Embassy - October 21, 2009
By Colin Kenny
Many Canadians are voicing annoyance at the approach the United States is taking to security at the U.S.-Canadian border, including aerial surveillance along the border and more rigorous checks at border crossings.
I believe we have good reason to be annoyed about the thickening of the border. But I don’t think the answer is to get angry about Washington’s fixation with security on all its borders, including its border with Canada. In fact, I think we Canadians should smarten up and join the U.S. effort to better police the Canada-U.S. border.
Allow me to explain why I think we should at the same time be annoyed at the Americans, yet more eager to join them in policing the border.
Our annoyance is justified because NAFTA was designed to integrate the economies of the two countries. Smooth and timely crossings for truckers and law-abiding citizens are essential to that integration, and border delays wound the smaller Canadian economy much more than they hurt the Americans.
I have long suspected that many American politicians are delighted at the thickening of the border, pleased to use border delays as non-tariff barriers blocking imports from Canada.
Not so long ago Industry Canada was promoting Canada as a smart place for international companies to invest, in part because of our lower production costs and the lower value of the Canadian dollar, but mostly because of timely and unimpeded access to U.S. markets. That’s not an easy argument to make these days.
So, how much motivation do U.S. politicians and administrators have to speed things up at border crossings? Not much. Of course the holdups are a bother to U.S. companies with integrated production facilities north and south of the border. But if that prompts these companies to move all their facilities south of the border . . . well, that would be just dandy in the eyes of most Americans, wouldn’t it?
Frankly, it’s not going to ease the constipation at Canada-U.S. border crossings. But I think we have to start by taking the genuine concerns of the Americans regarding border security into account, and then cooperating with them to reduce their anxiety.
And there are legitimate concerns. The Americans are worried about terrorists, and they’re worried about drugs from Mexico and Canada making their way into their country. Canadians are worried about handguns and criminals crossing our borders with relative impunity.
U.S. Homeland Security has a fleet of armed ships and helicopters patrolling the Great Lakes, and are working toward having a network of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) feeding them information on the movement of vessels in waters between the two countries.
The Americans have 2,200 Coast Guard officers patrolling border waters between the two countries, and large numbers of other types of security personnel. At last count Canada had 21 Mounties patrolling border waters in boats that aren’t up to the job, plus a small core group of 173 people who work across the country with the Americans on Inter-Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs).
IBETs allow Canadian and American forces to work in tandem on border policing. They let them plan joint operations that will often succeed when operating in isolation on either side of the border doesn’t work – in isolated operations criminals working on the lakes and rivers know they’re safe once they cross the line that separates the two countries.
IBET activities have been stuttering due to jurisdictional wrangling over whether officers can carry guns and make arrests on the other side’s territory. These legalities can and must be overcome.
The Shiprider program showed great promise. In a pilot project two years ago Canadian and U.S. officers worked as teams on boats on the Great Lakes. Shiprider will be revived on the B.C.-Washington border during the Olympics. If the two sides find a protocol for operating together on water, that would provide momentum toward allowing IBETs to do the same thing on land.
Canada should move toward complete radar coverage of the border waters that it shares with the United States. That would assist in detecting anomalies in ship movements, identification of those vessels and eventual interdiction. Surveillance by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles would also strengthen security. UAVs can identify an assault weapon from 60,000 feet up. UAVs are cheaper than helicopters and can remain in place for a much longer time.
At border crossings, Canada has finally started to arm border security officers. The last statistics provided to the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in 2007 (before border security officers could carry weapons) showed that 459 vehicles crashed the Canadian border during a six-month period. Why not just put out a sign welcoming U.S. handguns?
Freight being transported over the border should be scanned on the Canadian side through the use of Vacus gamma ray inspection machines. The Americans have installed these machines on a permanent basis at every major border crossing. Canada attempts to move a few machines from crossing to crossing at times that are predictable to criminals. One or two of the machines are almost always in for repair, which makes our electronic surveillance system virtually useless. We need a permanent system.
The Canadian Border Services Agency needs additional personnel and facilities to provide proper firearms training while keeping crossings fully staffed. Our committee estimates that the Agency needs 2,300 additional employees to carry out their responsibilities at 1,200 border crossings and other ports of entry into Canada.
The current government has only committed to funding enough new officers to ensure that every crossing is staffed by two people. Good, but not good enough.
If we Canadians start taking border security more seriously, will Washington to take our concerns about border thickening more seriously? We can’t be sure, but it is encouraging that the Obama administration has shown much more interest in international cooperation than the Bush administration did.
Once Canada begins pulling its weight on security, Ottawa can negotiate with the Americans on more efficient ways of moving traffic at crossings. We should try to come to a results-based agreement: both sides would ensure that they were providing the personnel, infrastructure and systems needed to ensure that a given number of vehicles get through in an hour. If either side wants to be more meticulous with its searches, that’s all to the good, but that would mean putting more officers on the lines to ensure a timely flow.
Being annoyed at the Americans is a waste of time. Providing carrots to change their ways of doing things would be very timely indeed.
[Colin Kenny is Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca]