and then you have the integration. Everybody has to go through it. Prasanna did, my father did, we did, everybody goes through it. You land, and then you build towards something. So if you can start to develop that kind of thinking within that framework, that's the kind of thing we are looking at.

Norman.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Norman Beach: We haven't talked very much about the particular needs of professionals. Andrew Telegdi brought up the idea that we have lots of professionals coming to this country. They too, even if they have a lot of training in a foreign country, may also have high needs in some other areas. One of the things that is really involved here is workplace communication and intercultural training. I think we should also start to address that issue. Some of the people who are in my classes--I teach advanced--are people who have been very well educated in their countries and have a lot of skills and training, but it is still of benefit for them to meet people from other cultures, to go through sensitivity and all kinds of cultural adjustments, because we live in a true multicultural society. People who are coming from other countries are coming into a situation that is different, a true multicultural situation. In Ontario, for example, they were working a lot in the past on workplace communication and intercultural issues, and that work has mainly stopped now. I think we have to look at the gamut of integration of all newcomers.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: I want to thank you all very much for your insight. Obviously, you know how the system works or isn't working, and that's why I think, from your experience, you have been able to give us some ideas on how we can make our resettlement and settlement programs work a lot better. You are on the front lines, and the success of immigrants in becoming citizens is directly related to some of the work your fine organizations do. So I want to take this opportunity to thank you.

I thought this committee would have the opportunity of applying some heat to the provincial government, because the minister was going to be here, Carl DeFaria, and we were going to be able to talk to him about things. They cancelled. They must have been afraid of you. The minister must have heard that we were criticizing the province a bit.

Thank you so much. Give us those models and those suggestions. That would be great.

We're going to take about a five-minute break, and then we're going to come back and talk about national identity cards with some other witnesses.

¸ (1458)

¹ (1512)

The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to now talk a little about our new challenge, the study the minister has asked us to undertake on the issue of a national identity card. When he spoke with us on Thursday morning, he asked the committee and citizens to be fully engaged in the discussion as to whether or not Canada needs a national identity card. He talked a lot about national identity as perhaps the most important thing we all have and what we need to protect and enhance it. Will a national identity card be a benefit or a negative? And I think he indicated that while Canadians, for the most part, in light of the times we live in, might be favourably disposed to having a national identity card, the committee, when questioning the minister, had some serious questions as to what we want that card to be. What's the purpose for it? Who's going to be able to use it? How much information should we put on it? Will, in fact, every Canadian want to be fingerprinted or have their iris scanned?

So I want to thank each one of you for wanting to get involved in an extremely important debate. Some countries have it, some don't. The United States has not adopted one, even though we believe they are also engaged in the discussion. So without any preconceived ideas as to whether or not we ought to have one, we want to listen to Canadians and see what you feel and think about it.

I'm happy to say we have Anna Chiappa from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and, from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, Ron Poulton, staff lawyer, and Debbie Douglas, the executive director. And Morris Manning wants to talk to us and has given us a pretty substantial briefing, all in two days. It is incredible, Morris, that you've been able to come up with that brief in such a short period of time. I'm sure you've been thinking about it a long time.

Let's start with Anna Chiappa.

Mrs. Anna Chiappa (Executive Director, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Thank you very much.

The Chair: The clerk was just telling me that you and he went to school together. My sympathies.

Mrs. Anna Chiappa: Yes, we went to school together. We have stories to tell, but we won't share them here.

[Translation]

Thank you very much. On behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our views here today.

Ten days ago, CEC President Art Hagopian addressed the committee on the subject of Bill C-18.

For those of you who are not familiar with our organization, the CEC is a national coalition of 32 ethnocultural organizations. CEC member organizations, which have their own administrative structure, in turn represent approximately 2,000 local and provincial branches across Canada. While each of these organizations represents a distinct and unique cultural community, collectively they promote a better understanding and acceptance of all ethnocultural groups in Canada.

The CEC also strives for the integration of ethnocultural groups through promotion of equal opportunity and the fight against racism and discrimination.

[English]

We are pleased to be able to express our views on the proposed introduction of a national identity card. Many of our members have been directly affected by fallout from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On the first anniversary of this tragedy the CEC launched a public service announcement with the message of peace and respect for the many cultures that make up Canada. This was in conjunction with CFMT-OMNI, under the theme “Celebrating our Human Diversity”. The PSA sought to reinforce the belief that the strength of our nation comes from fostering a strong sense of security among Canadians, while not serving to marginalize minority communities because of their ancestry, race, or religious beliefs.

Although we recognize the need for the Government of Canada to implement measures for enhancing domestic security in the aftermath of September 11, we believe public policy should always be the result of sober reflection and provide a balance between fairness and necessity. Minister Coderre seems to believe the establishment of a mandatory national identity card will prevent racial profiling at the Canada-U.S. border, particularly if a place of birth is not listed. In addition, he contends that whatever information is collected for such a card will only be used for combating terrorism. If the Canadian passport, driver's licence, and birth certificate are no longer appropriate documents for travel or other identification purposes, it would be better to correct any shortcomings and improve them, rather than looking around for alternative documents that are untried and untested. If this new card will have widespread use for other purposes and by other parts of the bureaucracy, we should be made aware of it at the outset. Canadians should be privy to what security arrangements will be put in place to protect the sensitive information gathered.

One can cite a series of instances where data in both the public and the private domain proved not to be as secure as was promised and became subject to abuse and misuse, particularly with advanced and increasingly complex technology. One example is the case of the data management company that, having responsibility for protecting private and confidential client information on behalf of governments and businesses, lost track of a hard drive from a supposedly secure environment at offices in Regina, Saskatchewan. The hard drive contained sensitive and private information on about a million individuals and businesses. Some of the data could permit an unauthorized person to gain access to bank accounts and transfer balances or apply for a loan in the names of the respective clients. The recovery of the stolen document drive a short time later did not confirm whether the data had been or could be misused. Another example relates to the new computer virus that recently infected computer networks around the world. Asia, Europe, and the United States experienced sudden slow-down or shut-down in Internet services.

In his recent annual report to Parliament for the year 2001- 2002 the federal Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, questioned the wisdom of the proposed policy:

I can find no justification for a national identity card, especially since it is absolutely useless as an anti-terrorist measure. As the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks demonstrated, terrorists are not necessarily previously identifiable as such. Every citizen would be able to obtain and display an identity card, regardless of his or her possible terrorist proclivities, but of course it wouldn't list occupation as “terrorist”. And short-term visitors to Canada wouldn't have such a card at all.

Mr. Radwanski, who has a mandate from Parliament as ombudsman to oversee and defend the privacy rights of Canadians, is supported by many of his provincial and territorial counterparts, civil liberties proponents, distinguished legal experts, and privacy advocates. They all express reservations about the introduction of a national ID card, in addition to current or pending security measures. These include an elaborate database on personal travel created by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and accessible by any government department; broad access by police to passenger travel information, not necessarily for anti-terrorist purposes; increased power of the state to monitor e-mail and Internet data; and government support for police video surveillance of public streets.

Within our own membership, as in any other broadly arranged coalition, there are mixed views on these issues. Some members perceive heightened security measures, including a national identity card, as necessary for fighting terrorism. However, since September 11 some communities, particularly if they are nationals of Middle Eastern origin, have been reporting difficulties encountered on visits to the United States and harassment at security checkpoints and elsewhere. In a recent meeting with Solicitor General Wayne Easter leaders of Arab and Muslim communities raised concerns about abuse of Canada's anti-terrorism laws, complaining of being targets of harassment by law enforcement, national security intelligence, and airport and border security officials in Canada.

In a news release of January 31, 2003, our member organization the Canadian Arab Federation expressed concern over Bill C-17, the proposed Public Safety Act, and supported the views of civil liberties groups and the Privacy Commissioner. The CAF voiced fear that the proposed security measures might target Arab and Muslim communities in Canada unfairly, in addition to eroding civil liberties of all Canadians through unusual policies such as the creation of a national identity card.

The perspective of National Post columnist Andrew Coyne, November 15, 2002, is that the proposed cards are “the latest addition to the government's roster of intrusive and unnecessary violations of privacy rights...the cards would include your photo, and probably some sort of biometric information, like your fingerprints.” Mr. Coyne asks “Is that all? What else would it contain? A computer chip, perhaps, with information on your health, your tax records, your driver's licence, any criminal convictions--the dream of bureaucrats everywhere?”

The Privacy Commissioner warns in his report:

We need to recognize, therefore, that any intrusions or limitations on the fundamental human right of privacy that are imposed as a purported wartime measure against terrorism will likely never be rescinded. What are we confronting is the prospect of a permanent redefintion of Canadian society.

The Ottawa Citizen editorial of February 3, 2003, advised the federal government that it is its duty to take the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner seriously, even if it is not in agreement with the entire report. The editorial suggests that the commissioner is performing a service to Canadians by his vigilance, and his report is a bold challenge to the assumption by the government that it can intrude on our privacy whenever it chooses.

Minister Coderre and the government owe it to Canadians to have a true debate before introducing a mandatory national identity card. There is a need for broader dissemination of background information on the purpose of the card, leading to meaningful public education and engagement. Has due consideration has been given to the potential cost, economic and to personal dignity, of a measure that might involve the fingerprinting and scanning the eyeballs of all Canadians? What other information will be collected, how securely will it be stored and by whom, and for what purposes will it be used? If we make concessions now in the name of combating terrorism, what else will we be expected to give up in the future?

In conclusion, the notion of a mandatory identity card for all Canadians raises very fundamental questions. Are we prepared to trust government, any government, with the immense power and centralization of information on each and every person in this country? I think at this point we should heed the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and seriously consider what he is suggesting.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Anna.

Ron Poulton.

Mr. Ron Poulton (Staff Lawyer, Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants): Thank you.

It's hard at this stage to make detailed comments about the national identity card, because it really hasn't been clearly identified, for me at least, what its purpose is and how exactly it's supposed to be used, but given the limited information we have, I will make my comments. There are two areas of concern we have. One involves privacy matters, the other involves potential racial profiling.

The collection and sharing of private and personal information by government agencies is a concern for us. Each time a new mechanism is created that allows information to be gathered, stored, and shared, we, as citizens, sacrifice some degree of privacy. If it is a simple matter to swipe a card on entry or exit from Canada, it will be a simple matter to record where a person has gone and for how long. It will then also be a simple matter for security agencies to cross-reference trips abroad. Do they coincide with anti-globalization demonstrations held in the United States, for example? Do they coincide with demonstrations opposing a U.S. attack in Iraq, for example? In this period of enchanced security and fear, will the information available from the use of these cards not be pooled for determination of who it is our security agencies should be watching, who is a potential troublemaker and who is not? Will this information be used to identify Canadians travelling to areas of the world that are of concern? It will be a simple matter to cross-reference the bio-data on this card with the answers to the questions posed by immigration officials, where have you been and for how long? If you have made several trips to central Asia or to the Middle East, this information will be stored. It will likely be shared with CSIS. It could form the basis of such things as wire tap requests to judges in times of security crisis.

Between 1989 and 1994 I worked for the United Nations as a human rights officer in various war-torn areas of the world in peacekeeping operations. When I returned home each time and I was asked where I was and what I was doing, my answers raised an eyebrow with immigration officers, but nothing else. If that information had been reported for all the war areas I had been involved in, had been stored and shared, it might have raised a concern for somebody at a time of security crisis. There is a potential for the intrusive use of this information. Accumulated travel information is a concern to us.

On the issue of racial profiling, in our view, there is potential for misuse of this card. Whether the card itself contains direct information of country of birth or indirect means for obtaining this information, the potential for abuse of this information is high. If the national identity card does not contain an express statement of country of origin, it can easily lead to information sources that do. For example, each permanent resident of Canada has their fingerprints taken before they're granted permanent resident status in order to carry out security screening before they get landed. If the national identity card includes the fingerprints, it can easily be cross-referenced against records Immigration has of where this person's country of origin is. If that information is shared with other security sources or agencies, we have a database pool shared by all security agencies, and they can secure information from this card identifying where a person actually comes from.

In addition, many permanent residents of Canada have spent time in the United States. If so, they had to be fingerprinted by U.S. authorities to obtain security clearance from U.S. authorities before getting landed in Canada. Again, fingerprints can lead to more information, including country of origin information.

The danger of this at the end of the day is that countries like the United States may inhibit entry for persons who are born in places the United States, for example, has concerns about, creating a second-class Canadian citizen: one can travel to the United States without a visa, another needs the visa, just as with the situation of permanent residents. The purpose of the visa requirement imposed on permanent residents by the United States recently must be that the United States does not trust Canada's security screening processes, which are done for all permanent residents. Canada has a strong and, in my view, at times harsh process for screening prospective immigrants and for taking away status from those it considers security threats. There are a number of procedures in the Immigration Act for this to occur. They apply the lowest possible legal threshold, they allow for detention and hearings without the person or counsel knowing the full range of evidence against them. Yet the United States prefers to trust one of its own officials issuing visitor visas in a far less intrusive and extensive process to this permanent resident screening process. Why is that? Fundamentally, they don't trust our system of law and order, and their second motivation is deterrence. When a permanent resident of Canada from a designated country wants to shop in the U.S. or go to a hockey game, they now will have to line up for a visa first. Long lines discourage some from even bothering.

The U.S. would rather err on the side of caution and not have persons from risk countries in their country. In my view, it's only a matter of time before this may be extended to Canadian citizens from so-called risk countries. The national identity card potentially aids in the identification of who these people are, and so creates a possible second-class Canadian citizen.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Those are very good questions. That's what we're here to answer.

I should tell you, unlike most things that come from the government to this committee with a piece of legislation, the minister has indicated that he wants a total debate in this country and this committee to make a recommendation to him and the government as to whether or not there is really a need for a national identity card. So there isn't, so far as I know, a preconceived plan to issue mandatory national identity cards. We're going to listen to Canadians and give him our recommendations.

Morris. Do you want to take us through your book page by page?

Mr. Morris Manning ( As Individual): Absolutely, and we'll be here until tomorrow.

No, I'm not going to do that. What I attempted to do was give you an overview of the debate carried out in other places. This is not a new debate. It's new in Canada, and I'm greatly comforted by Mr. Fontana's assurances that there is no preconceived notion, no preconceived plan, you are all open-minded on the subject and are ready for a debate. I have, as my experience as an advocate compels me sometimes to do, put forth what I hope will be a convincing position against the adoption of a national identity card. The ideas expressed are not new and they're not my own. I have tried to adapt them to the Canadian situation.

In Canada, unlike other countries, because of the newness of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have not only affirmed, as the European Convention does, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the corresponding right not to be deprived of those rights without its being in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, but we also expect the government to justify an infringement of those rights. A national identity card automatically does raise the issue of an infringement of our liberty, our ability to move from one part of the country to another without interference while we go about our daily and lawful activities. It also protects our security of the person, which the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed encompasses both physical and psychological security, but more importantly, Charter of Rights section 1 compels the government to justify any infringement of liberty or security of the person and hold as the standard not only a democratic society, but, as I've pointed out at the very beginning of my brief, a free society.

I believe firmly, based on what I have seen and read to date, there is no case to be made for a national identity card, be it one that contains biometrics, be it one that contains a centralized or on-line database or an off-line database. There has been no convincing proof in that direction. There has, however, been demonstrated a position against the national identity card in other free and democratic societies. I won't take you through the brief in detail. What I tried to do in the 11 pages at the beginning of the brief is set out my position, my views, as gleaned from other jurisdictions and try to adopt them into the Canadian scene.

Let me just take you to a couple of digests of the situation. At tab 2 I've included an excerpt from the latest report on privacy and human rights, 2002, put out by the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and Privacy International, which groups monitor privacy concerns around the world. And if you look at the second page, page 28, there are two items I think are quite telling and will inform your debate. The first is in the second paragraph on page 28, with reference to national identity card systems:

In a number of countries, these systems have been successfully challenged on constitutional privacy grounds. In 1998, the Phillipines Supreme Court ruled that a national ID system violated the constitutional right to privacy.

For your convenience, I have included that decision at tab 15. It's important because the Phillipines Constitution is modelled as almost a wholesale adaptation of the American Constitution. The judges sat as a full panel in their Supreme Court, and while there are some dissenting judges, the majority ruled that this kind of provision was unconstitutional as affecting security of the person and liberty interests.

As well, in 1991 the Hungarian Constitutional Court ruled that a law creating a multi-use personal identification number violated the constitutional right to privacy. Again I have included that for your consideration. And in 1997, interestingly enough, the Portuguese Constitution states "Citizens shall not be given an all-purpose national identity number." That's very important. Again, a democratic society wanting to remain free has enshrined a specific provision in their constitution against such a card. Protests against the card, as this report points out, in 1997, six years ago, in Australia resulted in a near collapse of the government. Card projects in South Korea and Taiwan were also stopped after widespread protests.

Interestingly enough, the debate is raging now in the United States on Patriot II, as it's sometimes called, and they are looking at a national identity card system. However, their system of a nationwide driver's licence identification system has ground to a halt because so many groups and so many citizens rallied against such a system, because of the invasion of privacy. And that's dealing with the limited amount of identification one finds in a driver's licence situation. At tab 4, the American Civil Liberties Union discussed five reasons national identity card systems should be rejected, and each one of those is applicable in this situation.

I take great comfort from the position recently reported, if it's accurate, of the minister responsible for Canada Customs and Revenue and what I consider pernicious legislation and regulation with respect to airline information taking a very strong position against national identity cards. Her position is, “It makes me nervous, I don't think we need it.” That's why I would worry about someone coming up and asking for your ID card if you're walking down the street minding your own business. Nobody would expect, in a free and democratic society, to be stopped and asked for ID papers.

The difficulty, of course, has been touched upon by the previous speakers and is also contained in my brief, where I've quoted from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, among others. The gathering of this information, once it starts, never ends. If information in a national identity card is put on line and goes to various government agencies, it then goes outside to other agencies. If it goes to the RCMP, it will surely go to the FBI. If it goes to the FBI, it will surely go to Interpol. And if it goes to Interpol, it will be disseminated around the world. We're all in big trouble if that happens.

It doesn't work with respect to fighting terrorism, because, as was pointed out by Ms. Chiappa, and I've put this in my brief as well, the terrorists didn't identify themselves, as Mr. Radwanski said--here I am, a terrorist. They had drivers' licences. One of them had their name in the San Diego phone book. Their information was public information, but they were in a sleeper cell.

There's another aspect I want to touch on very briefly, and I thank you for your indulgence as to the time. If you adopt a national identity card, what happens to the ordinary law-abiding citizen when they lose it? What happens to the ordinary law-abiding citizen when the information that's contained therein is incorrect? How do you straighten it out? Where do you go? Where is the database located? Who has access to it? The national identity, which the chair has pointed out is a very important aspect of Canadian citizenship, of the particular individual cannot and should not be tied up in a card, because if you lose it, you lose your identity, you lose your legitimacy, you lose your place in Canadian society. All of that can happen. We all know databases aren't infallible, even though they can be looked into, can be tweaked, can be corrected. Nothing is infallible when it comes to the collection of data on individuals, particularly when you don't know what the data are. If you have to produce a card to buy a car, or get on a plane, or travel across the country, or even walk the streets of Canada, I believe we have changed from a free to an unfree society.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I might even seriously object to someone knowing my height, which is on the licence. We're having trouble counting guns. Can we count people in the registry?

Mr. Morris Manning: As well as the costs.

The Chair: Well, we won't get into that right now.

Mr. Morris Manning: We won't get into the costs of registration.

The Chair: Okay.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I really think your presentations are excellent. You have given us more reasons in these 20 minutes than the minister since he introduced this idea.

I think what I am most concerned about is what Anna brought up, when that hard drive was stolen in Regina. To appease me, they said, well, the information wasn't used. Does it really matter that it wasn't used if that's how safe it is?

We were told when the gun registration started it was going to be $100 or $200 million, and they thought they knew what they were doing. They have no idea what they are doing with these ID cards yet. So I'm going to pretend that I don't trust the government in that Denis is not going to be implementing this. He says perhaps this could be voluntary or mandatory. I want to know what you think about it if it is voluntary.

And I want to talk a little about racial profiling. I want to know what you think of racial profiling. If somebody is looking for a white person with black hair, I don't have a problem with racial profiling. However, I am a Canadian, and I couldn't put myself in the same situation as people who are racially profiled, but if they were looking particularly for my height and my colour, I would not be insulted.

Denis has said it's merely proving that's who you are. That's pretty convincing, if all it's going to do is say, you are Lynne Yelich, your fingerprint shows it. But you have brought today some arguments to say it's a bit more than that, because that fingerprint can identify you back to your country of origin, which I really didn't think of. So what would you want on that card? If he decides he is going to implement it, what would you allow on there? Would you just allow your name, to prove it's you, with a picture? Is an iris different from a fingerprint, does it trace you back to your country of origin? I don't know.

Mr. Ron Poulton: It really goes back to what the purpose of this card is. Again, we're a bit uncertain about it. If the purpose is just to make exit and entry easier, why do you need more than your photograph and your name on there? You just have to identify who you are, that you are a Canadian citizen, and everything else is superfluous, in my view. The other information that may be put on that card, the bio-data information, is potentially too harmful. We have databases of fingerprints now. Maybe we don't have them yet of irises, but that's going to happen. Maybe we don't have them yet of palmprints, but that's also going to happen. The collection of information about us is just growing and growing. With a fingerprint now you can tell that I went to law school, for example; on LSAT exams they take our fingerprints. And that's just going to increase.

You have to understand it in relation to what the problem is in a racial profile. The problem is not saying you fit the description of a guy seen running down the street who looks like that robber, but that you look like a class of person from a country or a region that maybe we don't want, maybe we don't trust. Right now there are thousands of permanent residents of Canada who can't go shopping in the United States, can't go to hockey games, because the United States says you need a visitor visa, and the line-ups outside the U.S. embassy are going to be huge. Their message to those people is that they're not quite as good as other permanent residents of Canada. That may be the message Canadian citizens get who are identified as from areas of the world where there is a risk to our security, as determined by CSIS or American intelligence. That's the problem with racial profiling.

Mr. Morris Manning: If you say at the beginning it's voluntary, which of the citizens are there who wouldn't sign up? Why wouldn't you sign up? Why aren't you on the list? If it becomes known that I voluntarily went on the list and my neighbour didn't, they may say she should be looked at, because I have nothing to hide, she may have something to hide. That's what I think is the difficulty with its being voluntary or mandatory and why I don't want to see it at all.

Does it make racial profiling easier? Of course it does, because what it contains is information that may not be readily apparent. Think of a person of mixed parentage, whose facial features don't match the profile: you don't look Jewish, you don't look Chinese, you don't look black, but you are, because it's in your card. Now I've got a card that tells me more about you than your mere appearance, and I think that enables racial profiling. If you're looking at it as a city problem, you can look at the debate that's raging today in Toronto. Take that and extrapolate it to the country as a whole. I don't think it does anything other than enable racial profiling, and I think that's a dangerous thing.

The Chair: Anna.

Mrs. Anna Chiappa: I don't think I can add much more. It comes back to the question of use. If it's meant to be used internally, for what purpose? There is, I think, a risk of having to carry it all the time. You're out in the street, and the police may ask certain individuals or groups for the card.

If it's just voluntary, you're creating two sets of people, those who volunteer and those who don't, and there are problems with that. So quite frankly, the first choice is not to have a card at all, whether it's voluntary or mandatory.

The other area I want to raise is the matter of the iris. I don't know if any of you have seen a movie we used to use quite a bit in anti-racism training called Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes? Do you remember that? That's the first thing that struck me. I don't know what kind of information would be used with scanning your eyes, but there's a potential there, even in the colour of your eyes. Where does that go? Where is that shared?

I'm afraid I've raised more questions than I've given answers.

Mr. Morris Manning: You should also be aware that the science has not yet reached that level of assuredness. Where iris scanning has been tested, it has been found to be lacking. It doesn't work all the time. What happens when your iris is scanned into your card and it's an incorrect scanning? That creates yet another layer of problems. So until you're assured that the technology is there and is infallible, until the data that come through that technology are totally secure, you really can't look at national identity cards, because the foundation of the data can't be protected at the present time.

The Chair: Joe Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I wonder if I can follow up this business a little more, and you'll excuse me if I seen to be unnecessarily obtuse.

Mr. Manning, was there a certain facetiousness in your presentation when you expressed satisfaction that none of the people around the table associated with the minister had any preconceived positions on a national ID card?

Mr. Morris Manning: No, not at all. I was assured by Mr. Fontana that this was the case. He said it twice today, and I was pleased to hear that.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay. In your experience, that's why things are presented for discussion, because nobody has any preconceived notions about where the discussion's going to go?

Mr. Morris Manning: I'm not naive, I'm not unrealistic. I've been practising law almost 36 years in the defence field. I'm not a cynic, I still live in hope, that's why I continue enjoying what I do.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay. If you've read Dante's Inferno, maybe you'll remember a particular line there: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter”.

Mr. Manning, I know you've been involved in some cases, without mentioning specific ones, where identification of participants was an extremely important part of the arguments presented by you on behalf of the people you were defending. Is it unfair for people to ask for identifiers that are precise about who you are and who you're not?

Mr. Morris Manning: It isn't unfair if they're doing so for a specific and necessary purpose. The problem with the identity card is that there's no purpose for it. You're walking along the street and a police officer comes up to you and says, give me your name, and you say, why do you want to know it? Don't ask me any questions, just give me your name. So far in Canada, fortunately, you don't have to give that officer your name. If you have a national identity card and he asks you to produce the card, on the hypothetical position that we're looking for terrorists and he doesn't like the way you're walking along the street, you have to make people carry it and you have to require them to identify themselves. Otherwise, there's no point to it.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Don't we have that already?

Mr. Morris Manning: No, we don't.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: It's something of a rhetorical question. I want to give you an example. I wish I had brought it with me, but I didn't, so maybe I'm proving what you're saying, but my passport, believe it or not, has my name, my address, my height, the colour of my hair, the colour of my eyes, and it also indicates where I was born. Maybe we don't need to know all those things, but all those items are there. It shows my citizenship, obviously, because it's a passport, but it still indicates where I was born, and I may not have been born in Canada.

Mr. Morris Manning: But you don't have to produce that to a cop on the street. You don't have to produce that in shopping. You don't have to produce that to anyone except an official of another country if you're going outside Canada.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Or this country if you're coming back in.

Mr. Morris Manning: Or if you're coming back in.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Let me be the devil's advocate for a second--sorry, a slip of the tongue. Let me be an advocate for the department. We have the facility already. Why can't we use it? For example, in the cases to which I made allusion, where you were involved, why couldn't I just produce that passport? Why couldn't somebody involved in those situations ask me to produce my passport?

Mr. Morris Manning: Because when you scan the passport, you don't get other vital information. You don't get whether you've been to a hospital and for what reason, for example. With the recent regulations coming into force dealing with international travel, you don't get that kind of information just by using your passport. The passport, on its face, is the guarantee, it's the stamp of approval of the Government of Canada that you are a citizen of this country and are entitled to carry that passport.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Let me beg to differ. This isn't a legal opinion, but it comes from the practical experience of people coming into my office complaining. If I lose my passport, I have to provide all the documentation required to get a new one, and some of that may require going to a country of origin and getting a birth certificate, because baptismal certificates are no longer sufficient for those who are identified through their religion. If I lose my passport, which belongs to the Government of Canada, not to me, the process for getting a replacement is even more tortuous, and when it expires, I have to come up with the same documentation, because the old passport is proof of absolutely nothing. The bureaucracy will not accept the outdated passport as an identifier, because it's no longer valid.

Mr. Morris Manning: I take your point. I know for a fact that the customs officials, in the renewal of a passport, will not accept a birth certificate from the Province of Quebec past 1995, because of problems associated with those in the past.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: And if you come from another country, you can forget it.

Mr. Morris Manning: Exactly. But that's not the same as having a national database with all your personal information in it. That's not the same as requiring you to carry your passport when you are walking on the streets of any city or town in Canada. That's not the same for being able to move about the country as a free citizen. If you put a national identity card system in place, you are compelling people to carry a card, and the card will reach into a much larger database than the passport. There is a great difference, not only in degree, but in kind, between a passport situation and a national identity card. A national identity card has to be part of you. It tells everyone in the country, through the database it goes into, not only who you are, where you were born, how tall you are, what the colour of your eyes is, and so on, it gives far more personal information than you or I or, I hope, anyone in this room wants distributed.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: But only if it has been put in. We already have another national identity card. Those of us in the room who became Canadian citizens had the option of either accepting the long form or a card, and that card, if you have it, is as good as the long form. If you lose the card, you have to produce the long form. If you can't produce the long form, you have to prove your citizenship. I don't know how you can do that unless you can get access to the database. So for the 6 million registered Canadians who had to acquire citizenship, there is already a national identity card. The thing that, in my humble opinion, is missing is an imposition of a requirement to produce such a card. It's much the same, for example, as producing a SIN number for identification, even though the law says that's not what it is for. If I want to cash a cheque, I'm asked for at least two pieces of ID, and one has to be a credit card.

Mr. Morris Manning: And both of them can be easily forged. The difficulty with a national identity card is that if it can be as easily forged as a driver's licence, for example, or even a passport, it offers absolutely no reliability as a protection device against terrorism, which is the main reason put forward, or easier entry for Canadians into the United States, which is another reason put forward.

Mr. Ron Poulton: On the presence of the country of origin in your passport, you're absolutely right, it does exist there on our present passports, where you're born. For us, that's a problem. It's something we've been advocating for years be taken away. Why should there be a distinction between Canadians? Why should this Canadian be a Canadian from this country and this Canadian be a Canadian who was born here? There's no distinction between those two groups of people, and the passport at this moment is serving to alienate one group, in our view, by identifying clearly where they were born.

On loss of a card or a passport, there are lots of ways to correct that, in fact. First you have to go through Immigration and prove you're a permanent resident, get your immigration file. You show your landing record. You get through FOSS, their computer entry system. It establishes your chain of living here, your permanent residency. With that, you go to the citizenship department and get your citizenship reinstated. That's not really a big problem. The problem is identification on that passport. You've identified that issue, and it's still a problem for us. Why is it there?

On the ID card issue, and I'm assuming its only use is for moving in and out of the country, it puts information into a database immediately. Whereas an immigration officer at a port of entry looks at your passport, sees it, and says, thanks, move on, the proposal, as I understand it, is that he will swipe the card. It enters a database. That database entry includes where you're coming from and where you were born.

The Chair: Then one of your recommendations would be, and has been in the past, to change the passport.

Mr. Ron Poulton: Yes, that's right. There's no reason for it to be there.

The Chair: Okay. It's good that we've got that for the record in this debate.

Joe.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I want to start by telling Mr. Manning that I did come with my mind made up against the card. I've thought about this since the minister began floating this ridiculous idea.

Why do you think it's going to be any different if you lose the card from if you lose your passport? You'll more than likely have to go through exactly the same thing. Why would we build a different system? So it's not going to give us any advantage in respect of the individual. You'll have to go through exactly the same thing.

Racial profiling has been a major issue for me, because of Windsor and the problems we've had with the American border guards. A constituent came to me. She has very fair skin, very dark hair. She does not look as if she would come--and I'm using your stereotyping--from the Middle East, but in fact she does, she comes from Lebanon. She was constantly being stopped at the border, in spite of those facial features, because of the accent in her voice. She had not lost her accent from the Middle East. She began wearing a crucifix to identify her as a Christian, because she was a Catholic. That was the identity card she used, and from that point on, she was not stopped at the border. So I want to be very clear that this is not going to do anything about racial profiling, except that it's not going to be just visual now. Now they'll be able to do it by paper and by computer. They'll be able to extend the racial profiling in this country and pass it on to the U.S., as we are doing now with our travel documents.

So let me ask you this question, all of you. Is there anything a national identity card would do that would justify it? I can't see anything.

The Chair: I think I've got a universal no.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

The minister was talking about having a smart card, which is even scarier, and that's what I wanted to talk to you about. It wasn't the minister who came up with this idea. Yes, he put it out there, but there were some people in the department who had been thinking long and hard about this, and 9/11 give them a big push. We are having the wrong response to 9/11. We said we were not going to let the terrorists win, we were not going to let them make us change our free and democratic society. Well, we have done exactly that, and they have won beyond their wildest dreams, because every piece of legislation now gets put through the prism of 9/11.

I'm pleased that you made the reference to Hungary, because Hungary used to have a national identity card that you had to produce when you were stopped by the police, and if you did not have your card, they could arrest you. We all read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and with the various databases that are being created, we are getting to Big Brother. We really have to consciously fight it and resist it, because I think it just reinforces all the wrong things in a society.

I hope you keep making your voices heard loud and clear. I can tell you, Joe, this is going to be just fantastic. I can just see the bureaucracy up in Ottawa. This is much more than they had to produce to get the minister to raise that issue, and I hope it gets shut down quickly.

We mentioned the SIN card, and it's not supposed to be used. The banks aren't supposed to ask you for it, but they do ask for it, and there is absolutely no law against their being able to ask for it. If one could prove that they turned you down for something because you didn't provide them with that, you'd have a problem, but the fact of the matter is that they make their decisions for all sorts of reasons, and you never quite know. It can be very dangerous.

With racial profiling, the real big danger is that you end up looking for a person, and a person who doesn't fit the profile gets away with it, because you focused in the wrong direction. I can't help but remember reading Nelson Mandela's autobiography, where he talks about people--and you mentioned it, Mr. Manning-- asking whether you are East Indian, black, and then a judge making a subjective judgement. It really struck me. He sits up on the bench and says, well, I looked at their posture, and it said this person was black, rather than Indian or whatever else. For somebody to sit up there and make that kind of a judgment is just unbelievable.

Now take a country like Canada. We represent the globe out there. At some point in time somebody is always going to be profiled, and it doesn't work. Everything about racial profiling has shown that it does not work. All it tends to do is have people look in the other direction, looking for something that doesn't exist, and the real threat might be walking right past them.

Mr. Morris Manning: I think you've touched on the important difference, if I can put it from my perspective, between law and culture. As people who study constitutional law know, one of the finest constitutions ever drafted was that of the Soviet Union, yet we know, from a cultural perspective, there was no freedom in that society, not freedom as we have come to embrace it and to live it. When people start down this road, they have to be made aware of what the ultimate consequence could be, the changing of the structure of society. You have to determine, particularly parliamentarians, not only what laws should be passed, but how those laws will affect the kind of society we have and whether it will change society for the better, whether we want to restructure parts of the Canadian society. And I couldn't agree with you more that the reaction of the free world to 9/11 has been most enlightening from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer and a defence lawyer like myself, because you watch the reaction of people.

I've put in this material the reaction of one I called “up till then the noted civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz”, who argued in the New York Times in favour national identity cards. I've also put in why I think his reasoning is flawed. For a man of that persuasion, as a noted civil libertarian, to take an about-face position and say, I don't see our national identity cards as a problem, because we have to fight the war on terrorism, caused great shock in the civil liberties community. I think it wasn't well thought out, wasn't well reasoned, but more importantly, you have to ask who was affected by it. Who will use that as a standard to get national identity cards? I am sure there are a lot of people who are ultra-conservative who want to ride that horse. So I've put it in the material and I've tried to negate it by showing that the reasoning is not right.

But I couldn't agree with you more. There are the other countries who are rejecting it, such as Australia , the Philippines, Hungary. And Hungary I thought was a very good example, as do you, because it was not the kind of free society at the time that we enjoy in this country and want to keep.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: So what will work? I happen to believe the model we have in Canada is one of inclusiveness. You don't identify yourself, you don't feel yourself marginalized. If you as a community feel marginalized, you're not going to try to prevent crime. If you feel you are a targeted community, you're going to close ranks. If you're an inclusive society and the laws are just and perceived to be just, there's no hiding or closing of ranks, because we all believe in a sense of shared values about what it is to be a Canadian. So don't put the Arab Canadians now under the gun, because if you do that, your chance of getting cooperation is going to be greatly lessened, because there's so much injustice associated with taking this kind of profiling. I think that's a challenge for us as a country, and that's the model I believe we have to push, not the paranoid model we're embarking on.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe, one comment.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: You've spoken to us about the national identity card. Mr. Poulton, I wonder whether we have taken any measures to get the government to change the notation of origin now on passports. If so, what?

This may be unfair, and if it is, please say so, but for all of you, you talked about national identity cards, but we haven't talked about the Canadian citizenship bill, the proposals. Are you in favour of it? If so, why? And do you believe citizenship should be annulled, revoked, or rescinded once acquired?

The Chair: OCASI has already spoken on the citizenship bill this morning, and Ron's part of the same organization--just to be fair.

Ms. Debbie Douglas (Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants): Maybe I'll answer your first question. Since September 11, 2001, with the complaints we've been receiving from particular communities, particularly Arab and Muslim communities, about their treatment at the borders, we have written to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs about our concerns and about the silence of the Canadian government on that issue.

The Chair: I'm not sure we've been silent on the issues. To be fair to the Prime Minister and Bill Graham, on those two issues where people were being profiled and deported from the United States, the parliamentary secretary and I and a number of members of the committee have spoken in pretty harsh terms about what the Americans are doing. It's one thing to say, you can raise a fuss, it's another thing whether or not the Americans are listening. So I can tell you it's being raised ad nauseam with the Americans, and even within our own caucus.

Ms. Debbie Douglas: Minister Coderre certainly talked about the issue of racial profiling. I'm not sure how stern our foreign affairs minister was with the U.S. about our ongoing concern with the treatment of Canadians from communities of colour who are being stopped at the border. I think we were a bit disappointed, not having a sense of Canada's sovereignty being strongly reinforced.

Mr. Joe Comartin: In fact, it was still going on.

Ms. Debbie Douglas: That's right. Since that time we've received a response from Mr. Graham, which reiterates that he's spoken with the U.S. Ambassador, Paul Cellucci, and what the Americans have been telling us, that place of birth does not trigger any sort of harassment at the border. Yet we continue to get those complaints. So we will continue to raise those issues. Removing place of birth from the Canadian passport, we believe, is one way of going, and that's why we didn't think the national identity card was a better way than the Canadian passport.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

There is a paradox happening. Morris, you talked about Alan Dershowitz doing a complete reverse. But the fact is that while 63% of Canadians in recent polling say they are less free from government interference in their lives and so on, and they're rather cautious and apprehensive about a number of things, including government, the media-- incredible as it may seem, they're a little nervous about the media--a big majority of them say they favour a high-tech national identity card. That was in a poll by Compas, it's public information, and one can review it.

I think Anna started her comments saying, when we're talking about legislation, when we're talking about ideas, perhaps it should be put it in a proper context, so we're reacting to a whole set of circumstances that September 11 has caused. In the past year and a half our budgets, our introduction of bills, our security measures, everything has been put through the prism of September 11, and everybody's saying, give your head a shake and start putting it back to what Canadian life was about before September 11. Back then would you be doing this, this, and this? The reality is that events, with the Americans more so, of course, because they suffered the most because of September 11, are causing a number of things to happen in the world, including what happens on our border.

My point is that Canadians see this high-tech national identity card--and the devil is always in the details--as something that will protect them. It's something they see as being a security issue. Therefore, if you don't have a card, maybe there's a problem. I put it in this context because so far this morning and since we've started the discussion I haven't heard of anybody in favour of a national identity card. You come and represent an awful lot of significant populations, and you've raised a number of issues this committee will hear about over the coming weeks, as well as doing a thorough job of looking at other countries and what they've encountered and why.

Morris, you said, I can hardly believe a civil libertarian who said no to this is all of a sudden saying yes. My point is that the public is in favour, at least on the surface of it, until they get educated, until they start listening to some of the questions you and everybody else have posed, and start to think about the balance we have to reach between privacy and security and freedom and protection. That's what I'm saying. That's what's happening out there.

Mr. Morris Manning: You have used an extremely important phrase, “until they become educated”. I don't know what the question was apart from, “Are you in favour of a national identity card?” We all should know that the way in which the question is framed determines the answer. “Are you in favour of a national identity card that is swiped at your local bank and gives them access to your medical records in Victoria or in Halifax?” How many Canadians would say yes? It's how the question is framed.

Second, what information do you give them to tell them exactly what such a card would do and if such a card would give personal information? For example, not only am I travelling to New York, but I'm travelling with a companion, we're checking into such and such a hotel, we're going to stay there for four days, and I paid for my ticket with my overdrawn Visa card. If that kind of information is loaded into a question across the country, a truly representative sample might yield a different result.

The Chair: Ron.

Mr. Ron Poulton: What's been missing for me in this whole debate is, what's the problem with the passport? As I've been saying all along, I assume, from what I've read, the purpose of the card is entry to and exit from Canada. If there are other purposes that--

The Chair: Ron, as I said before, trying to find out the purpose of a card is one thing, whether or not the passport is a problem. We've just recently found out that it's a problem. Also, I don't know how many Canadians have passports, but there are now two million Canadians who don't have a passport, but have a permanent resident card or a big sheet like this, and they are soon to get a maple leaf card that says they're legally in Canada, they're permanent residents, and so have every right a citizen has, except that they can't vote and can't hold public office. But that's different from the passport. That's why there's this whole debate on how you distinguish between a citizen who's actually achieved certain things and a permanent resident, who has yet to become a citizen, but soon will.

So there are two identity cards now. The question is, do we have one, or should we accept two? Do we change the passports? Do we get rid of the maple leaf card we've just introduced? That's why we have this whole discussion about whether we need an ID card.

Mr. Ron Poulton: That's what we have to identify. We have to put these poll results into context with the information we are getting and the information the public is getting. How can the public give an informed opinion when we don't even know what the issues are? There is no problem right now with how you distinguish a permanent resident from a Canadian citizen. We do it every day in law practice, they do it every day in Immigration Canada. It's very simple--a passport, a birth certificate, a landing record, or now the maple leaf card. There is no problem being corrected with this identity card at all, so far as I can see. It's only creating the potential for abuse.

Can I just say one thing about the SIN cards?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Ron Poulton: There was an interesting comment Mr. Telegdi made with respect to banks, and this I could think of as a potential example for abuse of the national identity card. SIN cards are coded differently for refugee claimants in Canada. That's why banks want to see them. Some banks won't open accounts if you're a refugee claimant in Canada, as opposed to a permanent resident or citizen, because they fear the transient nature of your stay in Canada, overdrawn accounts, things like that. They want to see that SIN card. If they see the code “9” on it, they won't open the account. They've got a justification for it that they put forward, but when you create a card with numbers, it's easy to vary those numbers to identify somebody for one purpose and another purpose, and institutions use them for this purpose.

The Chair: I'm going to end with Morris. You asked about the question. It's a Compas poll that was done for the National Post and others. Here's where it gets to you. “When the United States said it would fingerprint travellers to the U.S. from Canada and elsewhere who were born in countries that the United States believes are involved in terrorism, was the U.S. right in its policies?” The majority of Canadians said yes, believe it or not, 54%, while the nos were 36%. “How about a high-tech identity card for all residents of Canada, comparing the possible security benefit and the potential risk to freedom? Is this a good or a bad idea?”--good idea 57%, bad idea 30%, though this was after the terrorism question.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It also says 51% of the respondents think people living in Canada who are accused of being terrorists should have the same legal rights as accused criminals have had in the past, which is very much a positive.

The Chair: I guess that's why we've got the greatest country on earth, right? We want to keep it that way.

Thank you so much for all your input. It's very much appreciated.

We're adjourned.