FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 25, 1997

• 0909

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Members, this morning we have with us Mr. Michael Leir, who is very experienced in matters in the U.S., having served in our U.S. embassy in Washington for some time. He is known to many of us. We also have Marc-Yves Bertin from the department.

Welcome. Thank you both very much.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Of course. You can always ask a question, Mr. Assadourian.

• 0910

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can you explain to us who decided to have this item on the agenda? The second question is why are we discussing immigration when we have an immigration committee?

The Chairman: There are two answers to that. First, this item is on your agenda because our procedures and policy committee decided that it was an important issue, and there was a desire on the part of various members of the committee to discuss very topical, hot subjects. This happens to be one political issue of great importance to many of us at the moment. So it was raised for that reason and we put it on the agenda.

The reason we are discussing it, as opposed to the immigration committee—if they want to discuss it, it's up to them—is the immigration committee looks at issues of immigration into Canada; this is a question of immigration or business travel into the United States of America, of extreme importance to us and to the working of the NAFTA agreement. That's why this committee, it seems to me, is the appropriate committee to consider it rather than the immigration committee.

It has nothing to do with immigration into Canada. This has everything to do with trade with the United States, and that's why we're concerned about it. If this measure goes through the U.S. Congress the way it's presently stated we'll hear from our officials, but as you may know from reading the newspaper, it will monumentally screw up every customs and every immigration point between Vancouver and Halifax, and seriously impact on our trade with the United States, interfering both with goods and people. So that's why we're looking at it, and maybe we can find out whether we can do something about it or not.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: This has to do with the visa requirement of the U.S.?

The Chairman: That's correct, sir.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: All right.

The Chairman: Section 110 of the immigration act of the United States, not our own.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): The wording of section 110 does not appear in the documents we have received, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to see the wording of any provisions we will be discussing.

The Chairman: I will arrange for you to be given a copy, so that you have a chance to read it. We could perhaps circulate a copy of the article.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Any other observations or questions?

The other observation I make is we had hoped to have somebody from the U.S. embassy come, but they refused, so we have two hours set aside for this, but we really don't need to take two hours. If we just hear and have some quick questions, we can be out of here in a hour, which is what I would like to set aside for it. We have a lot to do; we're getting into a very busy session.

Mr. Leir, over to you, sir. Thank you for coming this morning.

Mr. Michael Leir (Director General, U.S. Transboundary Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague and I are pleased to be here today to report on section 110 of the U.S. immigration act. I'll begin by briefly outlining the history and effects of section 110, and I will follow that by what action we here in Canada have taken and the advocacy campaign we have initiated to press for an amendment to the act. Finally, I'll provide the committee with an outline of the issue's current status, and I would look forward to answering any questions the committee might have after my short presentation.

As many of you probably know, the U.S. Congress passed a new legislative package on immigration called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act, signed in September 1997. Section 110 of this act directs the Attorney General of the United States, in practice the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to create a system to document the entry and exit of all aliens by September 30, 1998.

This is not a visa requirement. It is documenting all non-U.S.-citizens who are entering or exiting the country. Thus, when a vehicle arrives at the border, the U.S. immigration officer would have to record the name, address, and citizenship of each person. Further, every person exiting the U.S. would also have to be documented.

If this procedure were implemented, it would cause major congestion at high-volume border crossings between Canada and the United States. As members are well aware, over $1 billion worth of goods and services now move across the Canada-U.S. border each and every day. Canada-U.S. automotive industries alone, which rely on the smooth flow of goods for their just-in-time delivery schedules, represent over $300 million of this daily trade.

The intent of Congress, as we understand it, was to force the administration to monitor the overstay of nationals from countries that benefit from the 1986 U.S. visa waiver program by collecting an individual's personal data at U.S. points of entry and exit.

• 0915

The U.S., however, has a long practice of not requiring the majority of Canadian citizens to fill out formal documentation when entering or exiting the United States. Therefore, Canada was targeted neither by the 1986 program nor its corrective measure in section 110. However, the use of the word “alien” in section 110 of the act captures all non-U.S.-citizens, including Canadians and even U.S. permanent residents.

Ambassador Chrétien raised this issue in a letter to the chairs of both the House and Senate immigration subcommittees in the United States in December 1996. The chairs acknowledged Canada's concern and stated it was not their intention to impose new border crossing requirements on Canadians. However, when this was raised with the INS, they took a strictly legalistic approach and indicated that they could not accept this interpretation without congressional direction. We were assured that an amendment would be brought to the legislation.

Following a period of low-key pressure, Canada launched a more public campaign in July of this year to press for the inclusion of a technical amendment that would restore the status quo ante. To achieve this, we developed a strategy to heighten understanding and elicit support among U.S. elected representatives, particularly from northern border states, and from municipal, state, and federal officials. As well, we sought support from private individuals and industries on both sides of the border whose interests would be adversely affected. This, of course, involved the embassy and our consulates across the United States.

At the same time, the Prime Minister, ministers, and other parliamentarians have raised this issue with their U.S. counterparts, including members of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group at their most recent meeting in Charlottetown in the fall.

Canadian companies, associations, and tourism organizations have worked with their American partners, suppliers, and buyers to raise concerns about the economic consequences of this provision.

As a result of our initiatives, the U.S. administration publicly stated its concern that the implementation of section 110 would be extremely problematic and detrimental to efforts made to simplify cross-border travel. Likewise, officials at all levels of government, and many families and individuals who have relatives and friends on both sides of the border, have gone on record in support of our concerns and position.

This issue has generated extensive editorial comment in more than two dozen papers, journals and, magazines from all regions of the United States, including such diverse publications as The New York Times, the Detroit Free Press, the Seattle Times, and the Miami Herald.

As a result of this pressure, Senator Abraham of Michigan, chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, convened hearings in Washington, D.C., and then field hearings in Detroit. Further, he introduced an amendment that would limit section 110's application to third-country nationals at airports. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Congressman LaFalce of New York.

The effect of both of these bills would be that section 110 would not be applied to U.S. land borders, Canadians entering by any mode of transportation, or U.S. permanent residents, commonly known as green card holders. This proposal has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Gerald Solomon, in conjunction with the chair of the House immigration subcommittee, introduced a parallel amendment to section 110 on November 10, 1997. The Solomon bill, which was passed by the House just before adjournment, would extend the land border implementation deadline to September 1999. It stipulates that section 110 would only be implemented if it did not significantly disrupt trade, tourism, and other legitimate cross-border traffic. The Solomon bill, while passed by the House, was not considered by the Senate before Congress recessed. Therefore, it's not law.

While the Solomon bill is a helpful beginning, we prefer to work with Senator Abraham and Congressman LaFalce in promoting their amendments, which would restore the status quo ante.

The issue and the two different approaches reflected in the bills will be addressed when Congress reconvenes in January 1998. In the meantime, we are continuing to work with Canadian and American stakeholders, individuals, and associations to make progress on this issue. We are confident that a solution can be found, and I would characterize our current situation as a work in progress. We have made significant strides in raising the profile both of this issue in the United States, and of the consequences that would flow from the implementation of an unamended section 110. The generation of widespread support for our position is now being translated into legislative action. We will, however, continue to press at all levels to bring a solution to this problem.

• 0920

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity. I'd be pleased to answer any particular questions that you and the members may have.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Mr. Bertin, do you want to add something, or are you here just as a resource person?

[Translation]

Mr. Marc-Yves Bertin (Immigration and Transportation Offices, United States Transboundary Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): No, thank you. I am just a resource person.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would be looking at the whole issue on two points, when we know that it's mostly a trade issue. Is it a more critical issue than a trade issue? Recently, at the APEC summit, we found that attempts are being made to eliminate the trade barriers, but over here we are creating trade barriers. Do the Americans have any other hidden agenda behind it? Is it an immigration issue or is it a trade issue? From what point of view is this issue being examined?

Mr. Michael Leir: We view it as a trade issue, but also as the movement of people. Not only would it affect individuals going down to the United States to do business, it would also affect any Canadians moving back and forth across the border for legitimate purposes. So we would view it as both a personnel and trade-related issue.

It isn't an immigration issue, as the chairman correctly identified at the opening, because we're not talking about the movement of peoples into the United States for permanent purposes.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal's point was whether or not the Americans have a hidden agenda in the sense that they're trying deliberately to restrict trade from Canada by virtue of this measure. We've often spoken to the congressmen and senators. On the contrary, this is an immigration measure trying to control the entry of illegal aliens into the United States, and we're getting sideswiped by it. It's not a deliberate trade measure on their part. That's my understanding, at least, of any conversations we've had with our U.S. counterparts.

I think you would agree with that based on when we were down there this summer, wouldn't you, Mr. Penson?

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Yes.

Mr. Michael Leir: Indeed, Mr. Chairman. In fact, many of the congressmen and congresswomen were surprised that it would apply to Canada at all. This type of measure—and this is one of the reasons we're so opposed to it—moves in the exact opposite direction of what we are trying to achieve through the implementation of trade facilitation between Canada and the United States. This is a contrary trend.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: But, Mr. Chairman, I found out that there was a flip-flop between Americans and Canadians on this issue. Sometimes the Minister of Revenue intervened and made statements that it won't go ahead. We then heard from two American senators that it is going ahead, and so on. My point is how it will affect NAFTA. Isn't it contravening what NAFTA proposes?

Mr. Michael Leir: It doesn't contravene particular provisions of NAFTA at the moment, although we're looking at that. Our belief is that it would have negative effects on what we're trying to achieve under NAFTA, which is the promotion and expansion of trade and cooperation between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: How would it affect those citizens who are holding both citizenships? Will it be applied to dual citizenship?

Mr. Michael Leir: I think it would depend on which passport they're trying to travel under. Presumably, if they were travelling under their Canadian passports, they would be affected as Canadian citizens. If they had American travel documents and were travelling under those, then presumably they wouldn't be affected. But that certainly is an interesting legal issue, and I'm probably not the expert on that. I think that may be the problem for the INS and the Americans.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: The reason I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that I think the public will find a way out so that they don't waste time on the border. They will try to make their passage across the border easier. People will like to get more dual citizenships, and those people who are doing business between these two nations will like to hold the passport of convenience. Wouldn't they probably be bypassing the whole process actually?

The Chairman: I don't think people will be trying to get dual citizenship too easily, Mr. Grewal.

An hon. member: Are you trying to get an American passport as a convenience?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Come on down to the consulate in Toronto with me and try to get American citizenship after the next election.

• 0925

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Those who are entitled to it, actually. What I mean is that we are encouraging those who have the option or those who are entitled to go ahead.

Anyhow, that's just a comment.

The Chairman: I agree with you. Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): On reading the document you submitted before today's meeting, I asked myself two questions.

Near the bottom of page 1 of the document, we read:

A bill has been introduced in Congress to exempt Canada from section 110 of this law.

When you were explaining the issue earlier, I did not understand whether you were talking about the kind of support there is in Congress for this bill. Is there any chance that it will pass? What is the U.S. position on this bill?

Further on, in the question-and-answer section, you state in your third answer:

Section 110 of the law requires the INS to develop an automated entry and exit control system that will collect a record of departure for every alien departing the United States...

There might be a problem with the phrase "alien departing the United States." Doesn't that provision violate trade provisions in NAFTA?

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: I believe that the document you're talking to is the one that was issued by the embassy, and therefore I'm not an expert to speak to that.

The exact details of that automated entry and exit control system have yet to be worked out. I think that's one of the things the INS is struggling with, that even if this procedure were to go ahead there is recognition that it would demand so many resources and so much paperwork that the system could choke. That's some of what some of the bureaucrats have been concerned about in the system.

To address your first question, we have strong support that's been generated as a result of the activities of many of the border members for our position, and that's been reflected in the draft legislation that has been presented to Congress.

The final outcome, of course, of Senator Abraham's bill we can't predict yet, because it won't be taken up until Congress comes back in the spring.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see what you are saying about potential problems from a bureaucratic standpoint, but the INS will obviously be required to develop an automated entry and exit control system. This could have a direct impact on trade.

Earlier, you said that over a billion dollars' worth of transactions were made over the border each day. Are we somehow infringing NAFTA provisions by establishing an additional protectionist measure?

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: We would have to examine the detail. We're opposed to the whole system in principle, but to take it to your question—would any particular system that was established be contrary to NAFTA?—I think we would examine whatever system is developed. One hasn't even been developed yet. We would expect that it won't reach that stage. We would be checking to see whether it was NAFTA-inconsistent. That would certainly be one of the issues we would look at very closely, if and when such an exit-entry system were developed.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Since two questions about NAFTA have come up, maybe you could remind the members of the committee.... My recollection is that the provision of the immigration chapter in NAFTA is that it takes a systemic practice on the part of one government or another, that an individual interference of going back and forth doesn't constitute a violation of the treaty, but if a system or a series of systems is put in place which.... Is the language “impedes the realization of the treaty”?

• 0930

The members should understand that this would be the position of the Canadian government—that this is in fact going so far as to frustrate the purpose of the treaty, and we would have a claim under article 20 of the NAFTA.

Mr. Michael Leir: That's right, Mr. Chairman, and that's why, in replying to the member, it would depend on what the system looked like. Anything I can envisage sounds to me like one that would create a systemic one, but that of course would depend on what kind of system were developed, and we don't expect to reach that kind of a state.

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

My question was partly answered in your reply to my colleagues from the Reform and Bloc. You mentioned the $1 billion a day we have in trade two ways between the States and Canada, and $300 million of that is through the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact indicates clearly a free flow of goods between the two countries, so would this be a violation of the Auto Pact? It may not be enough to have an Auto Pact? That's my first question.

Mr. Michael Leir: The Auto Pact deals with the movement of goods, so what really gets affected—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Who's moving the goods, though?

Mr. Michael Leir: Oh yes, individuals. That's what would slow down the process. Any procedures introduced by the United States would slow down that process of moving goods by truck or rail or however, and therefore prevent companies from moving the goods back and forth in a speedy and effective manner. While I don't believe the Auto Pact would be affected directly, it does affect the ability of individuals and companies to move their goods back and forth, because of the additional requirement for exit and entry requirements.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: This reminds me of the Cuba issue. Every country in the world was against the Helms-Burton bill. Somehow it's still lingering in the Congress. Can you tell me a little bit about the European Union's position on this issue? Because it affects Europeans too—am I right? If someone is travelling from Germany to the States, they have to check something, no?

Mr. Michael Leir: Yes, but—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What's their reaction to it?

Mr. Michael Leir: I don't think they would be as affected as extensively because they do not have the numbers. We have the most widely crossed border in the world, with over 100 million people moving back and forth. I can't speak for them, but I presume they would have the same kind of concerns about that as we do. In terms of the traffic, the big traffic between our two countries is across the land borders, and the air, which would be the EU-U.S. problem, would not be as extensive.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But legally it affects Europeans too, not only Mexicans and Canadians.

Mr. Michael Leir: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Brison.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): A lot of Canadians are asking the hard question of how this type of legislation could be before Congress for 14 months, starting on August 4, 1995, with Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, with the final passage on October 3, 1996.

You were saying that ambassador Chrétien wrote a letter in September of 1996. This is after it had been before Congress for 13 months. What process do we have to watch this type of legislation or to watch legislation that has significant implications for Canadians during the legislative process in the U.S.? It would really seem as though our ambassador or our foreign service in Washington dropped the ball on this one, if the only intervention was made after it was before Congress for 13 months.

I'm on the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, along with our chairman and Mr. Penson from the Reform Party. Those people at those meetings already are cognizant of the implication of this type of legislation, and are very favourable towards Canada. The difficulty is not with those legislators. The difficulty is with the Pat Buchanan—well, no, Pat Buchanan is not a legislator—with the protectionist movement, with on the one hand Gephardt on the left, or the right-wing legislators who are inspired to a certain extent by Buchanan on the right, Jesse Helms and those types of legislators who sometimes champion this type of bill.

Why would the only intervention from our ambassador take place when the thing is almost through Congress?

• 0935

Mr. Michael Leir: I think nobody thought this issue would apply to Canada. Many of your colleagues.... Whenever we've been talking to people about it, they have indicated that, oh, we didn't believe it would apply to Canada and Canada wasn't being targeted for this. That's one of the reasons we confirmed their position with the chairs. The chairmen of the two subcommittees were the ones responsible for the legislation. They indicated to us that Canada was not the intended target of this legislation.

Mr. Scott Brison: Almost immediately after it passed there was an uproar with legislators from border states. There has been discussion, concern, in Canada. I just find it amazing that this would proceed legislatively with basically one intervention at the ambassadorial level, one which obviously did not have its desired impact.

Secondly, how successful do you think the amendment process will be either with the Solomon bill or with Congressman Lafalce and Senator Abraham? Do you think there will be success in exempting Canadians? I can see that some of the initial champions of section 110 may be concerned about gutting the bill, and they may see what we would see as logistical streamlining as removing what their intentions were, or the effectiveness of the bill. Do you feel these amendments will be successful?

Mr. Michael Leir: Yes, we do. We believe they will be. I think we've made a lot of progress in raising concerns, particularly through the contacts between Canadian businesses, Canadian individuals, Canadian parliamentarians, and their colleagues to alert them to the problem. That has indeed contributed to the fact that the amendments are being championed by Senator Abraham and by congressional members in the House.

Mr. Scott Brison: To what extent will the increasingly isolationist movement in the U.S.—and we've seen the manifestation of the isolationist movement with Clinton's inability to secure fast track negotiating ability—impact on the passage of these amendments?

Mr. Michael Leir: Clearly there will be people in the Congress who will be opposed to these amendments. We're working with allies to overcome that amendment. There's always a segment, as you correctly identified, in the Congress and in the United States that will oppose what we are seeking, but we are confident we should be able to do that.

Mr. Scott Brison: I appreciate your confidence and your expectation that you will succeed where President Clinton has failed, but I have significant concerns. I asked the question of the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Mr. Giffin, in a meeting a few weeks ago, several weeks before fast track. I asked the question, do you feel fast track will be granted? He said yes, we do feel.... I asked the same question of Canada's negotiator on MAI at this committee and during the MAI initial discussions, when Sergio Marchi was here. I asked the same question relative to fast track in the U.S., and they said, don't worry, be happy, it's going to happen. I get very concerned with confidence that the U.S. legislative process will positively reward Canadian optimism and trust in that process.

Mr. Michael Leir: I might make two comments. First, I don't believe this issue is on the same level of controversy as fast track.

The Chairman: I hope not.

Mr. Scott Brison: I hope not as well.

Mr. Michael Leir: Secondly, on fast track, if I may go off the topic for a moment, Mr. Chairman, the administration hasn't given up on fast track. It has indicated to us that it's going to be bringing it back in the spring. So at the moment we look upon this as a temporary setback for the administration.

• 0940

Mr. Scott Brison: Okay. We wish you every success. It's a very important issue for our constituents, and we hope that through the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group we could continue to make representations to our peers in the U.S. to try to reverse or amend this act.

The Chairman: Just following up on that point, Mr. Brison, I was going to again say to Mr. Leir that I hope the department will tell us if they believe there are congressmen we might contact. For example, I intend to write John LaFalce a letter and thank him very much for his helpful intervention in the House. And if there are other congressmen we know who help us cut through the meetings and things that we go to or anything, the department should certainly let us know because we could certainly write them.

I know Mr. Speller has contacts down there. We all have individual contacts. Mr. Assadourian built a lot when he did that twinning thing a couple of years ago. We should be using the contacts that we have in this committee and elsewhere to make sure that we get make contact with those—

Mr. Scott Brison: I have a copy of all legislative actions since the introduction of this bill, including some from our peers on the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group who've spoken to this bill, so we do have a resource we can utilize.

The Chairman: That's helpful. Maybe we should see if we could take some sort of concerted action.

Mr. Michael Leir: We'd certainly like to work with you and will provide whatever support you and your members might like in advancing this cause. I think this is a classic one. There are many interest groups in the United States that share our concern and the process has been to work and alert them to build support for this.

The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Could I make a suggestion?

The Chairman: Yes, by all means.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Maybe we could have Mr. Abraham, a senator from Michigan, come here as a witness to promote this issue. That's my first suggestion. Second, maybe you could have more than one meeting of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group to discuss this subject alone.

The Chairman: The Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group is currently knee-deep in fish as they are trying to do something with our colleagues on the west coast, but I agree that most of the members of that group would be interested. We'll speak to Mr. Comuzzi and Senator Grafstein and see what we can do. That's a good idea. We'll follow that up.

But also your idea was that we should try to ask whether one or two U.S. politicians would like to come here. The embassy refused to come.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, not the ambassador, the senator from Michigan who introduced the bill, Senator Abraham.

The Chairman: If he's willing to come.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Have we had members of foreign parliaments appear?

The Chairman: Quite often, not really as witnesses. We could arrange it as a courtesy visit and have them speak to us. We don't have to do it as a witness type of situation, but we often have delegations from foreign parliaments coming by.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: You have no power to subpoena them?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: No. We did have power over Ms. Clancy, whatever she thought—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: We all loved Ms. Clancy. It was very clear.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Mr. Speller, and then Mr. Turp.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I just have a quick question about the practicality of it. What does this actually mean now? It means that when somebody's going to the border they're going to be stopped and they're going to be asked to show identification, or is it just going to be...? I know they haven't set up the system, but maybe you can tell me what they're thinking. Are they going to stop everybody at the border and ask them where they live and where they come from? Don't they stop people at the border now? When you go there, you go through the border.... I read that. It was not very clear. When you go to the border now, they ask where you are going and where you are coming from. All of that happens now, doesn't it?

A voice: They don't write it down.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'm not sure about that, because here it says there won't be any of that, and in your documentation you won't need any visas if you're Canadian. There essentially won't be any change. I just wonder what the practical change will be.

Mr. Michael Leir: You're right. There are no details yet. The best we can determine is that they'll have to collect that information in some form and what they'll be collecting will be the name, address and citizenship. At the moment when you pull up to the border, they just ask a few basic questions and then they wave you through if they're satisfied. They take people to one side to obtain further information only if they feel there's a problem. It looks to us, though, as if they'll have to develop a system to gather that information.

• 0945

If the Canadians don't fill out the form, the individual taking that information will have to write it down to enter it into a system so they'll know that ABC has entered the United States. They'll also have to do that when they depart, and that includes not just the individual from the car but every member in a car. So whatever the system is, you will multiply the time spent at the border many times.

Mr. Bob Speller: I'm thinking more about the trade side with truckers going through. There's generally only one trucker in the truck. Does he have to stop now?

The Chairman: Behind 500 cars.

Mr. Michael Leir: It'll presumably be the same process for the truckers and they'll all be in a line. You're building an enormous potential block at the border, however the system is operated. They're under a directive at the moment to gather and retain this information so they'll know who has come into the United States and presumably when that person has left the United States. In whatever fashion the system has been developed, it looks like a time-consuming process compared to the situation now.

The Chairman: From the airport point of view it won't make any difference, I presume, because they're collecting all that information at the airport anyway, aren't they?

Mr. Michael Leir: That's correct.

The Chairman: It's the foot and vehicle traffic across the border that's the problem, exclusively.

Mr. Michael Leir: Right, but that's the lion's share. The advantage, of course, is when you're on an aircraft there's time for people to fill out all the forms, provide the information and pass it on when they go through. Even with that system, I think we'd all agree there could be a time delay as well.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I am somewhat curious, Mr. Leir. I have never known, and have always wished to know, under what provision of a Canadian or U.S. treaty or law there could be greater freedom of movement between the two countries, through procedures that do not require people to show a passport or similar document. In most countries, people do have to show a passport.

I would therefore like you to give me a general idea of the rules governing movement and presentation of identity documents at the Canada-United States border. I have never know what these rules were, or known where to find them.

I have four questions, and I would like you to take note of them.

In any U.S. bill, is there a precedent where Canadian citizens are excluded from the category of "aliens", unlike what seems to be happening here? Are there any precedents that could be or have been cited to U.S. authorities in order to justify the application of this exception?

What is the position of the U.S. government on this? Is the government in favour or against the bill in its present form? What is the status of Mr. LaFalce's bill? Is there any chance it will pass, or is it likely to be defeated?

My last question is on NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement has been cited by my colleague, Mr. Sauvageau, and others as well. There is no obvious violation of NAFTA here at all. I have had someone bring the treaty. Can your colleagues cite any specific provisions, or are we just looking at section 2004, on "Nullification and Impairment", which in any case does not seem to apply to the free movement of business people. Does Canada envisage using the dispute settlement procedure—as the United States frequently does—to put pressure on the U.S. to change that attitude and pass the exception you would like to see?

• 0950

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: On your first question, there's an ability, as I understand it, in the U.S. legislation to waive the requirement for visas, and that's what usually happens with most immigration legislation. There's a general rule and then there are exceptions made if particular countries fall under different categories for the level of documentation.

Everybody has to carry some kind of identification and is asked for that identification at a border. That's the situation now. When you're flying by aircraft you write down who you are, and if there is a problem with that you produce your driver's licence or passport to identify who you are. At one stage you can be asked what your identification is, who you are, and where you come from. Then it's based on particular rules and regulations on how each country's nationals are treated in domestic legislation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: What are the requirements for Americans coming into Canada?

Mr. Michael Leir: I'm not an expert on Canadian immigration law, so I can't provide you with that information, but we can certainly get that for you.

The Chairman: It's rather odd, isn't it? It's not really directed at nationality; it's directed more to point of origin. People coming from Canada are treated in a way that people coming by boat from somewhere else, such as Costa Rica, are not treated. That's the way the Americans deal with it.

Theoretically, if one of us were driving a car and had a Hungarian and a Romanian with us they'd ask where we were from. If we all said we were from Toronto, they'd say to go on through. They wouldn't make any great inquiry. If you tried that coming through on a boat or an airplane they'd ask for your passport and say “Oh, you're from Romania, what's this Toronto stuff?” It's almost just a slack procedure rather than a legal one.

Mr. Michael Leir: There's an expectation that everyone would have his or her identification, and they will often ask to see some documentation if there's a group other than a family.

The Chairman: I've never been asked for documentation when driving a car. I'm always asked when travelling by air.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): You look like the type who'd be asked questions. A lot of us are, and very often.

The Chairman: Really?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes.

The Chairman: From Quebec—let's not get into this male-female women's stuff. We had that the other day.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): It's white males.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's not a male-female thing. You look like a Canadian citizen. I have this discussion every time I cross the border. People who look like they're Canadian citizens are rarely asked questions. People who don't quite look like Canadian citizens are often asked questions.

The Chairman: One time I was coming from Mexico into La Jolla and I'd forgotten my passport. When they asked me where I was from I said “La Jolla” and they let me in. If you'd been with me, you would've got through too.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, my husband says the same thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's the concept of "Canadian born and bred".

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's the notion of Canadian identity, Mr. Turp.

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Chairman, I always get asked too. I think it's an age thing, because I think they assume once a person has reached a particular age they're certainly not capable of doing anything bad.

The Chairman: Okay, we're out of control here. But there's no doubt about it, a suit and tie as opposed to blue jeans and a T-shirt help one hell of a lot. This is true of life whether we like it or not.

Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Chairman, I have to leave to go to the airport and I have a two-second question.

The Chairman: You can borrow my birth certificate if you want. There's no picture on it.

Mr. Scott Brison: I think the dates on it might throw them off.

Did you say the letter was written in December 1996?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Scott Brison: That was two months after the final passage.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Scott Brison: I thought you said September and found it amazing it would not have taken place earlier. But it was December 1996, two months after.

Thank you, that's all.

• 0955

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Good luck at the airport. Wear a tie and look upper bourgeois.

A voice: I'm going to Nova Scotia, so it shouldn't be that difficult.

The Chairman: Well, if they're smart, they won't let you in either.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Mr. Leir.

Mr. Michael Leir: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the administration position, they recognize that the imposition of these provisions would create serious problems, and therefore they, I believe, are supportive of changes in the legislation.

On the LaFalce bill, our understanding is that Mr. LaFalce is continuing to pressure his bill, and we will see in the next session whether he wants to proceed that way. There are a number of technical ways they can go. Now that the Solomon bill has passed the House, it has to go over to the Senate for consideration, and Senator Abraham has a couple of options. He can suggest amending the Solomon bill and substitute his own bill, which is Congressman LaFalce's, because it's parallel legislation. He can replace the original bill with his version.

So Senator Abraham and Congressman LaFalce could take a number of different ways to basically bring what Congressman LaFalce wants to achieve into the legislation, and that's what they'll be studying in the weeks ahead, before Congress comes back.

The Chairman: On that narrow point, though, my understanding of interpretation by the U.S. courts is they will look to the will of Congress, and quite often congressmen just stick things into the record, saying their intention in voting for this bill was that it be interpreted in the following way. If 50 or 60 congressmen just stuck into the record that their interpretation of this was it didn't apply to Canadians, wouldn't the U.S. courts then say that's sufficient for them to interpret the will of Congress?

Mr. Michael Leir: That certainly is helpful. One hopes we don't have to get to that stage.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I had a question on the exception. Has there ever existed an exception where “alien” does not comprise a Canadian citizen, in past legislation?

Mr. Michael Leir: I'm not sure what the situation is. Normally they define whatever the situation is and then they say, through regulations, this will apply to this group of citizens or some other group of citizens. I don't know whether in the definition of “alien” they say an alien is A, B, or C, but my colleague may.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc-Yves Bertin: In the Immigration and Naturalization Act, there is an exception for visa control. Canadians are included. However, this does not constitute an exception to the category of "aliens".

So you could say there are two sorts of aliens.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is this the kind of exception we want to have included in the bill?

Mr. Marc-Yves Bertin: This is what was included in the bill, yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But the exception didn't really mean you don't need a visa, or are not required to have a visa. It simply means that the information is processed—or received—differently.

Mr. Marc-Yves Bertin: That's right.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And in NAFTA?

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: Just to complete your previous question, we're not talking about a visa, and that's in my point. We're talking about the gathering of information. That's an important distinction legally, but that doesn't simplify our problem. What it could do is cause congestion at the border; the mere fact that they are gathering the information will complicate the movement of people and goods across the border.

If it is contrary to NAFTA, we would certainly consider seriously whether to go through the dispute settlement system, but that will very much depend on the final outcome of all this. At this stage we are not looking to have to go to NAFTA, because we hope we can resolve it long before. One only goes to dispute settlements once you have a problem. We hope we won't have a problem once the amendments are passed.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Americans don't always wait until there is a problem before triggering the dispute settlement procedure. Don't you want to use the procedure to get this exception?

• 1000

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: You have to go through a process, as you know, in NAFTA, and it has to reach a certain stage before you can do that. I think at this stage we're focusing on eliminating the problem. That's why we're raising it all levels. At this stage we don't think that movement through NAFTA would be appropriate now, but if it becomes necessary, I think we'd look at that seriously.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): First, I have a comment to make. I represent a riding with nine border points, all along the U.S. border from the Richelieu River to Lake Memphrémagog. So you will understand that, in my riding, which is very close to the Vermont border, people on both the Canadian and U.S. sides tend to cross frequently.

About six weeks ago, the U.S. people organized an information session in Franklin, Vermont. They invited Canadians to attend. So I went down to Franklin to see what was going on. They explained that, in co-operation with Canada, they were setting up a video system to reduce personnel at border points. They want to implement a video system that can read a car license plate and look inside the car.

Morses Line, the border point we're talking about, closes between midnight and 8:00 a.m.. To start off, they want to use a video system to provide service between those hours—midnight to 8:00 a.m.. So your car is going to be searched by a video camera. That is going to create a stir in the little town of Franklin, I can tell you. City Hall was packed, and people spent two hours telling the Washington representatives what they thought about it. Washington put those cameras in without asking their permission. They went right over everybody's heads. The municipality was never asked for a permit. The video cameras are in, but I think they will have to haul them back to Washington.

On our side, there is a lot of traffic through those nine border points, because people have many relatives on both sides of the border. They have relatives on the U.S. and Canadian sides, and people visit and drop by one another's houses. So what people want is to communicate as easily as possible.

We are seeing borders being tightened up, and that is worrying. Increasingly, you are being asked for identity papers at the border. Here, controls are increasing, while in Europe we are seeing the opposite: you can cross from one country to another, with just a wave.

As the representative of a riding so close to the border, I find that worrying. Perhaps we should begin with a process to raise awareness among border States on the U.S. side. There is one thing I have understood. I have seen people on the U.S. side of the border telling Washington representatives what they thought, and that counts for a lot. It wasn't Canada talking to Washington: it was Americans, and that counts. I wonder whether we shouldn't begin with some sort of awareness-raising process among U.S. border States.

Secondly, I've found out that several of us have contacts in Washington. Would it not be good to travel together and to do our lobbying and explain how important it is to have as much openness as possible at the border between our two countries?

I find this strange. We are talking about immigration, customs, tourism, but there is no global approach of any kind between our two countries. From time to time, action is taken. And things are done in the same way by us. It is done through amendments to the acts governing immigration or customs, and it is done by different departments. On the other side of the border, the same thing happens. There is no dialogue, or very little. We impose our views on each other, etc.

If we could adopt a more global approach, we could have extraordinary management of the borders and transit between our two countries.

• 1005

How is it that in Europe there is a trend towards liberalizing borders? You can travel from one country to another without going through customs. Why is this disappearing in Europe, whereas here, between Canada and the United States, the borders are tightening up?

The Chairman: It is not up to Mr. Turp to answer that question, because we are dealing with an American policy. It would be better to put this question to your American colleagues. They are having immigration problems. They are not aiming at Canada, but at Mexico.

So, they have a problem. As far as they are concerned, NAFTA was implemented in order to resolve a Mexican immigration problem in the south of the United States. The spirit of NAFTA meant to create conditions of prosperity in Mexico so that people wouldn't come in as large numbers as now. This is their chief concern and, in my opinion, it is reflected everywhere.

They have the same problems that we are having with people who arrive from China, huge boat loads of people, etc. So, they have an immigration problem. This is something that we might study in committee someday. In my opinion, in the 21st century, great migrations will be among the greatest problems. This will not only create problems, but also opportunities, and it will also have an impact on our new society. The main concern right now is whether we have free movement of the population or no free movement of the population.

The Americans we are meeting in our committees are becoming much more conservative on that point. Personally, I share their concern. They are practically becoming hostile to the idea of immigration, to the idea that people could enter their country. But Mr. Leir is not the one who can answer this, because this is more of a political problem dealt with in the magnanimous American tradition. Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Considering these political circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we do something to raise the awareness of the States closest to Canada...

The Chairman: Yes, quite so.

Mr. Denis Paradis: ... where there is a great deal of traffic. Secondly, as a committee, we could consider something to raise the awareness of our American counterparts.

The Chairman: I fully agree with you. We have had the same problem with acid rain. They were completely oblivious to our protests. It was only when the people in New England, in Vermont, etc. decided to put pressure on their own senators and representatives that a solution to the problem was found. It is not our voice, but the voice of the American electorate that counts, and this has always been the case. It is probably the same thing on our side.

[English]

Do you want to add something there, Mr. Leir? Sorry to go down your road.

Mr. Michael Leir: I would only say, Mr. Chairman, that we entirely agree with the discussion you have just had, that we recognize that the most important people to influence and to activate are indeed the American voters whose interests are going to be affected by this.

That is why you've seen the building of support for our position in the United States, but particularly along the border by senators and congressional members who represent border states, because this provision does not affect only Canadians, which of course they're concerned about, because any restrictions on Canadians coming south affects business, tourism and all those issues and also family, as you correctly identify, but it also will affect the ability of Americans to go back and forth across the border, and that is equally painful and very directly conveyed to members.

So as we've been building our strategy to build support we have been in touch with mayors along the border, the newspapers and the others, tourism associations, trucking associations, the whole range of different associations and partnerships and groups that do business or have personal contacts or otherwise with Canadians, because as I think all the members have indicated, it is the Americans who are affected who will be listened to most closely in the United States.

The Chairman: Ms. Folco, you're anxious to go, I believe. Then we'll come back to....

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My question concerns something that you have just mentioned, namely the relation between Mexico and the United States.

• 1010

If I understand well, and I think that this is not guess work on my part, the bill was not tabled because of Canada, but rather because of the massive immigration coming from Mexico, from the south.

If we did succeed in having an exception passed for Canada, how would Mexico react? How far would Mexico go in reacting to an exemption for Canada? How much pressure would Mexico apply to be exempted also? That is the danger we can expect. Either the Act will no longer have any teeth or there would no longer be any exemptions at all.

Have you thought about this, and, if so, have you made any progress?

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: I think your analysis is correct. Indeed, we were sideswiped in legislation that was aimed at other problems.

What we are seeking is the status quo ante that the situations on the northern border and on the southern border have always been different. There are different requirements on coming into the United States from Mexico from those on coming into the United States from Canada, and what we are seeking is to go back to that same status. One would hope that's what we can achieve.

The reaction by some of the southern border members presumably will depend on where they come from. While there are concerns about immigration, there has also been incredible growth in trade and the movement of goods and people across the border. So many of those southern members are conflicted, if I may use that term, in the sense that they have competing pressures. There are concerns about rising illegal immigration along the southern border, but also they are seeing the benefits that arise from the NAFTA agreement in terms of movement of goods across the border. Many of them will have to make up in their own minds as to which is the route to go.

Our position is that in trying to meet what they perceive to be illegal immigration problems in the United States, they have targeted the legal movement of goods and people across the border. That's clearly not the way we feel they should go.

If there are problems dealing with illegal immigration, that should be obviously within their prerogative to respond to. We would suggest that this solution is not the right solution, because what you're doing is affecting all the legal movement of goods and persons across the border. Basically, it's the wrong answer to a particular problem.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Allow me a second question which is not connected to the first one. It will be quick.

Bearing in mind what you have just told us about the discussions you have had with different groups which will be affected by this bill, such as truckers, etc., I wonder if this committee should not send out a letter to all Canadian MPs whose ridings share a border with the United States, from New Brunswick all the way to British Columbia, asking them to get in touch with their counterparts, the American representatives and senators, so as to form a common front. In this way, pressure would not only come from our side but also from the Americans.

The Chairman: I will ask the clerk to identify our counterparts at the border. We'll send them a letter to raise their awareness of this topic.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I think that it should come from our side first, I mean to say from this committee, but also from all the MPs whose ridings are along the border.

The Chairman: Agreed. Thank you, Ms. Folco.

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I find this suggestion very interesting. I think that we should consider this way of doing things. Like Mr. Paradis, I have several border crossing points in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, and no doubt there are representatives and senators with the same concerns that we have.

I found Mr. Paradis' earlier comment interesting, because presently we're in a rather paradoxical situation regarding the relations between Canada, Quebec and the United States. The situation is not the same as in Europe, where there is economic union and free movement of goods, of people, of capital and of services.

• 1015

With free trade, our situation is somewhere in the middle. Free trade implies free movement of goods and services, but also to some extent of people.

Obviously, the United States are caught in the dilemma of having to satisfy Canada for historical reasons and of having to hold back the Mexicans, and all have signed the same Free Trade Agreement. This problem will persist for the Americans and will be constantly subject to pressure from American parliamentarians, who will be wanting to establish uniform regulations and who will be able to justify uniform regulations, because they are participating in a free exchange agreement involving three parties, one which will eventually involve four parties when Chile comes in.

In my opinion, I think it would be interesting, as Mr. Paradis suggests, that our committee which, I believe, will eventually be called to Washington in another context, perhaps in the context of a study of the nuclear arms issue, take advantage of this trip to raise the question of this border problem with the United States.

What I would like to find out from Mr. Leir, is at what time we should make representations as a committee, as MPs, so that his representations might have some useful impact.

[English]

Mr. Michael Leir: I assume that the best time to do it is when they're in session, and that means that people are in Washington, because they've now adjourned for the next two and a half months, until the end of January. Our assumptions would be that the legislation will be taken up again early in the next year. So what I would suggest—and that's just being hypothetical—would be sometime between the reconvening of the Congress in the early new year and before the legislation itself is taken up.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The end of January?

Mr. Michael Leir: Perhaps. It's hard to tell, because the precise dates for the reconvening haven't been decided yet.

We'd also have to get a clear indication of when the next steps in the process will proceed, but probably it will not be before Christmas. That's certainly the case.

In terms of being effective, I think you want to have your opposite numbers in Washington, but they won't be back until Congress reconvenes in January 1998.

The Chairman: Perhaps you could get back to us anyway and let us know specifically if there's a suggestion.

Mr. Michael Leir: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Augustine. Sorry, I had your name on the list.

Ms. Jean Augustine: My question was answered.

The Chairman: Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: It just seems to me that if we had the kind of problem in Canada that they have in the United States, we'd be looking for some ways of screening as well. So we have to be a little bit sympathetic.

We're also caught up in the age-old conundrum that when the United States pass legislation they often are thinking along the lines that it's intended not for Canadians but, rather, for foreign countries. That's sort of the mentality down there. That's the close relationship we have, and in many ways that's an advantage to us, but in this case we happened to get sideswiped by it.

I think that we can work through our parliamentary association, as we did this year in September, to advance the idea that we need an exemption here.

I want to get into another area. I know that it's not on the topic item this morning, but it was identified.

Mr. Leir, what I'm curious about is the President's inability right now to get fast-track authority. You've said it's probably going to be coming back sometime in the new year, but considering that the President's having difficulty with his own party members, especially in getting the House of Representatives members onside, what will the trade-offs have to be for the President to get fast-track authority? What do you see as the deal-making that's going on down there in order to get it?

• 1020

Mr. Michael Leir: It's a little early to predict, because the administration now is going through a full review of basically what went wrong and what they have to do now to improve the chances of getting it through the next time. A very broad discussion is going on within the administration on whether they go for a narrower bill, a specific bill, when they should bring it forward, who they should be approaching. They have had a bit of a challenge, in that if they move more towards the President's party in order to bring along more Democrats they risk losing some of the Republican votes they've got. It's becoming a real challenge for them to identify how they build the coalition that would carry a bill through.

So on the exact arrangements that would have to be entered into in order to succeed I feel it would be premature to speculate at this time. It's the normal ongoing process. As we did in the first round in the development of this bill, which ultimately was not offered for passage in the House, we keep a very close eye on it to make sure any of the side deals that might be arranged do not affect important Canadian interests, and we'll be continuing to do that.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But Mr. Leir, isn't it true that the difficulty has been labour standards and environmental side packs, if you like, to coming legislation, particularly on expanding NAFTA; that many of the Democrats want to include those kinds of arrangements? Do you see these as sticking points?

Mr. Michael Leir: I believe that still is a fundamental issue, because some of the Democrats say they want a much greater focus on those issues, and many of the Republicans are saying no. That's the challenge: that if the administration moves toward those types of issues they will lose some of the Republican support they already have. That's why there has been some discussion that they may have to change the breadth of the bill and make it slightly different. Others are suggesting no, it's just a question of getting out and explaining the benefits of fast track to the U.S., and if they do that more intensively between now and when they bring the bill back, say when Congress reconvenes, this would be enough to carry it off the top.

Those discussions are going on right now. As I said, there's a tension between trying to increase support amongst Democrats and not risking losing the Republican votes you already have.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Have you any sense that there may be other deal-making not related to the basic core issues, such as labour standards; they may be able to make individual deals with Democratic House of Representatives members in order to get them onside? A fairly substantial number voted against fast track, I guess.

Mr. Michael Leir: Yes, they did. Some other commentators have suggested that issues unrelated to fast track caused its demise; that in the rush to try to complete congressional business before the adjournment it got tangled up in the family planning provisions. In other words, issues completely unrelated to fast track itself also contributed to it. So some of the kinds of deals you refer to are completely unrelated to fast track and its provisions but also deal with the type of horse-trading that goes on in moving major pieces of legislation through. Presumably when the situation will have changed come the new year they will have to make an assessment of what they need to do.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I guess I'm asking you for your assessment. Have you any idea how many are involved in that type of deal-making as opposed to those who believe they have to have this labour side?

Mr. Michael Leir: I don't know specific numbers, no, because each member makes his or her own assessment as to whether they wish to support the bill on its merits or because of other problems they choose not to support that bill.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Ask the Prime Minister of Canada. He sometimes makes comments on those kinds of deals.

The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I'll ask the witness something just to get the record straight. There was reference to the role of the Canadian embassy in Washington, the ambassador, and the absence of public comment. You've been in the embassy. There is, I gather, a continuing communication between the embassy and the American government and congressmen, so the absence of public comment wouldn't necessarily indicate an absence of that continuing communication. Correct? Perhaps the inverse.

• 1025

Mr. Michael Leir: There is constant monitoring of what goes on on the Hill and in the administration at all levels. We respond at whatever level is required. So you are absolutely right that there is constant comment back and forth, of tracking of particular provisions, talking to members in the Congress and in the administration on all those types of issues, yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: So the absence of public comment might in fact indicate that matters are proceeding rather well.

Also, is it your judgment that there is a widespread variation in application of the same U.S. regulations to different frontiers and different countries as perhaps is also the case of Canada? Would that be a correct statement?

Mr. Michael Leir: I think on the entry of foreigners into countries they have different requirements. Some countries require visas, other countries don't need to have visas but you have to carry appropriate documentation, and these are the normal processes that are followed, yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Can we say, going beyond the difference in the formal rules, that there is a wide administrative discretion invested in immigration offices in the United States according to your observation of the practice?

Mr. Michael Leir: I don't think there's wide variation in the application. Speaking only from my own personal experiences, they make decisions to ask an individual Canadian for documentation if they feel there is a need.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Would you expect that a Canadian entering the United States from Cuba, presumably via Mexico City, might face a different approach from a Canadian entering from Vancouver or from Ottawa?

Mr. Michael Leir: I presume so, yes.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: And you'd have no reason to believe that whatever happens in terms of request for formal exemption or legalized exemption that such administrative discretion wouldn't continue to exist and may be applied beneficially in relation to Canadians?

Mr. Michael Leir: If section 110 were not amended?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Taking the apocalyptic view that we didn't succeed in securing an amendment.

Mr. Michael Leir: It would depend on what type of system they put into place, because we have not seen the details of that system yet. I'm really not in a position to comment one way or the other. We can only take what the legislation says, and it mandates the collection of information on all aliens entering and leaving the United States, so at this stage that's the reason we're concerned to get it right.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It was said facetiously by one of our members here that the differentiation was applied in terms of ethnicity, perhaps language and perhaps evident social status. Isn't a discretion of this sort inherent in the application of regulations in this area?

Mr. Michael Leir: If they're mandated to collect the information I think they have to collect the information. As I say, we only have the bare bones legislation, so at this time we don't really know. I don't know what kind of administrative flexibility might emerge, but we feel that this is something we'd rather not have to consider. The situation now is to fix it.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Obviously we go the direct way, but to your knowledge has any study been made, either in Canada or the United States, of patterns of empirical practice in these sorts of regulations in immigration?

Mr. Michael Leir: There may be somewhere, but I'm personally not aware of it, no.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you very much then.

The Chairman: We're all going to have to face Mr. Paradis' inspection machine, it sounds like. Yes, we'll be seized by a machine that goes around shaking us as we go across the border.

Thank you very much for coming, Mr. Leir. We appreciate your taking the time; it's helpful. Certainly you know that the members of the committee are interested in this. If there is any way in which individually we can help the department with political contacts or otherwise, we'd be more than happy to work on it with you. We appreciate the interest of the department.

• 1030

Members, we're adjourned until 9 a.m. Thursday, when the minister will be coming to talk about program review. We won't talk about the estimates for reasons that were discussed at length in the House yesterday, so we won't raise that again before the committee.

I would also like to remind you that the members of the procedure committee had wanted to call our newly appointed ambassador to Mexico before the committee as an order in council appointment. We have now received the official notice of his appointment, so the clerk will be arranging that Mr. Gooch will appear before the committee, obviously at his convenience. This isn't some sort of a partisan issue or anything else. It's an opportunity for the committee to hear from the newly appointed ambassador on how he sees his post shaping up, given the events surrounding the previous ambassador's departure.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Leir.

We're adjourned until nine o'clock on Thursday morning.