FAIT Committee Report

Supplementary Opinion: Canadian Alliance

The Canadian Alliance recommends that the Government of Canada have as a critical priority the improvement of the bilateral relationship with the United States of America. While important, the trilateral North American relationship should not take precedence over the bilateral Canada-U.S. relationship. We do though look forward to improved bilateral and multilateral relations with Mexico. The current government has mishandled Canada’s relationship with the United States. Canadians have paid the price for the government’s short-sighted approach to our most important international relationship.

Within that context, the Canadian Alliance offers this response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Partners in North America: Advancing Canada’s Relations with the United States and Mexico.

The Canadian Alliance supports most recommendations of the report; however, we take strong exception to one recommendation and disagree with aspects of others. As an overall comment, the Canadian Alliance members contend that the report’s tone reflects some ambivalence as to the benefits of greater North American economic integration.

Canada and the United States have currently more than 80 treaty-level defence agreements (including NORAD), 150 bilateral defence fora and some 150 Memoranda of Understanding between the two countries’ militaries. Canada continues to derive significant benefits from this relationship including privileged access to the United States defence market, a limited influence on defence policy and cost effective continental defence strategies. Given that Canada’s defence budget is only 1.4 percent of the United States, Canada has done remarkably well in its security relationship. Canada should extend that relationship through a contribution to the United States missile defence program.

The United States’ missile defence program as currently conceived would provide for limited defence against rogue states armed with ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction as well as accidental launches. For some years now concern has arisen that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of rogue states or terrorists could pose a grave threat to North America. A missile defence program offers the opportunity for a non-nuclear defence to a possible attack and protection from accidental launch.

We note that the vice-chief of the Canadian military defence staff, Lt.-Gen. George Macdonald, has stated that Canada must sign on with the missile defence program or risk causing a “rift” in NORAD and a diminishment of our role in the protection of North America, stating: “If we do not participate, it will have significant impacts on the long-term future of NORAD.” … “There will be a segregation of Canada and its part in the NORAD mission that will collectively not be to our advantage.”

Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has refused to support American efforts to develop a continental missile defence system to protect North America from this threat. In fact, the Canadian Government has actually worked to thwart U.S. efforts in this important defence area. The Canadian Government failed to provide diplomatic support for the successful U.S. effort to dismantle the old Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which was an impediment to missile defence development.

The committee is mistaken in its assertion that missile defence “technology has not been proven.” The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has successfully conducted flight tests of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) development program in October 2002, with the fourth consecutive successful intercept for the GMD program. Furthermore, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Navy have also conducted successful flight tests in the continuing development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, where the third consecutive target intercept flight was conducted in November 2002.

We further note that the United States and their allies, such as Japan and Israel, already deploy short-range missile defence systems, such as the PATRIOT and Arrow systems and have already conducted significant bilateral missile defence research and development with the United States. Furthermore, the British Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, stated on November 12, 2002 that the U.S. development of a long-range missile defence system would help neutralize the threat from rogue states and “has the potential to enhance strategic stability for everyone.”¹ Even further, the Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, expressed his support for a missile defence system under the NATO alliance on November 21, 2002 and stated that his Government is “taking important steps to examine missile defence options to defend against the full range of missile threats.”²

The committee also misleads Canadians by appearing to link a continental missile defence system with “the weaponization of outer space.” The program would not put weapons in space. It only relies on space-based satellite technologies for detection and communication purposes. Continued Canadian confusion on this point may have contributed to the U.S. moving its Space Command out of the joint Canada-U.S. North American Air Defence (NORAD) command.

There is no immediate financial cost for the Canadian Government to support continental missile defence. With new political support for the concept, we would also be opening up new opportunities for Canadian firms in the defence industries.

We note that CAE of Montreal will join forces with U.S. aerospace giant Boeing to conduct research on simulating how the anti-missile system might operate. Boeing, one of the key players in the development of the missile shield, plans to use CAE’s computer modelling and simulation technology.

We further note that the report does not urge the Canadian Government to engage the United States Government on the issue of their new Northern Command structure, which is now figuring prominently into all issues surrounding the defence of North America. Active Canadian engagement with Northern Command presents the potential for greater cooperation with the U.S. on sea and land continental defence, similar to that enjoyed by Canada under the NORAD agreement.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation:

Canada should support to the Government of the United States for a continental missile defence system and that such a system should come under the operational command of NORAD. The Government of Canada should also indicate its desire to pursue cooperation with the Government of the United States on its Northern Command structure for continental defence.

Security Perimeter

Under this government, Canada has weakened its support, both material and political, for continental security initiatives. It is naïve to think that the US has simply overlooked this shift in government policy and decline in material support. Though aware of Canada’s drift, US decision makers until recently could still view Canada as fundamentally still upholding its end of the bargain — a secure Canada-United States border.

The security of the Canadian border — both for Canadians and Americans — has yet to overcome the shock of December 14, 1999 — the day Algerian terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested in Port Angeles, Washington after debarking from the Coho Ferry from Victoria, British Columbia. Ressam, a resident of Montreal, had a trunk of explosives and a plan to bomb the Los Angeles airport.

The significance to the US of Ressam’s arrest is this. In the new global conflict between the West and Islamic terrorism, the US’s northern border is not only not secure, but also potentially a conduit of threat. "There’s no question that groups affiliated with political violence consider Canada a safe haven," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former director of counter-terrorism for the Central Intelligence Agency. "It has been that way for a long time due to a benign environment."

The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service had alerted the government to this possibility in its pre-Ressam report, “Exploitation of Canada’s Immigration System: An Overview of Security Intelligence Concerns.” CSIS identified in 1999 over 50 terrorist groups operating out of Canada. Most of the active members arrived in Canada as refugee claimants.

In 2001, Canada received some 44,707 refugee claims. Of these 18,502 were undocumented. As of 2001, 6,302 foreign criminals with outstanding removal orders remain at large in Canada. Of all criminals ordered removed, 34 percent of them still remain at large. The level of undocumented persons and foreign criminals in Canada clearly has given rise to concerns in the United States. It should provoke at least as strong a response in Canada.

The events of September 11, 2001 made real and pressing to all North Americans the threat of terrorism and the vulnerability of Canada’s border due to lax enforcement of its refugee policies.

Therefore we would propose the adoption of the following recommendation.

Canada should examine the possibility of a security perimeter with the United States. As a first step to that end and for our own security needs, Canada should commit to strengthening the integrity of our refugee policies through, for example, more effective tracking of visa holders and more effective removal procedures.

War on Terrorism

Terrorism is now the single greatest threat to North American and global security. Since the attacks of September 11^th, 2001, terrorist networks have continued to strike at western targets. While the multinational operation in Afghanistan has largely succeeded, much work remains to be done in order to root out terrorists in an estimated 60 other countries. The strategic reality is that the War on Terrorism will likely continue for many years.

The Canadian Government, however, should do more in the War on Terrorism. The lack of suitable Canadian aircraft has lead to Canadian Forces having to rent foreign planes to airlift our troops into the Afghan theatre of operations. The decline in operational readiness meant that the Canadian Battle Group had to withdraw after six months in Afghanistan. Canadian Forces had to operate without tactical-strike helicopters due to inadequate material support from the government. The Canadian Forces are under-equipped and under-manned and as a result, our forces are not prepared to make significant contributions to future coalition efforts.

The Canadian Government’s policy of defence freeloading has resulted in the Canadian Forces becoming increasingly dependent on U.S. and coalition support. While the Canadian Alliance agrees with the committee’s recommendation 13, that “the Government should commit itself to substantially increased and stable multi-year funding for the Department of National Defence”, we note that to date the government has failed to respond to past similar calls for genuine efforts to arrest the decline in our forces’ material capabilities.

The Canadian Alliance supports consideration of a new defence strategy in the War on Terrorism that addresses the question of our forces operating more regularly in forward theatres of war to better assist our allies such as the United States, Britain and Australia. As a G8 nation, Canada cannot continue to play token roles in coalition efforts to maintain international peace and security. Any new defence strategy for fighting terrorism will only succeed if the Canadian Government improves our ability to independently deploy our forces rapidly and precisely.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation:

Canada should re-examine its contribution to the fight against terrorism. Canada should consult with the United States and its other allies in order to ensure that Canadian Forces counter threats before they reach North America. The Canadian Forces should have the resources necessary to send highly disciplined rapid-reaction forces to any part of the world with appropriate air and naval support.

Outlawing Foreign Terrorist Organizations

The committee’s report does not address an issue that is undermining Canada’s credibility in security issues with the United States: the government’s slow and piecemeal approach to outlawing foreign terrorist organizations from operations, including fundraising in Canada. According to the Canadian Conference of Defence Associations, “most members of the U.S. Congress believe that Canada is a haven for terrorists.”³

Of the greatest concern is the government’s failure to outlaw Hezbollah, a terrorist organization whose global reach is only surpassed by al-Qaeda. In the House of Commons on October 21, 2002, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated the Government would not outlaw Hezbollah because, “The policy of the government and the tradition of this country has always been one of seeking dialogue as a way of solving problems.” While the Canadian Government appears now to be moving grudgingly towards outlawing Hezbollah, we have serious concerns about the length of time it has taken and the lack of urgency that reflects.

The Canadian Government has also failed to outlaw, yet, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) which is responsible for thousands of deaths each year and threatens Canadians working in Columbia. The Canadian Government has also failed to outlaw, yet, the Jemaah Islamyia (JI), the organization now being investigated for the Bali terror bombing which killed almost two hundred people including two Canadians. More generally, the Canadian Government has failed to outlaw some 25 foreign terrorist organizations that are outlawed in the U.S.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation:

The Canadian Government should outlaw Hezbollah immediately, improve its process of determining outlawed organization and work towards greater consistency with the United States and other allies as to the list of terrorist organizations. Canada should contribute more to combating terrorism through cooperation with the United States and other key allies.

Safe Third Agreement

The report cautions the government to monitor the Safe Third Agreement recently ratified with the United States. The agreement seeks to prevent multiple refugee claims by requiring the potential applicant to make a refugee claim in the first country they reach which conforms to international norms in the treatment of refugees. The current agreement with the United States only applies to potential refugee claimants who reach a Canada-U.S. land border crossing.

The Canadian Alliance fully supports the principle of the Safe Third Agreement.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation.

The Government of Canada should signal to the United States government its interest in expanding the Safe Third Agreement to include potential refugee claimants arriving at airports, seaports and inland offices.

Customs Union

A customs union is defined as “A group of nations that have eliminated tariffs and sometimes other barriers that impede trade with each other, while maintaining a common external tariff on goods imported from outside the union.”

Any customs union sought should not entail raising any Canadian tariffs to U.S. levels. We should continue to work through the World Trade Organization and other multilateral bodies for the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers.

We note as well the remarks of Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, to the effect that while investigating further integration has merit, it should not slow down or impede sectoral discussions around North American energy security and border security.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation.

The Government of Canada should give serious consideration to a customs union that would remove bilateral tariffs, but not necessarily harmonize external tariffs, and that would not impede ongoing energy and border discussions.

Taxation

A country’s relative tax levels affects its competitiveness in attracting new investment. Canada, as compared to the United States, has higher corporate and individual income tax rates. The Committee did not fully explore the impact of taxation on the economic integration of North America.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance would propose the adoption of the following recommendation.

The Government of Canada as a general principle should move towards ensuring Canada has tax rates lower than those of the United States in order to ensure continued flows of new investment.