Globe and Mail - March 30, 2007
By Colin Kenny
At the core of Canada is the concept of “peace, order and good government.”
The current federal government is committed to “law and order,” and it clearly believes that Canadians will equate this commitment with good government.
But is the commitment real? Are measures being prepared to decrease internal threats in our homes and on our streets as well as external threats from beyond our borders?
On our streets, you’ve got those kids with guns around Jane and Finch in Toronto. Even though statistics show that most violent crime is domestic, it’s the threat of those young people endangering innocent bystanders that bothers most Canadians.
Measures are in the works to deal with these people – longer minimum sentences for gang- and gun-related offences, more likely jail sentences for second weapons offences – that kind of thing.
Whether or not these kinds of measures actually work is a matter of constant debate between small-l liberals and small-c conservatives. The conservatives, who love guns but hate criminals, seem forever blinded to the fact that strict gun control measures saves lives. The liberals seem perpetually blinded to the fact that the threat of stern retribution can – at least on occasion – deter violent crime.
But never mind that debate. A tougher approach to law and order is clearly popular with many Canadians, and the current government believes that’s the way to go.
According to Justice Minister Vic Toews, "Canadians are fed up with the soft approach to crime that has been taken for so long. They want their government to get tough on criminals and send a clear message that violence will not be tolerated in our communities . . . “
What about potential violence coming from outside?
A trip to the website of Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor provides several references to the government’s “Canada First” defence policy, which sets out protection of Canadian territory as the government’s defence priority.
So defence initiatives abroad – in places like Afghanistan – are still important, but home defence is clearly No. 1.
And yet, when the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence examined the defence measures at Canada’s perimeters, we discovered that it’s mostly smoke and mirrors.
Let’s start with our border crossings, and how they relate to the kids at Jane and Finch. They get their guns somewhere, right? Everyone knows that handguns flow like tap water over the U.S.-Canada border. On Jan. 5, 2006 Stephen Harper made a campaign speech in Toronto in which he promised “tough measures at our borders to prevent gun smuggling.”
Yet the decision to arm border guards isn’t scheduled to be implemented for ten years, the focus on collecting minor duties from cross-border shoppers continues to overshadow the need to strengthen what should be the focus on border security, the electronic systems that should be identifying suspicious vehicles and persons is still slow, clumsy and unreliable, and the Canadian Border Services Agency still hasn’t been directed to put systems in place to deter border crashings.
In the afore-mentioned speech Mr. Harper promised to “put more federal money into hiring more front-line police officers, such as hiring more RCMP recruits.”
When? Canada’s seaports and airports are riddled with organized crime, there is no concerted effort to rationalize port and border policing under the authority of the RCMP (the only national police force), and the RCMP presence along our East and West Coasts and on the Great Lakes is laughably small. The Canadian Coast Guard – which could play a constabulary role off our coasts – is unarmed. It doesn’t guard coasts.
Moreover, when the only coasts that any semi-sane terrorist would approach lie largely undefended, it seems strange this government wants to put the Canadian Navy into the Arctic to defend against . . . what? Are we really going to defend our sovereignty by blowing the Americans or Brits out of the water?
At Canadian airports, mail and other types of cargo flow into the holds of passenger airliners unscanned, while passengers are forced to fret about tweezers and lip gel. Airside workers enter restricted areas with only random checks, and new security cards – while they included biometrics – do not contain simple geo-fencing electronics that would reveal whether workers are acting in strange ways at strange times.
Perhaps out-of-sight airport security doesn’t turn voters’ cranks the way in-your-face street violence does. But think about it. The primary reason people want to crack down on street crime is to try to avoid innocent deaths. Well, the committee believes that the 329 innocent passengers killed on Air India Flight 182 in 1985 deserved the same kind of consideration. So did the victims of 9/11.
This isn’t a partisan debate – or shouldn’t be. The preceding Liberal government was also slow to introduce security reforms in the wake of 9/11.
Mr. Harper and his cabinet say they want peace order and good government. So do all the members of our committee, from every political stripe that has served on it in recent years.
But providing peace, order and good government requires more than a crackdown on street crime. It requires a vision of what investments will best protect Canadians in the most vulnerable places, and the political will to make those investments.
That’s what would really be putting Canada first.
Senator Colin Kenny is Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca