For ages, the border between Canada and the U.S. has been more a line of political demarcation than a practical barrier. Culturally, especially in areas of New England, the border had seemed to not to really exist, at all. In Derby Line, Vermont, for example, the border literally runs through the library, and the town shares a sewage treatment system with its Canadian neighbor. Elsewhere, Canadians and Americans cross the border almost as easily – it is commonplace to note that Canada is America’s largest trading partner by a wide margin.
Since September 11th, that has changed. Canadians characterize the increased U.S. security measures as a “thickening” of the border. And their perfectly correct. Since 2001, the U.S. has imposed new cargo inspection requirements and, for the first-time, a passport requirement for entry into the U.S. for Canadian citizens (and returning Americans). U.S. security concerns, first heightened when the Millenium Bomber, Ahmed Ressam, tried to enter the U.S. through Canada, increased in the post-9/11 environment.
At the core of this “thickening” is a disparity in how America and Canada approach questions of border entry. They have different cargo screening rules; different agriculture importation regulations and different immigration laws. When the only consequence of those differences was likely the occasional immigration violation or the importation of goods without proper duty being paid, both countries could afford to ignore the differences. Now that the consequences are perceived by U.S. government officials as potentially catastrophic, the differences matter a great deal more.
The increase in security measures has also had an emotional impact on Canadian perspectives (more so, it seems than on Americans’). As a Canadian might put it: “How would you feel if your neighbor built a fence between your two houses?” The sense of disaffection is as real as the practical impact of slower cargo and fewer tourists.
Depending on how it is implemented, the recent agreement between President Obama and Prime Minister Harper may arrest or even reverse that trend toward enhanced security. The two leaders committed themselves to a program to synchronize border inspection protocols:
“To increase security, counter fraud, and improve efficiency, we intend to work together to establish and verify the identities of travellers and conduct screening at the earliest possible opportunity,” according to their joint declaration. “We intend to work toward common technical standards for the collection, transmission, and matching of biometrics that enable the sharing of information on travellers in real time. This collaboration should facilitate combined Canadian and United States screening efforts and strengthen methods of threat notification.”
This kind of shared-services model would, if developed, be powerful. By creating a secure outer perimeter of security it would likely permit easing of security measures at the common internal border. But it may also mean political trouble for Prime Minister Harper. Even before it was signed, his agreement with the U.S. was criticized at home for “giving up Canadian sovereignty.”
The proof will be in the pudding. If the agreement can be implemented and survived political challenges, it may result in easier border crossings. If it fails, for whatever reason, we might expect the “thickening” of the border to continue.
