Last December when most Canadians were doing their last-minute shopping, Conservative MP’s were beginning a pre-Christmas blitz to promote the perimeter security deal that had been recently announced by Prime Minister Harper and US President Obama.
The pre-emptive timing likely meant focus groups had given the government bad news. Canadians didn’t believe greater integration of US and Canadian law enforcement would bring sufficient benefits to compensate for what might be a loss of national sovereignty and personal privacy.
One of those sent out to spin the deal’s benefits was Steven Fletcher, Minister of State for Transport. Fletcher really didn’t have much of a Christmas present for Canadian travellers. At his press conference, he tried to frame the border deal around two benefits. First, special lines would speed pre-approved, trusted travellers on their way through airport security and second, removal of a state-side baggage check for those with onward connections in the US, would reduce travel time.
From Fletcher’s carefully scripted speaking points we learned that having “trusted” status, with the privilege of access to those shorter airport lines, comes at a price. That price is meeting the requirements of the “Trusted Traveller” program, a members-only club for those who qualify for the Government issued Nexus identity cards.The requirements to obtain a NEXUS card are substantially more stringent and more intrusive than those required to get your Canadian passport.
To qualify for Nexus, you must pay a $50 fee, complete a detailed application, and attend an interview with US authorities who will decide if you pose a risk and have a good enough reason to get the card. There is no point in applying if your youth was misspent, even if you were pardoned for your juvenile behaviour. If you studied or worked outside Canada during the last three years, you are not eligible either, unless you were a diplomat, soldier or a member of their immediate family.
A description of the Nexus process on the US Homeland security website explains, with a touch of irony, that all applicants, “must voluntarily undergo a thorough background check against criminal, law enforcement, customs, immigration, agriculture, and terrorist indices to include biometric fingerprint checks…”.
Unfortunately, in this brave new world non-Nexus types will remain “distrusted” travellers. Minister Fletcher had nothing to offer us except a suggestion to get with this program or continue to face long lines and missed flights.
No action will be taken any time soon to reduce challenges faced by the majority of ordinary travellers, yet solutions abound. Anyone who has been through London’s Heathrow or any of the other European Airports, has experienced a system that, Olympics aside, works effectively with very large volumes of international travellers and without the intrusive process associated with the US-Canada NEXUS identity card program.
Britain tried a national biometric based identity card that could be used for travel purposes. The “Identity Cards Act” of 2006 was passed despite heated national debate and concerns raised by human rights lawyers, politicians, and even the former head of Britain’s MI5 security service. Part way through a troubled implementation process in 2010, newly elected Prime Minister David Cameron leader of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government killed the controversial legislation citing cost, security, and privacy concerns.
Britain had used identity cards during the first and second world wars. However, they were considered unnecessary in peacetime. Recognising a growing public backlash, Cameron scrapped the national identity card with little fanfare. Our Government should not ignore the significance of this for Canada.
Canadians remember that Mr. Harper’s Government killed the Canadian firearms registry over similar concerns about costs and the collection of intrusive information on law-abiding citizens.
The Harper Government is broadening its use of the Nexus identity card to obtain security screening for travel within Canada. This goes well beyond its original purpose to get access to cross-border services. Can this mission creep be a step along the road to the national identity card that Britons rejected?
Harper and Obama were supposed to be fixing the thickening border between Canada and the US. However, beyond some hype, there is little substantive change. Tinkering with the NEXUS program to include special lines at airport security is tacit admission that the border and airport bottlenecks won’t be “thinned” any time soon.
If they want any relief, frequent travellers will have to accept the indignity of fingerprinting, mug shots, and interviews to get into those shorter lines. And they’d better hope that not many join them or the Nexus lines will be just as long as the regular ones.
It will be interesting to see how Canadians, who have grown up with the expectation of equal treatment under the law, react to this new world of the trusted and the less trusted. NEXUS is not just an identity card. It’s about being a “member”, a trusted insider with privileges.
As a former frequent flyer, I understand the resentment of fellow passengers when an airline moves its VIP’s to the front of the line. Canadians are an egalitarian lot and dislike open displays of preferential treatment. While they may grudgingly accept a private company rewarding its loyal customers, privileged access to public services like airport security and customs and immigration is another matter.
I expect this will surely offend many as they see preferential treatment by government border and security agencies rolling out from coast to coast. Providing public services to Canadians on the basis of their qualifying for a members-only club is divisive and smacks of entitlement.
When a murky system of deferential privilege comes from a government that came to power with a populist message of making government less intrusive, more transparent, and fully responsive to ordinary Canadians, it isn’t smart politics. When it is a substitute for dealing with the underlying problems of an inefficient border and an unequal relationship with our biggest trading partner, it is very poor public policy.
