Public Safety Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a bit of a general comment and then I have a couple of specific questions.

My first comment is that, probably like a lot of Canadians, I feel a bit of frustration when we talk about the border with the United States because I believe the premise from which we begin is faulty. The greatest illustration of that is in Ms. Napolitano's comments recently. Since 9/11, when the Americans were understandably quite shaken, there really hasn't been any evidence-based circumstances, I think, that would justify the amount of attention we've seen on thickening the border. Other than the Ressam case a few years ago, I don't think there have been any examples of Canadians crossing the United States border for terrorist activity. There have been no high-profile situations in which there have been commercial problems crossing the border from Canada. Yet we have proceeded on the assumption that there's a problem there.

I must say for the record that I find that frustrating. I feel like we're engaging in a whole set of procedures and policies and taking a lot of people's time and energy and money to fix a problem that I have never been convinced is actually there. Nevertheless, I hear what you're saying, that the reality is such that we may not have the luxury of arguing the premise.

My two questions are focused on the following.

My first is on sovereignty. Mr. Beatty, I think you used the elegant phrase, “intersections of sovereignties”, which I quite like. My concern when we talk about the border and when we talk about words like harmonization or information sharing, particularly in the context of things like the security and prosperity partnership, is that in joining with the United States in common procedures, policies, practices, approaches, we risk losing our ability to set our own standards and our ability to gain control of affairs within our own country.

I'll give a couple of examples and then I'll ask you for your comments. I've read that there have been proposals to adopt the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval process on pharmaceuticals and drugs, that we'll simply adopt those in Canada.

Second, something I'm familiar with through my previous work is that the Americans have random drug testing for their workers--it's lawful in the United States, it's not lawful in Canada--and the tendency is for us to adopt that practice in Canada.

I'd like your comments. You've given a lot of thought about this, I can tell. Do you have any concerns about how we protect Canadian sovereignty in the context of dealing with the very real security issues we have?

[Perrin Beatty]

Yes, Mr. Davies, and thank you. That's a very thoughtful question.

I think it's important that we approach the issue in a very pragmatic way and set aside ideological concerns that have historically tended to guide the relationship. In this particular instance, look at it from this perspective: does the measure we're looking at make sense? We have common standards for the electricity we use in our grid. Would we be more sovereign if we didn't? No. We have common standards for broadcasting, for technical standards. Would we be more sovereign if we didn't? No. If we use different gauges on our railroads, would we be more sovereign? No. If our roads didn't meet at the border, would we be more sovereign? No.

That doesn't mean that we simply abandon what makes us distinctive as Canadians. It means that we need to focus on those areas that are intrinsic to who we are, to protect them, but in the other areas to put everything on the table and simply say, where does it make sense for us, cohabiting on this North American continent, to work together as partners? We've done this for over a century in the case of the International Joint Commission.

I spent a very interesting meeting last week with the Honourable Herb Gray talking about his activities, and it works very well. We co-manage the St. Lawrence Seaway.

In other areas--in transportation planning, in the environment, mobility of people, trade policy, defence, security, a whole range of other areas--it makes sense for us to pragmatically sit down and examine how we can work together as partners in North America to the benefit of both our countries, and how to do it in a way that doesn't impinge on our sovereignty.

Finally, I'm a former health minister as well, so as it relates to harmonization of product testing and the like, where you have essentially the same goals, where you have essentially the same results, where your methodology is essentially the same but there are minor differences in terms of how you do it or report it, it makes sense for us to look for ways to collaborate on that.

Where we have fundamental differences in values is where we need to reserve to ourselves in Canada the right to go our own way.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Ambassador Kergin, I think you mentioned in your remarks that while protecting the border we had to be mindful of the protection of privacy and civil rights. I want to know if you would elaborate on that for us. What privacy and civil rights might be engaged by this process?

[Michael Kergin]

I think the most outstanding example was the Maher Arar case, where rendition in the U.S. of a Canadian citizen was unacceptable from a Canadian perspective. That happened very shortly after 9/11. In any discussions we have with the United States, it is extremely important that we put some red lines in, some no-go areas. We have to establish what is acceptable from a Canadian perspective with respect to our charter obligations. This could come up in relation to information and intelligence sharing, cooperation on diplomatic activities internationally, better standards for container traffic, advanced passenger information coming to North America, and other topics.

Intelligence and information sharing is not a bad thing, provided we are clear about our fundamental privacy and human rights issues. The Americans also have quite strong safeguards in these areas, but there are differences in their constitution and legal system that we may need to take into account.

Coming back to your earlier point about jurisdictional subordination, it seems to me that those are areas where we cannot go if there is a conflict of values. There are many other areas, however, where we might be able to work with the Americans on information sharing, policing, criminals, and so forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Thank you very much for coming, gentlemen.

I listened to Mr. Beatty talk about some of the esoteric border issues, etc., but I'm pretty much a bread and butter type of person. My riding is in southeastern Ontario. A lot of the manufacturing there requires a seamless border. In order for companies to meet payroll and to stay in business, they have to make a little bit of profit, and the thickening border doesn't do that for them.

From listening this morning to much of the presentation, I think the reality is the fact that Canada really doesn't have a profile in the United States to the extent it should, given our importance to them vis-à-vis our economies and foreign policies. We don't differ a heck of a lot from the U.S. in many, many instances. We have some differences, yes, and that's good, but I think if you have an empty stomach, if your companies and your plants around you are closing, a lot of the other good things don't matter. You need to put a roof over your head and bread and butter on the table, so you need that border lightened, not thickened.

Earlier in the week we were reading about what it takes for Canada to get seen, what it takes for Canada to get on their radar screen, and I'm going to come back to Mr. Beatty's talk about how closely we're entwined with NORAD, which might be a good way to approach issues at the border.

Mr. Kergin, you lived for many years in the United States, representing Canada and trying to get Canada on their radar screen. When I read one of your statements earlier this week that you could stand in front of the Washington Monument with all your clothes off and still not get the national media coverage you'd like, I thought about what we've been doing recently, with the Prime Minister trying to get on American television and saying—at least to the business community, or to the average American for whom bread and butter issues mean something—“Hey, we're important to you; you may not think about it, but we are.”

I guess my first request for a response would be from Mr. Kergin, and a little bit from Mr. Beatty and Mr. Muller. I know it can't be business as usual, but do you not think, number one, that we need some kind of campaign—not an advertising campaign, but...?

I guess, Mr. Beatty, the challenge would be for you to get on the speaking circuit of the U.S. chambers of commerce and talk to those folks about the issues, so they can talk to their congressmen and senators.

Mr. Kergin, from a government perspective, how can we get Canada on the radar screen without having to resort to taking our clothes off in front of the Washington Monument?

Mr. Muller, how do you think we could change some of the practices at the border, because, as Mr. Beatty said, we can't keep mirroring what they're doing on the other side, because it's going to end up being somewhat of a stalemate and we're not going to get ahead? But if we don't, they're just going to shut us off. To me, you can get around that by using the NORAD type of experience.

Starting with Mr. Kergin, then Mr. Beatty, and then Mr. Muller, could you respond to some of those thoughts and statements?

[Michael Kergin]

Thank you very much. You've really raised the $64 million question that I've been grappling with in the last 30 years that I've been dealing with Canada-U.S. relations, and that is, how do we get ourselves on their radar scope? The old story is that good news is no news, and very rarely do we have a bad news story from the United States.

An incident in Georgia or something in the Ukraine hits a lot of newspapers, but the fact that we have this enormous trading relationship never makes the U.S. press. The only time in my five years in Washington as an ambassador that Canada appeared above the fold on the front page of The New York Times was when the Alberta Minister of Energy dared to suggest that possibly energy might flow to China rather than coming south to the United States. That, from the American perspective, was a bad news story and we therefore got on the front page of the The New York Times.

I'm not suggesting that as an approach, obviously. It does explain a little bit, to some extent, that good news just doesn't really carry in the media very often.

I'll come back to the question. This actually ties in with a question that Mr. Ménard had. It's glib to say, “Well, you try to influence Americans one American at a time.” There are 300 million of them, so that's a bit of a tall order. There is a bit of truth to that, in the sense that I found that the best way to start to get the Americans' attention is from the grassroots up. It's working at the subnational level, province to state. There are incredibly good relationships that exist across border towns and so on.

When we have a problem on a lumber issue, for example, or we have a problem on a border issue, very often we can use our subnational authorities and our consuls to work on the state governments, who then will start to work on their federal representatives to get things to change. The best example I can think of, you might recall, is that of the U.S ambassador to Canada, at the outset, when we were starting to think about enhanced drivers' licences for British Columbia. It was a British Columbia initiative, then Ontario and Michigan.... He said, “Not a chance. It's never going to happen. Homeland Security will never buy the idea of an enhanced driver's licence.” Some of us who knew Washington—and I argue maybe a little better than he did, frankly—recognized that if we worked on Senator Schumer in New York, if we worked on the Michigan senators, and if we worked on the Washington State senators, we might be able to push that back and get something like another alternative to the pass card or to the western hemisphere travel initiative, like the enhanced driver's licence.

I don't think one should ever underestimate the ability of working cross-border with our immediate, proximate neighbours. Have them put pressure on their representatives in Washington to roll back some of the legislation or some of the perceptions that the inner beltway, in its ignorance--and in many cases its ignorance of Canada--has come up with and hurt us, without wanting to hurt us but just unknowingly has hurt us.

[Perrin Beatty]

All of this is important and we need to continue doing it.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for its part, will be updating its joint report with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and it will be releasing new recommendations on how to improve the functioning of the border. At the end of the day, we have to pull back and assess the progress. We've had brilliant people serving us in Washington; we have superb teams there. All of us have poured resources in since 9/11.

Where are we? Two weeks ago we had the Homeland Security Secretary saying that the 9/11 terrorists crossed from Canada. That was followed by John McCain, who was here in Ottawa as recently as last summer, saying, “Well, of course, she was right. They crossed the Canadian border.” If all of the efforts we've made in education have brought us to that point, it's time for us to go back to the drawing board and ask ourselves whether the strategy essentially works.

When the Americans spend $100 million to launch a new razor blade, what are the resources that we as Canadians can put into the educational campaign in the U.S.? That's why, yes, we have to continue to do that to the best of our ability, and we have to continue to try to improve the system as it currently exists. We need to engage the Americans at a new level. That means Prime Minister to President, and it means with a new idea and with something that is important enough that it needs to be decided at the political level, not by meetings of bureaucrats--it's a game change or to redefine the rules.

That's the only way we can win.

[Dr. Benjamin Muller]

I think I can sum up some of these things. I would echo the two sets of comments that have been made. One is that we ought to look at what works, and what works is to ask how you eat an elephant and to realize it's got to be one bite at a time. The enhanced driver's licence is far more successful in Washington State than it is in British Columbia. They've marketed it exceptionally well and completely gotten on board. Things like the integrated border enforcement teams that the RCMP were involved in are successful. Why? Because they're small. They have developed personal communications and relations of trust. In those smaller confines, there are all sorts of initiatives that I'm familiar with, particularly within Washington State. They're successful because they create manageable relationships. When you look at it in the macro, it's too much to handle. Just in a geographic sense, the border is massive.

The other point is that we need to change our entire discourse with respect to the border. It is simplistic to speak about it as a mere security line. This does not mirror how borders have functioned in history. They are always lines of socialization as well. An identity is also integrally linked to what a border is there for. It has been this way since the Roman Empire, where borders were more of a socialization exercise than a security exercise. If we go down the security road, we will have to mirror the projects that are going on south of the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Kania.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thanks to you all for being here.

Mr. Beatty, you've called for a “time for new ideas” and a “fresh approach”, and you made reference to the European Union. I want to discuss that. You've taken the words out of my mouth. I have a master of laws from England in European Union law, and this is something that I want to discuss. I want to go back to the purpose of the border. At this time, I can see the Americans are predominantly focused on security and terrorist threats, but I find it strange for people to think that this threat would be high at the border between Canada and the United States. I think the threat would be greater on the perimeters of North America.

What do you think should be occurring now? I assume your eventual goal would be an undefended border between Canada and the United States, with a more secure perimeter around North America to protect all of us.

[Perrin Beatty]

I don't think we're going to achieve what we've seen in Europe in the foreseeable future. It's bizarre when you think about it. Think of the challenges in Europe compared with those in North America. The practical realities are that it's unlikely we'll be able to achieve that. But can we move to push the borders out? Can we develop a better understanding of the people and cargo coming to North America before it ever arrives, and then thin out the Canada-U.S. border?

If we're counting on the border as the place to intercept terrorists, including domestic homegrown terrorists, this is a very dangerous reed to try to grasp. We need to share criminal intelligence more effectively to identify threats before they ever get anywhere near the border. It means reconceptualizing how we manage security and redefining the game. But yes, that's the direction in which I'd like to move.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I don't see any practical difference in the threats that exist between American states and those that exist between Canada and the United States, with our police services and all the information we have. What's the difference? How is it that Americans think there's more of a risk to the U.S. from Canada than from homegrown sources?

[Perrin Beatty]

In politics, perception is often more important than reality. Do I believe that we pose less of a threat to the United States than many states within the U.S. do? Yes, I do, definitely.

I asked a congressmen in the United States whether he believed that his constituents would feel that any country, no matter how competent and whatever their intentions, could provide for the security of the United States as effectively as the United States itself. His response was that he thinks his constituents expect the U.S. to look after the U.S. The border is there and it's a convenient place to draw the line. That's where they throw the resources.

The intuitive logic is that if there are cops at the border, we'll be more secure. I would argue that the strategy being followed is making us less secure, because it is diverting limited security resources from areas of high priority. When you talk about risk management, there are areas of low priority. As a result, politics make us less secure than we would otherwise be.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

For example, a high priority would be the perimeter around North America and shipments coming into North America, not the geographical border between the U.S. and Canada.

[Perrin Beatty]

I would include resources in security and criminal intelligence. If you were to ask the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the United States, “If you had 10,000 people or 5,000 people you could use somewhere, would you station them on the Canadian border?”, I know what the answer would be. If you were to ask the head of the CIA or the NSA, “If you had a couple of thousand people or a few billion dollars more, would you use it for threats from Canada?”, I know what the answer would be.

There's a limited amount of money that's available and it is being misallocated at the present time. On our side it is being dramatically misallocated when the threat is illicit tobacco, guns, drugs, and organized crime. If you have the RCMP before this committee, ask them to tell you how many terrorists they've caught coming north across the 49th parallel.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

You're aware that in January, Secretary Napolitano commissioned a study about the Canada-U.S. border. You have read or heard that she made some negative comments about the border and terrorist threats or security in relation to Canada.

[Perrin Beatty]

Yes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

You are a former minister. If you were the minister now, would you have made submissions to her to somehow try to influence her opinions in this report? Would you have done something?

[Perrin Beatty]

I think the government certainly did. Secretary Napolitano was scheduled to come to Ottawa three weeks ago. I was invited to dinner with her, among others, and I'd hoped--

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Would you agree that the Canadian government should have made representations to her for that report?

[Perrin Beatty]

Continuing representations on any issue related to border management...absolutely. But in any instance where concerns are raised, we need to respond effectively and directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you.

You're all very esteemed, and I have the highest regard for all of you. My comments will frame where I'd like you to respond--not so much of a question. I'd like to provide some insight. I'm a fairly new politician with a very practical background in the building industry, and I've lived close to the border and done business on both sides of the border.

I'd like Mr. Beatty, Mr. Muller, and Mr. Rhéaume to perhaps respond. Mr. Rhéaume mentioned establishing a national brand as one of the priorities. Then I heard Mr. Beatty, as an extensively seasoned politician, talk about the European example of a more harmonized approach between countries. Agriculture is perhaps one example, although I don't know specifics. I'm sure there are standards between their countries that facilitate the flow of agricultural goods.

The suggestion seems to be, from the comments today, that we need a more international approach and not a national brand--more of a harmonized approach to how we address all these issues in a new game perhaps.

But I am reminded of the reality of the politics. I'm especially interested in Mr. Beatty's comments about this. I think back to when this country was negotiating the NAFTA with the United States. I remember that the opposition outcry was huge and loud about how this was going to ruin our identity culturally. This all ties to some of Mr. Oliphant's comments about the different kinds of borders.

I would like you to comment on how to create a less thickened border, in a practical and pragmatic way, given the reality of politics where all of these things are intermingled, and the outcry that would likely happen with a harmonized approach. It seems to be a general theme across what you're saying, with the exception of Mr. Rhéaume, who suggested a national brand.

That's the context of my comments. Could you comment back to me on those, please?

[Perrin Beatty]

I'll try to be quick. Change the game. That's the only way.