Security perimeter no threat

Enlarge Image

Canada and the United States are expected to announce early in the new year a plan to develop a common security perimeter that could speed up the flow of goods and people between the two countries. The details of what such a plan might look like are exceedingly thin, but the prospect of a continental strategy on security has already led to fears that Canada will have to surrender its sovereignty on questions of human rights, privacy law, immigration and refugee policy.

According to a draft declaration dubbed Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness, which was leaked to the media earlier this month, our separate constitutional and legal frameworks would not be compromised and the right of each country to act independently would be respected.

The plan would not eliminate internal border crossings, but it would develop "a joint approach to port and border security" through enhanced technology, a common approach to screening people and more co-operation between police and security agencies. The document is silent on immigration and refugee policy.

Why, then, are some critics, notably the Council of Canadians, so opposed to the concept of continental border defence? Well, probably because it could eventually lead to both countries giving up absolute sovereignty on some things.

Canadians should withhold judgment until they get the details, but they should also give some thought to the meaning of sovereignty in a globalized world.

Most countries of the European Union, for example, long ago ceded some of their sovereignty in return for the easier movement of people, goods and services. They have abandoned internal borders in favour of a single external border. Sharing of police information is very advanced and some municipal forces even have the right to pursue suspects into another country. The EU is also working on a common immigration and refugee policy.

All these changes involved individual countries surrendering some sovereignty, but it has made trade and travel much easier. Holland is still Holland, despite its long border with a German giant.

Canada, however, according to some extreme nationalists, is just a timid woodland creature next to the American leviathan. Unlike Holland, they say, with its long history and distinctive traditions and identity, Canada needs protection.

The fear of being swamped by American culture has a long pedigree in Canadian history, but it really does a disservice to the country, which the world sees as sharply distinct from America, even if some Canadians do not see it themselves.

Canadians were recently characterized as being anti-American and having an inferiority complex, neither of which is completely true, but not completely wrong either. It would be unfortunate and counter-productive if an irrational fear of America by some Canadians stops the country from negotiating a mutually beneficial defence perimeter.

The devil, of course, is in the details. Canada should stand up for its principles on human rights, which influence policy on refugees, immigration and privacy, but it should not see co-operation with America on critical trade and security issues as a threat to our sovereignty.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 18, 2010 A20