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

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

1325

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ))

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld (President, "Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes")

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Paul Walter (Member, German Canadian Congress, National)

1335

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Paul Walter

1340

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Paul Walter

1345

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Paul Walter

1350

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

1355

Mr. Paul Walter

1400

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Paul Walter

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Paul Walter

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Paul Walter

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

1405

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Paul Walter

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Paul Walter

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Paul Walter

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.)

1410

Mr. Paul Walter

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Paul Walter

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Stephan Reichhold (Executive Director, "Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes")

1415

1420

1425

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau ("conseillère en adaptation ", "Service d'aide aux néo-canadiens", "Carrefour d'intégration des immigrants de l'Estrie")

1430

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

1435

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

1440

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

1445

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1450

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

1455

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

1500

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Stephan Reichhold

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1505

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1510

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

1515

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette (Legal Counsel, "Ligue des droits et libertés")

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

1540

1545

1550

1555

1600

1605

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1610

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

1615

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1620

1625

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Denis Barrette

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Denis Barrette

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Denis Barrette

1630

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Denis Barrette

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1635

Mr. Denis Barrette

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

Mr. Denis Barrette

Mr. Massimo Pacetti

1640

Mr. Denis Barrette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 042

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1325)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)): Good afternoon, Mr. Walter. We will start with you.

For everyone's benefit, since people are sometimes too lazy to read what is in front of them, Mr. Walter is a member of the German Canadian Congress and also a newspaper publisher. I do not know whether the paper comes out monthly or weekly, but it is a German-language publication. Mr. Walter will be talking about Bill C-18.

Mr. Walter, you have the floor.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld (President, "Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes"): I thought that he was going last.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Since Mr. Walter has to leave, I decided that he would go first.

Mr. Paul Walter (Member, German Canadian Congress, National): Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members of the committee.

[English]

First, I want to thank you for giving our organization the opportunity to express the views of our members on the proposed Bill C-18. My name is Paul Walter. I am a member of the German Canadian Congress and publisher of a German-language newspaper. The German Canadian Congress is an umbrella organization of German-Canadian clubs and associations in Canada. Across Canada, over ninety organizations are members of the German Canadian Congress. This afternoon, I am here before you to present the concerns of the members of this organization on Bill C-18.

We all know we are living in a changing world, and existing laws and regulations require review from time to time. We applaud the federal government for doing that with respect to the Immigration Act. The old—or, better said—existing laws have served our country for many years, but they also have some flaws when it comes to the rights of individual Canadian citizens, especially those who have acquired their Canadian citizenship by choice. We hope the new, proposed act will address these shortcomings.

I want to draw your attention to clause 12 of the act, which can be found at the end of part 1:

All citizens have the same rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties, responsibilities and status without regard to the manner in which their citizenship was acquired.

What clause 12 says is very important, and we fully agree with it. It is the cornerstone, the foundation on which the new act should be and has to be based.

However, as we go forward to clause 16 of part 2 of the act, we find wording that is of great concern to our members. In subclauses 16(1) and 16(2), there is no clear explanation of what is considered fraud, false representation, or concealing material circumstances. Subclauses 16(3) and 16(4) are very vague, and they contain elements that do not require full judicial disclosure of evidence. They allow presumptions of guilt of fraud regarding the acquisition of Canadian citizenship, as a citizen can now be stripped of citizenship and be deported from Canada. This means a Canadian citizen can be treated the same way as someone who is only in Canada for a few weeks.

In subclause 16(6), the last subparagraph is especially worrisome. It states that the government

is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence...adduced in the proceedings that it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.

There is no clear definition to guide a judge in his or her deliberations, and the result can be just a personal opinion.

Clause 17 in particular permits the government to engage in the same exercise as provided for in clause 16. It is a simplified procedure for the minister and the Solicitor General. By making a referral to the Federal Court by way of certificate, the entire procedure is expedited.

This clause refers to inadmissibility on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights, or on grounds of organized criminality. What is meant by human or international rights or, indeed, security grounds, is left up to the imagination of the minister and/or the Federal Court. The procedure has nothing to do with natural justice, and it abrogates the relevant provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter.

A judge decides what is relevant and what is not, without the citizen appreciating the case against him. Again, anything and everything is admissible. The judge is not bound by Canadian rules of evidence or case law. But there has to be transparency in the proceedings, and the person whose citizenship is about to be revoked has to be given all of the information on all accusations against him or her, all information that is required to fully defend himself or herself against all accusations. A ruling by a judge to find the person guilty of wrongdoing on the balance of probabilities should never be enough to revoke someone's Canadian citizenship. The concept of being innocent unless proven guilty has to apply in all cases.

Several clauses in the proposed act, if not eliminated, would make the act even more draconian than Bill C-16, the Citizenship of Canada Act that was passed in the last Parliament but which died on the Order Paper with the calling of the 2000 election. Clause 56 is also troublesome, in that the new system in clause 16 will only apply to future cases and to current cases in which no substantive evidence has yet been taken when the bill becomes law. This is like abolishing capital punishment for future cases but hanging the few persons on death row, or providing that the Crown can appeal a case it loses tomorrow but not one it lost yesterday. Clause 56 should be amended by the committee, by the House, with proper wording, so as to secure the advantage of the new system in clause 16 for past and current cases, as well as for future cases, and so that the minister will accept such amended wording for clause 56.

We feel the proposed, new bill has some very good elements. However, there is still much work to be done to make the proposed citizenship act fair and one that allows all Canadians the legal rights of protection defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The old and new acts basically provide for two kinds of citizenship, thus splitting Canadians into two categories of people with different rights. That, of course, is not acceptable.

Again, madame la présidente—I have written “chairman”....

· (1335)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): It is Madeleine.

[English]

Mr. Paul Walter: It's okay? I'm sorry.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. In order to prevent Canada from becoming a haven for criminals and other undesirables, we urge the federal government to be more strict before allowing people to come to Canada, and to do a thorough background check before extending the privilege of Canadian citizenship to landed immigrants. However, once they are Canadian citizens, all people should have the same rights no matter whether they were born in Canada or became citizens by choice.

On behalf of the members of the German Canadian Congress, I am asking the committee to take note of our concerns. I urge the federal government to make the appropriate changes to protect the rights and citizenship of all Canadians.

The last item is identity cards, also called smart cards. On the question of identity cards, we are opposed to such cards for the following reason. The information on these cards can be used for purposes other than those for which they were designed. Input errors can put false information onto the cards. We all have heard the excuse, “The computer made a mistake.” Persons in a position of power can intentionally put false information onto these cards—information that can do great harm to a Canadian citizen. I think we do have enough information to identify a person. We have passports, drivers' licences, SIN cards, etc.

Thank you so much for listening.

· (1340)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, Mr. Walter. Your concerns and apprehensions concerning Bill C-18 are similar to those expressed by many of our witnesses. So you are not alone. I feel confident that the committee will take your comments into account because all of us feel that the rule of law that exists here is a positive thing and not a negative one.

Ms. Ablonczy.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate this presentation, and I do take note that it is made on behalf of ninety organizations across the country. The issues you've raised are those that this committee has heard from a number of witnesses, and these were put with admirable brevity. That is very helpful, because we have it all in one document here.

In your brief, you mentioned the security issues, being strict about allowing people to come to Canada, doing background checks, and so forth. One of the arguments in favour of some of the measures in the bill that you have criticized is that they will lead to greater security or a greater ability on the part of the minister and the government to protect Canadian security, because they will allow, shall we say, expedited denial of citizenship and possible removal from Canada. There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for that argument, but I wonder if you see any merits in it.

Mr. Paul Walter: My personal concern, really, and I think the concern of our members.... For instance, take me as an example, if somebody were to accuse me of anything in my past before I came Canada.

When I came to Canada, I was 20 years old. I lived in England for three years, so I was 17 when I got to England. I was a youngster of 12 or 13 years when the war ended, so I was really a kid at that time. But although I was a kid, if somebody were to think that I may have been a criminal as a kid, and if they were to accuse me for whatever reason, then eventually I would lose my citizenship because somebody accused me without any proof. This is our main concern.

The concern is about a differentiation between immigrants who are just coming now and people who have been here 20, 30, 40, and 50 years. There should be some kind of a.... My God, if somebody never has done anything wrong.... If it has been proven that somebody really was a criminal, then bring him to court, but do not just simply leave it to political motives to have somebody's citizenship removed from him. This is where our big concern is.

With all the things going on lately, with terrorism and all that, obviously we have to implement measures to prevent people from coming into Canada if they have criminal intentions. I'm thinking, for example, of somebody who has been in the army. But I'll give you an example of a case. His name was Helmut Oberlander. When he was a young man of 17 or 18 years old, he was doing translation for the German army. I don't know all the details, but I know that for three or four years, he was interpreting for the German army at that time. He is now being accused of being a criminal because he was doing translations.

So you can see the concern for people like that. We don't have that many cases. Maybe there are three or four cases, but this is one of them. Mr. Oberlander is being stripped of his citizenship for no good reason. He has never even shot one bullet. He was just translating between the prisoners of war and the German army. The officials maybe would have said, “Well, what did he say now, then?” He would translate that. That is not a criminal act. At least, in my view, it's not a criminal act, yet they stripped him of his citizenship. That is a very sad situation.

· (1345)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You're a man of some experience. You have lived in Germany, Britain, and Canada, as you say. You probably have travelled, I would expect. Do you know of any other country that would remove citizenship in such a fashion as the one we've been talking about in this bill, where within the bureaucracy or the officialdom of the department, there would be a determination made without reasons or recourse to appeal and someone's citizenship would be stripped? Would this happen in any other developed country that you're aware of, like Germany or Britain or any other one?

Mr. Paul Walter: I can tell you one thing. In Germany today, you can't even return somebody who arrives illegally in Germany. And that's not even talking about anybody being a citizen. Once you're a citizen, you're a citizen, and that's it. If you did something wrong, if you're found guilty of killing x amount of people wherever, like in Ukraine or Russia, then you should be put in front of a judge to prove you shot so many people. But if you're just a translator—this is what bothers me—like somebody here who is probably doing some translation from English to French or vice versa, for doing that you will eventually be a criminal. Please.

I know the United States is taking similar steps like those being taken here. I don't know all the details, but I do know for a fact that Germany and Austria....

Actually, I never lived in Germany. I lived in Austria. I was born in Yugoslavia, of German parents. But I do know that it's the same thing in Austria. I lived in Austria for four years before going to England. If somebody goes to Austria as a sort of landed immigrant, they can't send him back anymore. And we're not even talking about somebody being a citizen. Do you understand what I'm trying to get at?

I'm bringing the same name back. Mr. Oberlander—and there are a few others like him—should be brought to a criminal court, the same as any other criminal. If he is found guilty, go ahead and strip his citizenship then, but not before he's found guilty. This poor man is being stripped of his citizenship when all he was doing was translation between the German army and the Russian prisoners of war. It was actually in Ukraine that this happened. This individual is similar to me. I'm of German ancestry but was born in Yugoslavia. That fellow was born in Ukraine.

· (1350)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Walter, we understand that, in the case of Mr. Oberlander, you would consider it completely unfair, and I would tend to agree with you.

Mr. Pickard may have a question.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I hesitate to get into the Oberlander case. You realize that this legislation has not passed and has no relationship to the Oberlander case. The Oberlander case is one that has had a tremendous amount of press and a tremendous amount of attention over the last year or two. However, the Oberlander case and this bill...we're talking about a different bill. The Oberlander case is happening under present legislation, under present circumstances, so I don't see how the relationship can be drawn. Even though it's a negative case, I don't see a relationship there.

The other thing I wanted to focus more of my comments on was the blanket statement about identity cards. You dismissed identity cards as something you don't want. You used the connection to smart cards. There was a discussion about the smart card, but I do not believe what we're talking about is what was related to a smart card years back.

Do you know what exactly is being proposed with national identity cards? Maybe I can suggest to you that we're not talking about long lists of people in health care. We're not talking about lists of people in criminal cases. We're not talking about lists of people in other things. We're talking about a list that potentially has a person's name. It could be that or it could be just a number with that name, but it will identify that person as a Canadian citizen. If you had this card, you could put the card in front of a reader and your thumbprint or your iris scan or whatever would say you are who you say you are. That's all the list is intended for. It is to prove, through the best technology we have, that you are who you say you are.

The idea is not to associate it with a health list or with a criminal list or with something else. However, if, as a Canadian citizen, you are receiving services—and Canada, I believe, is a very generous, very supportive country as far as all kinds of services go; we've heard of problems with people who are utilizing our services but who are not Canadian citizens—and if you were to come forward and say you are Joe Smith and you would like to have these services but your identifier card says you're not Joe Smith, then you couldn't receive the service. That's a possibility, but it has nothing to do with making the list. It has more to do with guaranteeing that you can say with all surety that you are Paul Walter, and nobody can challenge the fact that you're Paul Walter. Somebody else cannot come along and claim to be Paul Walter under your identity.

The basis of the proposal as I understand it—and I think as most of the committee members here understand it—is that it is a card that will clearly give you identity, not one that will associate a million lists with it. However, if Health Québec decides it will use some kind of check to see if someone is a Canadian citizen, I don't see a problem with that. I see that as an efficient use of the resources that are available.

· (1355)

The minister has put forward that it will prevent the stealing of identity, but it's also designed to secure our programs in the future and to make sure fraud is brought to the lowest level, to make sure that people are who they say they are. In some cases, people will turn out cards, drivers' licences, picture IDs, and whatever, but sometimes they get passed from one person to another and are used by all of them, and that goes forward at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer as well. This card is basically a card that says, “I can guarantee you that I am Jerry Pickard and here is my thumbprint,” and the scan shows I am Jerry Pickard and that I am a Canadian citizen. That is really what it does.

Do you have objections to that type of card?

Mr. Paul Walter: I can see a lot of good things in what you are mentioning, but what are we going to do with the legal documents we already have, with the passports? I remember when I left England for Canada. We used to have a passport with a thumb imprint. When I came to Canada, there was an imprint. So that could also be in the passport, in which it is not now used. What I'm really saying is that the more documents you create, the more....

Maybe the logic is not there, but I have a passport at home. Why not use that existing passport for all the information you need. I don't know. Am I wrong? I know you'll probably say not everybody is travelling to the States, that some will travel only within Canada, but anybody who goes to the States has to have a passport. If we go to Europe, we have to have a passport. That passport is perfect, but it could have an extension by having a thumb imprint or other identification that improves it.

¸ (1400)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Walter, perhaps I could help you with that. When I led a delegation to India—and our chairperson was with us at that time—and when other members went to other areas—we were in France, and I was in China and Japan—we saw hundreds of passports that had been confiscated. They took us through some very careful steps about the weakness of the passport. Yes, the passport was the best technology that we had previously, and I guess we could stay with passports. But I don't believe the passport is the answer. We are talking about making sure identity is clear.

You can copy anything. People have said that. At present, the point made very clearly to this committee by some of our technological people who are in the business has been that, under the circumstances, they can produce a card. We had a demonstration yesterday. I put my thumbprint on a card. The card came up, and my thumbprint—it didn't matter whose thumbprint it was—had to be on it in order to make that card come up with a positive ID. Even if I tried my other fingers, it wouldn't come up with a positive ID.

On a passport, pictures sometimes look similar. Passports have had pictures taken out of them, with other pictures put in as replacements. Passports can be altered by all kinds of means. People are doing this not once or twice, it is happening very often. Confiscation of passports is occurring more and more often. And as technology moves on, with better printing and better means, the passport will be a weaker document for protection. It may identify in most cases, that's true. But we're talking about a specific protection card.

From the demonstrations that I've seen, what I described is a card that will guarantee you are who you say you are. Through biometrics, we can say, yes, this is Paul Walter, not somebody else. Do you really have an objection to that type of identification?

Mr. Paul Walter: No, I don't. Anything that works and is good is fine. But is there any guarantee that falsifications are not possible? You see, the passport is really a sophisticated document, and it may be more sophisticated than that card will be. I don't know, because I have no idea what kinds of experts are working on that.

But now you're going to have this card, you have SIN cards, and.... People who are in the criminal domain will even find a way around those cards, a way to reproduce them.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I guess the thought—

Mr. Paul Walter: I don't have a very good argument against it, you understand. The only thing I'm saying is that if it's foolproof, that's fine.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: If it works, you're happy with it.

Mr. Paul Walter: Yes, that would be fantastic. But my experience is...I don't know. I've come around in the world. The more you have a document for this and a specialty for that, then which one is foolproof? That is the question.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, Mr. Pickard. Diane, do you have another question?

¸ (1405)

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I always have a question.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We still have five minutes.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I will try to take less than five minutes to ask the question that I have. It is about the identity card.

One of the problems we have in discussing this is that we do not know very much about what the minister has in mind. For example, it was reported last week that the minister appeared to admit that when you have a national ID card, it tends to be linked to a database and that it tends to facilitate compiling more and more data. So we are a little bit unsure of exactly what we're discussing, and that has been one of the frustrations here.

My question to you is about your opposition to the identity cards. You talked about having enough information to identify persons already. You mentioned that in your discussion with Mr. Pickard. But you said other information can be put on the cards, beyond what they were designed for. I just wondered what you or your organization had in mind when you raised that objection.

Mr. Paul Walter: I don't think any of our members or the community have anything to fear. It's just that I really don't know what subjects will be on that card—name, address, marital status, number of children, etc. At the moment, I don't know.

Like I said previously to Mr. Pickard, I don't think we have anything against the new card if the new card will do the job, just as long as it cannot be manipulated, as long as somebody cannot falsify things in the computer, behind the scenes, with secret codes in there that say this guy is German but was born in Yugoslavia, or so that you can tell right away what's in his bank account. Other than that, our people have proven that they're good citizens and that we don't have to be ashamed of that.

So as long it works, maybe it can replace...I don't think it can replace the passport if you go abroad, can it? This would only be a card for internal use, more or less, right? If you go to the grocery store and you have no money with you but you have a cheque from the government, in order for the clerk to cash that cheque, you have to show that card. Is that what is meant? Will we be using this card for purposes like that?

I really don't yet know any details on what that card should contain.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It is hard to have a meaningful discussion when we're not quite sure what we're discussing.

Mr. Paul Walter: Once we know, from A to Z, what will be included, like the thumbprint, that would be fantastic. But can it be misused for other purposes? I don't know.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Paul Walter: But it's not a big concern. I would say this card is not a big issue for us. If it's doing a good job, then go ahead.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Walter, we had the minister before us last week. Part of this exercise is to see what use we can present for the national identity card. From what he told us, he hasn't made up his mind yet. Part of this exercise is to come to some kind of suggestion as to what.... I asked him again, but he didn't have any preconceived notion of what he was going to use the identity card for. If we keep an open mind, then, we can make it work toward something.

¸ (1410)

Mr. Paul Walter: I think it is very important to put it on the table, but I hope it doesn't end up like the gun control. How much did that cost? I don't want to mention the figure.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Walter, thank you for coming before the committee today. As for the identity card, there seems no doubt that a great deal of debate will be needed in order for us to get a clear understanding of that collectively.

Mr. Paul Walter: It needs to be clarified. Otherwise, it is no good.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Walter, and have a good day.

We will now suspend for two minutes and invite Ms. Aungenfeld, Ms. Carrier and Mr. Reichhold to come to the table.

¸ (1411)

¸ (1413)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We are very pleased to see some of you here again... [Editor's Note: Technical difficulty].

Mr. Stephan Reichhold (Executive Director, "Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes"): My name is Stephan Reichhold and I am the Executive Director of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. As was mentioned this morning, this is an umbrella group representing 125 organizations in Quebec that are working on behalf of immigrants and refugees. Most of these organizations offer certain services and most are funded by the Quebec government.

We are not really sure what you are expecting from us in terms of debate. I will raise some questions, however, since that is the purpose of being here. If recommendations are brought forward, what will happen to them? Since, as you know, the whole issue of settlement and integration of immigrants comes under provincial jurisdiction, even if you made very good recommendations, they would have no impact on us.

What we can do is tell you a little bit about how things work in Quebec, since some of you might know a little less about what goes on in Quebec.

Generally speaking, the landing and settlement program are quite similar across Canada. They are managed differently and there are various programs, but the basic principle is similar: the government deals with community organizations that do much of the front-line work, and there are a certain number of programs that support these organizations, depending on whether they come under Immigration Canada or provincial jurisdiction.

I often take part in international forums on these issues and I am always surprised to see that Canada is somewhat unique in how it deals with immigrants. I myself am a recent immigrant from Germany. You are probably aware that Germany recently passed an immigration and settlement law, but the legislation was nullified by the Constitutional Court. This was the first settlement program in Germany's turbulent history. So we need to keep things in perspective: Canada is somewhat of a role model in its approach to dealing with people entering the country.

Let us talk a little more concretely about the programs. I personally see three major problems, which exist here in Quebec as they do elsewhere in Canada. I think that you have heard about them from others. To begin with, there is a general lack of resources, both in Quebec and elsewhere, especially in view of the increase in the number of immigrants. In Quebec, as you know, immigration levels have nearly doubled over the past three years, and further increases are planned, but resources have not grown along with the demand. That is a serious problem for our network on the front lines. Moreover, we know that immigrants pay a great deal for this service when they arrive. As you are aware, each immigrant pays $1,500 just to have access to client services that are often not available.

The second important problem, which you have probably heard about as well, is what Mr. Coderre calls the doctor pizza deliveryman syndrome. This is the problem of access to employment, especially for independent immigrants who arrive here and have trouble getting their qualifications, skills and work experience recognized. It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain proper employment, and then there is the whole problem of inconsistency internally and within the government. Both in Quebec and at the federal level, there is a lack of coordination among landing and settlement programs. I am talking about everything that comes under Human Resources Development Canada and Employment Quebec, whose employability programs and employment services are not really adapted to this clientele.

¸ (1415)

We are working very hard to try to make changes. Things are moving along slowly, but there is still a lot to do.

The third major problem—and the people in our network throughout Canada probably all mentioned it to you—, is the whole issue of those who request asylum and who are left to their own devices and are not entitled to these services. That is a large number of people, of which the vast majority are asked whether they would like to become immigrants and settle here. These people are not always eligible to funded services. So they are somewhat left to fend for themselves.

I think that you also wanted to hear comments on how federal-provincial agreements work. I think that everybody knows that in Quebec, there has been a Canada-Quebec agreement in effect since 1991 which gave Quebec all powers and resources in terms of accepting and integrating immigrants. That has advantages and disadvantages.

The disadvantage, is that the first few years have been especially difficult. Quebec had set up its own programs, but there were large cutbacks in resources and services. Luckily, over the years, we have been able to regain some of what we lost and put the situation on a more even keel, but the first years after the agreement were quite difficult. And I don't want to get into details.

The advantage, is that it is closer to our reality. Since it is the provincial government that manages its programs, it is much easier for us in terms of collaboration,and when dealing with providers of funds or with policies and programs. It's much better suited to our territorial reality. In speaking with my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces or the Prairie region, who depend on Ottawa in terms of programming, I felt that there seemed to be a disconnect between the real local and regional needs and the way that the programs are developed.

What else can we say? Something else that is unique to Quebec, is that the government also offers direct client services, contrary to what we see in the rest of Canada. The department responsible for dealing with immigration offers their own points of service. They offer welcome services, integration services, French-language services which are sometimes complementary, sometimes less so, with those of the community network. But I'd say that most of the organizations have service agreements with the department to offer services regarding settlement and anything related to housing, employability, access to employment, learning French language, and twinning. These are programs that are similar to those that exist in the rest of Canada.

Now to stay on the theme of comparison, at this point I'd like to say that in Quebec we are quite relieved not to have fallen into... How can I express that diplomatically? You know that Immigration Canada has adopted two rather brutal measures dealing with accountability for organizations and the whole issue of access to confidential data about clients by Immigration Canada. These appear to us to be completely unacceptable.

¸ (1420)

Luckily, in Quebec, that is far from our situation and this makes us very happy. Our colleagues in the rest of Canada envy us not to be subject to this type of pressure from Citizenship and Immigration Canada in regard to the management and the performance as it relates to funding as well as the whole issue of confidentiality of client information which, in our view, is fundamental and yet does not seem to be a problem any more for CIC.

There is another element that we could mention regarding Quebec. You know that community-based organizations offer services. Yet, the whole segment of direct services that they offer to their clientele is just a small segment of all of the activities these organizations provide. Unfortunately, the government often funds only the small bit and does not take into account the whole mission of the organization. Whether we're dealing with the defence of an individual's rights or community organizations who hold civic activities, the issue of citizenship and civic participation, these elements are not recognized by Immigration Canada, the main funder of these organizations; whereas in Quebec, for a year now, we have had what is called the policy on recognition and funding of community action, which is a policy of the Government of Quebec. It recognizes the mission of the organization and undertakes its funding, whether it be in the settlement or integration area or in any other sector such as women's groups, environmental groups and groups for the disabled. Therefore, the government now formally recognizes that the entirety of the activity is important for community living, for participating in the civil society and the role that these organizations play, and this aspect is also funded. They offer basic funding, which in English is called core funding, to these organizations. It's a very interesting model that the federal government could certainly look to.

Those are a few elements which give you an overview of our sector.

You are looking into the issue of regionalization of immigration and the settlement of immigrants and refugees within different regions. Louise, who comes from Sherbrooke, may be in a position to address this issue as it is part of her daily work. I don't know whether Rivka would like to add something. And we are also ready to answer your questions.

¸ (1425)

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau ("conseillère en adaptation ", "Service d'aide aux néo-canadiens", "Carrefour d'intégration des immigrants de l'Estrie"): Good afternoon. The organization that I work for has existed since 1954. It is also a member of the Table de concertation. That is very important for us, because if something is not working in one part of the province or in Canada, it is interesting to be able to talk to others about it. Are you facing the same problem in your region? What is not working? How are we going to come up with a solution?

I have been working at the Service d'aide aux Néo-Canadiens for 17 years. I know that because for the past 16 years, on February 6, a gentlemen brings me flowers and reminds me how long he has been doing so. This year was the sixteenth time he had brought me flowers. It is because of the reception services that exist in an isolated region, or a region that some view as isolated. It is possible to receive a warm welcome in several areas, and I think that is very important. But to extend a warm welcome to people, there must be infrastructures, classes to welcome them, and places where people feel comfortable. There must also be programs that are twinned, among others, with job search programs to help them find a job, and so on. That way, people will stay.

Statistics in today's paper show that 75 per cent of people who come to Quebec stay in Quebec. It is as high as 81 per cent for workers. That is a significant retention rate. In the Sherbrooke region, we have an Immigration Canada office. We also have the MRCI and a program called the Development Fund for immigration to the regions, or the FDIR, where we work in cooperation with several organizations from Montreal to introduce the regions. I'm talking about Sherbrooke, but the same thing exists in almost all regions in Quebec. The program exists to introduce the regions, and in conjunction with organizations in Montreal, we try to interest people in going into the regions, since we cannot force them to do so.

However, there are some people who are more than happy to do that, people who often come from small cities and who do not want to end up in a large capital for a host of reasons, especially when there is a rather large host community.

We received more than 3,000 refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the Sherbrooke region. So we have a very good Yugoslav community that is doing very well. We are now receiving Afghans, and there is a community of about 400. There are also about 400 Colombians, and so on. There must be a relatively large community to keep people in a region.

Does anyone have any questions on that? I could talk about the program at length, but I do not want to dwell on it, because I know that Rivka has additional comments to make. I will be more than happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

¸ (1430)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Do you prefer moving right to the question period and having time to make your presentation after that?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I don't really have any presentation to make, I'd simply like to add to what the others have said.

Organizations such as that represented by Louise are to be found throughout Quebec. There are also some groups that have been in existence for a very long time, for example in Sherbrooke, Quebec City and in Hull, which is now Gatineau. But there is also a network of organizations that came into being following the Canada-Quebec agreement and since Quebec decided to begin its regionalization of immigration by regionalizing government-sponsored refugees. This applies to refugees chosen abroad and that Quebec has decided to designate as “public refugees” for reasons that I do not quite understand. So it was decided to regionalize public refugees, namely persons who are chosen abroad and supported by the government.

Obviously, if you find yourself in a refugee camp and you are told that if you agree to go to Jonquière, you can come more quickly, therefore you can't refuse. Then you must come up with a way of applying this system. For several years now we have had refugees in Jonquière, Victoriaville, Drummondville, Trois-Rivières, Saint Hyacinth, Granby, etc. A network of organizations has grown up, some of them had previous experience, others learned on the job. In taking in their first refugee family, they started to learn what exactly the reception of refugees involved. Now there is a network throughout Quebec and that is one of our strengths.

Everywhere we face the same problems. Let me take a minute to describe to you the problems that are beyond us and which perhaps go beyond the mandate of this committee. But if we do not solve these problems, we will face a serious difficulty and I think the same is true everywhere.

There is a housing crisis in Quebec. Immigration Canada and the MRCs will not be able to solve it alone. The problem involves both government and society. An horizontal collaboration is required. If Quebecers, people born here in Montreal, have trouble finding accommodation, you can imagine the difficulty for immigrants, for refugees, people who do not yet have any established credit, arriving here with nothing to their name and perhaps a bit more visible than others. When there is this kind of crisis, all the old prejudices resurface. When the vacancy rate was high, landlords were happy to have tenants and did create any problems. Today, they can pick and choose. The person who gets the apartment is not always the one who deserves it and someone who has just arrived in the country is not always able to make a complaint to the Régie du logement whenever their application for an apartment is turned down.

There's something else that I think was mentioned by Stephan. It is becoming increasingly prevalent. People are chosen for their skills. I have been in this field for about 30 years and I think it is the first time I have seen some movement in this matter of recognizing credentials. We have got to keep firm. People are chosen from all sorts of countries for their skills, for their education, their work experience but since September 11, and even before, once they arrive here, these people are no longer perceived as competent immigrants but as people coming from country X and of such and such a religion. Since September 11 in particular, people are being influenced to feel fear towards certain types of persons. We are going to have to be very careful about the messages we get across, about advertising. We should give some thought to a public education campaign to support immigration. We cannot allow these people to come and then let a pall of doubt hang over an entire community because of its association with a particular country or a particular religion. There have been no outright declarations, fortunately. There haven't been any riots or attacks, with a few exceptions at the very beginning. It is much more subtle, it is not said openly and the people who suffer from this do not often express themselves in public forums.

If we wish to support our immigration and do whatever we can do to enable people to become integrated, it is not only the immigrants who must make an effort but the society opening its doors and doing what is necessary so that immigrants feel welcome, an effort must also be made by the local population and even by immigrants who arrived at an earlier period. None of us are angels, we all have certain prejudices. We're going to have to work very hard so that people understand that the immigrants who are arriving here now are quite similar to those who came before.

¸ (1435)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Obviously thought that has to be given by the citizenry to the whole issue of immigration, and this reflection is even more important since it is clear for those who are familiar with the issue that it is a must for a country such as Canada.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: But all the while respecting diversity.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We'll now move to the first round of questions.

[English]

Mrs. Ablonczy, do you have a question, or do you want to wait?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Pickard can probably go ahead.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I know Yvon is ready, but maybe Jerry is also.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Several of the things that have been said are similar to what we have heard. Look at housing. It has to be a major issue with anybody coming in, and there's not enough money to house immigrants coming into the country.

Obviously, dollars are required to bring people together and to do the services. I was interested in the idea that you mentioned about getting one community and then getting more people joining. One of the major problems that we have with immigration is that those communities now exist in Toronto, they exist in Montreal, and they exist in Vancouver, but they don't necessarily exist in the rest of the areas in Canada. Those areas could be the outer areas of Quebec, they could be in the Maritimes, the Atlantic Provinces, or they could be in western Canada.

I'm not looking just at Quebec on this, but there is a smaller community. There is a rural aspect. There's a network that we need to develop. If we're looking for people who can build and offer new opportunities, bring technology, and bring professional and skilled labour to our regions—we do need them there just as much as we need them in our major centres—how can we move forward to make sure immigration does not just focus on our concentrated areas of population? How can we set up areas where immigration can actually feed our smaller communities?

We can have support mechanisms, we can do the kinds of things we need and move the agenda forward. You're very right. When we look at housing, where is the highest cost of housing in Quebec? I know how much a room in this hotel costs, and I can imagine what a small apartment costs in this region. It's prohibitive unless you have an awfully good income.

So we have to somehow resolve this very critical question about settlement and immigration, about acceptance into our communities beyond those social groups and networks that exist in our major centres. How can we do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: I have a simple and short answer as to the areas in Quebec where it did work, where there are small communities which have started to become established, for example in Granby, Drummondville, Saint-Jérôme et Joliette, which are small communities. What is there in these cities? There is a settlement infrastructure, resources—Quebec did invest in those resources—, language courses and expertise in welcoming these individuals. As Louise was saying, it seems to be working. But you also need jobs there, otherwise it won't work.

¸ (1440)

[English]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: The problem is that people have to know about a place before they can want to be there. It sounds stupid to say it like that, but it's true. I think Louise can tell you about what she mentioned, the FDIR program,

[Translation]

the development fund.

[English]

There's a whole process of secondary migration that we're trying to encourage. There was always this idea that Montreal doesn't want people to go to the regions. It's not true. What we want is not to have resources taken away from us for what we need to do. If you want to do regionalization, put more resources into that.

Also, just think about what's happening in your regions. You can't do regionalization when there's high unemployment somewhere. When people are leaving a region, it's not too brilliant to bring others in. We know some regions are in fact doing better in terms of employment. It's the same thing as in Manitoba. You must have heard regions are crying for workers there. But when a person first comes to Quebec, they barely know what Quebec is—with all due respect to ourselves and how wonderful we think we are—and Granby is a concept they've never imagined.

When somebody is in Montreal, we do try to look at people's needs, and the agencies in Montreal have these programs with agencies in the regions—Louise can tell you about them—where we encourage people to come explore, to come visit, to get to know a place. Amazingly enough, some people do then move.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I have two very quick questions with regard to that. Do you have percentages? As new immigrants come to Quebec, what percentage end up in Montreal and Quebec City, versus the number that end up in the rest of Quebec? That's one question, and the second one is along the same lines. What is your view of how we can overcome the barriers to professional work, technical work, using the highest level of immigrant skill, not having them shut out? What's your answer to that one as well?

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: On the percentages, I think 80% or so come to Montreal. It's like every big city. But in terms of professional competence, perhaps Louise can say something.

[Translation]

What can we do for new workers who arrive at your location?

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: At this point in time, there are enough jobs in the region. There are also specialized services which help people find jobs. Often, in a region, those who sponsor the people have already explored job possibilities. Therefore, when people arrive, they often have a job waiting for them. In almost 75 per cent of cases, people already have jobs or have two or three interviews lined up.

Stephan spoke earlier about the non-recognition of acquired knowledge and diplomas, especially for doctors, but this is also true in other fields. It is a problem. But there are a lot of people who accept a job as a technician while exploring possibilities for better employment. They adjust to a region and then try to find something better elsewhere.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: There is another issue that has to be considered. They are small things, but it is more than we've had for a long time. It must be said that the MRCI has done a great deal in this area. Some corporations and certain professional orders have started to move, but it has been very slow. The government may well select an immigrant who is an engineer, an architect, a nurse, or a speech pathologist, but... In Quebec, for example, there are not enough speech therapists, audiologists, etc., but there are barriers to practicing. Over the past little while, there have been several pilot projects. We may have made them an offer that they could not refuse, but some corporations and professional orders are starting to move and there are pilot projects. It's not going to fast enough, but more is being done than in the past. We cannot attract the crème de la crème from abroad, because in Canada, even more so than in Quebec, the bar is set very high.

¸ (1445)

[English]

You can't bring people who are the best of the best and who have choices and then not allow them to work, it's finished. We're bringing in people who have options, who can choose to go elsewhere. If we want to keep them here, they have to be able to work.

It's reasonable to make sure people's credentials are equivalent. There's nothing wrong with that. But it shouldn't take years, they shouldn't be disqualified for stupid reasons, and they shouldn't be disqualified for reasons of protectionism in one profession or another.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Before giving the floor to Mr. Charbonneau, I must say that there is something quite interesting happening with regard to the agreements that exist between the Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec and its counterpart in Belgium. That could perhaps serve as a model to a certain number of our professional corporations and professional orders who seem a bit more reluctant and close minded.

Yvon, you have the floor.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Thank you.

I have two questions, one for Mr. Reichhold or anyone else.

You mentioned that in 1991, there had been an agreement or rather a previous agreement had been renewed, which transferred the program to Quebec as well as the funding for settlement purposes. You also mentioned that in the following years, there has been a reduction in services as well as difficulties in terms of reorganization, but that things have slowly improved.

Could you explain the funding formula to us? Is it a fixed amount that the federal government grants every year? Is it multi-year program? Does it depend on the number of individuals served? Do you have any idea about the formula?

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: I think that it is a formula that is quite good for Quebec. It is Mr. Louis Bernard, a great negotiator, who negotiated the agreement way back when. So you can imagine that it was a well-negotiated affair. It is an agreement which allows Quebec to receive, to the end of time, a transfer of indexed funds which is not tied to the number of immigrants. Therefore, whether Quebec accepts 100,000 immigrants or 1 immigrant, the province will always receive the same amount. Currently, with indexation, we receive approximately $111 million per year. It is an automatic transfer with no accountability requirement. Quebec does not have to account for how the money has been spent.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Those were wonderful years.

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: Well let's just say it was during the time of Meech Lake. That must have been a first step towards many other steps, which never took place. But we're not complaining. During hard times and zero deficit times, while there were cutbacks throughout government departments, especially in terms of programming, our sector was not affected because it received this funding every year. The cheque arrived every year from Ottawa.

The only condition stipulated in the agreement, is that Quebec must accept a pro-rated number of immigrants to its population, which represents approximately 23 or 24 per cent of the total of refugees. And that also includes all those seeking asylum. What is somewhat amusing, is that the only way for Quebec to respect the agreement is to accept those seeking asylum. If there were no asylum seekers in Quebec, then we would be in breach of the agreement. Actually, asylum seekers are in a way an advantage for us.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madame Chair, in Halifax, we heard from an organization, the YMCA, which told us that they were directly funded by the federal government. Are there organizations in Quebec which are directly funded by the federal government?

¸ (1450)

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: No, not in the area of reception and integration in general terms. There may be something perhaps through Heritage Canada, which funds projects dealing with civic relations, anti racist activities and things of that nature. It is possible that the YMCA does get funding for its projects in those areas. Otherwise, no funding is...

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: There are now a few provinces who have signed agreements with regard to settlement. Quebec is the only province which has an agreement which also covers immigration.

There are very few people who remember how it was back in 1991. The agreement had been negotiated based on Quebec's desire to receive 25 per cent of immigrants to Canada in order to maintain its democratic weight within the country. Therefore, at the time, Quebec had expressed its intent of accepting up to 25 per cent of immigrants and, in exchange, had received—since the money isn't worth quite the same thing today—30 per cent of the money. So far, in 12 years, we have never reached 20 per cent.

As Stephan has said each year Canada accepts between 7,300 and 7,500 refugees selected abroad, and Quebec takes in approximately 1,800 of these individuals. And that is quite a respectable proportion. Because we are a province where there are international airports, we deal with about a third of those claiming refugee status who arrive, and make their applications here, in Quebec. But as for the rest of it, we are quite far from the 25 per cent. We never did even come close to it.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: May I ask a very short third question?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Yes. You don't talk an awful lot, Yvon. So I'll be generous with you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My question pertains to settlement in the regions. The committee takes this matter very seriously, as does the minister. Everybody feels that this is an important issue. There is too big a concentration in Montreal and Toronto. Ultimately, at least this is the case in Quebec, that creates two societies in one. We are running a big risk when 85 per cent of the immigrants flock to Montreal. In 20 years, the communities that have not taken in immigrants and Montreal will not understand each other any more.

I am quite familiar with the type of work that you do. In regions such as Rimouski, Chicoutimi and Rouyn, there are CEGEPs, universities, many good institutions and activities, but, as you stated so clearly earlier, there needs to be a basic community in order to attract members of the same group. There is a vicious circle. If you don't have the means to build this basic community, the people won't come, and if they do not come, there will never be any basic community. You said that there were 300 or 500 people from a specific category in Sherbrooke. So you have the makings of a good base.

Let's talk about incentives. Housing, employment and recognition of skills are all general factors, but do you believe in economic incentives for the regions? Have you thought about this issue or about any message that you want to give to us? For example, what about reducing taxes by 10 per cent for the first three years, or a housing subsidy or a variety of economic measures that could encourage people to stay in a place for two or three years. In two or three years, they will have had time to put down roots. If they do not put down roots in three years, it is because they have a good reason for going elsewhere.

Have similar measures been explored, proposed, attempted? If these options do not come from the government, they may come from a municipality. One idea may be to reduce property taxes by 10 per cent for a certain number of years. Do you believe in that?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I think that Louise has something to say.

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: As far as taxes are concerned, I think that there are many...

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Give us some examples.

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: I think that we could indeed offer some incentives, but not necessarily tax-related incentives, because many people would find this quite unfair with respect to the people who are already there. Our problem is often very simple: people do not have the money required to take the bus to travel to the region around Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi or elsewhere in order to see what is going on, how they would be received and whether or not they can work there. People don't even have the money to take the bus. In my area, we found a nice spot, for $25 a day, they will be taken in, given meals, etc. We need to have some kind of infrastructure to help them visit the region. Then we can motivate them to settle in it by telling them that we will, for example, pay for their move. Sometimes we do this for some things. We certainly could offer some incentives.

We have 127 volunteers in our organization. The people are clearly given first-class treatment. We take them everywhere in our region. I know that the same thing is done in Mégantic and in several other areas. These are incentives. If we had a bit more support to pay for the transportation costs of our volunteers who do these things, that would be an incentive. I am not so sure that a reduction in taxes would be a good incentive in this case.

¸ (1455)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: In some cities, even some smaller ones, we encouraged several people from the same country to settle together. Especially in the case of refugees, you can't just have one family or two, because it's unbearable for them. People who have survived terrible things need support. We can have 30 or 40 people all come together and then add more.

And there is a second advantage as to the refugees who are selected abroad. The policy of the MRCI is to have them settle anywhere except Montreal, except in the case of a few 100 people who perhaps have very solid reasons for settling in Montreal: family, their profession, etc. But generally speaking, we now settle them throughout Quebec, among other places in the City of Quebec. A large number of refugees have settled in Quebec City, but they do face housing problems, for example. It is a problem. On a positive note, we can say that the government following numerous interventions, has accepted a large number of families from Africa. We now have families who spent several years in refugee camps in Tanzania, but these are large families, such as we haven't seen in Quebec for quite some time.

In the past, the standard in Quebec was to have5, 6, 7 or 8 children, or sometimes even 10 or 12 children, but that is not the norm today. When a family of refugees arrives with seven or eight children, we don't know where to put them all. You are not doubt aware that after the initial settlement, after we provide people with their basic needs—if there are eight people, for example they receive eight forks, etc.—, you have to find housing that is big enough and a landlord who will accept a family with eight children. Then, these people live off social assistance. We can't just put them anywhere. We can't find them an apartment that would cost $2,000 a month because they could not pay for it. People have to learn very quickly to live within a very tight budget. In these large families, sometimes there is a medical follow-up to be done and people who are not independent. That's another issue. We said that we wanted to accept refugees who needed to be resettled, but we have to... There is a surprising number of families who remain in regions.

I don't know whether you know that in Canada, we have a category for people from a source country. We allow people to enter directly from that country because they meet all the requirements for refugee status except...the country. Colombia is one of these countries. Quebec accepts almost all of the Colombians that Canada receives. Colombians are now settled throughout Quebec, including the Sherbrooke area, and quite a good number of them will stay there.

To be successful, there can't be just one single organization or one single government department that is responsible. All of the regional municipalities, all levels of government, municipalities, mayors, chambers of commerce have to become involved. We have an organization in Rimouski which, little by little, is trying to involve all the players in the municipality, but it isn't easy. It takes a great deal of effort, and no small organization can do it all alone.

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: There will soon be in Rimouski a big settlement operation for immigrants. A lot of things are happening in Rimouski.

One very important initiative that seems to be having some success is the education of the host community. It's not as easy as it might seem. For three or four years now, a team of trainers has been travelling around Quebec and this appears to be working quite well. In cooperation with the local agency, we organize training sessions on migration patterns, cross-cultural mediation and other issues. Trainers talk to the local social worker, to the CLSC, to schools and to Caisse Desjardins employees. The stakeholders who receive the training truly enjoy the experience. They ask us to come back again. It's done on a small scale, but it does have an impact. I believe similar efforts were made in Sherbrooke. This kind of work is very useful. We have to do more than just welcome newcomers. We mustn't't lose sight of the work that needs to be done with the host community.

¹ (1500)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Pacetti.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I'd like to come back to Mr. Charbonneau's question. You mentioned Yugoslav and Afghan communities in the Eastern Townships. That's a very concrete example. How did we get them to come here? How did these communities develop? Were they simply put on a bus? You said that there are 3,000 Yugoslavs in the Eastern Townships. How has this community developed?

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: When the war broke out, they started coming, but not just two or three at a time. I forget which year it was, but we received about 10 Ethiopian immigrants in Sherbrooke who did not stay because too few of them arrived at the same time. However, immigrants from the Former Yugoslavia arrived by the bus load. At times, 67 persons would arrive the same week. After two or three weeks, the community started to take shape. As for the Afghans, they have a mosque and so forth.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Did you pick them up at the airport to take them back to your community?

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: No.

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: It's the province of Quebec that...

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: Yes.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You have the floor, Diane.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I have a question, although my colleagues have asked most of the questions I had.

Mr. Reichhold, you mentioned the demand for confidential information in funding proposals, which to you are blessedly free. Other parts of the country are not so fortunate. I was not entirely aware of this, and I wonder if you could give us an idea of the scope of the information being asked for in these proposals.

[Translation]

Mr. Stephan Reichhold: I understand that the organizations funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada through ISAP, the Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program, must provide the identity of each of their clients. There is a computerized system in place and the agencies must enter all relevant information on their clients so that CIC can access it. It is a requirement they must meet in order to receive their funding.

[English]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Maybe to just give you the opposite, every agency is supposed to give statistics. We have to give statistics about how many clients we've seen and what kinds of services we've given, but the identity of the client remains confidential. We give statistics about categories. We give statistics on so many independents, so many family class, so many men, so many women, and on what kinds of services, but the identity of the client is confidential.

In the rest of Canada, this is the problem, but I would suggest that if you want to know more about it directly from the people affected, several large settlement agencies in Ottawa would be happy to come to talk to you about this problem. One of them is OCISO, the Ottawa–Carleton Immigrant Services Organization, another one is the Catholic Immigration Centre, and there are others. They could really tell you much more directly what the problem is and what kinds of battles they've been fighting with Immigration Canada.

There was an attempt very early on, way back at the very beginning, that we were able to resist. Very quickly, we won the day in terms of the fact that we could be properly accountable without giving up the identity of the client.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Do you know what the rationale is for demanding this information?

¹ (1505)

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: You'd have to ask CIC. I think it's control.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, and this is not just an academic question. You have to remember that this is the same bureaucracy that is going to give a go or a no go to citizenship applicants in certain instances under clause 18 of the new act. It's the same department in which this idea of a national ID card is being floated. So the corporate culture of that department is of broader concern than just funding proposals.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: Well, a point of speculation—and it's purely speculation—is that it could be that there would be an attempt to see how many times Mr. X or Ms. Y comes to the agency for services. But some people need more services than others. Some people come three or four times and they're fine. Others come ten or fifteen times.

One of the reasons I can speak about this is that I started my so-called career as a front-line worker. I worked in a service agency for seventeen years. That's where I learned most of what I know about settlement. I can tell you that some people come a few times, they get information, and they're fine. Others come for years, and they need the help. It's not that they're just not cooperating.

If you're going to start measuring and asking how come we saw so and so ten times, isn't that a little over the top...? For very legitimate reasons, some people might come and go to more than one agency. You get certain services from one place and other services from another. So what? There might be some control around that as well. So I think tracking where a person goes exactly is rather dangerous, because who knows what else it might be. I don't know. I'm speculating, but I would suggest that CIC be asked these questions.

And everyone got computers so that they could better give up all their statistics.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Over to you, Mr. Pickard.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I see a major problem between our stated goals, our objectives, and where we're moving. Just to explain that, when immigrants were coming to Canada fifty years ago, we did form communities of farmers, communities of people who settled, and communities of various skilled workers. If you needed bricklayers or whatever, communities developed.

Today, I'm told by Immigration that our target is skilled technical people, that our target is professional people. I see them cluster as individuals, not groups. I see that the only means by which that group is going to get into a network, have the social life, meet the family needs, meet the contacts needed by the wife or the husband of the professional who comes, is by pulling away from the regions and putting more than 90% of the development in Montreal.

I see it working in just the opposite manner, because if we want a dentist, then for the social life, they're obviously going to settle in Montreal or they're going to settle in Quebec City, where they will have other contacts and people with similar interests, people with a similar cultural background. They don't find that in outlying areas. So we almost bring people in isolation, and I think the evacuation of those isolated areas is going to be part of it.

Do you see a quandary in the whole of that networking that we're talking about? That's my view. It's almost an unworkable scenario if we're after very specific skills, technical and professional. We're pulling them away from the networks that are going to provide social support, family support, and cultural support, and we're expecting them to stay away. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would love to hear that I'm wrong. I'm looking for ways in which more rural areas, small towns, and others can attract and maintain that society, those immigrants. But from what I see, it won't work. At least, I don't think it'll work in terms of bringing professionals into those communities and keeping them there, because of the very point you made. We need the network to keep them there. That's my view too.

¹ (1510)

[Translation]

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: I'm not entirely sure that such is the case. For one thing, in our area, there's a matching program. If we receive a print shop worker, he or she will be matched with someone already working in a print shop in Sherbrooke. We have also matched doctors in hospitals. We do all kinds of occupational matching.

There are also a lot of family activities that can be organized by the communities themselves. The Afghans have events every week at the mosque or elsewhere. There are also events organized by various local organizations which invite immigrants to participate. There is a nice mix.

Of course there are people doing certain types of work who will prefer to settle in a large city. On the other hand, in many lines of work, people can easily work outside urban centres by using computers, etc. They have excellent working relationships with their colleagues and can work in close cooperation with them.

That's the way I see it. That doesn't mean that they will all succeed, but I think that they have a very good chance of succeeding.

[English]

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: I don't know if you're aware of the fact that, in the early 1990s, when we first started bringing people from the former Yugoslavia to Canada, including a lot of Bosnians, a number of the people who were first settled in Quebec left and went to Ontario. But they didn't go to Toronto, as you might imagine, they went to Kitchener.

Kitchener is not exactly Paris. It is, however, a nice town. There were other Bosnians there, along with a certain community and a hope of work. Those people didn't always go exactly where one would have expected them to go, and I think Kitchener has had the benefit of all those people.

In other areas, it could be other things. Not everybody wants to be in a big city. As I said, though, from outside Quebec or from outside Canada, a lot of these towns are totally meaningless. They mean nothing. It's only after people arrive that we can talk about the attractions of the smaller cities. But there has to be work and there has to be a welcome.

I'll tell you about one of the things that was done. One organization here is very particular to Quebec. It's called the CAMO pour personnes immigrantes, or the Comité d'apatation de la main-d'oeuvre. It's for immigrants, and it looks at all the barriers that immigrants face in terms of being able to access various trades and professions. In Drummondville, which is a town where they need a lot of workers, CAMO started organizing busloads of people to go to a job fair that they had there. It wasn't a guarantee of a job, but at least it let people go to that job fair and let them realize that there's a whole world outside Montreal, that there are employers desperately looking for people. Perhaps some of these people eventually would have thought Drummondville is a pretty nice town, that it has stuff going on. And at the end of the day, even if some of those people decided not to move, they came to know Quebec in a different way.

These exchange programs that we do between the cities have their own impact. I'll tell you frankly that I'm a Montreal person. It wasn't until we started getting a lot of refugees and immigrants that I started travelling to towns I'd never been to. I was stunned at how interesting and how open people were, and how willing they were to reach out, sometimes much more than in a bigger city.

The attractions of a smaller town are a community spirit, a volunteer spirit, and the implication of how people reach out to people. If we can build on that, there are things that can be done. But you have to call on the best in people. You have to call on people's openness as opposed to their fears. You have to present these people as human beings who are interesting, as opposed to “these people from countries we're a little bit worried about”.

You can't do teeny projects. You can't have a project for three months and think you're going to get somewhere. You have to have a long-range vision, you have to invest, and you have to let the people who have some expertise take the time that it takes. You can't get impatient and say, “Well, you didn't accomplish anything in three months. Goodbye. We're shutting down the program.” But that has sometimes happened. You need patience, and you need to trust that if people are allowed to do their best and to work on this and take the time that it takes, the results may not come in the thousands, but they will be interesting.

¹ (1515)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I certainly note that your optimism is there, and I think that's very good.

In the Kitchener case with the people from the former Yugoslavia, I would say the largest area of settlement of people from the former Yugoslavia is in Kitchener. That is a concentration, and that's where they would naturally migrate to. That's good, but if we have concentrations—in my area, we have a tremendous concentration of Italians, a concentration of Dutch, a concentration of Germans—we may be able to be selective in bringing people with certain skills from certain areas into our more regional bases. We may be able to develop profiles that will help to keep people in those regions. Possibly German, Dutch, or Italian doctors or engineers would work really well in my area. If we go to any region, we may be able to see where we would be very successful.

Ms. Rivka Augenfeld: But let's not forget that there are interesting numbers of people who say they don't want to be where everyone else from their country is, that's not why they came here, they want to be somewhere else. One mustn't put this pattern on everyone.

[Translation]

Also, the first generation has specific needs. The second generation, that of the children, will be like all other Canadians if they are well received in the community and well integrated.

I always tell people to put themselves in the other person's shoes. How would I feel if I ended up living in China overnight? Would I do all right if I couldn't have contacts once in a while with a few Canadians or Quebecers with whom I could chat to better face my life the next day? We all need that kind of contact.

Quebecers who live in Miami get together to celebrate all their birthdays and to watch the hockey games. It's the human need. But sometimes, when immigrants get together with people from their country, we find that a little suspicious. Sometimes we need to be able to speak our mother tongue, we need to be able to relax. I have to tell you that being constantly in a different culture that you're trying to familiarize yourself with requires a tremendous effort. We have to congratulate people who make that effort because it's not easy.

Ms. Louise Carrier-Corriveau: I'd like to add something on the topic of the Internet. Last year a Chinese family that had settled in our area came to see me. I was wondering why they had chosen Sherbrooke. I finally asked the question and one of them showed me a beautiful article on Sherbrooke which he had found on the Internet. It's incredible because this family had been to Vancouver, to Toronto and to Montreal but did not want to live in the China towns of those large cities. Then this man found this information on the Internet. He even told me things I did not know; he told me about our two universities, for example. He knew more than I did about Sherbrooke because of the Internet. It's a great tool to publicize what we have and we should use it more, because it can really help potential immigrants know more on Canadian cities in general.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): We should tell the other municipalities to watch out for Laval. But the immigrants already know about Laval and we've very happy about it. We do however think that they may be interested in settling in other cities in Quebec and throughout Canada.

I want to thank you all for spending this day with us. I was a little worried at lunch when we were discussing what issues we should touch on. Nevertheless we've had a very interesting and meaningful discussion; we've realized that we have questions for the department on issues that Diane noted and that we were not aware of. This is the kind of information that committees such as ours can bring out.

Once again, I thank you .

I will suspend the meeting for five minutes; it will then be time for dessert, Mr. Barrette's presentation.

¹ (1520)

¹ (1538)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Colleagues, let's resume our meeting.

Mr. Barrette, the floor is yours.

Mr. Denis Barrette (Legal Counsel, "Ligue des droits et libertés"): I will first introduce myself. My name is Denis Barrette and I'm a lawyer. I specialize in criminal law. I'm appearing today as the representative of the Ligue des droits et libertés. The clerk has told me that someone from the Quebec section, Mr. Jacques Tousignant, appeared before you. You could say that I represent the national section of our association.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): The Canadian section?

Mr. Denis Barrette: The Canadian and Quebec section, but bear in mind that the league has various regional sections, including ones in the Saguenay, Quebec City and Sherbrooke, and then there is what we call the national league, the Ligue des droits et libertés du Québec. As you are undoubtedly aware, I am here to address the issue of a Canadian national identity card.

We learned at a very late stage, despite the remarks that had been made in November, but which were not clearly confirmed to us, that there would be a consultation on the national identity card or that the matter would be discussed at these hearings. I understand that you are travelling throughout Canada. It wasn't until November 6 that we understood Minister Coderre wanted to discuss the identity card issue.

I'm going to start by talking about the league, because it is important. I must point out that the Ligue des droits et libertés is a not-for-profit organization that defends rights and freedoms and promotes civil liberties as well as economic and social rights. It is one of the first organizations in North America to defend human rights. We draw much of our inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defends economic and social rights in addition to civil and political rights.

Having said that, I will now turn to the identity card and the process. I must point out that I am very disappointed with the process adopted for such an important issue as the imposition or creation of a national identity card. If a national identity card were to be created, whether it be mandatory or not... I will go back to that later, because for me, whether it is mandatory or not makes no difference: it will become a de facto mandatory identity card.

I think you need a lot of imagination to say that these are consultations on a change that in the blink of an eye, will break with a 300-year-old British tradition in Canada. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Coderre, but I think he is making life very difficult for us. Like many who want to speak to the issue—I do not know if you have had a good turnout given the short timeframe—I doubt that this is really a serious debate, as Mr. Coderre claimed in one of his interviews or in one of his documents.

Bear in mind that like organizations that look after immigration and refugee matters, NGOs that defend rights and freedoms have a handful of full-time employees and not a great deal of resources. At the Ligue des droits et libertés, we have one full-time staff member; as of late, we have two and a half full-time positions. The vast majority of the work is done by volunteers, including me, or advocates who have other responsibilities. Bear in mind as well that before adopting a position, we must appear before boards of directors and executive councils. We also have an education mandate. In any event, most advocacy groups have education mandates and must discuss major issues.

The issue of an identity card does not pose a problem. The position I am going to develop is not a problem for the league's board of directors or executive council. But I must add that having to resolve this matter in a few days is somewhat offensive. I want to point out that this approach is a bit overwhelming. I'm wondering if this is not a new government technique to impose legislative change that resembles climate change.

So, after a very brief debate, the government is quickly imposing changes that will have repercussions on society as a whole, a bit like the issue of electronic surveillance. I am talking about the bill on legal access that is in the works.

¹ (1540)

The league would not want my participation here today to be construed as acceptance of this meeting as a genuine consultation. I am appearing before you and I am pleased to see you and provide you with our opinion, but we do not feel that this is true consultation on a matter that is very serious.

Why is it serious? We have 300 years of British tradition on which to fall back. Regardless of what one's political allegiance in Quebec may be, I believe that these are traditions that we want to retain because of their foundations and importance. Even though our political views may differ from those held by people elsewhere in Canada, we feel that these traditions are important.

You have to ask yourselves a question. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to do real research on the matter, but this would have been worth the effort. Why, in British countries, are there no identity cards? Why are we against the idea of having to carry a card and show it to an agent of the state?

There are many reasons. One is that we want a person to be free to do as he sees fit, without having to constantly report to agents of the state. There are other reasons, reasons that pertain to this whole issue of possession of the public domain by private interests, that sociologists could certainly develop. If you research writings from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, you will see that people could not travel from one commune to the next in France without explaining what business they had in a given city, such as Rouen.

Today, we are in the year 2003. I travelled to Rwanda in 1997 on a mission for the Government of Canada, and Rwanda had an identity card. We know that this card was one of the tools used in the genocide, but afterwards it was used and it is still being used today to prohibit an individual from travelling from one district to the next. When an individual has to travel to another district, he must first explain to his own district official why he has to go to another district, give the purpose of the trip and ensure that his travel papers are stamped, all of which takes time, unless of course the individual knows the official and has money. In that case, things always move much more quickly.

The result is that most people who travel in Rwanda and the people I met when I was there did not ask for permission. They travelled, they went to Kigali. That allowed the police to do what they called a sweep. Every two weeks, the police would enter neighbourhoods and request identification from everybody so that they in turn could put a good number of these people in prison. A lot of other people were expelled from Kigali and sent back to their district of origin.

You could argue that this happens in Africa, but in the Russian Federation, there are also identity cards. Even after the USSR dissolved, there were still identity cards. These cards are still being used today to verify whether people have moved to another region without permission, because in Russia, when you move about, you have to explain why you are travelling and what is the purpose of the trip. In other words, one has to be able to say why one has business—and I really love the word “business”—taking us to that location.

There are all kinds of other reasons why someone can ask to see the card. For example, there have been instances of police harassment. Those who have known people who lived in Paris during the Algerian War know what these identity cards were all about and why they were used. They were used to arrest people in the street in a completely abusive fashion, for all kinds of reasons, particularly if their skin was a bit darker than others.

This situation can lead to all types of police abuse. You will think that I am talking about science fiction. I thought this way as well when I saw the film Minority Report. I do not know if you have seen the film. This is a Steven Spielberg movie, where everybody has had their iris scanned. People walk about, look in the windows and are asked: “Good morning, Mr. Barrette, do you still like grey ties?”, etc.

At the beginning, I thought that this was science fiction. There is a lot of fighting that goes on.

¹ (1545)

The more I think about this movie, the more I think that it is not so far off reality; at least, it is not very far from the risks that we are running. I am not saying that tomorrow, if there is an identity card, that Canada will become a totalitarian country. That is not what I am telling you. I am saying that, bit by bit, it is one more brick being laid for a totalitarian structure. Today totalitarian states are created gradually; bit by bit and very quietly.

You may think that this is still science fiction, but just imagine that, in order to go from Montreal to Saint-Hyacinthe and, depending on the political favours that your district head may grant, you had to explain why you needed to travel to that city.

This is one of the risks of having an identity card. Some people will say that I am being paranoid or hysterical, but this is a reality. Such practices are commonplace in a number of developed countries, in several countries that are members of international institutions and that are respected by the international community. As I told you, this is happening in the Federation of Russia.

We have to view the identity card along with all of the other bricks that the federal government has already laid since September 11 and will be laying in the future. We are familiar with C-36, the Antiterrorism Act, which was criticized a great deal. You are familiar with all of the criticism that was voiced. We still do not have a report on abuses arising from Bill C-36, but I have not yet seen the name of a single alleged terrorist arrested as a result of C-36.

You are not as familiar with Bill C-24, but you probably know about it because this was the Anti-gang Act. In Quebec, we called it the Anti-gang Act because it was designed to help us wage a more effective war on criminal gangs or biker gangs. However, this legislation contains a little known provision that transforms the Criminal Code. I am referring to section 25.1 which pertains to police immunity in the case of offences, except for the more serious crimes such as rape and murder.

The police can, with total immunity, commit offences. And, if Mr. Coderre reads my comments, I would like to ask him a formal question. If ever you were to institute an identity card, in to avoid identity theft, would the police be excluded from the immunity provided in section 25.1? In other words, in order to conduct their investigation more effectively, would the police be able to steal someone's identity instead of burning down barns? I would imagine that the theft of identity would constitute a crime. Moreover, Mr. Coderre talks about making this a very specific crime. If that is the case, why not prevent the police from stealing someone's identity? They can do that now. I am not saying that they do, but it is possible for them to do so.

I would remind you that this bill, C-24, was adopted in February 2002 and that a report will be issued two years following its adoption, namely in February 2004, on the numerous offences perpetrated by the police. We will be able to read about some of the crimes committed by the police, unless it is a matter still under investigation. In other words, if they are still investigating Denis Barrette, which is possible, we will not have access to the list of crimes perpetrated during the course of the investigation into Denis Barrette.

¹ (1550)

It is also important to understand the ID card in the context of the project on legal access. I don't know whether you have heard about this. I do not like the word, but it is the one that has been used by the government. I prefer to talk about electronic surveillance. The project in question involves mainly Internet and e-mail surveillance, but it goes much further than that: it has an impact on all communication transmitted electronically. It can range from a transaction at a bank machine to the transmission of pharmaceutical data and hospital diagnosis.

The project on legal access will require service providers to store computerized data. It will make it possible to monitor people much more closely. We have to put it into the context—and this is where it becomes interesting—of the measure regarding the megafile established last Fall for Canadians who travel outside the country by plane. This measure will be extended to travel by ship, train, bus, and possibly to travel within Canada. This megafile was introduced as an administrative measure; there is no specific legislation for its establishment. What it actually means is that certain types of data will be kept, for example what passengers ate on the plane, with whom they travel, how they purchase their airplane ticket, where they live and their entry and exit port. There could be additional data kept as well, and not only on suspicious individuals, but on all passengers. This information will be kept for six years.

The privacy commissioner has criticized this measure vigorously, but it is in effect. It is another way of monitoring people more closely.

I must come back to the data banks, the megafiles. We have to understand that at the time of the Stasi in East Germany, or the time of the Intelligence Branch in France in 1930, when the French police... I'm sure you have read detective novels that describe how the police in Paris had a great deal of information on everyone. There were spies everywhere. This information was put on files and quietly filed away. All sorts of files were established on people. It is said that the Stasi had a whole basement full of files on the citizens of East Germany.

I'm saying that the Stasi files are nothing compared to the capacity of computers for tracking people. There is no comparison at all. The matching capacity provided by computers, the possibility of profiling, whether for political, religious or racial reasons, are huge and unlimited. Moreover, the potential for error is also unlimited. In other words, a decision could be made all of a sudden to work up a profile on Denis Barrette, or on anyone at all, because of certain suspicious activities: he often eats in an Arab neighbourhood, he is accustomed to doing a particular thing, and so on. A tremendous amount of data is assembled without any reasonable grounds for doing so. The name comes up, and the decision is made to closely watch this individual. This is what is known as profiling and what can be done with our current computer systems. It is an unprecedented surveillance of citizens.

Mr. Coderre says that we live in a changing world. He is right. It is true that we are living in a changing world, and things are changing quickly, but that is why we have to be doubly cautious about anything having to do with files, data banks and the state's surveillance capacity.

In our organization, we think that the reasons for initiating this debate at this time are based more on political necessity than on a genuine need to track terrorism, fraud and theft.

¹ (1555)

In our view, the reasons are clearly political. This whole business of an identity card follows the debate on the smart border with the United States and the interim report tabled on December 6 by Minister Manley and Governor Tom Ridge. We were told that the U.S. is also in the process of developing an ID card. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that Congress is currently working on blocking the proposed mandatory ID card.

This morning, I heard a journalist on the radio. The discussion was not about the ID card, unfortunately, but about something else. You were here and I was driving in my car. The journalist was asking whether we could afford to have principles in Canada. I'm asking myself that question and I am asking you as well: Can we afford to have principles in Canada? Is it absolutely necessary to follow blindly our neighbour to the south and do everything required to avoid possible economic repercussions? Is that the main consideration? Is that what Canada is? You will not answer “no” to the question of “can we afford to have principles?”, however, if you did, I'd have to wonder what I'm doing here and what the point of this debate is. I'd wonder whether this is the right forum for this debate and whether it would not be preferable for me to go to Washington to hear the debate in Congress. Would it not be preferable for my organization to devote all its energy to going to Washington to take part in the debate there, because that is where the real debate is unfolding? However, if we can afford to have principles, let us talk about the principles according to which we live in Canada.

A reference by Mr. Coderre struck me in the text. He quoted a comment made by Gandhi, which was to the effect that fire in and of itself is not dangerous. The danger lies in what people do with fire. I respect both Mr. Coderre and Mr. Gandhi, who was a brilliant lawyer, but I would say that in some situations, it is possible to play with fire. You know very well that at certain times it is dangerous to strike a match in a forest, in societies where rights and freedoms are in danger. That is well-known in Quebec and throughout Canada. I do not want to overstate things, but there was a serious debate on these issues in New Zealand and Australia. In the end, the government backed down on the idea of bringing in ID cards.

Apparently the matter is being debated in England, but nothing has been decided. It is true that politicians make certain statements and advance certain positions, but nothing has been decided yet. In Canada, we have a charter and an identity, and there are certain rights which, without being specifically enshrined, must be considered fundamental, because they are part of the fundamental traditions of society. And I would add that it is precisely at difficult times that we must defend our basic, important principles.

I'm going to talk to you about usefulness and necessity. I would ask you not to confuse the usefulness of an ID card with the necessity for such a card. First of all, is an ID card useful? That is the question, and I have some doubts about it. Is it useful in fighting terrorism? As George Radwanski said, there are not many terrorists who mention the fact that they are terrorists on their ID card.

As many others have doubtless said, and I read this somewhere on the Internet and found it very interesting, terrorists, who are also engaged in fraud, will be able to produce fake ID cards, because they are very clever. Consequently, the ID card could result in a false sense of security precisely in areas where security should be stepped up.

º (1600)

It is not the card itself that must change. It is the whole process a person must go through in order to get a card, a passport or any other identity document. I remember the argument about passports that we heard a few years ago. I do not have the exact reference, but we were told that there were new passports made with new paper that could not be reproduced and that no one could copy or forge. We heard the same argument about $20 bills. No one could counterfeit them. The bills were dimpled and it was impossible to counterfeit the paper.

Yet, we have seen counterfeit $20 bills in circulation. Canadian passports have been forged. There were some thefts of passports at the Hong Kong consulate, I believe. I do not know how many Canadian passports were stolen and used. We could not prevent forged passports and counterfeit $20 bills.

To say that it will be impossible to make fraudulent use of an ID card containing biometric data is misleading. It is just wishful thinking to say that because of an iris scan or even a fingerprint, fraud is beyond the realm of possibility. It may be more difficult at the beginning, but to say that it will be impossible, is merely lulling people into a false sense of security.

I have gone on too long.

º (1605)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Lawyers do tend to do that.

Mr. Denis Barrette: Yes, they do.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You spoke for 27 minutes.

Mr. Denis Barrette: I apologize.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): No, you do not have to apologize. If I had wanted to interrupt you sooner, I would have done so. I would have done so gracefully, but I would have done so. Some people tell me that I do not speak up and that I do not overstate things.

I completely agree with your first two sentences when you deeply deplored the fact that a debate of this type could take such a restrictive turn. This is a broad debate, and, as far as I'm concerned, I think it focuses on values that are important to us. I may be repeating myself, but since September 11, it's clear that many people have simply given up on a number of freedoms they once considered essential. We have not debated this as a society, and I think we must do so. Therefore, I commend the Minister's decision to bring this matter forward for debate. However, we need to have a genuine debate, a broad debate, involving people with the appropriate expertise and experience.

That being said, I'm sure that all my colleagues have questions for you, but I am going to start. What will you say to people who claim to have no problems whatsoever with this kind of ID card because they have nothing to hide? I'm sure you have heard comments of this nature. In any case, I have.

That was my first question. We will then go to Diane.

Mr. Denis Barrette: It is true that I have nothing to hide or to blame myself for. In fact, if we were to suggest to the people who say this that they go to the police station every time they move, perhaps they would agree to that as well, because they have nothing to hide.

My first comment to them would be that people must realize the surveillance instruments available today cannot be compared to those that existed 20, 10 or 30 years ago, and that computer data on all citizens makes it possible to keep track of everyone. What this means, ultimately, is that the police treat everyone as though they were suspects.

I'd ask them what they would think of having a camera mounted at their door to keep track of their comings and goings.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): And with whom.

Mr. Denis Barrette: Yes, with whom they come and go. That is a very good question.

Among other things, this also brings to mind the monitoring of e-mail. They tell us it doesn't matter, that all that will be noted is the address of the person we write to. So I asked them what they would say if they saw “Thinking of you”, or “Lovingly”, and so on, on the subject line of the message. The subject of the message, what is commonly called the traffic data, is very revealing. What would you say if someone took your e-mail and opened it or simply made note of the address of the person to whom you are writing, the address of the sender and the address of the receiver? What would you have to say about that? Yes, it would be useful for the police and perhaps they could arrest a few more criminals, but is that the kind of society you would like to live in?

I would also ask these people to imagine what would have happen in 1939, when the Nazis entered Paris, if all of the information that the French had gathered on citizens had been found in a data bank and the Nazis had gotten hold of it. I do not think that any resistance would have been possible. At the very least, resistance would have been very difficult.

In other words, when members of Parliament vote, they do so in good faith and they have the best of intentions, but we must take a hard look at the structures that are being put in place over the long term.

That is more less what I would tell them.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, Mr. Barrette.

Ms. Ablonczy.

[English]

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This was a good presentation that brought up a number of points. I think one of the previous presenters said it's very hard to convince people of future harm, so some of the scenarios you paint seem pretty unlikely in a country like Canada. Nevertheless, we have to look down the road as legislators. Someone said leaders are paid to look ahead, so we want to take some of your concerns seriously.

You mentioned that this could be used as a tool to prevent free movement. Of course, we have a charter that guarantees mobility rights to people in Canada. Is it reasonable to be concerned? Do you foresee that this card could be used as an unconstitutional restraint on mobility rights?

º (1610)

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: Yes, especially if you look at the card from the point of view of the mega data bases on the movement of Canadians and with the entire information system that may be developed through the proposed legal access initiative. When a government imposes an identity card the idea is to someday require citizens to show it at the request of public officers, law enforcement officers, or government officials. The day government officials are authorized to ask people for their identity cards, the next step will be to ask people where they are going, what they are doing and why. That is a way of limiting the movement of Canadians.

I'm going to give you a very down-to-earth example. Someone could well be travelling to see a secret lover or mistress. Someone, perhaps a Member of Parliament, a senator or a university professor might want to avoid putting himself or herself into risky situations that are perfectly legal. That is how identity cards could be misused.

During the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, I was one of the lawyers who defended the 300 or so people who were arrested. Of these 300 people, hundreds were falsely arrested and subsequently released without being charged. Their driver's licences were checked; they were asked to produce papers. Using those papers, the police then asked these people where they were going and what they were doing, etc. Travellers were also asked the same questions; some were are arrested and held for two or three days in prison in Orsainville. Often they were released in the middle of the night near the Orsainville zoo and told to go home. People familiar with the region know that there is a zoo there and that it is very far from Quebec City. Admittedly, these were exceptional circumstances, but it is often in special situations that abuse occurs. In our democratic countries, it is in these kinds of situations that we see the first signs of abuse emerge. Instance of police abuse are rare when everything is going well; it is when a situation takes a turn for the worst that things happen. That's when there is police abuse. Rights and freedoms must be protected even more in these difficult situations. I do not know if that answers your question.

Rest assured that every government is tempted to restrict the mobility of its citizens when an identity card system is in place. What's more, it becomes physically possible to do just that.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Do you have another question?

º (1615)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes.

As a criminal lawyer, you're familiar with the legislation putting into place the DNA data bank. I know there were concerns about that—and on the government side as well. Do you see any useful parallels or lessons to be learned from the DNA data bank that could be applied to our consideration of a national ID card? Or are the two completely separate in your mind?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: There is a certain parallel because, indeed, DNA data banks allow you to match information and help move investigations forward. But with this important distinction: a person who provides a DNA sample is compelled to do so after having been found guilty of a generally serious offence.

But with a biometric identity card, information on every Canadian citizen would be recorded. Through DNA sampling, DNA data banks only contain information on people who have committed serious offences. In some cases, for certain offences, the judge must provide reasons why he is compelling a person to provide a DNA sample, because under Canadian law providing a DNA sample is a serious matter.

In fact, a parallel could perhaps be drawn with the way criminal records are dealt with under the Criminal Records Act. Canada has legislation with regard to how long a criminal record can stay on the books. A person found guilty of a summary offence, which is less serious, may have his record expunged if granted a pardon. So it is possible to erase a criminal record. But in the case of a Canadian identity card, the information contained in a data bank will remain there forever.

The fact that our criminal records will probably be better managed than any biometric data base is cause for concern, because the private sector will in due course use that data base. That information will end up in the private sector. Businesses will use and retain the data, which means that the risk of misuse or mistakes will increase accordingly.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Pickard.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I have to say I find this questioning very difficult, from the point of view that my view of Canada is somewhat different from the point of view presented at this point in time. I find it interesting that comparisons were made between Canada and Rwanda, where we know human disasters, tragic circumstances, and mass slaughters have occurred. That's the example that was brought forward. Russia is now a respected country. Nazi Germany, however, marched into France. But these are the examples that were brought forward.

Quite frankly, I have a different view of Canada and I have a different view of democracy. I believe the ladies and gentlemen who are elected in this country try to build a society that moves forward, and they do it with the very best intentions for people living in this country. I strongly believe that we, as a nation, try to build a country to be very proud of. I believe that when we listen to testimony, we have to judge it on the basis of what we know about this democracy, what we know about this country, which is rated, by all standards, as the number one country in the world.

A national identity card is the topic. The statement was made that we're adding to the structure of a totalitarian state step by step by step, and that police are allowed not to follow the laws of this country. I don't believe those statements are accurate. Is the minister going to allow the police to steal identities? I really see no basis on which those statements could be made, but those are the kinds of statements that have been made at this point in time.

Let's go to the basis of what this card is intended to be. My view is that this card has one clear and simple purpose, and that is to identify who a person is. The witness has suggested that there are data banks included with the card. I would like to know what his source is to confirm that. To my knowledge, neither the minister, the department, nor anyone else in responsible areas has said there will be data banks assigned to the card. However, the witness has said, yes, there will be. The witness has also said these data banks will be transferred to the private sector. We have laws in this country saying that can't happen. I would like to know what his source is for this information, where it's coming from.

º (1620)

I don't mean to be aggressive in any respect. I mean to try to sort out what we're talking about, what your vision is, what my vision is, and what witnesses have brought forward to show us what technology can do. Quite frankly, it's a simple a card. It could be done on a voluntary basis. I don't know how it's going to come out, but it could be a simple card with a mathematical imprint of a fingerprint, a mathematical imprint of a retina scan, some identifying biometric factor that says you are who you say you are. Denis is Denis. Jerry is Jerry. To me, that seems reasonable. No myriad data are connected with the card. It just says I am who I say I am, and it says I'm a Canadian.

Now, as a Canadian, I may wish to access services in this country, and that's legitimate. I may wish to leave the country, and that's legitimate. From my viewpoint right now, I would suggest that people have the card on a voluntary basis, but it's not in my purview to say what is or what isn't. I believe this card can be a tremendous support factor for different things, primarily to say I'm a Canadian, primarily to say I am who I say I am. But I sure have no concept of how you can say that, because I have a card that has my fingerprint on it, because I have a card that may have my retina scan on it, that's going to restrict movement in this country.

Restricting movement or calling Canada a police state is something totally different. Those are undemocratic principles, and I don't believe the population of this country would accept them by any means, whether you have a card in your pocket or not. I don't think those things have anything to do with what Canada is about. I find it very odd that you would come forward and really throw out a lot of accusations and the examples that you've chosen to use to attack. I really find them so lopsided that they doesn't seem to fit my country. I'll leave that there.

Do you have an objection to somebody identifying who they are, very plainly and simply, I'm Jerry Pickard and this card identifies me as such, and my number is 85743. That could possibly be my card and my name. I'm a Canadian, and here's the number to say that's who I am, much the same as the SIN card. If it went to that limit and only that limit, and if it were voluntary, would you have an argument against that?

º (1625)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Mr. Barrette, you have the floor.

Mr. Denis Barrette: Mr. Pickard, I certainly did not want to prejudge your reasons for supporting this identity card. The way we see it, we would have an identity card for political reasons, in other words, because we want to align ourselves with the Americans, not because we want to establish a totalitarian state in Canada. I am certainly not saying that the government wants to implement a totalitarian regime. I don't feel that way at all.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I wrote down your words. That's what you said.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: No. This is what I said, Mr. Pickard.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Excuse me. I'm sorry, but I wrote it down when you said it.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: You misunderstood me. I gave an example. Imagine we're in the same situation as France was in 1939. Canada has been invaded by another country, such as Nazi Germany. We won't name the country; let's just say it was a totalitarian state. Or imagine if there was suddenly a coup d'État in Canada resulting in the overthrow of Parliament. I would compare the invaders to the Nazis. Imagine if, in 1939, the Nazis had laid their hands on every bit of information collected by the French police, but that all this information had been stored in data bases. This is where the magic of the Internet and the incredible power provided through computers would have played a role. This is what I mean when I say that data banks can be a dangerous tool.

Nowhere in here is it written that the Canadian government will put the identity of every Canadian on loose leaf sheets or sheets of paper, but in my view, there is no doubt that the information collected from the identity cards will have to be stored in a data base. If you can tell me it won't, if you can give me your assurances that it won't, I may be somewhat reassured.

Now, I have to say that I am in complete agreement with you with regard to Canadian values. We do not live in a totalitarian state. Canada has a strong democratic tradition and the hard part lies in maintaining this tradition. It is much harder to uphold a democratic tradition than it is to do away with one.

Maintaining a democratic tradition means rejecting or casting aside things which are not necessary, even though they may prove to be useful. For us, the identity card is a case in point. Even if you could prove that an identity card could be useful in catching a few criminals, which I don't think is a sure thing, we have a choice to make, a choice which we are debating in Canada because it concerns our civil liberties and our basic freedoms and the associated risks. Every time you talk about rights and freedoms, there are always risks involved.

If tomorrow the Canadian government decided to allow legal access, Internet surveillance and, at the same time, decided that everyone should have a mandatory identity card, most people here would probably say that it would not be too bad, that they would continue to lead the same life as before and that nothing would change. However, there is a risk that our rights would slowly be eroded over time. I'm not saying that we would end up with a totalitarian state overnight. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a clear risk of abuse, especially when even the police could indulge in identity theft. There is also the risk that citizens may be harassed on the street, that their movements might be restricted and that businesses might take advantage of the new situation.

You asked me how this card could serve the purposes of the private sector. I would answer that the identity card would represent a perfect solution to many of the problems faced by the private sector. Rather than asking for a social insurance number or a passport, businesses would ask for the identity card because it contains biometric information. Everybody seems to think that it's a miracle card, since it theoretically contains secure data, but we will only find out in a few years if this is truly the case. There is no doubt that banks and credit agencies will want the card. And why wouldn't credit agencies not request fingerprints, since we've come that far? Why not? Why not confirm the information contained in those cards?

º (1630)

Who says that someone won't find the technical means to copy the card? In any case, whether we have the technical means to copy it or not... Mr. Pickard, I know you will say that we currently don't have the technical know-how to copy a biometric card, but I would say it's only a matter of time before it happens.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Barrette, I could say that the lists you're referring to exist in society today. We have lists of those who have health cards or drivers' licences, and lists that have nothing to do with this card.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: Yes, I agree.

[English]

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There are lists that have nothing to do with the cards. They're a separate entity.

º (1635)

Mr. Denis Barrette: I agree with you, yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Criminal lists are a separate entity. A card is just an identifier.

One of the problems we have in society is having clear identification for people. Quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with having a way to identify someone as who they say they are. That is it. I do not see lists tied to this card. I do not believe anybody is talking about lists being tied to the card. The card identifies you through a biometrics scheme, whatever that is going to be. And quite frankly, as I said before, it could well be voluntary.

If a business has a reason to ask that you identify yourself adequately, maybe that is the best means by which you can identify yourself, but it doesn't mean there's anything listed to that card. If you apply for a service and someone says they're going to do that service with you, that's fine. You prove who you are with the card. Beyond that, I don't see how...as a matter of fact, I think it would reduce racial profiling, quite frankly, because you don't have to be one thing or another.

When September 11 happened, the first thing that happened with people travelling across the border was racial profiling. That was raised by Canadians, and it was an important issue to us. We did not want to see that. If you have a card that says you are Joe Smith and you're Canadian, I believe that's really the purpose of this.

I will apologize if I went in the wrong direction, but I'll say very seriously that my view of this country, of Canada, is not to compare us to the most fierce totalitarian states that exist and to say that's where Canada is going. I thought that's what I interpreted you to say, and I reacted to that because I have a love for this country and the people in it. My life is devoted to helping those people, and I think you're wrong, quite frankly.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Barrette: But there has been abuse.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I would like to interject briefly. It is twenty to five, which shows just how enthralling this debate has been. I think Mr. Pacetti would like to ask a question.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: We're talking about control and surveillance, but we already have credit cards, Interac, and all the information that must be supplied in order to carry out Internet transactions and so on. Therefore, I think that there are already ways of tracking people. When the police investigated in Virginia, it did so using Interac. In the case of the murder in Washington, the individuals were tracked...

[English]

Mr. Denis Barrette: Yes, but they had warrants at that time. They had warrants because there were murders. Now, if there is a file, every citizen will be in that file if there is data. If there's not, Mr. Pickard, I will say that's better, but that's not enough.

To answer, Monsieur Pacetti, I think it's important to talk about Joe Smith. The question is whether I believe Joe Smith or the card of Joe Smith. That is the question.

[Translation]

Everyone says that since it is Joe Smith's card, the person is Joe Smith. So, the individual walking around with Joe Smith's card is tracked, and his every movement is monitored. We may be wrong about the usefulness of such a card. There may be some people who will pass themselves off as Joe Smith, as we have already seen happen with cards.

You have spoken about all the cards that exist, but there is a principle of privacy involved: firewalls must be erected between the various ID cards. For example, the SIN card is used strictly for social insurance purposes; the health card is used for health services; the credit card is used for credit card services only. An ID card would knock down these walls.

We know that there are some limits as far as these walls are concerned, because everything is not perfect, but the proposed national ID card would take matters a step further and therein lies the danger. I do not know whether you understand what I mean. Health insurance cards serve one particular purpose...

Go ahead, Mr. Pacetti.

Mr. Massimo Pacetti: I agree with you when you say that if there is a card, there is a data base. We may agree with Mr. Pickard, but I do not agree when you say that income tax returns are used for income tax only and credit cards just for making purchases. The health insurance card is not used just when we go to the hospital. It is used when we go to the bank to open an account and are asked to produce two pieces of ID. When we apply for a loan, we have to submit our income tax return. So, I do not agree with you, because data bases do come together to some degree and the data are not always separate. I think the important thing is rather to know what will be done with the card. Perhaps customers could simply produce the card at the bank, instead of their health insurance card or their driver's licence. But control and surveillance techniques are already in place. We cannot avoid that. As for the Internet, there are still some people who do not want to have it, but it does exist.

º (1640)

Mr. Denis Barrette: I have no problem as regards the existence of the Internet. What you say is true, Mr. Pacetti, but we have to minimize the risk, and give citizens as much choice as possible in a society where both government and the private sector impose certain control measures. We have to limit such control mechanisms. If we do not set some limits, if we do not limit the choices, the risks increase.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I do not think we have heard the last of this debate. I hope that when all is said and done, we as a society will have a much clearer idea about the things that are fundamental to us. We have these discussions once every 100 years, and this year, 2003, with the Internet, e-mail, and everything else, we will probably have a very interesting discussion, provided the minister is convinced we need to have a broad debate. That is my sincere hope as I adjourn this meeting today.

Thank you for being with us, Mr. Barrette.

The meeting is adjourned.