Little information so far on perimeter plan progress The first deadlines have passed, but neither Canadian nor US governments have announced yet what has been accomplished. By Carl Meyer Published February 1, 2012    1 Comment

View story Email Comments To the Editor

The first batch of dozens of deadlines in the Canada-United States perimeter security plan has come and gone, with neither government responding to questions of progress by press time.

The border action plan announced in December notes that by Jan. 31 the two governments would "determine the way ahead" on how to share intelligence related to national security.

It is the first milestone in the multi-year Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan that will, among many other things, harmonize much of how Canada and the US share information and evidence between their police forces and intelligence agencies.

The plan, which lays out a series of deadlines over the next few years, notes that bureaucrats should already be hammering away at a new inventory that will show where Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama need to plug security holes in order to begin building an impenetrable fortress.

But by press time neither the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade nor the US Department of Homeland Security were able to answer any questions about progress, or whether the government had met its deadline.

A senior adviser to the Privy Council Office, David Moloney has been co-ordinating the Harper government's implementation of the perimeter plan since Jan. 3.

But Mr. Moloney is not speaking to the media about his new job. When contacted by Embassy, he declined to answer any questions.

"There wouldn't be much that I would be able to say that's probably useful to you. We'll always do our best to provide answers to questions. But I'd just prefer you to go through PCO communications," he said.

PCO spokesperson Raymond Rivet said Mr. Moloney is part of a "policy secretariat" for the perimeter plan, but sent further questions to Foreign Affairs.

While DFAIT spokesperson Ian Trites could not, after two days, provide answers in time for publication, he did note that his department is the public face of all the government's perimeter responses, and Foreign Minister John Baird is considered the lead spokesperson.

That means that while other departments are responsible for different issues in the plan, their communications shops must route everything through DFAIT.

The perimeter plan reads that the inventory report is being prepared by Public Safety Canada, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the US Department of Homeland Security. By Jan. 31, PS, DHS, and both countries' Justice departments should have made the first steps.

The plan also states that Jan. 31 is the deadline for five departments in Canada and the US to figure out which cross-border committee in the Pacific region they can task with developing a new plan to recover maritime commerce from an emergency or disaster—and to establish one if none are sufficient.

As well, the plan says the two governments should be pursuing the ratification of the Shiprider framework agreement "by winter 2011/12."

That agreement would allow police in both nations to be able to permanently cross the maritime border and enforce each other's laws. Canada is also expected to "immediately" begin deploying bomb detection systems certified by the US at specified pre-clearance airports.

The RCMP says a land-based version of their Shiprider program could eventually draw in American agents from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and the US Drug Enforcement Administration, and the two pilot projects could occur next summer.

As well, progress on the perimeter front is taking place against a backdrop of Canada-US public security and military deals. The two countries signed an expanded Civil Assistance Plan on Jan. 25 that would allow Canadian and US soldiers to deploy on both sides of the border to help civilians in the event of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced.

A new Combined Defence Plan was also signed, that sets out how the two militaries would approve military operations against domestic terrorism or other foreign threats.

Sovereignty, privacy, militarization

Critics of any deal that aims to integrate elements of the Canadian and American states have long complained that the process is being carried out in secret.

One predecessor to the perimeter plan, the Security and Prosperity Partnership that involved Canada, the US, and Mexico, saw government officials lampooned for releasing relatively few details on the talks. Meetings became a focal point for social justice campaigners frustrated at a perceived lack of transparency.

The Harper government is aware that these concerns have persisted with the new perimeter deal, but it rejects them as untrue.

For example, a Jan. 18 speech by Mr. Baird to the Canadian Club in Toronto sought to reassure Canadians that the plan would not affect sovereignty.

"Some commentators have said this border action plan would compromise sovereignty; I can tell you that is absolutely false. Neither country is in that business," he said.

"These agreements create a new, modern border for a new century. And a 'thinning' of the border to create opportunity, prosperity, and jobs. They make trade and travel easier, and break down regulatory barriers without compromising security."

Even so, some analysts have concerns with the government's approach. Kent Roach, chair of law and public policy at the University of Toronto law faculty, says the government should not be pressing ahead with information-sharing with the United States without first responding to recommendations made by the Maher Arar commission.

Mr. Roach served on the research advisory committee for that commission, which looked into the torture of Mr. Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian—who was picked up by American authorities in 2002 on suspicion of being a member of al-Qaeda, and then deported to his country of birth and tortured—was a victim of bad Canadian intelligence that was passed to the Americans, it concluded.

"Before we committed to more information-sharing with the US, Canada should have gotten its own house in order," he argued.

And Emily Gilbert, director of the Canadian Studies Program at the University of Toronto and a researcher of the Canada-US border, said she was concerned that the security elements of both countries were becoming wrapped together without sufficient public oversight.

"I'm actually most concerned by the ways that, built into this Beyond the Border agreement, are affirmations of deeper security interoperability across border agencies—but even more that there's more military interoperability happening as that is unfolding," she said.

"That is not getting much attention."

Others said they were waiting for more news before passing judgment on whether the government could stick to its deadlines. Sukanya Pillay, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's national security program director, said she has no reason now to doubt the government's commitment to meeting the deadlines laid out in the perimeter plan.

She said she is looking forward to the release of a Canada-US joint statement on privacy principles, which is due May 30.

But Ms. Gilbert argued that even Mr. MacKay's announcement of a new Canada-US civil and defence partnership was part of a trend that has also seen an increased military presence at citizenship ceremonies.

"Deeper security and military interoperability is a bad idea, because it is a signal of deeper militarization and a more militarized Canadian society that I am extremely concerned about," she said.

"We have an onslaught of militarization happening, and it's coming in through this perimeter security agreement, but no one's really talking about it."

cmeyer@embassymag.ca

An earlier version of this story, in the fifth-last paragraph, did not make it explicit that Ms. Pillay was referring to government deadlines in relation to her passing judgment. It has been amended to reflect that.