I suspect, although I didn't have the chance to hear all of his presentation or Gilles' presentation earlier, that I would probably endorse the vast bulk of what either of them had to say.
Let me take a few minutes to set out some of my thoughts and some of the chamber's thoughts with regard to where we are at the border today.
No doubt my colleagues reinforced for you the importance of the bilateral relationship between Canada and the U.S.--there's no need for me to do that--and stressed the unique relationship between our two countries. Instead of simply selling things to one another, we in fact build things together, with tightly integrated supply chains. You can have a chassis for a car coming down an assembly line on one side of the border to be joined to a seat coming down an assembly line on the other.
The border is absolutely critical to us. Some 10 million jobs on the two sides of the border depend on our ability to have a border that is transparent to legitimate goods and travellers.
So much of my time since 9/11 has been spent on the whole issue of the border. There was a time when I believed we could tweak our way by making improvements, sufficient to get to where we needed to be; however, my experience over the course of the last seven and a half years has convinced me that this formula no longer works. We need to look at something that, in my view, is considerably bolder.
Yes, it is important that we do what we can to make the present system more efficient, but we also need to redefine the game. The rules, as they are currently written, work against both countries, but particularly against Canada. The political incentives in the United States are to harden the border, with very few rewards for those who would argue that it should be more transparent to legitimate travellers and goods.
Unless we can initiate a fundamental discussion about our government's presence along the border, we'll be engaged in an ongoing holding operation with the U.S. government to make it less sticky, less costly, and less thick than they would like, but all of the movement will be in one direction. This is particularly the case if the Americans insist, as Ambassador Kergin was alluding to earlier, that their northern border must look the same as their southern border, despite the vast differences in the issues at stake.
I think all of us had hoped that the election of a new government in the United States would mean that while there might be changes in terms of the government's attitude in the U.S. with regard to trade, there would also be changes with regard to security. Yet the early signs we've seen out of Washington are that the current administration is moving in the same direction of hardening the border as opposed to thinning it out.
Having said that, I note that the election of a new U.S. administration gives us the chance to reinvigorate our long-standing bilateral relationship. We need to be, and to be seen to be, part of the solution to a number of a common concerns. If the United States is worried about the environment or the supply of energy, we can help. If it's concerned about the security of the continent, we're an important part of the solution--we're not the problem.
The same applies for transportation planning, for international trade policy, and for preparing for possible pandemics. Once we define how the border fits into the larger Canada-U.S. relationship, we can make progress. For example, we need to ask ourselves whether the border in the 21st century is meant to secure our nations from threats originating in the other country, to catch someone bringing in a third bottle of scotch, or to do something else altogether.
We need to go back to first principles and ask, “Why are we there?” What does the border mean in the 21st century? Is it simply a line on the map that we throw security resources at or do we need to take a fresh approach? At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we believe that a secure border that facilitates the movement of low-risk goods and people, and where border officers focus their limited resources on unknown trade and travel, is the best way to proceed.
To address the immediate issues, we have a number of short-term recommendations that fit into a longer-term vision. Together, they will make North America more secure and competitive. We want to see a Canada-U.S. border that is co-managed by our two countries, that gives strategic and resource priority to trusted shippers and travellers, that moves inspections and risk assessments further back in the supply chain and travel systems, and that reduces regulatory differences between our two countries.
In the short term, the Canadian and U.S. governments should expand participation in trusted shipper and traveller programs. These voluntary programs should make crossing the border fast and consistent for participants while allowing customs officers to focus their limited resources on unknown trade and travel. However, a number of companies reported that they're not seeing the benefits of these programs, with some saying their inspection rates have not gone down. That's despite the fact that they paid more than $100,000 to secure their supply chains and become certified as low risk. Some businesses are actually avoiding trusted shipper programs altogether because they feel they will be inspected less by not participating. It's bizarre, and yet this is the unintended consequence of the programs as they're currently structured. Others can’t even participate because they're regulated by government departments, including agricultural agencies, that are not partners in the low-risk programs.
We need to treat trusted shippers and travellers differently from unknown trade and travel. Expanding participation in these programs is part of a risk assessment strategy that makes our border more secure while facilitating two-way trade and travel.
Keeping traffic moving is another way of securing the border. Cargo tampering is more likely to happen in lengthy border and inspection line-ups. Simply put, when a truck is moving, it's less likely that somebody is going to be fiddling with the cargo while that's taking place. It's when it's stopped that there's the greatest potential danger. It's the same with any 40-foot cargo container.
A major concern for the business community is that border booths and inspection facilities aren’t staffed to meet travel demand. Commercial traffic patterns are largely predictable. Border staffing decisions should be based on demand rather than time of day. And lengthy wait times aren’t specific to southbound traffic. It can also be a problem in Canada, and it's not just a CBSA issue. Other government departments that do inspections at the border need to staff based on demand as well. It's common for an agricultural shipment entering Canada on a Friday, and sent to secondary inspection, to wait until Monday for a CFIA inspector to arrive. So much for just-in-time delivery, particularly with perishable goods. Matching border staffing to business demand reduces wait times and strengthens our security.
Now, another way to secure our border and to speed up the flow of trade and travel is to have a uniform system for reporting imports and exports in place. Right now different shipments are regulated by different government departments that require similar information but in different formats. Sometimes it's electronic and other times it's in a paper-based format. Electronic cargo reporting helps border agencies manage risk. A uniform system would boost information sharing between government departments and simplify the reporting process for businesses. We strongly support the single-window interface in Canada that will bring CBSA and other government departments with border mandates under one electronic system. We urge the government to make participation in the single-window interface a priority for all required departments and agencies. This can be the starting point of a long-term strategy to put in place a fully secure and interoperable customs system with the United States.
A good border vision needs a solid contingency plan in case of a pandemic, a natural disaster, or terrorist activity. The border’s importance to 10 million jobs calls for a plan to deal with a full or partial border closure. CBSA has made considerable progress in putting together a plan to manage the movement of goods and people during an emergency at the border. The next step is to work with the United States to have a bilateral plan and a communication strategy. All of us hope that we’ll never have to activate a border contingency plan, but it’s important to have one in place for our security.
A basic requirement for the flow of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border is travellers showing up with the right documents. The western hemisphere travel initiative is coming into force on June 1 of this year. Travellers will then need a passport, a NEXUS or FAST card, or an enhanced driver’s licence to cross into the United States. Each of these documents has different benefits and is of interest to different segments of the travel market. We recommend that the Canadian and U.S. governments get a critical mass of WHTI-compliant documents into circulation and communicate the forthcoming rules to the general public. Our economies are already hurting because of the economic downturn. We can’t add to the problem by hampering travel between our two countries.
The recommendations that I just listed lay the groundwork for a longer-term border vision. Moving forward, we need to take the Canada-U.S. border to the next level by building on our long history of cooperation in NORAD, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the International Joint Commission. We recommend working together on a co-managed border run by officials from Canadian and U.S. border and infrastructure agencies, with a potentially rotating chair from the two countries--as in NORAD. A co-managed border would lead to uniform and strategic border planning in security, infrastructure, and operational activities. This concept could be tested using a pilot project at an existing border crossing with low-risk, pre-screened, trusted shippers and travellers.
The bottom line here is that it's time for new ideas. To make progress we need to package the border with other areas of common interest. We're partners, and partners work together.
But what I propose here is far less ambitious than what's been achieved in Europe, where the continent was twice riven by war in the past century before being divided between the Soviet bloc and the west.
I recognize that many people still question whether it's possible to make substantive structural changes. I believe it's not only possible but it's essential. Today, travel by individuals or cargo is seamless throughout much of Europe. Surely two countries with a history of good relations, enjoying the world's most important trading relationship and sharing both common challenges and common opportunities, can agree to work together. What is needed is the vision to see what's possible and the perseverance to make it happen. Through your leadership, we can build a brighter and more prosperous future for both our economies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee.