A National Identity Card for Canada?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA A NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD FOR CANADA? REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Joe Fontana, M.P. Chair October 2003 The Speaker of the House hereby grants permission to reproduce this document, in whole or in part for use in schools and for other purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review or newspaper summary. Any commercial or other use or reproduction of this publication requires the express prior written authorization of the Speaker of the House of Commons. If this document contains excerpts or the full text of briefs presented to the Committee, permission to reproduce these briefs, in whole or in part, must be obtained from their authors. Also available on the Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire: http://www.parl.gc.ca Available from Communication Canada — Publishing, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9 A NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD FOR CANADA? REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Joe Fontana, M.P. Chair October 2003 STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CHAIR Joe Fontana, M.P. (London North Centre, ON) VICE-CHAIRS Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, M.P. (Laval Centre (QC) Jerry Pickard, M.P. (Chatham—Kent Essex, ON) MEMBERS Diane Ablonczy, M.P. (Calgary—Nose Hill, AB) Sarkis Assadourian, M.P. (Brampton Centre, ON) John Bryden, M.P. (Ancaster—Dundas— Flamborough—Aldershot, ON) Yvon Charbonneau, M.P. (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, QC) Raymonde Folco, M.P. (Laval West, QC) Art Hanger, M.P. (Calgary Northeast, AB) Sophia Leung, M.P. (Vancouver Kingsway, BC) Inky Mark, M.P. (Dauphin—Swan River, MB) Pat Martin, M.P. (Winnipeg Centre, MB) Grant McNally, M.P. (Dewdney—Alouette, BC) John O’Reilly, M.P. (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON) Massimo Pacetti, M.P. (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC) Yves Rocheleau, M.P. (Trois-Rivières, QC) iii OTHER MEMBERS WHO PARTICIPATED Libby Davies, M.P. (Vancouver East, BC) David Price, M.P. (Compton—Stanstead, QC) Andrew Telegdi, M.P. (Kitchener—Waterloo, ON) Lynne Yelich, M.P. (Blackstrap, SK) CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE Bill Farrell FROM THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Ben Dolin, Analyst, Law and Government Division iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Committee could not have completed its interim report A National Identity Card for Canada without the cooperation and support of numerous people. The Chairman and members of the Committee extend their thanks to all the witnesses who shared with them their insight and their knowledge on this subject. Our task could not be completed without the valuable work of the Research Officer of the Parliamentary Research Branch, Benjamin Dolin who contributed his considerable expertise and writing skills to draft this report. The Committee also wishes to acknowledge the Clerk, Bill Farrell whose efficiency in ensuring that our work was conducted in a productive manner despite short timelines and competing schedules. We are grateful for the assistance and support from Lucie Poulin and Sharron Scullion. The members of the Committee also wish to express their appreciation to the staff of the Committees Directorate, the Translation Bureau of Public Works and Government Services Canada, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the support services of the House of Commons who have provided logistic and administrative support to elaborate this report. Finally, the Chairman wishes to thank the members of the Committee for the hours they dedicated to study this question and to prepare this report. v THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION has the honour to present its SIXTH REPORT (Interim) In accordance with its permanent mandate under Standing Order 108(2), your Committee presents an interim report on A National Identity Card for Canada? vii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 A. The Scope of the Study...................................................................................... 1 B. The Study Process ............................................................................................. 2 PRIOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMITTEE........................................................ 3 OTHER PRIOR CONSIDERATION IN CANADA.......................................................... 4 BIOMETRICS................................................................................................................ 5 WHAT CANADIANS SAY ............................................................................................. 6 A. Polling ................................................................................................................6 B. Committee Hearings........................................................................................... 9 THE UNITED STATES................................................................................................ 15 THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE................................................................................ 16 A. United Kingdom................................................................................................ 17 B. Germany........................................................................................................... 20 C. Poland .............................................................................................................. 20 D. Italy................................................................................................................... 21 E. Greece.............................................................................................................. 23 F. Spain ................................................................................................................ 23 THE COMMITTEE’S ONGOING STUDY.................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 28 APPENDIX A — EKOS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES POLL QUESTIONS .................. 29 APPENDIX B — CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA: RESEARCH ON NATIONAL ID DOCUMENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ............................................. 31 ix APPENDIX C — LIST OF WITNESSES ..................................................................... 47 APPENDIX D — LIST OF BRIEFS ............................................................................. 55 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS................................................................................... 57 x INTRODUCTION In November 2002, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration proposed that Canadians engage in a full and informed discussion about the possibility of creating a national identity card. Minister Coderre further suggested that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration would be an appropriate forum for such a discussion and the Committee agreed to study this important question. At this point, the study is incomplete. The Committee plans to continue its deliberations and to hear further from Canadians as this issue continues to provoke public debate. We have determined that it would be useful to publish our interim findings to help focus this ongoing policy discussion. While there is still no specific identity card proposal to which Canadians can respond, it is hoped that this interim report will better clarify the basic questions that must be answered. A. The Scope of the Study While national security concerns in a post-September 11 environment may be one factor driving this issue, a national identity card could also address other concerns, such as facilitating travel and commerce, and combating identity theft. In an appearance before the Committee on 6 February 2003, the Minister stated: A national ID card is simply a tool that permits the bearer to prove, with a high degree of certainty, that they are who they say they are. The card provides certainty because of the security around its issuance and the technology used in the card. …. While the new focus on a positive proof of identity is partially rooted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, other forces are at play. Identity theft is seen as a serious and growing problem in Canada. …. We must also guard against rushing to judgment. There will certainly be strong opinions on both sides of the debate, and we will need to hear from everyone. What we require is objectivity — an open debate based on fact and reason, not innuendo. The Committee was, in essence, given carte blanche to examine the issue of a national identity card. No formal consultation document has been published and witnesses who appeared before the Committee were asked to comment generally on the issue. 1 B. The Study Process The Committee began by conducting hearings in all the provincial capitals, and Vancouver and Montreal, in February 2003. Other important matters relating to the Committee’s mandate were also discussed in these hearings, such as immigration settlement issues, the Provincial Nominee Program and Bill C-18, the Citizenship of Canada Act, and two reports have already been produced as a result of these consultations.1 While a significant number of witnesses expressed their concerns regarding a national identity card, this issue was not the main focus of the hearings. Although no formal consultation document has been produced by Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to this issue, some guidance had been provided by a short document released by the Committee. The