"If the U.S. proceeds to make it mandatory that Canadians produce a passport at the border, or that Americans have to produce a passport at the border, that is going to hurt our economy and it's going to hurt their economy," he said.
But Joanna Gonzalez, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington, said the fact that thousands of lost or stolen documents are circulating in Ontario will only bolster calls for tighter border security.
That's one reason Washington is pushing a new law that would require travellers to and from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, the Caribbean and Panama to have a passport "or other secure, accepted document" to enter the U.S. after Jan. 1, 2008, she said.
McGuinty, who will meet next week with the Great Lakes Governors Council in Milwaukee, said he has discussed the passport issue with New York's George Pataki. "Governor Pataki is very sensitive to this issue and we've talked about working together so that we might ensure that we have an alternate secure document like a driver's licence," he said. "(New York has) moved to a licence with some kind of holographic detail, which is more secure, and he's encouraging us to take a look at that," McGuinty said.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1133995815625&call_pageid=968332188774
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...

---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
That aside, just what do you have against biometrics? For a techonologicallty secure id (acronym for "identification document", in case you didn't know) these days, biometrics are by far the best means of linking the bearer to the document.
So, what is your point, if indeed you have one? Do you want to keep easily forged documents simply to enable criminally nefarious cross-border purposes?
Nothing, really. It's a good solution, but should not be relied upon as a 'secure' one.
"For a techonologicallty secure id (acronym for "identification document", in case you didn't know) these days, biometrics are by far the best means of linking the bearer to the document."
Until that 'document' is lost. If a biometric ID is compromised, there is no way to prove it wasn't the 'document' holder that authorized a transaction.
If the ID verification is lost (loss of a finger, or eye), there is no way to replace it. You can't tell the customs official that, 'Yes, it's my passport, but I lost my arm in a car accident, so I can't give you a thumbscan'. And they can't change it, because you can't verify you are you.
What I took exception to, is the Anon assuming the first Anon didn't like Biometrics in order to hide illegal activities (strawman argument) rather than the fact the Biometrics may become just as inherently flawed as other forms of ID, and twice as difficult to prevent or correct 'identity theft'.
---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill
Oh, come on. If you show up without a significant finger or eye, the sensible question from the border or immigration (not customs!) official would be: Why didn't you bothr to update your ID?