Skip to content

NEWS: Harper government on-line consultation on perimeter security suspended

The controversial Harper government on-line ‘consultation’ on perimeter security has been suspended during the federal election.

On March 16, the Globe and Mail reported, “The federal government wants members of the public to impart their ‘shared vision’ for the security of the Canada-U.S. perimeter – it just doesn’t want to explain what that means. Ottawa-based researcher Ken Rubin used federal Access to Information legislation to ask the Public Safety department for documents related to the definition of the term ‘perimeter security’ in the context of the Canada-U.S. border. The department’s response was an unequivocal ‘no’. In a letter written March 4, Public Safety officials said: ‘The records pertaining to your request have been entirely withheld.’ The department said the information could be injurious to international affairs, that it contained information developed for a government institution or minister, that it would provide an account of a government consultation, and that it is a matter of cabinet confidence.”

The Council of Canadians encourages everyone to ask candidates in this election questions about this important issue – at your doorstep, all-candidates debates, on call-in radio programs, and in letters to the editor. We have been raising concerns about the lack of transparency with the security perimeter negotiations since mid-December, http://canadians.org/media/trade/2010/10-Dec-10.html. We have also highlighted the implications of the talks for civil liberties and immigration and refugee policies, http://canadians.org/media/trade/2010/09-Dec-10-2.html.

We believe perimeter security should be a key election issue. Recommendations from the US-Canada official working group on perimeter security are expected this June. A Conservative (minority or majority) government would try to move quickly on this agenda.

What do we know of where the parties stand on perimeter security?

CONSERVATIVES: Stephen Harper says, “The Canada-U.S. partnership on security and economic competitiveness must evolve continually if we are to stay strong and address future security and commercial concerns. This (border security) declaration sets the stage for more effective, long-term collaboration in these areas. It also respects the sovereignty of both countries and the privacy of our citizens.” John Baird has stated, “(Conservatives) will always put Canada’s interests first… That means keeping our shared border open to trade, open to investment, and closed to security and terrorist threats.”

LIBERALS: Michael Ignatieff says, “We’re a country that has prided itself on welcoming immigrants and refugees from other countries. We have different standards, the Americans, on these questions. We have a right to do so. And if we get into a security perimeter deal that weakens Canadian sovereignty, we may end up betraying Canadian values. …A negotiation of this magnitude demands transparency. Canadians need to know what is on the table. Instead, despite months of leaks, news stories and questions in Parliament, Mr. Harper has yet to utter the words ‘perimeter security’ in the House of Commons. The ministers of Public Safety, Foreign Affairs and International Trade have said even less.”

NEW DEMOCRATS: Jack Layton says, “We think that there should be a thorough discussion here about the extent to which he may be compromising our sovereignty. We of course want to work with our friends in the U.S. on issues. But we don’t want to compromise our ability to set our own policies.” The Globe and Mail reports, “NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said his party will strongly oppose the talks because they raise a wide range of concerns over issues such as food safety and privacy. …’The question is what is the cost and what effects will it have on Canadian sovereignty’.”

BLOC QUEBECOIS: Bloc Quebecois MP Pierre Paquette says, “We are in favour of a security perimeter. We believe we need something like this to facilitate the mobility of people and goods, but we want it to be done through a transparent debate where there is a balance between security, trade and fundamental freedom.”

GREEN PARTY: Elizabeth May says, “The recent Washington meeting makes it clear the Security and Prosperity Partnership is alive and well, repackaged and moving ahead on steroids. …Not only are the details of this new security agreement not being made public, but there seems to be no intention to bring this issue to parliament for debate. Harper continues to subvert democracy on all fronts.”