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]

Thursday, May 6, 1999

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Members, I would like to start the meeting.

I'd like to thank very much the officials for coming this morning to brief us on the pre-clearance bill. You'll recall this bill has already gone to the Senate. It's a Senate bill. It was subject to quite lengthy hearings in the Senate, and several modifications were brought forward as the result of observations made by the Canadian Bar Association concerning charter and other concerns about the operation of American authorities on Canadian soil.

We've asked the officials to come this morning. I take it next week we will have a short briefing from some travel people and somebody from the Canadian Bar Association. At the same time, if the members are willing, I'd like to get through the clause-by-clause consideration, because we have a great deal of work to do before June. I think as long as we're satisfied the bill's in good order and has received all amendments necessary already in the Senate.... We can have a look at it, but we want to be satisfied of that.

We have with us five officials from the department. Mr. Preston, I suppose you'll be leading off, will you, sir? What have you thought, you're going to set out the parameters of the bill? I kind of hoped maybe we could be finished in an hour, about 10.15. We've got to try to discuss our other WTO business.

Mr. David Preston (Chief Negotiator and Director, U.S. Transboundary Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): We're at your pleasure.

It might be helpful just to make a couple of opening remarks about the nature of the bill. I'm sure some of you have heard this before in speeches given on the pre-clearance bill. It's essentially designed to provide a statutory basis for the operations at the pre-clearance sites in Canada, and to provide in effect the basis over the longer term for applying this sort of model in other situations along the land and by rail, marine, and other modes of transportation.

Pre-clearance, which as you know is the facility to be cleared by U.S. customs and immigration officers before departure for the United States, has been in effect since the 1950s, and was put into an agreement with the U.S. in 1974. In 1995 we had the open skies agreement, and that's led to a tremendous increase in air traffic. Air traffic is up by 39%, and the number of non-stop air destinations to the U.S. has increased to 60. It's very important that we ensure that the pre-clearance operation operates smoothly.

• 0915

[Translation]

Preclearance is the processing by U.S. federal inspection agencies of travellers and goods in Canada that are seeking entry to the US. The 1974 Air Transport Preclearance Agreement between Canada and the U.S. formalized the operations of U.S. preclearance services at Canadian airports.

[English]

The Preclearance Act has been introduced in response to three developments since the signing of the agreement. One was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and part of the intent of this bill is to clarify and to certify that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in a pre-clearance context. I mentioned a moment ago the rapid increase in traffic in people and goods. And thirdly, because of this large increase in traffic we need to be thinking of different ways of processing passengers.

The bill represents some two years of negotiations with the U.S. The trick here was to marry the two regimes, their legal system and ours. The outcome of this was that what we've created is a regime in which the Americans may administer their customs and immigration, plant and health acts related to the passage of people and goods to the United States within the context of Canadian law and under Canadian law.

The bill provides, among other things, that the agreement is reciprocal, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all Canadian laws will apply in the pre-clearance area, that all criminal laws will be dealt with by Canadians. There will be no enforcement of U.S. criminal law. So this is where we essentially drew the line in terms of what sorts of laws might be applied. As I say, it's just the customs and immigration.

In the case of a conflict, Canadian law overrides U.S. law. Strip searches will be done only by Canadians. Canadian police officers will be available at the pre-clearance area, and this is both a symbol of Canadian presence and an opportunity for the police to enforce Canadian law when that becomes necessary.

U.S. pre-clearance officers will not have immunity from criminal prosecution in the event that there's a criminal offence, and the U.S. government will be liable for civil actions, personal losses, or property damage claims lodged against U.S. officers.

Travellers under this regime would have full rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The U.S., and this is very important, has agreed with the application of the charter to U.S. pre-clearance activities and they've also agreed that this regime will be entirely reciprocal.

The act would grant a pre-clearance officer the authority to make a determination as to whether travellers and goods are allowed to enter into the U.S. Only the provisions of those laws, as I say, that are directly related to the admission will be administered.

The bill ensures the traveller can refuse to answer a question and can leave the pre-clearance area unless an offence is suspected. This was an issue of some discussion in the other place. Near-suspicion in itself is not sufficient grounds to conduct a search, and this arose from the suggestion that perhaps because somebody was shifting their eyeballs this could lead to the possibility of their being detained. The pre-clearance officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect.

The travellers will be put on notice through signage and through brochures that they have both rights—and those are the charter rights, including other things, the right for legal counsel in the event that they are detained, searched or further action taken—and of course they also have obligations in seeking entry into the United States, and critical in that regard is the obligation for them to answer questions truthfully.

In terms of answering questions there is no obligation on them to answer questions. The consequence, of course, is they may not be permitted into the United States, but that mere refusal to answer that question is not in itself a grounds for the pre-clearance officer to act.

• 0920

The bill requires that airlines provide limited personal information about passengers from third countries passing through Canada if those passengers are using in-transit facilities. One of the benefits of this operation will be that it will allow us to introduce what's called in-transit pre-clearance. We've had a pilot project in Vancouver for almost two years now, which has been a roaring success, I might say. It's allowed us to test a system, which will be modified slightly of course if this act comes into place and the U.S. pre-clearance officers are given authorities. The intention here is that the passengers arriving from overseas would no longer have to go through both Canada and U.S. customs in Canadian airports. In other words, they could proceed directly to U.S. airports, and the pre-clearance officers of course would have the appropriate authorities we've been talking about and describing in terms of this act.

The advantage of this is that it puts Canadian airports on a level playing field, so that anybody arriving in North America and destined for the United States, whether they arrive in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver or any other major Canadian airport, will have just one customs and immigration clearance before they arrive at an onward point in the United States.

This in-transit information, this limited personal information, will be provided to the American customs and immigration service, and it's used to detect obvious patters of odd behaviour en route to the U.S. and indeed to Canada. This arrangement, as I say, would be reciprocal, and if we wanted to take advantage of the same provision there is currently no such provision.

All aspects of the pre-clearance regime will be fully reciprocal, as I mentioned a moment ago. We're not proposing to proceed with enactment of the legislation until the amendment to the 1974 agreement has been signed between the U.S. and Canada, which guarantees that reciprocity. We are at the present time beginning negotiations with the Americans. Effectively it gives formal status to what's in the legislation that we had before.

The amendments that were passed in the other House addressed concerns in two respects. One was with respect to the false declaration and the introduction of a review process that ensures that a traveller is knowingly making a false declaration. The concern of the Canadian Bar Association was that the person could, not through commission but through omission, make a false declaration and therefore he could be subject to further action by the U.S. pre-clearance officer. The introduction of the word “knowingly” is helpful to the purpose and that was introduced.

The second major thing.... There are a number of other amendments, three in total, but the fourth provides for a review period within five years of the legislation coming into force. That I believe responded to the concerns that members of the other place had about the need for some process of review looking back to see how the operations in pre-clearance were being performed.

The fundamental principle of the bill is to ensure the integrity of the border. The sorts of provisions in here are consistent with the Canadian Customs Act, they're consistent with the way the U.S. does business in the United States, with one major exception, and that is that what we're offering the U.S. is a certain set of authorities. We're not offering them all authorities. As you will have noted, the capacity to strip-search is not being given to U.S. officers, the capacity to detain is not being offered to them, the enforcement of criminal law is not being provided to them. These are things they could do on their own soil.

The arrangement here is that the U.S. conducts a certain set of activities and Canada conducts others that are central to our own interests. That was the basic premise on which we put together what I described earlier as the marriage of two sets of laws. However, the total effect is to ensure that Canadian airports do not become channels for illegal activity, because if that total package were less than is offered either for Canadians coming into the country or for entry to the United States, then clearly people would use Canadian airports as routes for illegal activity.

• 0925

There are two other benefits I might mention. One is that the bill provides the way for in-transit pre-clearance, as I mentioned. We have now reached an agreement that a schedule that was determined largely by the airports' readiness to get into this, or in part by the airports' readiness and in part of course by the U.S. capacity to expand such a program across the country.... But importantly, some of the smaller airports like Winnipeg are not ready to move in the immediate, so it provides that Vancouver would be extended, as I mentioned, as a pilot project. Toronto and Montreal would come into effect after passage of the legislation, and Calgary, Ottawa, and Winnipeg thereafter. They're now talking about to 2001, and in the case of latter two beyond. So this is of benefit to Canadian airports. It allows people to make quicker transition through Canadian airports into the U.S. market.

The second benefit I mentioned, and this will be the subject of future negotiations.... There's no predetermined outcome on this, but the idea would be if we can do this, establish these pre-clearance arrangements in airports, we will then be able to look at doing it on land. There are a number of circumstances on the land where it would be more convenient for Canada and for the United States to locate border posts on the other side of the border. The idea would be that we would give them powers, as set out in this bill, to conduct their activities.

So for example you could at the Peace Bridge, which has been the subject of some discussion, and locate the pre-clearance area on the Canadian side, because on the U.S. side there's not enough space for their existing one to handle the enormous increase in truck traffic across the Peace Bridge. So that of course will be the subject of a separate negotiation. The circumstances are somewhat different, but this provides us a model against which we can work.

We decided in the first instance that it was much simpler to go just for air, because that was where the major demand was, and then look to applying this to a model in which you're dealing more with cargo, with commercial traffic, than passengers, because this is aimed principally at passengers.

So that, in the round, is the rationale for why this bill was introduced. It clarifies the activities of U.S. pre-clearance officers on Canadian soil. This has not been done through legislation. In the past it wasn't done that way; it was done primarily through a bilateral agreement, this 1974 agreement. In light of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it was felt appropriate to specify exactly what the responsibilities of the U.S. pre-clearance officers are, and what the responsibilities of Canada would be. It provides clarity to that.

The individual new item that is introduced in here is the notion of a false declaration. A false declaration is consistent with Canadian customs practice. It means that if you knowingly make a false declaration to an officer, that officer can conduct further questioning, potentially detaining you and searching you. So this provides the trigger. It's essential to have this provision in order to allow pre-clearance officers to conduct their business. And as I say, it's consistent with the way Canada Customs does its business.

This is modelled on a French-Swiss arrangement. It's a “made in Canada” model. It's something we've negotiated with the United States. The United States has agreed it would be reciprocal, and they passed legislation. If there are questions about the status of that legislation, we can get it for you. They've all but completed reciprocal legislation. The single thing that needs to be done is that the U.S. Customs Service has to deal with reciprocity on immunities. But in terms of the powers, the U.S. customs and immigration law provides that they will provide reciprocity in the measure that we provide the power.

So what would happen would be you'd have an exactly opposite regime in the United States if this bill is passed and we sign a pre-clearance agreement with the U.S.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Preston.

Was anybody else going to add anything, or shall we just go straight to questions?

Okay, to questions. Mr. Turp and then Mr. Blaikie.

• 0930

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Thank you for your presentation. I have learned about the bill.

There is one thing that surprises me. You talk about an agreement to come, about a new agreement that would complete that of 1974. This bill appears to be a bill that enforces both agreements, but one of them has not yet been signed. I would like you to explain why our Parliament is being called upon to pass enabling legislation for an agreement that has not yet been finalized. How can we ensure that the bill will fit the new agreement? That is my first question.

Mr. David Preston: It is simple. We have reached agreements with the Americans on every aspect of this bill. The only thing left to do is simply to include them all in a comprehensive document. There are several parts to this agreement with the United States. The only thing left to be done is to put them all together in one and the same document. We have had an exchange of correspondence with the Americans on each and every element of the bill.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I want to be sure I understand. There has been an exchange of correspondence between Canada and the United States.

Mr. David Preston: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And do these letters complete the 1974 agreement?

Mr. David Preston: No, they complete this year's agreement.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Which agreement of this year?

Mr. David Preston: We haven't yet finalized this agreement, but we have been negotiating with the United States for the past two years.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Fine.

Mr. David Preston: At the end of this process, we exchanged letters of agreement and we now wish to conclude a formal agreement.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Should we not have these letters of agreement in front of us to see if the bill is in accordance with them before the treaty is concluded? You are asking Parliament to pass legislation the purpose of which is clearly to bring into force international accords, and we haven't even seen these letters of agreement. Madame Caron, you could perhaps fill me in.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron (Legal Counsel, Criminal Law, Privileges and Immunities Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Yes, I can answer your question. You must take into account section 40 of the bill that states:

40. This Act or any of its provisions comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

This clause has been drafted in this way to allow us to sign and conclude the agreement with the Americans before the bill becomes law. Therefore, the coming into force of the act will follow that of the agreement.

Secondly, as Mr. Preston stated, we have exchanged letters with the Americans. In other words, these are not formal accords; this is simply an expression of the wills of both parties. The Americans know full well that the act that Parliament will adopt will be what they get. In other words, even if there are letters exchanged with the Americans that go further than what Parliament decides, Parliament is sovereign, and the agreement or the stated intentions will have to modified accordingly.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But the sovereign Parliament which we are doesn't have the letters of agreement.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: No.

• 0935

Mr. Daniel Turp: I find that a little odd. In the preamble, reference is made to the 1974 agreement which, in many respects, is the agreement upon which are based the legislative provisions for facilitating preclearance, but since there are now other agreements that appear to be important and that we seem to wish to want to put in place, Parliament must be aware of them.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes, but these agreements aren't really agreements. I would like this to be very clear: there is at the present time only one agreement in existence, and it is that of 1974. The subsequent provisions, that were the subject of an exchange of correspondence with the Americans, are not formal agreements; these are simply the expression of wishes that were dealt with in an exchange of letters with them, so as to establish a basis upon which a bill could be drafted.

As you have seen, the concepts contained in the bill are extremely important. In this bill, we grant the Americans powers that normally belong to Canadian agents. Given this new element, we didn't want to conclude with the Americans an agreement that would have forced the government to grant these powers to the U.S. We wanted to reach an agreement with them such that the most important aspects would be covered, leaving to Parliament, which is sovereign, the possibility to decide to what extent these powers would be granted or not.

I believe you are aware that these are minimal powers. There are no extraordinary powers here. We wanted to ensure that in the case of a problem, it would be Parliament that would decide, in the end, which system would be put in place in our airports.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You say that Parliament will decide in accordance with the content of the bill...

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: ...that depends upon the content of letters of agreement between Canada and the United States and which we don't know the content of. I find this rather unusual.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Absolutely.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Usually, we conclude agreements and then we ask Parliament to give force to these agreements through legislation.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Here, we have an oral agreement and an act and following on the heels of the act, there will be an agreement the content of which we are aware of because it is set out in the letters of agreement. Is that not the situation?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Not exactly. It is true that it is unusual for us to pass enabling legislation relating to an agreement that hasn't yet been concluded. Generally speaking, it is, you are perfectly correct, the reverse that happens. However, given the specifics of this bill and of the agreement that will be signed with the Americans, we wanted the bill to be passed first, and an accord to be negotiated afterwards or in parallel , this accord having been already broadly set out in an informal agreement with the Americans.

In the end, this gives greater flexibility to Parliament. If we had come with a formal agreement already signed and had asked Parliament to pass enabling legislation, that would have been somewhat constraining for Parliament. If Parliament had decided not to accept certain clauses of the agreement, then we would have had to go back to the Americans and renegotiate something. In the present context, by doing both things in parallel, we can be certain that the agreement will reflect exactly what is in the bill.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The only thing that you are not doing in parallel is giving us copies of the letters of agreement. I would very much like to have a copy of them.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: That is not a problem whatsoever.

Mr. David Preston: There is no problem. This is exactly what we have here. It is very important that it be stated that the Americans said this: We have laws that allow for reciprocity; it is up to you to determine what you want.

• 0940

It is in this context that we negotiated what we wanted with the Americans and that we are now seeking Parliament's approval of the process. If this doesn't work out, we will have to go back to the Americans, but they have told us that they will grant us what we want. This is in the context of their reciprocity legislation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I have two small questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I would like to make a clarification. There are two questions here. The first is a question of form and the other is a question of content.

As to the question of form, we don't have the letters. You stated that you would provide them to us and that we would have the opportunity to examine them before doing our clause by clause study of the bill next week.

Secondly, there is somewhat of a movable feast here. There have been between the Americans and ourselves negotiations in which the Americans have said: we would like to have full authority in Canada to do such and such, but it is up to Canada's Parliament to determine what the limits of the authority of our people in Canada will be; therefore, in the end, whatever the governments will have decided between themselves, we will be satisfied with the powers the Canadian Parliament grants us. It will therefore be up to us to define these powers. If the powers defined by the bill and accepted by Parliament are more restrictive than the powers sought by the Americans in these letters, they will nevertheless accept them. They have already done so. They are prepared to accept lesser powers than those set out in the letters. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. David Preston: I could read the U.S. immigration policy on reciprocity. Would that help?

After consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General may authorize officers of a foreign country to be stationed at preclearance facilities in the United States for the purpose of ensuring that persons travelling from or through the United States to that foreign country comply with that country's immigration and related laws. These officers may exercise such authority and perform such duties as United States immigration officers are authorized to exercise and perform in that foreign country under reciprocal agreement...

It makes clear that at the end of the day they will be able to reciprocate what we're doing, and they're essentially looking to what model Parliament should decide on.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You had two other questions.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That always makes me smile a little, because it is the government that is initiating the bill even though it is a Senate bill. It is still the government that is deciding what Parliament must pass or not. This is why I want to see these letters of agreement. I consider it important to see them.

Mr. David Preston: Yes, that is not a problem.

Mr. Daniel Turp: My question relates to the fourth whereas of the preamble, that states:

and whereas the administration of any provision of American law in Canada [...]

The term used in the French text, "éléments", is a poor choice in my view. It would have been preferable to use the word "dispositions", that is a better translation of "provision".

[...] is subject to Canadian law, including [...]

And there you list three laws pertaining to rights and freedoms. In your view are there other laws that might be targeted here in this list, that isn't restrictive given the use of the word "including"? Are there any others?

My second question ties in slightly with the previous one. Clause 4 deals with the purpose of the act. I find it rather restrictive to say "subject to Canadian constitutional safeguards", because in the fourth whereas of the preamble, the guarantees that are invoked vis-à-vis American legislation aren't solely constitutional, because the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act are not constitutional acts. The use of the terms "constitutional safeguards" in clause 4 limits to some extent the purpose or the stated purpose of the fourth whereas. That is my first question.

Ms. Caron could perhaps answer my second question, dealing with immunity. I would like to know the exact purpose of subsection 36(1), where reference is made to the State Immunity Act. Is it really necessary to include this provision in the bill? Given that it is inferred that the State Immunity Act will not necessarily apply, why is it mentioned in this clause of the bill?

• 0945

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: To answer your first question, in the fourth paragraph of the preamble, the word "including" appears there because in the preclearance regimen, American laws will not be supreme. There will be strict enforcement of all Canadian laws. That is stated a little further on.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, I saw that.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Therefore, if for one reason or another there were a conflict between rights within the zone, for reasons that are difficult to imagine, it is Canadian law that would take precedence. In the preamble, there is simply a reminder, namely that this is taking place on Canadian soil and that Canadian law applies to the fullest, and even to American laws that are enforced. Only the civil and administrative aspects of American law apply and can be enforced by American agents; anything beyond those aspects will be covered by Canadian law. If there were a conflict between rights, an example of which I would have difficulty giving you this morning, it would be Canadian law that would take precedence.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Therefore, this is not a comprehensive list.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: It is not comprehensive.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Reference is made of all of the other federal acts.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Precisely, and this is why the text says “including”. Canadian law applies.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Why did you want to emphasize rights and freedoms?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: For several reasons. The first one is that we are granting the Americans the right to use rather extraordinary powers, powers that are normally given to peace officers or other such officers under the Criminal Code, and I'm thinking here of the power to search, the power to seize, etc. These are normally State duties that are exercised over a given territory by the government authorities in place. Since we are giving them these extraordinary powers, we wanted to ensure that these powers would be exercised in accordance with established standards in Canada.

We are thinking here of a decision of the Supreme Court setting out the parameters inside which the exercise of these powers should be resorted to. The decision is that reached in R. v. Simmons, which, in the area of borders and customs, determined the parameters to be used for the establishment of the power to do searches, etc. The bill is based upon that, in order that Americans in Canada don't use American law as a reference base for the exercise of these powers.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And what about the word “constitutional” in clause 4?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: It is the same thing here. This refers obviously to the Charter and among other things to the principles set out in the decision in R. v. Simmons. In our view, this is to ensure that searches, examinations and the detention of persons will be carried out according to the principles set out in the Canadian Charter, which to a great extent determines the application of measures.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We will perhaps come back to this. I believe that the inclusion of the word "constitutional" is quite restrictive. It seems to include the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 0950

I think it is a departure from past practice that we have the legislation before the agreement, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad departure. While I can appreciate what Mr. Turp says, I can think of many occasions on which it would have been nice to have had the legislation before we got the agreement. It beats having the agreement and being told you can't change it because it has already been signed. But I think it's important that we get the letters so that we understand the basis on which the legislation has been drafted, and then we can make judgments accordingly.

There are a few things that are of concern to me—not even of concern, but that I just want to get sorted out. It seemed to me that at one point you said people can't be detained and then at another point you said people could be detained if they were suspected of an offence. It seems to me that it's in this detention business that there's still some uncertainty. Declining to answer questions is not in itself grounds for detention, but is there a circumstance under which somebody could decline to answer questions right off and still be detained?

Mr. David Preston: Yes, there is a circumstance in which they could be detained and that is if there were other grounds to suspect that they committed an offence.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They just show up, they haven't said anything yet, and the guy asks them a question—

Mr. David Preston: The guy says he doesn't want to answer any questions, but there's some marijuana hanging out of the bottom of the bag. That's fairly obvious. They say those are grounds to suspect.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Now, when you talk about an offence being committed, do you mean a Canadian offence or an American offence?

Mr. David Preston: Sorry, which offence?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: At one point you used the word “offence”. Is it a Canadian offence or an American offence? In other words, could people be arrested in this pre-clearance area for the violation of an American law? Where else could they be tried for an American offence if not in America? So they're in this area where they can't get into the United States because they're being pre-cleared. They're not pre-cleared because they're found to have committed some offence. They're charged with an American offence. Then they have to get into America anyway in order to be prosecuted. Am I getting it wrong?

Mr. David Preston: I think the premise may be wrong. If they come in and there is an offence, for example, against a U.S. customs law, in a circumstance like that there's a provision that they can be fined and allowed to go on or not allowed to go on, depending on the circumstance and on the grounds to refuse an entry as well. If we're talking about a false declaration or a criminal act, such as carrying marijuana, then those prosecutions would take place under Canadian law, so that Canadian law applies.

What happens is the individual comes through, and they have a customs offence. There's no reason to detain them. They're just given a fine, and they pay the fine and go on.

If there were reason to suspect an offence, they would then have to be turned over to a Canadian if the case involved strip-searching. If the case was that there was a criminal offence, they'd have to be turned over to the Canadians anyway, because it would be for the Canadians to do the prosecution. Having drugs or carrying a prohibited weapon, for example, could be an offence in both countries. The point is that unless it's an offence against the U.S. customs and immigration laws, they would be prosecuted in Canada.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So we could end up doing a lot of the American legal work that they otherwise would do. If somebody who had already crossed into the United States was found to have criminally illegal substances in their suitcase or whatever, under the current regime they would be prosecuted in the United States under American law, would they not?

• 0955

A voice: No.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Maybe I can answer. What we are talking about as an infraction or an offence under this bill is the offence that is mentioned in clause 33 and 34, but mainly clause 33, which is the false declaration.

You probably remember that if you have crossed the border, you have to make a written declaration. That written declaration is already a starting process by which an officer can determine if you have made a false declaration or not.

If you are asked whether you are carrying with you any dangerous products and you say no, and he opens your bag and finds whatever there—

The Chairman: Snakes.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: —snakes, exactly—you've made a false declaration and then you trigger clause 33. Then you have the power to continue the search, to go on with the search, or to seize the goods.

So you see, the false declaration is always the trigger, and it's a Canadian offence. The American offence would kick in afterwards. For example, if—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: When it does kick in, how does that work?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: I'll explain.

If a Canadian offence has been committed, if you have those snakes, for example, and you lie about it, and so on and so forth, then the Americans will be able to administer a civil penalty to that false declaration. They will use for that their own false declaration in their own law, kicked in by our false declaration. So they will be able to administer civil and administrative procedure.

But if, for example, we want to prosecute that person under clause 33, then it will be a Canadian offence and Canadian authorities would take care of it.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But is that not different from the current...? What would happen under the current circumstances?

Mr. David Preston: That's a critical point, because in fact, in the round, what happens under the current system—and you were talking about, for example, a drugs offence—is that they would get turned over to a Canadian and we'd prosecute in the usual way. That's what happens now.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Even now. That's what I was trying to get a handle on.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Even now.

Mr. David Preston: So nothing changes except that there's now a specific trigger that allows it to happen, and that's a false declaration.

The Chairman: What's different is that under Canadian law, it's now a Canadian offence to make a false declaration to an American entrance document—

Mr. David Preston: Exactly.

The Chairman: —which is as it was before, but presumably we're going to get reciprocity and it will be an American offence to make a false declaration to a Canadian document if you're coming from Washington or somewhere where we have a pre-clearance thing.

Mr. David Preston: We can do the same thing.

The Chairman: That is perhaps the only other difference. We've added on a new Canadian offence, which is consistent with the reciprocal nature of our relationship in terms of trying to help pre-clearance border things. But that seems to be what they've added. There is a condition.

Mr. David Preston: The other comment on this, if I might, is that there are very few prosecutions under the current system, and there's no reason to suspect that anything will be any different. So we're not talking about masses of criminals appearing before Canadian courts.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, that raises the question of whether it's going to be any more effective in screening people out than the current system.

Mr. David Preston: It's certainly clearer. Whether it's any more effective in screening people out is up to the ability of the officers involved, I should think.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I understood the idea to be that this was going to catch more folks, that kind of thing—

Mr. David Preston: No.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —because of the concern the Americans have about Canadian airports being used....

In terms of the reciprocity end of it, when I think of these Canadian pre-clearance centres in American airports, let's say, one of the things that occurs to me is how this would affect refugees, people claiming refugee status. Would they then claim refugee status in the Canadian pre-clearance centre if they were coming in through the United States? Not all refugees do that, but for those who might try that particular way of doing it, or might be compelled to, how would that work? Now when people claim refugee status, when they're already in Canada, when they've already gotten off the plane, they have all their charter rights.

• 1000

Presumably—I don't know, I'm asking—if the charter applies in the Canadian pre-clearance centre, would people who are found to be refugees or claim to be refugees, or who are found not to have their passports or whatever, and then suddenly say they're a refugee...? As we know, with the current system, people just say they're a refugee and they have this whole long process by which they can stay in the country until they're proved not to be a refugee, because of the Supreme Court ruling back in the 1980s that the charter applied to refugees. Will the charter apply to them in these Canadian pre-clearance centres?

Mr. David Preston: Yes, this is an interesting one, because I think in the circumstance you're talking about, it would be if we did in-transit pre-clearance in the United States, where they were coming through to Canada. Presumably, if they're already resident in the United States and they're merely going through pre-clearance—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They don't have to be resident in the United States.

Mr. David Preston: —or just living in the United States.... There are two very different circumstances here, and I want to illustrate—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Here you'd have two separate flights, and not be in transit.

Mr. David Preston: Yes, but in the first instance, the circumstance of somebody leaving the United States and going through regular pre-clearance, somebody who's already in the United States and then claims refugee status, presumably you go straight up to pre-clearance and then you'd land in Canada. Presumably, all they have to do is go to Canadian customs and immigration and get on the plane and then go and claim it when they arrive.

In the in-transit circumstance, much the same, they're coming through. They wouldn't approach U.S. customs under the reciprocal arrangement. They're bound for Canada. Why would they claim refugee status when they were just in the airport? Why wouldn't they wait until they got to Canada to declare that they're refugees?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But isn't the idea of pre-clearance that there's nothing left to do when you get to the Canadian airport? You've already done it; you've already been pre-cleared.

Mr. David Preston: Yes. Presumably, you'd have to go through some sort of process for entry. What happens with a refugee, then, who comes up and doesn't have any documentation and wants to go to Canada and arrives in San Francisco?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: I would just say that an airline cannot carry any passengers without documentation. So if that person tried to board in the United States, never mind that it is from within a pre-clearance Canadian site or from an American booth, it will be the same: the airlines would refuse to board that person.

If the person claims refugee status, the convention will apply and the respective laws of the United States and Canada will apply. If it's in the Canadian pre-clearance site, I will reserve my answer on that, but I would suspect that the person would be turned over to the American authorities. But I reserve my answer; I will check.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's something to think about.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes. I will check with the immigration lawyers.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It seems to me that there's some work to be done there.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have to go and speak to some congressional interns.

The Chairman: The way we're going, they're going to be able to get up here more easily because of the work they're doing on their behalf, and may even become refugees up here, actually, refugees from the land of guns.

Mr. David Preston: I didn't have a chance to introduce my colleague. Jacqueline Caron is our primary legal adviser in the department. Hence, I tend to refer somebody's legal questions to her.

The Chairman: I think we got that point from Ms. Caron and Mr. Turp. She was handling the international law very nicely.

Mr. Assadourian, and then Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much. I have a few questions.

First of all, smart cards are part of the pre-clearance system.

Mr. David Preston: Are they part of the pre-clearance system? Yes, they could be, absolutely. At the moment, smart cards are primarily for Canadians and Americans.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. We saw smart cards once when we were in Vancouver.

Mr. David Preston: We have another one, the CANPASS. We have a CANPASS line as well.

The Chairman: Is that a CANPASS on hotels, too?

Mr. David Preston: Yes, there's a CANPASS that's being used—

The Chairman: Why don't they issue them to members of Parliament?

A voice: Do you have one?

The Chairman: I have one for the U.S. I had to get fingerprinted to get it.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The intent of it is to make speedy crossing of international borders.

Mr. David Preston: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Also, here at subclause 32(2), it says: “A pre-clearance officer must take reasonable measures to protect specified passenger information”.

• 1005

Mr. David Preston: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What happens if he doesn't take appropriate care of the information he has—that information or any other information about the passenger? I don't see any penalties for that. In other cases, you have a $5,000 penalty or....

Mr. David Preston: Yes, this relates to—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That's my first question. Let me ask you the other questions so you can take care of all of them.

The second question is on clause 37. It says decisions are not reviewable, that when a pre-clearance officer makes a decision, you cannot have a judiciary review of the decision in Canada. I thought that was my citizenship right, to review any decision taken on my behalf by anybody. Why should I give up my rights as a Canadian citizen to review this person's decision on me?

My third question is would there be any job loss at the airports when we get these Americans coming in and checking us, or we're checking them? Maybe there will be some job loss. Can you tell me if it will be one, two, five, ten, or fifteen that will be affected?

Mr. David Preston: We'll take it in reverse order.

On the question of job loss, the volume of passengers coming.... Let's put it two ways. Again I come back to the distinction between pre-clearance and in-transit pre-clearance. Pre-clearance sites are already processing people. These are for Canadians who are already in Canada and going to the United States. The arrangement at the moment is not dissimilar to what we'll have in the future. They'll just continue to process passengers, but it will be under clearer rules.

The in-transit facility means that Canadian customs won't have to do processing for passengers who are in transit. Relative to the total number of passengers, these are not very many. The point is that you get dozens of aircraft a day coming into Toronto, at Pearson, or into Montreal, and some of those people are going on to the United States. The fact is the customs and immigration people have to deal with all these people and some of them will no longer have to go through customs. But the impact on the number of people you have to have on the line is minimal to zero, because the officers still have to be there to process the others.

The Chairman: Also, Mr. Preston, as you pointed out to me yesterday, the whole object of this is to enable certain key airports, particularly Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver to operate as international hubs, and in fact, that will be a job creation for the airport as a whole because it will make it a more attractive destination for people.

Mr. David Preston: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairman: You might lose half a day's custom work and gain 15 days high-value work somewhere else.

Mr. David Preston: The airports are very, very enthusiastic about this project.

The Chairman: This hub opportunity is very important to the economy and it's very important to the Toronto airport, Mr. Preston. We're losing business to other airports because somebody from Europe says they want to go to Chicago, and why the hell are you going to go through Toronto and travel Air Canada if you're going to have hassles at customs? You'll go straight. You'll take an American flight or a European flight and go straight to Chicago. I know a lot of Americans who like to travel Air Canada. They like to come through Toronto, but customs is one thing. If they can avoid that—

Mr. David Preston: They do twice.

The Chairman: —or Montreal, it helps us serve as hubs to our airlines.

Mr. David Preston: Airports are very enthusiastic about this issue—

The Chairman: And we'll hear about that, I think, when we have the airport authorities come on.

Mr. David Preston: That's right.

The Chairman: Ironically, it was the in-transit stuff that started this project and we ended up doing the pre-clearance act as a result of it because that was the economic driver.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: All right. How about the other questions?

The Chairman: Yes, the other two questions you asked.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: I will answer them, and tell me if I'm wrong in my understanding of the question.

For an individual who wants to cross a border going to the United States, France, or Great Britain, it's the same thing. All these countries have a sovereign right to accept or refuse any individual coming into the country, crossing the border. As a Canadian, you don't have any rights to go to the United States. It's a privilege and it's under the sovereign authority of that country to allow you to enter or not. It's the same for Canada in the reverse situation.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If I have a plant, and the officer says no, you cannot take your plant—

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: That's right, yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: —I cannot appeal that decision. Is that what you're telling me?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: You can appeal it through the American mechanism. It's their privilege to accept or not the plant on their soil.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I cannot appeal in Canada?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: No.

• 1010

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As a Canadian, I cannot appeal here in Canada, because it's an American decision.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Well, there's an appeal procedure right at the pre-clearance site. There's a decision, but you can—if I understand the American procedure correctly—make an appeal there. But I would say if it's for a plant, I would advise you not to miss your flight.

Mr. David Preston: The argument here, of course, is in reciprocity.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But as you say, if it's for plants....

Mr. David Preston: If you think of it in the reverse, of course, in reciprocity, we wouldn't want American judicial review process to be determining what could come to Canada.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So this affects them too in the other way.

Mr. David Preston: In the other way, yes.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Exactly.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What about subclause 32(2)?

Mr. David Preston: This is a question of information.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It has to do with privacy, basically.

Mr. David Preston: It has to do with privacy. This has two aspects, and it's related to the in-transit pre-clearance. I mentioned this in my presentation. The information that will be provided to the U.S. is a certain limited set on passengers who are coming through Canada from third countries. We had discussion with the Americans as to how that information would be used by them. They normally destroy the information immediately.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: In 24 hours.

Mr. David Preston: No, their practice is to destroy it immediately after use. What we've done here is put in a provision that says it must be destroyed within 24 hours, unless it's needed for the administration or enforcement of Canadian law or the pre-clearance laws that are in this act. The penalty is indicated in clause 35. It says:

Every person who fails to comply with the provisions of section 32 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than...

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Does that apply to the officers too?

Mr. David Preston: Yes.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: That applies to the officers.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. My final question is a quick one—

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine wants to go, and she really wants—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It's about Bill 110.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Do you remember the U.S. Congress said—

The Chairman: Yes, yes, that was my question.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Does that have an impact on this?

Mr. David Preston: Section 110.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Bill 110 in the U.S.

Mr. David Preston: Section 110 of IIRIRA.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Section 110, yes.

Mr. David Preston: Section 110 of IIRIRA doesn't apply in this case to the degree that what the U.S. wants to do, in effect, is to document all people coming into the United States upon entry and exit. Of course, here we're only talking about entry. But they're asking to document people on land borders in the same way they do in airports. In other words, it has absolutely no impact.

Section 110, in the round, is what the U.S. is already doing. What they want to do at the borders is ask the same sorts of questions and document people in the same way they do at airports, because after all, you give them your passport, you give them other information on yourself. That's what we're trying to persuade Congress to repeal, because we don't want to have to go through the same process on land borders as you do through in an airport.

The Chairman: Thank you. On the other hand, from a political perspective, the fact that we are working more closely with them on these issues gives us a better lever to try to deal with the section 110 attitude.

Mr. David Preston: I agree with that.

The Chairman: It creates a climate of trust and relationship between the authorities, and that's very important in this sort of arrangement. I mean, one of our problems is that.... I think when we go to Canada-U.S., we're going to take this and say “Look, guys, we're working with you. Stop whacking us. Talk to the congressmen.”

Madam Augustine.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: [Inaudible—Editor].

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): As someone who's usually at the wrong end of all of this, I have a special interest in three specific areas. If the chairman and I walk off a plane or head into an airport, I am usually the one stopped. I'm usually the one questioned, and I'm usually the one who is sent along a certain route. I would like to think I have an honest face, but I am always suspect “on reasonable grounds”, and I never could understand what those reasonable grounds were. I'm usually the one who has the dog run around my bags a few times or whatever.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: [Inaudible—Editor].

Ms. Jean Augustine: And sometimes it's infuriating.

• 1015

I'd like you to speak again to the powers of pre-clearance officers in clause 11, and the issue of immunity, that no action whatsoever can be taken. Subclause 36(2) says:

No action or other proceeding of a civil nature may be brought against a preclearance officer in respect of anything that is done or omitted to be done by the officer

It just seems to me that there is a high discretionary power in subclause 36(2).

At the same time, I want to ask my third question. Do you know what reciprocal set of activities the U.S. would insist on? For example, we were talking about strip searches, detaining, and Canadian criminal law. What reciprocal action could we expect from the U.S.?

Mr. David Preston: On the question of reasonable grounds, at the end of the day reasonable grounds to suspect are determined by the courts.

I must say that I sympathize enormously with you about the problems you may have experienced in airports. That's really unfortunate.

Ms. Jean Augustine: It happens all the time. It happens regularly.

Mr. David Preston: It's really unfortunate.

At the end of the day, whether the officer had legitimate reasonable grounds to suspect would ultimately be a matter for the courts. If as a consequence of all that the pre-clearance officer took an action against you that was not justified because he didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect, which would be defined in law, in that circumstance—

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm just trying to get at what are reasonable grounds. Is it the way I look, the way I dress, or who I am? What are reasonable grounds?

Mr. David Preston: There's not a simple, clear-cut answer to what reasonable grounds are. It's a compilation, as I understand it. I'm not the lawyer. I'll perhaps defer to my legal colleague in just a moment. But in the round it has been determined by the courts over time as to what's reasonable. Reasonable ground is not mere suspicion. The fact of your colour is not sufficient, of course, to suspect anything. There have to be more solid grounds than that to suspect that you've committed an offence.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm not too sure it's an offence as much as it is—

Mr. David Preston: They're sort of calling you over for further questioning, aren't they?

The Chairman: When it comes to arresting you on the street, even a police officer has to have reasonable grounds to suspect.

Mr. David Preston: There is one step up, of course, which is reasonable grounds to believe. Reasonable grounds to suspect allows them to detain you for further questioning. But the fact is that if you go beyond that into strip-searching, then you have to have reasonable grounds to believe, which is a higher order of proof. So it's done in a graded way.

The Chairman: Did you want to add something to that, Jacquelin?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Yes.

I think it's a very difficult question you've asked, because there is no precise definition of what is reasonable grounds, except that it's an accumulation of factors. If an individual presents himself or herself at the border and is sweating, being tense—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Shifty-eyed.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: —and showing all kinds of signs, the officer may think this person is sick, and not go any further. We can have a practitioner here at one point, if you desire, somebody who has experience at the border, to explain to you what the reality of the fact is at the border. It's a complex situation. It's not based on only one factor.

• 1020

The officer will develop a conviction that he should have looked further and maybe interviewed that person more deeply or looked more carefully in the baggage, because there's something there. Sometimes we will have received information in advance, for example, that the person carried drugs before. Every case is different, and it's very difficult to determine in general what reasonable grounds will be.

As to your question on immunity, I would like to add to the point Mr. Assadourian brought up earlier. There's no immunity for charter violations. So if you're searched or if there's an abuse of power by an officer, that is considered a violation of the charter and there's no immunity for that. So the individual will be subject to review by Canadian courts. That's to add to the earlier point.

The plant might not be a case like this, but the plant could be, depending on the circumstances of the case.

That relates to your second point on subclause 36(2), when you said that the officer is immune from civil and administrative procedures. If you read subclause 36(1), you'll see that the Government of the United States will replace the officer. We thought it was a better recourse for Canadians or anybody who wants to sue in Canadian courts to have the one who has the money to pay.

An officer in a civil court might be condemned to pay a fair amount of money, let's say $20,000 for the sake of the discussion. If it's within his duties, according to the procedure established in the reverse situation, for example, for a Canadian in the States, most likely the Canadian government will evaluate the case and reimburse that individual. So we go directly to the power that normally would pay, which is the American government, for the actions the individual officer did in the pre-clearance area. So there's no real—

The Chairman: Let me test it a bit, though, Ms. Caron. This is like these law school hypotheticals they always throw out. It says “done by the officer under this Act or the regulations”. So if the officer assaults somebody walking along the hallway and it has nothing to do with actually enforcing the regulations, that's not something they can get away with. They could be sued for that. That's a normal thing. So that's clear.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: That's right.

The Chairman: A pretty girl walks into the room, and he says “That's a pretty one, let's strip-search her”. It's a strip-search as perceived by the act and regulations, so you could say he's going to say he's acting under the act. But a court might well say that is well beyond the authority conferred by the act as a legitimate enforcement of the regulations. Therefore, if you go off on some sort of frolic and abuse your authority, which is what you're saying, I would interpret this as saying that this act and the regulations are limitative by nature and therefore clearly limit it. It has to be a legitimate exercise of authority under the act and regulations, and you would catch somebody who was acting outside the scope of the authority.

Ms. Jean Augustine: He could suspect under unreasonable grounds.

The Chairman: I gave a clear case, because he says to his colleague, “Let's strip search that one, she's pretty”, or “Let's strip search her because she's black”—or francophone or whatever you like. There would be an argument there for maybe getting out from under—

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: First of all, I would just correct one little thing you said. Under this bill the way it is now, the American officer won't be authorized to perform a strip search.

The Chairman: That's true.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: It's limited to a frisk search. A Canadian officer will have to come to grips with reasonable grounds to suspect to conduct the strip search.

• 1025

But let's take the example of the American officer going on with the strip search while he is outside the authority of the law, so he doesn't have—

The Chairman: His immunity. It's a limited form of immunity.

Ms. Jaquelin Caron: He's not on duty. It's a very limited form of immunity. They don't have immunity for criminal actions.

Mr. David Preston: You asked a question about reciprocity. In effect you just have to look at it like a mirror. With an individual coming into Canadian pre-clearance in the United States, the trigger would be a false declaration. The Canadian officer would obviously conduct the examination. He could, under this reciprocal agreement, do a pat-down search if he suspected an offence or if there were an immediate, urgent problem.

If he felt there were reasonable grounds to suspect that required some sort of strip-search, it would be turned over to a U.S. officer to conduct the strip-search. It would exactly mirror what we're proposing to do in this way. The American Constitution would apply in the same way.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madame Debien.

Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I would like to ask you for a clarification, Mr. Preston. You said in your statement that Canada was offering the United States certain powers, that this is rather exceptional in the case of an agreement and that the United States would be able to carry out certain activities in Canada. I would like you to explain to me the significance of this extraordinary clause within this agreement. For example, we have just talked about searches. Would this be one of those extraordinary powers?

Mr. David Preston: Yes. At the present time, Americans are unable to enforce their laws on Canadian soil.

Mrs. Maud Debien: I know.

Mr. David Preston: This bill is extraordinary in that it grants powers to the Americans for a specific purpose, that of examining passengers and goods that are en route to the United States.

Mrs. Maud Debien: Including the power to conduct searches.

Mr. David Preston: Yes, the power to conduct searches.

Mrs. Maud Debien: Give me some concrete examples.

Mr. David Preston: You could question someone who has made a false declaration. That is extraordinary. They could carry out a pat-down frisk search, and that is extraordinary, but they couldn't do more. They must then...

Mrs. Maud Debien: Hand the person over to the Canadian authorities.

Mr. David Preston: Yes, to the Canadian authorities.

Mrs. Maud Debien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: There are terminological interests down at this end of table. I was quite curious about Mr. Turp when he was—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We're not talking about a strip search.

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It could be the case.

The Chairman: There could be a frisk search in the nude. That would be a little exaggerated.

[English]

Ms. Augustine, please.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I just want to ask a general question. What kind of training is given to the officers? On the discussion around the profile of suspects or whatever, does that discussion happen on any kind of a regular basis in the training of officers?

Mr. David Preston: No, but I'm delighted you asked the question.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I understand everything that's been said. I've been living in this country and going through airports for the last forty-some years, and I know what I'm speaking about.

• 1030

Unless you walk in my skin, or whatever, there is no clear understanding about what happens to you and how demeaning it is each time you approach an airport. I'll be walking with colleagues, going to whatever on a parliamentary visit, and I am usually the one who's pulled aside. I'm usually the one whose passport is looked at when they go into the computer. Everybody else walks away, goes into the lounge and waits. I'm the one left standing, explaining that I'm a Canadian, I have a house and children and I'm a member of Parliament—da da da—trying to explain my way to an officer who looks at me because he suspects on reasonable grounds...whatever the reason, I've forgotten.

I'm just wondering what happens in the training of these people. Somehow or other you have to get it across to them that you cannot make broad sweeping assumptions about people.

Mr. David Preston: I'm delighted you've asked that question because that was certainly of concern to us. In effect, we'll be requiring American officers operating on Canadian soil, by law, to be very cognizant of Canadian law. Clearly they'll be operating under two sets of law, if you like. Of course they know very well their own customs and immigration law.

Yes, the idea is training for all officers who do this. Part of the answer to your question is there will be signage put up about people's rights. Part of the answer is that we will have a review mechanism with the Americans to review how the process is going, quite apart from the review that is provided for in the act.

There will absolutely be an intensive process, once the legislation is passed, to train officers in Canadian law standards. I guess it remains to be seen, but I trust it will have an impact on the way you're regarded coming through the border, if we do the job well.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could you supply us with a copy of the American act before clause by clause?

Mr. David Preston: The reciprocity act?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, the American equivalent of Bill S-22.

Mr. David Preston: It is a clause of an act.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is it complete?

Mr. David Preston: Yes, it is complete. But it isn't the entire act; these are elements of an act that apply to the Canadian situation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In order to fully understand, do we need other laws? I would very much like a copy to be made available to the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Is it an amendment to their customs and procedures act?

Mr. David Preston: It's the Immigration Act. But there are two aspects to that. This is the clause in the Immigration Act that allows for reciprocity. On the customs side, they have a provision that allows for the powers but doesn't provide as yet the same arrangements on the immunity side. So they are proceeding to have legislation passed now that would provide reciprocity on the immunity. Of the various elements, it's the only bit that is missing.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I have a second question. Have the Canadian regulations already been drafted?

Mr. David Preston: No.

Mr. Daniel Turp: For the application of clause 40...

Mr. David Preston: No.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Not yet?

Mr. David Preston: No.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Lastly, I would ask you to look at the drafting of subsections 23(3) and (4). The French text is very poorly written. It should be looked at again:

Faute de collègue du même sexe que celle-ci sur les lieux, il peut autoriser toute personne de ce sexe qui lui semble apte à y procéder.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: May I say something?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I hope it isn't you who drafted this, Ms. Caron.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: No.

The Chairman: What clause is it?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It is clause 23, subsections (3) and (4).

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: The drafting of both the French and the English versions is done by professional drafters with the Department of Justice. Even if three of us participated in the drafting, the drafting proper, in other words the way things are said and the vocabulary used—you made a few comments earlier—are the work of the drafters.

• 1035

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could the drafter perhaps come to our next meeting? I clearly remember that in the Fisheries committee, we had a bill similar to this one and the drafter was there. That had been very useful, especially for the French version.

The Chairman: I remember two different bills. We had even changed the French terminology. Do you remember that? It was a bill relating to treaties, and we had changed a few technical terms. It might be worthwhile to have someone come. It is the Justice Department that supplies...

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: It is the Justice Department and more specifically the Law Drafting Section.

I would simply like to draw to your attention the fact that most of these clauses are taken from the Customs Act. Everything that could be imported from that act was. Unless I am mistaken, it is the same terminology.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is it as bad in the Customs Act as it is in this bill?

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Given that an interpretation of these clauses has already been given, the fact that they are reproduced...

Mr. Daniel Turp: That doesn't convince me to give up on the idea that the text is poorly drafted. This should be looked at again.

The Chairman: The text has the merits of constancy and the faults of repeating past mistakes.

[English]

Mr. David Preston: I might mention an important point. This all comes back to reasonable grounds to suspect. The standard we're applying here—reasonable grounds to suspect to do these things—is in a sense unique. But customs services everywhere—Canadian customs, U.S. customs—apply the same standard. It has been the subject of several court decisions, which have ruled that reasonable grounds to suspect is sufficient grounds to undertake the authorities that are provided in this bill.

So from our point of view, it's very important to maintain the integrity of the system by maintaining the same standards, not only with respect to pre-clearance, but to Canada Customs. This is very similar to the provisions for U.S. Customs and Immigration.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. We really appreciate that.

I presume some of you will have to come back when we do the clause-by-clause as well. I think we've set it up for Tuesday or Thursday next week—I forget. We'll hear the witnesses from the travel association and the Canadian Bar Association, then we'll move straight into clause-by-clause. You'll be here to kind of aid the members. I just hope other members who didn't come to this hearing won't want to ask all these questions again. But we'll deal with that at the time.

Mr. David Preston: Okay. The intention is to do clause-by-clause, so we should certainly come.

The Chairman: Yes, I think we need the government officials here for clause-by-clause. It may be helpful to have a juridical drafting person here who could respond to any questions on French usage.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: Can I ask a question for clarification?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: We were told that the next session would be May 24.

The Chairman: That's right. Our clerk is very efficient, so if she said May 24, it is right. Anything I say is to be totally disregarded. The clerk knows what she's doing.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. David Preston: It is May 24, but we'll check with the clerk.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate it.

Ms. Jacqueline Caron: You're welcome.

The Chairman: We're adjourned until eleven o'clock.

• 1040

• 1103

The Chairman: This is just an informal meeting to exchange views about the results of our two trips to get coordination, particularly with the researchers, between what happened on the eastern portion and what happened on the western portion, where everybody went.

I thought maybe people could just share their point of view. We can just go around the table a little bit. Sam Bulte is unfortunately going to be late, but she's coming. She'll be here in about ten minutes. And anybody else who wants to say anything....

I might just open by saying I got two things out of the hearings myself. The first was that pretty well everybody, except for a few exceptions, agreed that they're in favour of a free, open, liberal trading system. The problem is, there's a perception out there that the one that's there presently favours certain interests over others, and that what's missing at the moment is a proper perspective on the environment, human rights, labour standards, and maybe the cultural component. Somehow those issues have to be addressed, either at the international level, international agreement, or by retaining Canadian sovereignty to deal with them ourselves. That's the message I was getting from many Canadians who came before us. I think most people would agree that those are certainly dimensions we have to look at.

• 1105

The second dimension I got was that there was a great deal of evidence about agriculture. Speaking for myself, I learned an enormous amount about agriculture, and one of the things I learned was that agriculture, like so many other things, is no longer a commodity product. We heard in London that they grow the grain and then it's milled into flour and the flour is turned into biscuits and frozen dough, which is then exported all over the world. So you're looking at the value-added perspective of agriculture and the contribution it makes to the economy, which really is enormous. So I got that.

Third, there are some specific issues—water exports, things like that—that I think we probably have to address. But those were the big sorts of themes, anyway. There are going to be some specific ones. I think, as I said, the relationships between trade, the environment, human rights, labour standards, and culture are going to have to be examined. And the agricultural dimension is I think going to be the subject matter of a great deal of consideration, considering what we heard.

That was certainly what we heard in both—if I'm reporting on behalf of the Quebec trip and the Ontario and Manitoba trip. That would be my summation.

Now, Mr. Penson, you were also in the—

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): I was in Winnipeg and then I—

The Chairman: You were in Winnipeg. But you were in Halifax, weren't you?

Mr. Charlie Penson: No. I went to Winnipeg and then I went to Edmonton, Calgary, and Saskatoon.

The Chairman: Right. But what about the eastern portion?

Mr. Charlie Penson: And Deepak.

The Chairman: Deepak came with us, sure.

Mr. Charlie Penson: We sort of split it among our three members.

The Chairman: Do you want to give us a quick perception from you two, and then we'll turn to the Bloc?

Mr. Charlie Penson: Well, I think largely it was much the same as what you described. Agriculture was a very big item that is looking for some market access and further trade liberalization in general, I thought.

I guess the two issues were those who wanted further market access wanted further trade and investment liberalization, and those who wanted to use the WTO, some of the social groups, because they feel it has some kind of a system for compliance that they could use on other issues, like environment and labour standards.

I don't think there was a very good understanding among those groups that if you were to put those items on the agenda at the WTO, how that compliance could work its way through, or might be in fact too heavy for it. But in essence, that was their message: they wanted their areas to be part of the WTO for the very reasons that the ILO doesn't have that kind of an enforcement system in place.

I thought there were some good presentations on the environment, especially from the Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg, who presented the group with a book showing the effects of subsidies, especially in agriculture, and how they have had a detrimental effect on environmental practices. I think we should look at that very closely.

I know from my own experience, my past in farming, we've seen soil degradation in western Canada. It's well documented that topsoil is less than 50% of what it was when agriculture started in the last 100 years. There seems to be a relationship in government policies, particularly in subsidies, that can be identified with that. So I agree with what they were saying.

The other issue that I had—I've seen a lot of groups come before us that had sort of a new-found energy because of what they can see they were able to do with defeating the MAI. I think there were several issues they brought before us. The MMT issue was mentioned quite a bit, how chapter 11 of NAFTA allows companies like Ethyl Corporation to sue the government successfully.

I think there were a few areas where they needed to be challenged. That's why I brought it up the other day, Mr. Chairman, that I don't feel there's enough time. This consulting civil society is a great idea, except that I don't think any group should be able to come before this committee and make statements that go unchallenged either, if they're not correct. I don't care if it's business or who it is. I think it's important for the committee to have the time to be able to sort of cross-examine, if you like, to really be able to filter out what's correct and what isn't. Otherwise it gets read into the record unchallenged, and I have a problem with that.

• 1110

So quite a bit of that was going on. There are quite a few myths out there, I believe, that need to be exposed, and there wasn't always time to do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai, do you want to add something from a perspective of our eastern trip?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Yes.

My reading of all the groups that were coming there.... Of course we all know that everybody was pushing for their own agenda and their own thing. Some of them had valid points, others did not. The problem was with the NGOs that were coming there, in my perspective. From my own experience, I didn't think they actually had facts and figures as to what was happening there. They were just picking on the negative aspect of the whole thing and were not at all concentrating on what positiveness could come out of that.

The whole agenda that we saw when we came over there was just one thing—what's wrong? Everything got put in within that, not recognizing the advantages and positive things that have happened. I think we could probably venture to say that one or two points they may have raised regarding the environment and labour standards can be taken into account.

The problem I think they were concentrating on was dispute resolution, which is not in other organizations. They were trying to look at WTO, and we questioned that. Would that make WTO ineffective, if it takes on all this responsibility over there?

A tremendous amount of these groups were going after the multinationals, but I think the WTO also. Multinationals are only one aspect of this thing, but there are small and medium-sized businesses that benefit from it. I don't think anybody talked much about that.

We also heard from the agriculture industry, and I think they had some valid points, both sides. There were conflicting reports, as we know from the corn growers, I think it was, one saying yes, and the other saying no.

The one in Quebec that I thought was totally wrong was the liquor workers that came out over there. I do not feel that the issue of liquor workers.... I think that is a provincial responsibility, and I do not know how an issue of that magnitude is going to go into a WTO thing, because being a provincial responsibility, it is spread out. Alberta has gone in the other direction from what Quebec has, you see.

The last one, and I feel the committee will have to address this issue, is genetically manipulated organisms. I think that issue will have to come. We'll have to address that issue, because that is going to become a major point, as far as I am concerned.

I think that's basically what I felt came out of that.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Sauvageau? Mr. Turp?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I did Quebec with you and then Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, and I did a part of the trip with Mr. Penson. My opinion regarding the content is quite close to yours; that is, indeed, what we heard. Nevertheless, in the report, we won't be able to ignore the fact that several witnesses came to tell us that they were against this form of accord, be it the WTO Agreement, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or whatever. Several groups talked to us about their mistrust. In the context of a public consultation, we are there to listen and we cannot ignore that position in our report, whether or not we agree with it.

The other aspect of my comments relates more to the process than to the content. Let me take an example. The Council of Canadians sent three representatives to Ottawa, four to London and six to Vancouver to say the same thing. I asked them a question. Since they were advocating consultation at any cost, I asked them to explain to me the form of consultation they had had with their members before deciding on the position they were defending before us. There had been no consultation. Would it be possible for us to hear a spokesperson from pan-Canadian or national organizations, like Charlie was mentioning earlier, in order that we might ask him or her questions?

• 1115

When you hear 12 witnesses for 10 minutes each, that totals 120 minutes, and there isn't much time left to ask questions. When we are told that we are like this or like that and that we don't even have the opportunity to ask a question, it isn't very pleasant for us. That is the first point I wanted to make regarding consultations: who do we consult and on what basis?

Regarding NGOs—I talked about this to Ms. Bulte and I'm mentioning this here—, it would be very worthwhile to have a list of the organizations that appeared and the number of members they represent. It appears that we have met with 410 witnesses up until now. We would perhaps be surprised to realize that if we take into account their members, we have in fact consulted 250,000 or 300,000 people.

When we table our report and when the Council of Canadians states that there was no consultation, we will be able to say that 410 organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of members, were consulted, and we will be able to talk about the legitimacy and the representativeness of the persons consulted.

The other glaring or major problem, for us but especially for the Canadian government, is the fact that people defend their “myths” whereas we don't do any advertising—I'm not talking about buying a page of advertising in a newspaper—to sell these agreements and to indicate that they aren't killing the Canadian public, contrary to what some are saying. We could be proactive in the tabling of our report. One solution would be to produce a small guide on the WTO, but there are various other possibilities.

We should perhaps find a satisfactory form of consultation for ONGs, but, in my opinion, we will never find one. In any event, we should try to think of something in that regard.

With regard to the work plan that was given to us following Mrs. Debien's recommendation, I would simply reverse the order of chapters 6 and 7 so that culture comes before market access. All of the rest suits me fine.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz (committee researcher): We will try to be understanding.

The Chairman: Madame Debien, followed by Mr. Turp and then by Mr. Pickard.

Mrs. Maud Debien: I share your opinion, Mr. Graham, because I was with you in Quebec and in Ontario. Of course, I don't know to what extent we will be able to do this nor to what extent the briefs tabled with us by civil society, by NGOs and by unions will be able to reflect this. As Benoît was saying, we will have to take into account the fears and apprehensions of a very large number of organizations that came to share with us their fears. That didn't surprise me, but rather confirmed a certain number of things.

When we went to Quebec, we heard no opposition to free trade, NAFTA and the WTO, whereas elsewhere, it was a different story. Benoît told me that that was the case out West and I myself saw it in Ontario. I don't know if Daniel heard any opposition in the Maritimes. There is a kind of backlash of English Canada vis-à-vis the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, NAFTA, the MAI and, of course, the WTO, that is considered to be an extension of all of those negotiations.

• 1120

That confirms what took place in 1989, at the time of the Free Trade Agreement. At that time, Quebec had climbed on board whereas the rest of Canada had expressed tremendous reticence. It continues to do so, especially through civil society, ONGs and unions. For me, that serves as a confirmation. Having gone to the hearings both in Quebec and in Ontario, that became very obvious to me.

Completely apart from the way in which I interpret this type of negative reaction, we will have to take into account the fears and the negative effects that these people talked to us about in their local communities. We cannot ignore them; if we do, we will risk losing credibility with civil society.

As far as the rest is concerned, there certainly are very specific issues, in Quebec in particular, namely that of the representatives of the Société des alcools that Mr. Graham will most certainly remember. I don't share Mr. Obhrai's view when he states that it is a provincial matter. State monopolies and state-run corporations are in fact being discussed within the WTO and the state-run corporation issue will have to be negotiated by the government.

It was very well explained to us that the Société des alcools is neither a producer nor an exporter of alcoholic beverages. This state-run corporation therefore does not distort the marketplace. I believe that it is the same thing in Ontario: they are producers, but they don't export.

In Quebec, this aspect was very well explained by the Société des alcools du Québec, and I believe this should be mentioned in our report. It is important for Quebec and I believe that it also is for producers in British Columbia and in Ontario.

There were other very specific issues as well that were brought up, in Quebec in particular. We heard the Barreau du Québec which, in one of its presentations, brought up the fact that very serious problems with the practice of law will arise with the WTO. I'm happy that Mr. Blaikie has brought this problem up. We will be hearing representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and I'm anxious to see if they are encountering the same difficulties as the Quebec bar association.

As for the rest, it is pretty much in agreement with what all of our colleagues have said. Obviously, we must underline the importance of agriculture, that will be the first matter up for discussion in November. It is very encouraging to note that all of the producers, both in Canada and in Quebec, are on the same wave length; this gives the government an excellent negotiating tool.

Those are the observations I wished to make.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Debien.

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I was only able to participate in one of the consultations in the Maritimes. You will remember that it began rather chaotically because only a very few people had been informed on the holding of the sessions and as a matter of fact they even complained about the situation.

Mrs. Maud Debien: Everywhere.

Mr. Daniel Turp: This is something that should not happen again.

I retained two things from these three of four days in the Maritimes, in St. John's, Halifax and Fredericton: first of all, the importance of agriculture and the issues of concern to dairy farmers in particular. At the very time we were meeting, producers were worried about a decision that the special group had just reached. What had really surprised me was that the people from McCain, a major multinational, weren't even aware of the decision made by the special group. I asked that it be sent to me from Ottawa that day and I gave them a copy of it.

• 1125

There is certainly something to be done to distribute these things that come to us from the WTO and to make available these decisions that are taking on more and more importance in the daily lives of farmers.

The other thing that struck me, and one witness spoke about this—and there were perhaps others as well—, was the idea of divorcing agricultural issues from fisheries issues. In Halifax, I believe, fishermen were advocating the idea of not treating fisheries products as being agricultural products. We should take a look at that and see if there should not be for fisheries products a system separate from that used for agricultural products. In the draft plan, I see no such distinction and we should perhaps reflect upon this. If that appeared to be the route to follow, then we should perhaps change the plan accordingly.

The social dimension, as you call it in your plan, is important. It is essential that this issue be taken seriously by the committee. I disagree with those who purport that this isn't a forum to discuss social issues and to study the relationships between trade and human rights and trade and the environment. I believe that it is a forum for that, because all of these issues are today intertwined. It isn't simply because the WTO is one of the rare international organizations that have an efficient dispute resolution process that leads to binding decisions that social partners and civil society are interested in it. It is because they are convinced, as we should be as well, that there must be ties between trade, human rights and the environment. I am pleased to see that in the draft plan, there are three chapters devoted to the social dimension. To me, that is perfectly justified.

Lastly, I would like to say that the process that we began with the consultation is an eminently original and important one in the negotiation of a treaty or of a series of treaties. In this Parliament, I have always been and will always be a supporter of the consultation of citizens by Parliament and of the involvement of Parliament in the negotiation process for treaties, but it isn't enough for us to consult and to make reports and in the end to be simply witnesses to a negotiation process. In the report that we are going to produce, we should envisage the follow-up that as Parliamentarians we should be giving to our work. How should the committee be consulted by the negotiators? How should the committee itself, during negotiations, be consulting with the people who were consulted during the initial phase, at the Seattle conference? In my opinion, this is one of the drawbacks of the report. It should at least contain a final chapter dealing, precisely, with the follow-up to the process that we have begun and the responsibilities our committee should assume from the beginning of negotiations to the signing of the treaty.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I believe that in the first chapter there will be an overview of all of the issues relating to the process and to the reform of the process, as well as of the role of Parliament. I will attempt to deal with that in the first chapter.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I understand. That wasn't clear to me in the document. Those were my general remarks.

On the cultural issue, I have the strong impression that we will have a lot of work to do before reaching a consensus. It is even possible that there will be none. The issue is important for us, members of the Bloc, and the solutions are not obvious. We are proposing a broad treaty on cultural diversity, that could perhaps lead the government to want to sacrifice the idea of including a cultural exemption or cultural protection clause. This matter will be the subject of very serious debate within our committee.

• 1130

I have very specific comments to make in this regard. Is this the proper time to put them on the table?

The Chairman: Right now, we are rather simply going around the table. If we have any specific remarks, they could perhaps be brought forward later or maybe directly to Mr. Schmitz.

[English]

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.) Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to comment on my views of where some of the comments came from.

Certainly I very clearly saw the corporate interest in the country saying trade liberalization is extremely important for the economy of Canada. I heard the commodity groups in agriculture say trade liberalization is extremely important for their economy. As you point out, Mr. Chairman, they also were very clear about their interrelated connections between processing secondary work on agricultural products and beyond. As a matter of fact, the Wheat Board in Ontario was very specific that we grow the wheat, we ship it to Michigan and Ohio, Michigan and Ohio process it and send us cakes and breads and other material back. That's an interworking relationship that's been going on for 50 years. Those interconnections were made before the trade deal, and continue to be extremely important in Ontario.

I saw labour railing against the World Trade Organization very strongly, and my viewpoint was they had a very specific agenda. As someone mentioned previously—I think it was Benoît, but I'm not positive—labour did have an agenda during the free trade debate in Ontario, and that has not changed. They were very opposed to what's happening, and the suggestion was that the average person is losing ground, and losing ground very rapidly.

I saw that same message come very strongly through special interest groups, special interest groups who were representing various elements in the country, the human rights side of it, but the fair wage side of it as well. They were saying they didn't feel they were getting a fair share of the trade revenues, profits and so on, that were coming. I did see from my viewpoint a huge differential between business on one side and the number of witnesses we had in special interests.

We have to look at what the purpose of our going out across the country was. Was it to hear the same interest group in every community we went to, and if they didn't like it they would protest outside? That was in fact a very small group of people railing against this committee and its operation. Mr. Penson said we should probably challenge them. I think from my viewpoint if we take the show on the road, as we did, we can challenge them, but then we get into more kinds of public pressures that aren't consistent.

Quite frankly, I didn't think it was fair the way some of it was structured. We really have to think whether we are out there to hear people and then come back here and debate the issue, or are we going to debate them head-on out in the different communities? I don't think there was an opportunity to do that. We had witnesses come, they would be an hour and a half in front of us, and I might have two minutes to question them, or somebody else has one minute to question. It just doesn't work. We can't have the same organization ten times over anywhere. I think we really have to align what we're doing out in the communities and try to do it.

On the other hand, we had the business development person from Windsor, Essex County, and I thought he certainly gave a very clear side of where business sees the importance of trade. That whole economy of southwestern Ontario is based upon our ability to trade with others.

You can't shut down the process we're hearing; you can't do that in any respect. But we must make certain that a balanced hearing occurs out there.

• 1135

The other part I thought was lacking in some way, and I don't know how we handle it, was the media. The media was looking for a story and the story had to be whatever negative could come about. At least that's my perception of what I saw. There weren't any good stories about people coming forward and saying look what trade's doing. So we're missing the boat somewhere in the communications. We don't have a budget for it. I understand that as a committee we don't have a budget for it, but how do we make the arrangements?

Maybe when we're in a community it would be wise to have the chair and maybe a member of the opposition or a couple of members go to the editorial boards of the newspapers and talk about what we're doing as part of that trip. We could hit Toronto, hit London, hit Windsor, and hit Winnipeg, and see the editorial boards of the newspapers and explain what we heard. That way we can at least get a better message about what we're hearing across the country, rather than the reporter who's out looking for this spectacular story. It just didn't come together the way it should have. The messages I got, quite frankly, I thought were very positive about trade.

I feel we have to look at the social side of things and we have to take a careful look at how it's affecting labour. In general, I was extremely surprised that the agricultural community came together as strongly as it did. In terms of the messages from agriculture, I've never in ten years here heard as consistent messages in agriculture as “Let's go ahead and trade. Let's make sure the trade goes ahead; it's good for all of us and it's a very positive venture.”

Someone made a comment, it may have been Daniel across the way there, that fisheries should be separated from agriculture. I come from an area that has a very large inland fishery, and believe me, the fishery policy from one area of this country to another area of this country is not consistent. So to talk about fishery and agriculture policies overbearing, I think it's very difficult to deal with that. I know that my fishers in Ontario, in my riding.... We have a $30 million industry in Ontario, which most people aren't aware of. So we have a $30 million industry in my area of Ontario and we don't really get much perception on the national scene that we have a fishery there at all. So there are inconsistencies in policies that have to be worked out.

I think that in general the feeling I got was a very split one. I'll voice that again: it was the special interest groups very much opposed, whereas the business community and the commodity organizations and people in charge of trade are saying liberalize strongly.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Finestone then Ms. Augustine.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I didn't participate in any of the consultations. I was out of the country for most of them. I can only tell you that in terms of what we're trying to do here, I think we can be very pleased with the first step we've undertaken, which is really in a sense education and information, which we wish to receive but at the same time we wish to put out there.

In October there will be a meeting of 135 countries in Brussels to deal with the WTO. The discussion that led to this was what I wanted to speak about.

There is tremendous concern worldwide about the process of WTO. There is a sense there is no transparency. There is a decision-making process that can impact on the daily lives of people at the grassroots right across the world, and a feeling that the values workers hold in both rural and urban settings are not taken into consideration when the WTO meets. There's something wrong.

You mentioned the ILO. The ILO was at this meeting and they made a very strong pitch, which was an important pitch, on how to find the fair balance between the workers' rights and the rights for a sustainable development policy, along with the need for trade.

• 1140

The multinationals aside, because that had a different response, the role that negotiators should play, if I can hearken back to negotiators at many of the international conferences—and Canada is blessed with incredibly skilled negotiators at most of the meetings—in most instances those negotiators come back and touch the organization for which they are negotiating, or the major interveners in those organizations.

So I think the point—I'm not quite sure who made it, perhaps it was Maud, or Daniel—is that it is important during the course of negotiations to have some way to have a report back from the negotiators on a fairly consistent basis, so that you know where Sergio and Lloyd are at in the course of the negotiations on agriculture, fisheries, or any one of those industries that are very important to the Canadian lifestyle and to Canadian living in terms of values. Values are very hard to quantify—or to qualify—but there are fundamental Canadian values that we cherish here. They should be included, not excluded from the process.

The negotiators should know what the stakeholders are thinking when they go in. It's not merely the businessman's responsibility or voice. The stakeholder, who is the person who works to produce the goods and services that are going to be sold, should also have a voice that's heard and know what's going on in those negotiations.

So I think what Canadian polity and politics wish to accomplish as a goal—its objectives, its policies, and its programs—needs to be very clearly identified so that you then can have transparency in the consultation through the negotiators' roles.

I just wanted you to know that this whole thought of fair balance of people's interests is the ongoing concern that was expressed and that led to this. Southeast Asia, China, India, South America, and Central America were absolutely vigorous in their defence of the need to consider the values of the country and the people. The interrelationship as well of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank was related to the WTO in a very important manner. Their sense was that there needs to be an oversight body. There is no oversight to the WTO, the World Bank, or the IMF.

I thought it would be important to—

The Chairman: We have a chapter on that too.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'm sorry. I know it's outside of the consultative mechanism, but I feel I was consulting on an international plane, which indicates that we're on the path of what many people are feeling worldwide.

There's a reason the MAI failed, over and above its content. It's because people don't understand. If we're doing a job and educating our public.... That's why I think meeting with the editors of newspapers as you go, to indicate that this is an educative process.... You can't walk away from the WTO. It exists. So the newspapers and the news media have a responsibility too.

The Chairman: It's funny, when we were doing our report on foreign policy, we were asked, we went, and we were interviewed by newspaper editors. But somehow it's harder to get into them now.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Because Conrad Black owns them all.

The Chairman: Well, no. This issue is.... I've talked to quite a few of them, and they're saying this thing is five years away, it's not on the radar screen, so we won't write about it. It's exactly like the famous thing about the MAI—you know, all the talk about the MAI being a secret agreement. Everybody who knew anything about anything knew that discussion was going on. The famous secrecy—there was nothing secret about it. I talked to several—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, but you're not the ordinary public.

The Chairman: No, no, wait a minute. I talked to several top negotiators who went to newspapers and said “Will you please write some articles about this”, and they all said “Go away. Nobody gives a fig about this. We're not going to bother with it.” So trying to get on their radar scope is not easy. Particularly in a complicated marketplace like Toronto or Montreal, you do not get on the radar scope the way you can in rural communities or others, where they'll be interested in what an MP or a committee has to say.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Can I just put in one other fact about communication? I think it's important too.

One point that I missed but that should be stressed, in my opinion, is that agriculture, in the last round of WTO, had the commodity groups in a session like this at the negotiations, and the negotiator met with the commodity groups and clearly had their viewpoint as they went through. That was the supply-managed sector. Quebec was very concerned. Ontario was very concerned. And the commodity groups were consulted before he walked in every day. There was back and forth communication.

• 1145

That may be giving control to organizations who have interests and empowering them to have a big say in it, which is something we were hearing as well. They need to have that communication, and I think that's another part of the communication at the table. We might make those recommendations, that where possible we could incorporate industrial and labour views in a more upfront way during the negotiation process.

The Chairman: We'll certainly look at them.

As you may know, a group of us went last time, both in Singapore and Geneva. There are SAGITs there and people there, and there's a briefing every morning and discussions. They don't take you into the room with them, but there were all these discussions.

A voice: This is empowerment.

The Chairman: Yes, these are all the things you have to look at.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, sorry for arriving a bit late, but I presume you're asking for impressions of—

The Chairman: I'm asking for your general impressions about what we heard as we travelled across the country, so the researchers have a feeling of the different—

Ms. Jean Augustine: I attended the meetings in Toronto, London, and Windsor. I'm not going to talk about the corporate, the industry, the commodity, or whoever, but I came out those meetings with the idea that there was cause for a better global trade regime, with transparency, with input, that we have some Canadian values and we don't want to see those values eroded, and that we want our negotiators to be cognizant of those Canadian values.

I came away also with a very strong feeling that there is some international momentum of global networks that have commenced and will not allow us to go with the usual state of the way things—

The Chairman: The old boys club sort of thing.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Right.

There were calls for sustainable development, environmental factors, labour, human rights, and all of those issues, to be entwined in the negotiations. I think the perception of the WTO by the general public, at least by some of the presenters, seemed to indicate that it was viewed in the same way they view the World Bank, the IMF: they're big bodies making laws and imprinting that on national sites and national culture without a lot of concern for sustainable development and all of these things people care about.

The bottom line to us was let's evaluate where we've been so far, let's look at what has happened so far, and before we go forward with this millennium round, let's have some Canadian position and go into negotiations with those values—labour, human rights, and so on—as part of the way in which we would operate.

I also came away with the sense that those presenters, even the ones who were demonstrating and tended to be very much community advocates, have a sense that, as Canada, we have a responsibility, if that discussion is not going to take place, to make that discussion happen, or if processes are not what they should be, that we seem to have a responsibility as Canada to make this happen. They seem to think we have a lot of power in this whole operation. They were saying that Canada has to do this, and Canada should do that, and Canada should do the other.

So there is that sense that Canada is one of 330, or however many, and we should be going in there and just saying what it is we want to see happen, and somehow or other it would happen.

So I think how we deal with our public in terms of communicating the role we play and how this all takes place is an important follow-up to all of this. There is a lot of fear that the investment issue, the MAI issue, will wind its way in some subtle way back into the discussion, and that they'll get snookered or suckered into getting in through there something that could not have been done in some other format.

• 1150

So the issue of transparency kept coming up. Yet when we asked at one point for the definition of “transparency”, we found that transparency was different for advocacy groups from what it was for the business and corporate people, who were describing transparency in a completely different way. It was my sense that we had a responsibility, and the public was telling us we had a responsibility, to go out there, negotiate in a transparent way, and make sure all these Canadian values of environment, human rights, labour laws, all these things are in there, and evaluate where we've been before we go further.

The Chairman: Thank you. I think that accords with most of our impressions.

Very quickly, I'd like to get out at about 11.55, since I'm supposed to be at a meeting.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have two things I want to raise. It won't take too long.

It was the enforcement idea that attracted a lot of NGOs and special interest groups to say that we should load other things on to the WTO, and yet when questioned about how that might work there was really no answer. I think it's something we have to pay some attention to here. The concept is fine, except that if it's not workable, and I think we have addressed it here in looking for workable proposals, we have to pay some attention to that.

The other one is the one that Deepak brought up of genetically modified organisms based on scientific background. That is a contentious issue. We heard agriculture groups saying they wanted access for these products into other countries, and then we heard other people saying stop it. So we have to pay some attention to that, but how we do it on a scientific basis or what's going to be the judgment is important.

The Chairman: Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that you have said that we should be making our comments relating to the work plan to Gerry. I would simply like to say that Chapter 2 deals with considerations relating to the provinces and to intranational administrations, but we also heard talk about the municipal level in Vancouver. I had been very much surprised by that.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: Indeed.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That had been very surprising. In Chapter 2, we talk about the various players in civil society. For my part, I would put them in the introduction and I would devote a complete chapter to them at the very beginning, so that they see that we are very interested in civil society.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: In the introduction and in the first chapter, I will dealing with matters of process.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We mustn't forget the municipalities.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I too have comments in this regard to make to Gerald and to our researchers.

First of all, I think that it is well done. It appears to be quite complete. The only thing I would like to understand is part 1, dealing with the interests of Canada in the establishment of an improved world trade system. Its content and the way in which you present it aren't as clear as for the other parts. My impression is that it is the whole issue of the political dimension of the process. As I mentioned earlier, I would like there to be something substantial relating to the parliamentary dimension. I would like our committee to take this opportunity to reflect upon the role of Parliamentarians, and in particular that of our committee, in the negotiation process. That is the first comment I wanted to make.

The second part obviously deals with the trade dimension, the trade content. I would suggest that we follow a more traditional order there. In Chapter 6, dealing with market access, you talk about the products. You seem to be targeting the entire product trade, in Chapter 6, including agriculture, but we could have a separate chapter for agriculture, given how important it is.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Chapter 4.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but the present WTO agreement, as was the case of the GATT in 1947 as well as 1994, deals with products. There is also the GATS, the agreement relating to services. I would suggest that the chapters dealing with products be first, followed by the chapter on services and then the other new dimensions that are already, in some cases, targeted by the Uruguay Round agreements: intellectual property, technology, investment and trade and cultural issues. I would choose an order that fits with the way we have organized the agreements appended to the treaty establishing the WTO. There is an internal logic there that we should perhaps try to respect here.

• 1155

Regarding the third and fourth parts, I would prefer that you talk about the future system of the WTO, not only in parts 3 and 4, because we will also be talking about the future system of the WTO in part 2, but throughout. I find that the social dimension is essential and that it is well organized.

Lastly, I am pleased that you included Chapter 15, but we didn't hear much talk of this from the witnesses.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: It was talked about.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It was perhaps talked about, but I didn't hear much about that.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: We heard evidence about that in Toronto and next week we will be hearing from two experts, Jeffrey Schott and Pierre Sauvé.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I find that it is perfectly logical to end it in that way. There is an opening to the idea of a reform of the Bretton Woods system and of making the WTO a pillar of Bretton Woods, as should have been the case in the beginning, in 1947. I like the end very much, but we are lacking a conclusion. Should there not be a conclusion somewhere?

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: We will put it in the summary, as well as in the recommendations.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But I do hope there will be a conclusion. There is an introduction and a preface to the introduction. We mustn't forget the conclusion.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: I believe that after 15 chapters...

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could include a short conclusion.

[English]

The Chairman: It was very helpful. Thank you very much. We'll be having our discussions about this.

I think our other reports, if I may just leave this reflection with you, have seemed to me to have served two purposes. If you take the nuclear report as an example, there were many things. There were the recommendations in the nuclear report, but also the text of the nuclear report allowed all those people who came before the committee and participated in the discussions to see their ideas reflected in it.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, very well done.

The Chairman: So I think this report should do the same thing. We want two things from this. We want our recommendations, but we also want our reflections on what Canadians told us, and make sure that people see that.

That said, one of the problems, I agree with you, is the structure of the hearings and the process. We may have to continually think about it. The way we go about it is we're having these hearings, and on the one hand, from the point of view of efficiency and understanding and clarity, it would be better not to hear the same thing over and over again. But from the point of view of citizens' participation and the desire of people to be involved, the nun who came before us in Windsor is not going to be satisfied by our saying “Madam, we heard all that in Toronto; we're not interested in what you have to say”.

So it's a balance. It seems to me we have to be very careful. I'm very conscious of the fact that, for example, when I spoke to the Council of Canadians people, a couple of them came before us and I said we'll be hearing your point of view, and some of them said yes, but this is nothing as in-depth as when we heard 20,000 witnesses across the country, etc. So there are some people who want to replicate a kind of an unrealizable model for us. We just can't do it. But on the other hand, I think we have to be conscious of that fact.

I'm going to adjourn, because we have to go. I'm late for an important meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: When will Gerald's draft report be tabled? Are we still talking about May 30?

[English]

A voice: You can have my chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: And we will have nine days for debate?

The Chairman: I believe it is 12, is it not?

Mr. Daniel Turp: No. It's nine, or perhaps ten. That means that we will have very intensive working meetings. Will we be holding in camera meetings so as to avoid the document being leaked to the press? We have already had that happen. I wouldn't want us to relive it.

The Chairman: We will discuss that. I believe we will find a process to allow everyone to discuss matters freely in camera.

Mrs. Maud Debien: A dispute resolution process.

The Chairman: I hope there won't be any leaks. We are looking at ways of ensuring all of that.

Mr. Gerald Schmitz: We will do our best, but given that we have more than...

• 1200

[English]

The Chairman: Remember, members, there's a Kosovo briefing at the usual hour, at 3.15 to 4 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.