HOW 'SEAMLESS' A BORDER?

Canada, U.S. Must Keep Some Gaps To Maintain Sovereignty

When U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently called for a seamless
border between our two countries, it didn't attract much attention. He was
talking about "the world's longest undefended border" after all, a peaceful
line crossed by millions of people and vehicles each day. It's a model of
international co-operation.

So Canadians could be forgiven for thinking Mr. Ashcroft was simply talking
about a little tinkering.

In fact, Mr. Ashcroft's call is about more than that. A seamless border, in
his view, is one that allows armed American law enforcers to enter Canada
in pursuit of suspects with a minimum of hassle from this side. American
agents, in other words, would be able to operate as if Canada were not a
fully sovereign nation.

If that seems overstated, it's only because we have become used to the
steady integration of Canadian and American law enforcement. Formally, the
process has accelerated over the last half-decade with the signing of
several intergovernmental agreements and the creation of joint
Canadian-American police teams that work on cross-border enforcement.
Canadian and American police forces have access to each other's databases
now, and Mr. Ashcroft wants them to share radio frequencies.

Less formally, the constant exchange of personnel means there's hardly a
senior police officer in Canada who hasn't spent time at American law
enforcement conferences or training at American academies.

Obviously, criminals cross the border just as much as everybody else, and
they shouldn't be able to use that to frustrate law enforcement.
Co-operation is vital.

But how much? Answering that question requires us to recognize not only the
benefits but the costs of working closely with American law enforcement.

We must retain the right to choose criminal justice policies in line with
our own values, which are not always the same as those of the U.S.

Although Canadian and American justice systems share many basic themes,
there are also some key differences. Unlike the United States, we don't
execute criminals. American sentences and rates of incarceration are
sharply at odds with Canada's. Our gun-control laws clash. American rules
for search and seizure, asset forfeiture before conviction, and the
exclusion of evidence improperly obtained by police are all different. Even
our basic human rights laws disagree on fundamental questions.

As Canadian and American law enforcement becomes increasingly intertwined,
American policymakers will, quite naturally, take a keen interest in
Canada's criminal justice. Where the Canadian system does not produce
results to the liking of the White House and Congress, there will be calls
for "harmonization." American-style harmonization.

Already that pressure is felt. Consider the recent musings by Justice
Minister Martin Cauchon about marijuana "decriminalization," under which
people caught in possession of small amounts of pot would be ticketed but
not criminally convicted.

If the minister were interested in reforming the law, why would he raise
only this tepid option? We could stop punishing possession at all, as many
western European nations do. We could permit a system of regulated
distribution, as Holland has. Yet the minister talks as if these options
don't exist.

We can assume the reason is fear: Decriminalization annoys Uncle Sam
already; legalization would get the minister in hot water at the next
cross-border conference.

The benefits of co-operation with American law enforcement are obvious, but
Canadians must understand the costs, too. Only then can they decide how
seamless the border should be.