While the Canadian government is grappling with whether it should open the free flow of goods to and from our neighbours to the south with a shared security perimeter, the U of T Hart House debate team donned their ceremonial garb to take up the issue from a student perspective.

Last Thursday, students debated the need for Canada to share a security perimeter with the United States. The topic has brought issues around gun control and immigration to the forefront of national politics of late, making the Hart House event a night of hot discussion.

“The U.S. is our bloodline. We can’t let the border diminish our ability to do business. The Americans also want a security perimeter. The Americans want us to be reliable,” said guest speaker Chuck Strahl.

Strahl is the leader of the Democrative Representative Party, a national, volunteer, membership organization of people supporting unity amongst “small c conservatives.”

“Eighty-five per cent of people polled by the Globe and Mail favour a security perimeter. Canadians say that this is a move in the right direction,” said Strahl. He supports the idea of a perimeter because the U.S. is Canada’s biggest trading partner and does not want to see any threats to the flow of goods between the countries.

Despite the Globe poll, at the end of the debate attendees voted overwhelmingly against a harmonized policy by 27-15.

In the role of Prime Minister, Michael Erdman argued that Canada must synchronize its policy with the U.S. because Canadian and American security has been breached due to Canada’s immigration policy.

“Canada and the U.S are inherently joined. We’re already created an economic perimeter in NAFTA.” He noted that the new immigration policy will be just another layer upon existing fortifications.

Erdman also stated that Canada needs to maintain friendly relations with the U.S., our biggest trading partner, and that we need to keep labour and capital mobile between the two countries. Member of the opposition Jenna Slotin argued that a harmonized immigration policy will mean Canada will cede its sovereignty to the U.S. “It will lead to a dictation of our policy by U.S. interests. We’ll lose our ability to pursue our interests.” Slotin also argued that Canada’s domestic and foreign policy is to further Canadian interests. The harmonization of policy will affect these policies and Canada’s core values.

The leader of the opposition, Aaron Rousseau, argued that a harmonized policy would only give us a false sense of security, noting all terrorists were in the U.S. legally. Erdman countered by saying that Canada is not changing its foreign policy and international image.

“We’re only changing one aspect of domestic policy. We’re changing the way we look at our policy.”

Strahl argued for a “made in Canada” policy. “Are we going to let the U.S. build a policy or are we going to work with them?”

He went onto suggest that the government of Canada needs a new ministry, the “Ministry of Public Protection and Border Management,” which would cover economic, customs and immigration issues.