Thoughts On The Christmas Airline Bombing Attempt

More New Rules of Flight

There’s no point in me trying to give a rundown of what the “new rules” of flight are in the wake of the recent attempted airline bombing. I say there’s no point because the rules change day to day, and will continue to be in flux. Its reactionary, to be sure. At first we heard of restrictions on what could be brought on as carry-on luggage, then there was an all out ban of carry-on luggage except for certain items. Westjet announced changes to their flights, then removed them when the US announced they weren’t required.

All of this within the span of four days.

So we’re going to see more announcements with changes to policies over the next few days. I am so thankful that I’m not flying this holiday, but also feel horribly for the thousands that are and are being affected by all this.

Conspiracy Theories

He acted alone, terrorists took credit for it, the Yemin connection, the supposed alerts his father gave authorities, etc. etc.

Many experts and non-experts will be weighing in on what happened behind the scenes and what transpired to cause this event. Mattew Good has some interesting posts on his blog with various information and thoughts (the guy isn’t just a pretty face with a guitar y’know).

The reality is, like anything (lately at least it seems) to do with the US government, the war on terror, and heightened sensibilities, we’re not going to get the true details; just filtered information from various sources that may corroborate or contradict each other.

My Own Thoughts

So what does this latest incident tell us about the state of the world, our perceived security, and the potential for new threats (and I may sound like I’m throwing my hat in the ring with the other non-experts I mentioned above)?

- While Canadian airports are beefing up security, there’s no talk of what has been done to increase security in Europe which is where this flight originated (or maybe there has been and I haven’t heard/read it, but its not making the news here). So once again Canadians have to suffer thanks to another’s faulty security.

- Threats are still out there, and the more disconcerting part of this incident is that there was no major target. No offense to the people of Detroit, but if you’re going to make a statement that’s probably way low on your list of destinations. However, whether its a guy acting alone or part of a group, the fact that the target wasn’t necessarily any major city or landmark but simply a US-bound aircraft does raise some concerns.

- I wonder if we’re becoming desensitized to the idea of localized attacks? When 9/11 happened, there was no doubt the shock and horror that people felt, both in and out of the US. But this latest attack, while newsworthy, hasn’t seemed to garner the same sort of emotions. This was, regardless of the backstory, an attempted murder of hundreds of people on a flight…one that was carried out not against individuals but against a country. And yet the inconveniences of heightened security (albeit reactionary) seem to trump the potential loss of life that could have resulted. To me, this is scary. In my mind we need to value the fact that we don’t have the issues other countries have: bombings, genocide, violent clashes in streets. When we get desensitized to local violence we’re taking a step backwards, a very dangerous step.

A True Thickening Of The Border

In my last post about Peter Watt’s border issues, I mentioned that it was almost assuredly CBP officers that conducting the search of his vehicle. Now, Peter was coming back into Canada from the US though, so why would he have encountered US border officers?

Well it turns out that the US border doesn’t end with the narrow line between it and Canada/Mexico. In fact, there is a 100 mile “buffer zone” that wraps around the internal edge of the country. Within this zone, checkpoints have been erected that act as a second border.

From the ACLU’s website. Click the image to view their interactive map.

For some Americans, this is a huge violation of the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment. There are also concerns raised that the checkpoints are not entirely focussed on securing the borders, especially when they are placed on east/west roads within the buffer and not north/south.

However, for Canadians, this is an important piece of information to know: you may be stopped by CBP while travelling within the US interior or returning to Canada but before you actually hit the border. And if you are stopped at a checkpoint, remember that the same rules apply there as they do when entering the USA.

For more information on this topic visit:

ACLU Fact Sheet on US “Constitution Free Zone”

ACLU Are You Living in a Constitution Free Zone?

The Peter Watts Incident

Following on the heels of the Amy Goodman incident comes a story about Canadian sci-fi writer Peter Watts and his experience trying to get back into Canada.

Peter had travelled to the US to help a friend move to Nebraska. He tried to return to Canada at Port Huron, Michigan. He was stopped by CBP officers who wanted to search his rental vehicle. Peter blogged about his experience but in a nutshell:

- Was stopped by US CBP officers who wanted to check his vehicle.

- Peter got out of his car and asked what was going on.

- CBP guards told him to get back into his vehicle.

- Some crazy stuff went down including Peter allegedly getting “shit kicked”, pepper sprayed, handcuffed, spending a night in jail, arraigned and charged with assaulting a federal officer, and finally dumped back into Canada minus his jacket in a cold winter storm.

A handful of sites and news agencies have picked up the story, including BoingBoing, Locus Online, and even the National Post.

Now before we get all “Oooo, how horrible!”, there’s a few things that need to be pointed out and clarified to his story:

First off, yes it was indeed US CBP officers that most likely performed the search of his vehicle. You may be wondering why US border guards would be searching a vehicle going back into Canada. Well, my next blog post will explain that, but for now trust me: they’re entitled to.

Secondly, while I never want to see anyone treated this way I have to question his initial actions. Regardless of your personal thoughts and feelings towards officers of the CBP and DHS, they have authority when it comes to border and immigration issues. Part of that authority means that they can search a Canadian’s car without much cause, if any.

Here we have another scenario of a Canadian thinking that they automatically get the equivalent rights of an American citizen (although I know Americans would argue they don’t have many rights given a similar situation either). Stepping out of your vehicle in a foreign country where foreign officers are wanting to perform a search is just stupid. Demanding to know why they can search your vehicle: borderline Darwin award winner.

We (Canadians) are not American. Their constitution applies to them, not us. Their rights and freedoms as American citizens apply to them, not us. Do we have to like that we’re considered aliens, the same as Mexicans are? Do we have to like that the friendlier border between our countries has been replaced with a harsher one? No and no…but we have to respect the border for what it is: a government established boundary that we are given privilege to cross, not a right to.

If you don’t like the rules, don’t cross the border. If you do cross the border, make sure you understand the rules and play by them. If you do, you can avoid what happened to Peter.

The Amy Goodman Incident

Amy Goodman…never heard of her. Apparently she’s an “influential US journalist and host of the Democracy Now radio show”, according to a story from thestar.com.

She’s been in the news as of late though. Here’s the Coles-Notes version:

Amy was scheduled to speak in Vancouver in part to help plug her new book, and particularly about Tommy Douglas and health care. When she got to the border though she was faced with Canadian Border Services agents who were quite interested in what she would be talking about. They asked her whether she would be talking about the Olympics. Amy states:

"I thought the guard meant (U.S. President Barack) Obama going to Copenhagen to talk about the Games in Chicago. I was embarrassed because I didn't realize he meant the Games in Vancouver."

She was detained at the border for 90 minutes, was asked to produce notes on her speech and had her computers searched. She was only given temporary access to Canada: 48 hours.

Apparently this has thrown “Americans in a tizzy” according to the Globe and Mail. Keith Oberman of MSNBC commented about the incident on his daily Countdown show and Lucy Dalglish of Washington based “Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press” was stunned. She was quoted by the Globe and Mail as saying about journalists being harassed:

“You hear about American border officials doing things like this all the time, but not Canada.It's absolutely ridiculous.”

The Canadian Border Services Agency is taking the expected stance of not commenting on specific cases.

Personally, I’m torn on this story.

The irony of this of course is that the American media hasn’t run any stories about the numerous Canadians who faced similar or worse experiences crossing into the US. And I do have to question the quality of a journalist that doesn’t understand major world events happening on their own continent (really Amy, you had *no* idea the Winter Olympics were in Vancouver this winter? Really?!).

Was the Canadian Border Services agents out of line to question her? Not at all. Were they out of line to give her only a 48 hour pass into Canada? Not at all. Americans need to realize that there’s a hardening of the border on both sides. We share a continent, but we are separate countries and while we may long for the pre-9/11 days where our border was more a legality than anything, those days my friends are gone.

The cries of outrage coming from the American media are misplaced. Amy wasn’t coming up to Canada in a journalist role; she was coming to speak but also to plug her new book…this was a marketing event, not someone covering a news story.

With all that said though, the words of Ghandi echo here:

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”

While we need to be diligent in ensuring criminals and those that would do harm to our country are kept out, we must ensure that Canada is still a country that values free speech and the opinions and thoughts of others…even if those “others” are from a different country.

There needs to be more transparency within the CBSA. What was the reasoning for only granting a 48 hour pass to someone who (I’m assuming) has no criminal record or any other reason to be outright denied entry into the country? Not commenting on specific cases is a cop-out and there needs to be checks and balances in place so that the public can evaluate the abilities of our border agents.

So while I understand that maybe the border guards were a bit zealous in their questioning and that we’ll never really know why they were so focussed on the 2010 Olympics questions, there’s another part of me that’s irritated as the American response of outrage. She wasn’t banned from Canada, she wasn’t kept from seeing her sick child being cared for in a different country…she was simply questioned and given a short term pass into a foreign country where she delivered her speech as planned. Sorry, but that’s hardly worth all the press that this story has garnered.

Welcome to Ottawa Mr. Jacobson

The United States has sent a new ambassador to Canada. David Jacobson, originally from Chicago, will take up the reigns from outgoing ambassador David Wilkins.

Jacobson hails from Chicago, is married, and has two children (one that attends school in Montreal).

While he’s coming into one of the most US-friendly countries in the world, he’s also coming in at a time where Canada/US tensions are at an all time high, and I think he’s going to find representing our biggest trading partner a challenge.

He’s already outlined what the priorities are in his mind: trade, energy, the environment, and border security/foreign policy. All of these are huge in their own right, and all very tightly intertwined.

Trade is a multi-faceted issue encompassing American protectionism and effects of increased border security. Jacobson needs to be ready to hear strong, passionate views from Canadians and business groups on this topic.

Energy and the environment are also massive topics. On one hand the US is highly dependent on Canada to provide energy resources to them. On another, legislation is being considered in the US that will place environmental restrictions on how Canadian energy exports are collected and refined.

And of course there’s the foreign policy aspect, of which he’ll find challenging as long as elected officials in America keep making comments that rub Canada the wrong way.

David Jacobson has said that he’s looking forward to travelling through Canada, talking to people about how to strengthen the relationship between the US and Canada. I think he’s going to hear a lot more than his predecessor did.

America Appoints New Border Czar

Meet Alan Bersin, the new Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Mr. Bersin comes into the position with an impressive resume:

• In the 90’s he was a federal prosecutor focussing on illegal immigrants at the California/Mexico border.
  
• He moved into the educational realm, first being the superintendent of San Diego before being appointed the Secretary of Education for California.
  
• More recently he’s been working within DHS on border affairs issues.

And now, he’s the “border czar” – the man overseeing the entire CBP organization.

So what does this mean for the US/Canada border? Potentially not a whole lot. Bersin has been involved in southern US border issues for years and provides more insight into how to handle the southern border issues. Coming from a southern border state, like his boss Janet Napolitano* does, shows that America is serious about dealing with the issues…or at least appeasing the other southern border states that they’re using like-minded people in these government positions. It’s clear his role is to strengthen the border with Mexico.

Which means that he’ll likely ignore the northern border. With the southern border continuing to be such a huge focus, the northern border may continue to see more stringent policies put in place for no reason other than both borders need to be treated as equals.

If there is need to deal with the northern border, it will be interesting to see if he learns the hard lessons that Napolitano has in her short tenure when dealing with northern states and Canada.

The Good Samaritan – Canada’s Role in 9/11

Today marks the anniversary of 9/11, the horrendous attack on American soil that brought down the World Trade Center, killed thousands, changed millions, and altered our world view.

I was talking on Twitter with a buddy who was commenting that Bing.com in the states were showing something 9/11 related. In Canada, Bing.com has some remote lake in New Zealand and I wondered why they didn’t choose to focus on a key event of that day which occurred in Canada.

*Image from a collection of images found here.

Gander, Newfoundland, is a community of just under 10,000 people. On 9/11, as the sky was cleared of all air travel, 38 planes carrying 6,500 people were diverted to Gander. Within a few short hours, the population of the town almost doubled.

Once word broke of the arrivals, the people of this small town sprung into action. Teri A. McIntyre, in a review of The Day The World Came to Town, wrote:

But when Gander became the recipient of unexpected quests on that most tragic day, its residents immediately rallied with a swiftness and friendliness that even movies and books cannot accurately replicate. As DeFede consistently demonstrates, the town was a place where no call for assistance went unheard, and no person struggled alone.

Schools and halls quickly became emergency shelters. Residents invited people into their homes for showers, beds and meals. People stripped their houses bare of sheets and towels, and offered the use of their vehicles. Pharmacists filled prescriptions from all over the word at no cost. Local businesses emptied their shelves of food, clothing, toys and toiletries. One local business, Canadian Tire, was given instructions by its head office to provide whatever was required at no expense.

On a day when so many were dealing with mixed emotions of what had happened, what the state of loved ones were, whether more attacks would occur, and just trying to deal with this horrible reality, a community ensured that their basic needs of shelter, food, safety, and care were taken care of; an outpouring of love and compassion to people they had never met.

Since 9/11 we’ve seen reactionary security measures put in place, a war fought and continuing to be fought, a hardening of the North American borders, and an increased sense of distrust and suspicion.

And yet Gander provided us with an alternate story from that day: one of humans reaching out to one another without regard of country of origin. While we allow borders to define us, Gander showed that the tenets of humanity are universal; that when we see others in a place of need we have the ability to reach out and make a difference. They acted as true citizens of the world and their actions should be an example for us all.

The Future Is Now

Back in May I blogged about ‘A Glimpse of the Future’ where I discussed the effect WHTI would have on Canada/US relations, travel, and commerce. I ended that post with this:

And through all this, those that depend on business from their neighbours over the border, in both countries, are the ones suffering.

As one person said when calling in to the radio station:

"We used to go down every week and a half, but if this keeps up, we'll be lucky if we go down every four to six weeks."

This is not a fad, this is not temporary. This is a glimpse of the future of Canada/US relations.

A recent article posted on USA Today’s website entitled “Border traffic plunges under passport policy” provides some validity to the repercussions strengthening the border has spawned.

First, a stat showing that the number of privately owned vehicles entering the US border in June and July (from north and south combined) has dropped by approximately 2 million from last year; almost 4 million from 2005.

A Buffalo NY border crossing region saw a 13% decline in privately owned vehicles coming into the US.

An amusement park 10 minutes from the Canadian border has seen 1/3 fewer Canadian families coming down for the “Canadian Wednesdays” promotion they run.

A US based charter bus company has cut the number of trips it makes to an Ontario based casino in half because people there would rather spend their money gambling locally than get a passport to go out of country.

And yet, with these and other examples of reduced cross-border commerce, CBP is still standing firm that the passport requirements and other WHTI related policies have nothing to do with the decline in border traffic. From the article:

CBP officials say the change has made border crossings safer and more efficient and isn't to blame for declining numbers. Fewer people have been coming to the USA via land borders since 9/11, says Colleen Manaher, initiative director.

Compliance has been high; 95% of affected travelers arrive at the borders with proper documents, she says. "You have to look at this in totality," she says. "There is the recession, exchange rates, gas prices. There's border violence, there's weather."

So, I’ll give Colleen the benefit of the doubt that she’s talking about north *and* south borders. But let’s focus on Canada here, which btw was the only country that had changes initiated. Mexican citizens already had document requirements for entering the US.

Canada doesn’t have border violence, not anywhere remotely close to the US/Mexico issues. Weather? Did she really say the weather was a factor? I’m not sure what types of extreme weather are affecting Canadians from crossing into the US.

The recession had the uncanny timing of showing up as WHTI was going into effect, but I’ll grant that it must be factored into people not going out and doing shopping across the border as much.

Exchange rates have not been terrible over the last year. According to xe.com, today the Canadian dollar is worth .93 US. Gas prices high? I think that’s an easy scapegoat.

No, the key reason that Canadians and Americans are sticking to their own side of the border rests with the document requirements that the US has enforced on itself and its neighbours. The cost in dollars and time all to appease a government already seen as overly paranoid just doesn’t seem worth it. DoHS can deny that all they want, but when you talk to the people being directly affected by it, you can tell who’s a more valid source.

People like Mike McGuire, the spokesman for that amusement park I mentioned above. He states:

“We used to cater a few picnics for Canadian businesses. A couple have told us they can't do it because they can't force their workers to get passports.

Where it really hurts is the impulse buy. Mom and Dad are sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon and say, 'Hey, let's go to Fantasy Island. Wait, we can't because we don't have … passports.' "

Funny that Mike didn’t suggest the reason they don’t come down as gas prices, the exchange rate, or the weather.

US Bodychecks Canadian Hockey Charters

This could end badly. Very, very badly. I’m talking riots in the streets. Infuriating Americans with the threat of Obamacare wasn’t enough…Obama had to incite anger in the hearts of Canadians as well, and he did it targeting one of our most beloved national treasures: hockey!

First, a bit of a history lesson: There are rules about where flights from Canada can go when entering the US. Basically, they can visit a single US location before returning to Canada. However, 8 years ago, Canada and the US came to an agreement allowing sports teams and entertainers who chartered planes to US destinations to not be bound by the rule. This makes sense, since if the Ottawa Senators are playing a 5 game road trip in 5 US cities, it would be a little silly to have them have to fly back to Canada after each game.

So let’s bring it back to mid August when the US Department of Transportation changed the rules, forbidding charter flights from doing multiple US hops. Why?

Well the US Air Line Pilots Association did a little snooping and found that Canadian teams were breaking some rules of the agreement. How? Well let’s say the Senator’s team owner happened to be in Pittsburgh when Ottawa showed up for the game (this isn’t a real example, just an illustration). The Sens next game was in Phoenix, so the team owner boards the charter plane and flies with the team. Or let’s say an injured player does the same sort of thing: meets up with the team in the US and then hops on the charter to their next stop.

The charters are meant for people originating from Canada, but because they’re picking up passengers within the US (regardless of their association to the team, whether an owner or employee) they’re providing travel that would otherwise be going to a US-based carrier…who employs US Air Line Pilots Association members.

Now let’s put this in perspective. There are SIX (6) NHL teams in Canada, so the number of people violating this rule is insanely small. The people who are part of these trips are associated with the team…these charters are not doing passenger travel on the side. Yet this was enough for the US DoT to not levy fines or warnings, but to kill the agreement altogether.

And how did Canada respond? From the National Post article:

In a furious exchange with the Obama administration over the mid-August ruling, Canada has launched its own investigation and will soon close its skies to U.S. sports team charters in retaliation, warns Transport Minister John Baird.

Mr. Baird said the dispute "shows the power of anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress" and cautioned his government will respond in kind.

"We've already directed the Canadian Transportation Agency to launch a formal inquiry and the next step will be a direction to the CTA to immediately prohibit charter flights by U.S. carriers under season-long contracts with professional sports teams with multiple stops in Canada," he said in an interview.

This is somewhat surprising considering that the Conservative party has been very vocal that counter-protectionism is not in the best interest of Canada in the long run. But now, with a direct attack on our national game, it seems that sentiment is starting to crack a bit…especially with comments like “anti-free-trade Democrats in the Congress”.

The reality is that this isn’t about hockey. It’s about an attack on a Canadian-based business supplying chartered flights for sports and entertainers, and it should be pointed out that not all are Canadian-based (Air Canada, who runs the charters, count the Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks as current customers; they lost a contract with the Anaheim Ducks due to the US DoT decision). While I make light of the hockey angle, make no mistake: this is about free trade and protectionism.

United States – 5 minutes and a game misconduct for sidestepping your free trade agreement responsibilities, pandering to a special interest group instead of consulting with anyone on this side of the border, and foregoing diplomatic common sense to resolve this issue.

UPDATE
I found this article on the Globe and Mail website. It adds some interesting info to this story:

- Air Canada was servicing two American-based teams (Boston Bruins and Milwaukee Bucks) when they took on the extra passengers for cross-city flights. Canadian company still at fault, but not the Canadian teams.

- There is already a similar ban in place in Canada as a response to the US action. The story talks about an airline in Miami and one in Dallas that were told to cancel flights to Canada.

The Ripple Effects of Protectionism – Microsoft as a Case Study

I came across an interested article today, one originally published in 2007 which makes it even more interesting as its commentary comes before the global recession reached its destructive climax.

The article tells the story of Parminder Singh, a man who immigrated to Canada with his family when he was only 6 years old. It talks about the issues he had getting into the US job market due to his birthplace of New Delhi, and how he overcame US immigration issues to emerge as a key Microsoft employee.

But underlying this story, written before Buy-US provisions were introduced, written before Barack Obama was the US president, is a is commentary on protectionism and why countries need to thoughtfully and carefully review their views on immigration.

Microsoft is a classic example of this. In the article Jack Krumholtz, Microsoft’s government affairs director at the time, was quoted saying:

"We currently do 85 per cent of our development work in the U.S., and we'd like to continue doing that. But if we can't hire the developers we need, we're going to have to look to other options to get the work done."

And over the last couple of years, we’ve seen Microsoft do just that. Instead of dealing with US immigration, they opened up the Microsoft Canadian Developer Center in British Columbia. If the US doesn’t want Canadians or others from elsewhere in the world coming to work for a US company on US soil, the company will go to them. Interestingly enough, its Canada’s immigration policies that have made this move so attractive for Microsoft, allowing them to source and attain international talent.

This past year Microsoft Tech Ed, one of their two premiere conferences, was held in Los Angeles. At the same time, Microsoft Tech Ed was also occurring in India. Which one did Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer choose to deliver the keynote to? The India event.

Companies do not require to be operating in their home country to be successful, and hindering their ability to hire talented prospects due to protectionist policy only hurts the country in question.

What also seems to be missed in all of this is the spin-off benefits of bringing in talented workers from other countries. While they live and work in a foreign country they also contribute to the local economy through commerce as well as the local governments through taxation.

What about the concern that immigrants will take jobs that should be considered to local citizens first? This, I believe, serves as a warning for North America: competition is not solely within your borders. If there is talent locally, then there should be no issue: it is still far cheaper to hire local talent then having to source international prospects.

But if there’s *not* talent pool to draw on, where does that leave a company like Microsoft? How can a company continue to thrive and be profitable if its hindered by a lacklustre local workforce? The answer is that it shouldn’t. For us that make up the workforce, we need to ensure that we’re striving to be better not just within our own circles of peers and competitors, but also with our global competitors.

As the saying goes, don’t hate the player…hate the game. But if there is a better player out there, wouldn’t you rather have them playing for your team (read: country)?

DHS: All Your Electronics Belong To Us*

There’s been a lot of buzz lately about the DHS’s new directives on performing searches of electronic media. From the official press release:

The new directives address the circumstances under which U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can conduct border searches of electronic media—consistent with the Department’s Constitutional authority to search other sensitive non-electronic materials, such as briefcases, backpacks and notebooks, at U.S. borders.

So what does “electronic media” refer to? Well, from the CBP Directive document:

Includes  any devices that may contain information, such as computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices.

That’s right, its basically anything that can electronically store information. In addition to the searches, CBP has the authority to transmit your data if its in a form that they don’t understand to someone that can “translate” it for them:

Officers may sometimes have  technical difficulties in conducting the search of electronic devices such that technical assistance is needed  to continue the border search.  Also, in some
cases Offtcers may encounter information  in electronic devices  that requires  technical
assistance  to determine  the meaning of such information,  such as, for example, information  that is in a foreign language and / or encrypted (including information  that is password protected or otherwise not readily reviewable).  In such situations, Officers may transmit electronic devices or copies of information  contained  therein to seek technical assistance  from other federal agencies.  Officers may seek such assistance with or without individualized suspicion.

There are huge privacy concerns that are raised from this paragraph. For one, the number of electronic devices out there suggest that more than a few officers will be met with a device they have no idea how to use or access data from. Will the default reaction, if there’s suspicion (or not, since there doesn’t have to be), be to confiscate the device for further vetting?

Another concern should be on the data itself. Encrypted or not, your data can be copied and transmitted to “other federal agencies” to be vetted. You have no control over who or how many people will see your data.

Speaking of seizing and sharing data, just to make it clear:

5.4.1.1 Retention with Probable Cause. 
Officers may seize and retain an electronic
device, or copies of information  from the device, when, based on a review of the electronic device encountered or on other facts and circumstances, they determine there is probable cause to believe that the device, or copy of the contents thereof,
contains evidence of or is  the fruit of a crime that CBP is authorized  to enforce.

5.4.1.3 Sharing Generally. 
Nothing in  this Directive  limits  the authority of CBP  to share copies of information contained in electronic devices (or portions  thereof), which are
retained  in accordance with this Directive, with  federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies  to the extent consistent with applicable  law and policy.

In Canada our file sharing/downloading laws are nowhere near as stringent as in the US. So what does this mean for a Canadian with a copy of Battlestar Galactica they pulled down from a torrent site who gets searched at the border? Could they be turned over to authorities for copyright infringement? Maybe you’re reading this thinking that its a farfetched scenario, but consider the last line in the paragraph below from the DHS press release:

Searches of electronic media, permitted by law and carried out at borders and ports of entry, are vital to detecting information that poses serious harm to the United States, including terrorist plans, or constitutes criminal activity—such as possession of child pornography and trademark or copyright infringement.

That’s right, “trademark or copyright infringement” is listed as a criminal activity and next to terrorism. Of course, copyright infringement *is* illegal and I’m not condoning it. However, I question whether CBP officers are going to have enough training to be able to identify material that is illegal and that which is legal. I hope we never have to hear about a person crossing the border being asked to produce receipts for all the iTunes purchases they filled their iPod with, or having their laptop confiscated for containing ripped movies that are actually legal digital copies made available when purchasing DVD’s.

Now, to keep this in some perspective, only 1000 laptop searches were conducted out of 221 million travellers…a miniscule percentage. Still, the door has been opened for CBP officers to perform invasive searches for no reason whatsoever and on a wider variety of devices. Travellers need to be aware of the possibilities, even remote ones, that their data could be seized when travelling into the US. So what can you do?

Store Your Data In The Cloud
If you want to ensure no data is collected, and to limit the potential for confused looks as officers try to figure out what your scientific report is really about, store your data on a server and not on your computers and devices. Many airlines are now offering wi-fi internet access in their planes, which means that once you’re through security and onboard you can freely download your files and work on the flight. This also removes any concern about legal media files that could be incorrectly identified as copyright infringement.

Keep Devices To A Minimum
I don’t know how these searches will be carried out…if only one piece of electronics will be searched or if someone flagged will have all devices searched. Assuming the latter, keep everything to a minimum. Laptop, cell phone, mp3 player…camera if you have to. Don’t bring multiple laptops, don’t bring a bunch of USB jump drives or external drives for that matter. The fewer devices, the fewer searches can be performed (speeding you through to your plane) and fewer questions will be asked.

Bring Only Data You’re Comfortable Losing
If you do need to bring data on your devices, ensure that its data your comfortable losing or having people view. If you have any sensitive data, I redirect you to the first suggestion of utilizing a file server. Any data on your devices should be free of passwords and organized in a way that’s easily discoverable. Help the CBP officers conduct their search.

Have a Backup Plan
Ensure you have some backup plan for a worst case scenario. For instance, if you’re doing a speaking engagement but your laptop gets confiscated at the border due to a search, ensure that organizers know that you might need a filler laptop to run your presentation on, and have your presentation available through a file server or another source that doesn’t require you to physically carry it.

It will be interesting to see, as these new directives come online, whether the number of reported instances of device searches increases or not. Either way, travellers should be aware.

*Btw, the “All your electronics belong to us” is a pop-culture reference to a mistranslation in a videogame called Zero Wing.

Time For Canada to Roar

I have a lot of American friends, and as such I hear a lot of Canadian jokes. Most of them I just laugh off…and seriously, there’s enough American jokes that I throw back as well…its all good natured.

But Americans don’t make jokes about Australians, or the British, or even Mexico like they do with Canada. Why is that? Part of it, I believe, is that Canada isn’t really taken seriously by America. And unfortunately that sentiment isn’t just held in pockets of everyday Americans…it can be found at the highest levels of government.

Take for instance the recent nomination hearing of David Jacobson, the new US ambassador to Canada. Canada, remember, is the largest trading partner with the US, not just in exports but in imports of US products as well. Our countries are intertwined, we share a symbiotic economical relationship. In the grand scheme of the US economy, we matter! Yet for Mr. Jacobson’s nomination hearing only one person showed up to ask questions about his new role out of a potential twenty one.

According to an article from The Star, former US ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin offered this explanation:

“…David Jacobson is a very solid guy with not a hint of controversy surrounding his nomination. Second, senators are consumed with some rather large issues in finance and environment. And finally, everyone is rushing to get out of town because the summer recess is imminent. Add that up and this is just a formality, really.”

Yet I wonder if things would have been different with any other country…say the ambassador to China, Britain, Germany, or Mexico? Would all 21 have ensured they showed up? Giffin’s logic is a little troubling as well. He suggests that senators are busy with larger issues, but also want to get out of town because of the summer recess…so which is it: are they dealing with big problems, or just trying to get to the cottage faster?

Regardless, this does leave a bad taste in Canadian’s mouths. It has nothing to do with whether this nomination was simply a “formality”. What matters is that the US shows respect for a country that has bent over backwards to be a great neighbour and trading partner.

Of course, many US politicians probably don’t think there is anything really pressing with Canada since even their president downplays Canada’s concerns over protectionist policies:

“I do think it's important to keep this in perspective. This in no way has endangered the billions of dollars of trade taking place between our two countries,”

“I want to assure you your Prime Minister raises this with me every time we see each other. [But] I think it's also important to keep it in perspective, that in fact we have not seen some sweeping steps toward protectionism,”

President Obama

And yet we continue to hear stories about Canadian companies losing money because they’re shut out of bidding for jobs in the US while US companies have no such limitations in bidding on Canadian jobs.

As Canadians we need to continue being vocal, continue raising awareness of these issues with our governments and those across the border. We need to keep pushing for NAFTA reform, not just because its outdated in the types of jobs that are covered by it but to ensure we preserve our natural resources for our future generations.

We’ve already looked at other free trade agreements with other countries, and we should continue to do that. We should not continue to accept our role as a friend to the United States only when it serves their purposes. We are the true north strong and free, we should be proud of our country and our heritage, and we should rail against anyone who attempts to take advantage of us and our people.

Canada needs to stop being do damn polite and start asserting ourselves as the global player we truly are.

What Was The Point of Passports Again?

The Winnipeg Free Press posted a story today about a Winnipeg' couple’s experience crossing into the US for a weekend trip of golfing and shopping. Unfortunately 54 year old Donald Miller’s name and birthdate was shared by someone who, when entered into the US CBP system, came back as “armed and dangerous”.

CBP officers surrounded the car and drew weapons on the couple, instructing them to get out of the car where they were handcuffed and brought into separate interrogation rooms where Mr. Miller was subjected to what the news story describes as an “embarrassingly intimate search”. He was not told why he was being detained although he asked, and had a gun pointed at him during the search and during an interrogation. Finally he was freed and was told it was mistaken identity.

I’m in agreement with Donald in that there was nothing wrong with how the CBP officers reacted. Just like I would expect for our Canadian guards, if the information given suggests someone in front of them could be armed and dangerous, they need to protect themselves and ensure any threat is vetted and identified.

But wasn’t the WHTI supposed to deal with this? Canadians are now crossing with either a government issued passport or enhanced identification card. Canada has spent millions implementing these programs to ensure our citizens meet the requirements of the US border.

Even more disturbing is the system CBP officers use is an FBI operated database. From the news story:

The National Crime Information Center is a computerized database operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The database contains information on criminal records, fugitives, missing persons and wanted persons. As well, stolen licence plates are on file, as well as stolen boats and guns.

The information comes from several areas including the FBI, federal, state, local and foreign criminal justice agencies.

The database is open only to federal, state, local law enforcement agencies and other related justice agencies.

So you run a name through an FBI operated database, a name pops up saying armed and dangerous, but…what…the FBI database has no picture of the suspect, no description, nothing that can be cross referenced against the passport photo or *gasp* even just LOOKING at the guy in the car? Instead, a name and birthday match are all that’s required to yank a guy from his car and put him through the ringer while they determine if he’s *the* guy.

Maybe before Canada sunk so much money into getting our people ready for the WHTI standards we should have issued demands on the Americans to get their information systems in order as well.

And I totally echo Don’s comment about nobody offering any apology, regardless of the officers just doing their job.

"Thing is, the Americans don't know how to say 'I'm sorry for the inconvenience.'"

Visa: You Can’t Get Into Canada Without It (for Mexico and Czech Republic Citizens Anyway)

I’ve had a few days to digest what’s gone on between Canada, Mexico, and the Czech Republic. For those that are out of the loop, here’s the backstory:

Since 2007 Canada has received more than 12,000 Czech and Mexican refugee claimants came to Canada with most of them being illegitimate. For each claimant, it costs around $29,000 because while the paperwork is being done they are cared for and put up somewhere in Canada. That’s almost $350 million dollars that Canadian taxpayers have put forward to care for people escaping other countries, and remember a high percentage are illegitimate.

The reason Czech and Mexico are singled out is because they’re the two countries who have the largest number of refugee claimants coming to Canada. Obviously the cost as well as security issues need to be addressed, and that’s what the Canadian government tried to do this week.

On Monday it was announced that all travellers from Mexico or the Czech Republic need to get a visa to travel to Canada. In one of the biggest WTF decisions I’ve ever seen, the new rules went into effect yesterday (Tuesday). That’s right: announce new visa requirements on Monday, put them into effect the next day…although, bless their hearts, the government did allow a 48 hour grace period.

Of course Mexico and the Czechs aren’t too happy about this. Mexico’s government hasn’t seemed to be too vocal (probably too busy with other stuff like drug cartels and US/Mexico border relations) although their citizens are definitely pissed off. The Czech Republic took a more dramatic stance, petitioning to the EU and making a huge drama-queenish type of display.

Canadians are also upset as well. One story suggested that Mexican tourist dollars bring in $235 million into Canada’s economy every year, and many businesses rely in part on Mexican tourists. Notice I’m not mentioning the Czech’s. In every story I read, I didn’t see one mention or suggestion of how Czech visitors en-masee provide value to Canada’s industries other than keeping our immigration department fully staffed.

So what are some next steps or possible solutions to this first-draft attempt of saving taxpayer dollars and securing our border?

Extend The Grace Period
Even the Americans gave us months of notice that we’d need passports to cross over by land. For Canada to make this announcement on a Monday and have it go into effect the next day, even with a 48 grace period, is unacceptable. We have a good relationship with Mexico and there’s no reason to punish the majority of travellers from there because of a comparatively small group that costs us big money at home.

And don’t forget that Canadian industries that rely on tourism dollars got no advance notice either. So not only are people in Mexico scrambling to get travel visas for upcoming trips, businesses expecting those travellers now need to brace for the hit to their expected income.

The Canadian government needs to extend this timeframe. Do the right thing and give these people at lest 4 – 6 months notice.

Mexico and Czech Republic Could Just Pay Up
Here’s another idea: since its people from other countries trying to leave and seek asylum, how about if we charge those countries for each asylum seeker? Kinda like a cost share: legit travellers can still come in visa free, and for those that feel that their government isn’t doing enough to protect them from imminent harm or persecution, maybe *THEY* can foot the bill while we determine qualification for refugee status.

Of course, that adds a whole level of cost collection, but it puts onus on where the problem is originating from. Canada isn’t looking for refugees, but we believe in helping those that truly need help. If Mexico and the Czech Republic could pony up some cash so we can help THEIR citizens who are trying to escape, that would be appreciated.

Canada’s Immigration System Needs Fixing?
I pose this as a question because I don’t really know if it does or not. You could say that its a bloated bureaucracy that is more of a cost suck than anything, but you could argue that about any arm of government. The important thing is that the people working in our immigration system have access to information, tools, and resources to ensure they can expedite the approval process for anyone seeking entry to Canada through immigration, whether refugee or otherwise. If we’re going to be seeing huge savings by reducing dollars spent towards Mexican and Czech refugees and eliminating that extra burden of paperwork and support, then we should see increased performance in other areas.

It’ll be interesting to see what plays out over the next few weeks.

BF

Related articles and sources:

TheStar.com – Visa Restrictions Spark Backlash

TheStar.com – Families Fume as Vacation Plans Wrecked

Globe and Mail – Visa Decision Leaves Tourists In A Panic

CBC – Toronto Tourism Braces for Mexican Visa Impact

Happy Ending for Ava, Backlash from “Our Friends”

My last post talked about the heartbreaking story of Ava Stinson, a baby born 14 weeks premature. Because there was no room at any of Ontario’s prenatal care centers, she was flown to Buffalo, NY, for treatment. Her parents weren’t allowed accross the border to see her because they didn’t have passports. Well great news: CBP has given them permission to cross the border and be with their daughter! Kudos to the authorities for doing the right thing in this situation.

So let’s switch gears to the many articles, commentaries, and blog posts by American authors that have tapped this story as proof that socialized medicine is a failure.

Consider this article by Jim Hoft (check out this re-posting also, as the comments are much more colourful). He talks about the number of cases where Canadians went to the US for similar premature birth needs, and how countries with socialized medicine have wonky infant mortality rates because of whether a premature child is included in the stats or not. Two things really made me laugh in his piece though.

In fact, there were at least 40 mothers or their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia to the United States in 2007 because Canadian hospitals didn’t have room for the preemies in their neonatal units.

So first Jim, some lessons on Canada. Canada’s population is approximately 33.2 million. British Columbia makes up 4.4 million of that. If *only* 40 mothers or babies had to be sent to the US for treatment, that’s pretty damn good. Also, realize that in many cases US cities are closer than the next major Canadian city (keep reading, there’s a map to help illustrate this when it comes up again). Sorry Jim, but throwing small numbers to try and prove your point just doesn’t work.

On to the other part of his article:

As we've seen with these socialized systems, some people will inevitably be denied the care they need to survive. No doubt, with Obamacare Americans will be forced to accept an inferior product with fewer choices.

Wow…”some people will inevitably be denied the care they need to survive.” Are we talking about Canada here, or the millions without adequate health care coverage that live in the USA currently? And accepting inferior care with fewer choices…maybe I’m wrong, but don’t HMO’s tell you which hospitals you can/can’t go to?

Jim isn’t the only one though. Over at Carol’s Closet, Carol was commenting from south Florida on the whole episode. She initially posted this entry, followed by this one. Let’s see what she had to say…

The country who’s health care is soooo much better than ours.

There wasn’t a single available neo-natal bed in the entire province so little Ava was transported to Buffalo, NY. Lets here it for National Health Care aka rationed health care.

First off, I don’t know who keeps telling American’s that our health care is better than the care the receive. I have no doubt that the doctors and hospital staff in the US are of a high calibre, and I don’t necessarily think that our health care system is *better* than in the US. But what our system does provide is health care for everyone. That’s the key difference: we see health care as something every citizen should have access to, a basic right of residing in this country.

Carol tries to jab our system…but I don’t think she gets it. Yes its an issue that there wasn’t a hospital bed available in Ontario. But with *our* system, the authorities were able to consider an out of system, potentially more expensive option in the US for this baby’s care. Our system took care of her, regardless of the fact that it had to happen outside our borders.

Carol references an article by Ed Morissey who asks similar types of questions.

But why wasn’t there a NICU bed for the child in the entire nation of Canada?  The government of Canada won’t pay for more.  They don’t exist to expand supply to meet demand; their single-payer system exists to ration care as a cost-saving mechanism.

Again, a geography lesson is required here. I highly doubt that there wasn’t a bed available anywhere in Canada. What I do suspect is that it made more sense to send the baby to Buffalo as the next closest hospital. Consider this map:

The “A” is Hamilton, and the red line shows where Buffalo is…a very short distance. We know that there isn’t a bed available in Ontario, so the three red circles represent the next closest Canadian cities. Now, what makes more sense for the health and well being of the child? The closer hospital does! 

In closing, my goal of this post isn’t to try and convince anyone about Canada’s health care system being better than the US model. Our system is not perfect, and for all the good of our system we also have some bad. No, my goal here is education. There are so many misconceptions about our health care system and how it operates, and from comments on the referenced blog posts it seems political ideology trumps common sense.

Also, check out my post on Clarifying Public Healthcare for some stats and info Canada’s health care system.

It’s Time to End the “Friends” Rhetoric

I’m sick of hearing North American politicians use the term “friends” when talking about each other’s country. Friends don’t treat each other the way Canadians have been treated by the US in recent months, specifically around the increased border security and related policies that have cost Canadians and Canada dollars, time, and hassle. And yet Canada and its provinces have responded to these new requirements, issuing driver licenses and other government issue ID that are “enhanced” to meet the NHSI standards. We have done our part and shown that we are willing to play by the rules of our “friend” to the south.

And yet, the US government is so rigid, so monolithic, and so black-and-white that they cannot see past their own policies when common sense and basic humanity should prevail.

I read with outrage the story of Ava Stinson. Ava was born on Thursday, 14 weeks premature. There were no available beds available in any of Ontario’s neonatal intensive-care centres, so she was sent from Hamilton ON to Buffalo NY and a facility there.

In Buffalo Ava lies in her bed alone, fighting for her life. She’s too young to understand the idea of mother or father, but we can all understand the agony parents in this situation would feel and the longing and need to be by their child’s side. But they aren’t. Natalie and Richard, Ava’s parents, didn’t go to Buffalo. Why?

Because they don’t have passports.

Yes, our “American friends” couldn’t understand the special circumstances surrounding this situation…couldn’t take the time to validate Ava’s parents in other ways with other pieces of identification. They weren’t going for a vacation, or working, or possibly something illegal…they just wanted to be by their incredibly sick child.

For shame on the Department of Homeland Security! For shame on those from the CBP who could have tried to make an exception to the passport rules and didn’t!

This is not the action of a friend.  

Clarifying Public Healthcare

Earlier this month Rhonda Hackett wrote a great commentary piece in the Denver Post entitled “Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths”.

Rhonda is a Canadian who has been living in the US for the last 17 years, and wrote the column based on discussions she frequently has with Americans and Canadians alike on whether one system is better than the other. I’m not going to re-hash what she’s written, but I do want to point out a few key items:

- Taxes in Canada are only slightly higher than in the US.

- 31% of every dollar spent on health care in the US goes to non-medical costs (paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc.). Provincial single-pay systems in Canada operate with a 1% overhead.

- 10% of Canada’s GDP is spent on 100% of its population.
17% of USA’s GDP is spent on 85% of its population (and that’s not considering the millions with inadequate coverage). So in Canada everyone gets care and we still spend less overall than America which spends more but doesn’t cover everyone.

As a Canadian who’s lived within this system his whole life, I am in no means saying our system is perfect. But the idea that socialized medicine somehow delivers less quality and is always more expensive is incorrect.

How Can We Identify Threats If We Can’t Identify Our Citizens?

Sylvie Menard spent a fantastic vacation in Mexico, and was passing through customs in her home city of Montreal. Unfortunately for Sylvie, her name and birth date matched someone who was wanted by police.

Now, we live in a time of information…where authorities have access, for better or for worse, to more information on us than we may be aware. Or maybe we only think they do? Sylvie’s experience suggests that the amount of information available to authorities at the border is slim, or even scarier that its more a lack of common sense and experience.

After being subjected to initial and secondary screening she was handcuffed, read her rights, and brought to a cell. While the police were called to come and verify her identity, a female border officer asked her to disrobe so she could verify whether a pink tattoo was present on her butt…a physical trait mentioned in the wanted woman’s description. There was no tattoo of course and the officer returned again to further investigate to ensure it hadn’t been surgically removed.

So let me get this straight: our border officers jumped to the conclusion that this woman *must* be the one that is wanted because her name and birthdate matched, and then went all CSI to look at whether this tattoo was present. Interesting. What I would have expected instead is for them to find a physical description (which they eventually did) or a picture and compare that to her. Also, Sylvie was carrying her passport, driver’s license, and health card; she had identification that they could have looked up and verified before performing any sort of physical inspection.

I’m not even going to comment on the idiot police officer’s recommendation to just “change her name” to avoid this in the future. How about this: how about our law enforcement agencies get their acts together and implement information systems that allow them to determine a person’s identity quickly and efficiently? How about we have trained staff that can grasp common sense  solutions instead of defaulting to outrageous extremes?

When false matches occur authorities do have to investigate them. But this isn’t professional police investigation; this is weekend security guard at the local mall antics that have no place at a Canadian port of entry.

Canada Drawing Their Own Line on American Protectionism

This morning in Whistler the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution that it will only support municipalities that adopt policies stating they will only buy from companies that reside in countries without trade restrictions against goods from Canada.

This story begins in Halton Hills, a community of 58,000 people. Hayward Gordon Ltd., a pipefitting company, moved its operation to Halton Hills a few years back. It recently lost a pipe-fitting contract in Ontario to a Salt Lake City firm. The mayor of Halton Hills learned around that time that, because of the “Buy American” policies in place, Hayward Gordon couldn’t bid on projects in Salt Lake City.

So while US companies are still free to come take work away from Canadian firms IN Canada, we’re not able to have our companies try to source business south of the border. As the mayor put it in a Toronto Sun story:

I am not against free trade, but it has to be fair trade.

Halton Hills fought back in their own way: they passed a resolution that the municipality would only deal with companies whose country of origin allowed Canadian companies opportunities to bid on work as well. It was this act that started a movement, with other Ontario municipalities passing similar resolutions and ultimately to the resolution voted in this morning at the FoCM summit.

But what about NAFTA? Isn’t there already a free trade agreement in place that should be taking care of all this stuff? Unfortunately, as an article from Investors.com points out, NAFTA is too high level:

…much of the money allocated to infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and the like is being spent at the city and state level where Nafta rules do not override "buy American" provisions or sentiment.

The Washington Post cites examples such as the town of Peru, Ind., which told a Canadian supplier it was rejecting sewage pumps that were made near Toronto. John Hayward, president of Hayward Gordon, the Canadian pump-maker, says many U.S. towns have told him they can no longer buy his products because of stimulus provisions.

Work done on a construction project at Camp Pendleton was literally pulled out of the ground when someone noticed Canadian pipe fittings had been used. The fittings were made by a Toronto-based company that had been doing business in the U.S. for 60 years. The company had supplied plastic pipe to be used in a new health care facility at the Marine Base north of San Diego.

The Canadian government isn’t sitting on its hands during all of this. Stephen Harper is entering discussions with the US to try and get Canada excluded from the “Buy American” provisions, although that will only go so far as there’s nothing that can be done to the protectionist sentiment in America. Still, the resolution passed by the municipalities also includes a 120 day waiting period to see how the US responds before putting it in action.

Some have suggested that this sort of tactic isn’t necessary and will backfire; that we should let the elected leaders sort this out and “convince our customers to remember who their real friends are”. As I’ve stated before, “friends” don’t treat each other this way. This is business, and in business relationships both sides need to be satisfied with the agreement.

We want to do business in the US, and we want US companies to do business in Canada; but the rules of opportunity need to be the same on both sides.

Canada needs to start standing up for itself and not playing the nice guy with friends that seem more like opportunistic bullies.

No Thanks Obama, You Can Keep Your Guantanimo Detainees

Canada takes a lot of flack for being "soft" on immigration. The US has even used that as a reason for the recent border reinforcements along the US/Canada border. There have been comments made suggesting that Canada lets in people the US would not.

So its with great pride that I read the story of how Canada has denied a request by the Obama administration to take in 17 Chinese Muslims that have been detained at Guantanamo Bay.

The US is in a bit of an odd place. The US courts have ruled that these 17 detainees are being held illegally, and they should be released. But they can't be released into the US...in fact the article I linked to above suggests that anyone detained at Guantanamo will never be allowed on US soil again.

But the US can't release these men to China because their safety can't be guaranteed. Will they be tortured because of their faith, or because they were already suspected of being linked to terrorists, or for some other reason? China has claimed the men won't be tortured but the US obviously doesn't buy it. A little odd that they're not so hypersensitive to torture policies of other countries considering what their own is, but I digress...

This all leads to the US coming to Canada to see if we'll take them in. Are the people of the Obama administration that incredibly brash and idiotic that they would, after all the tough talk about securing the border and concerns of who Canada lets in, approach Canada to take in their own detainees?

Guantanamo is America's mess, not Canada's. I feel for the situation these men are in, but its America's responsibilty to do whatever is best here. Trying to pass it off to Canada is a horrible slap in the face.

Why Would Border Security Be Free?

Maybe I’m missing something here…

According to a Canadian Press story, a proposed additional rail service offering from Seattle to Vancouver is in danger of being scrapped. The reason? The Canadian Border Services Agency is claiming that they will need $1,500 a day to pay for the extra staff it would require to process the extra travellers. The article points out that this works out to $500k a year.

Amtrak can’t pay it and neither can the Washington Dept. of Transportation that was pushing for the run.

BC politicians are fuming. The BC government spent $4.5 million to upgrade railway infrastructure specifically to accommodate this extra rail line offering. There’s also numbers ranging between $14 million and $30 million in how much money will be pumped into the local economy by adding this secondary rail line. They feel the CBSA should waive the fee altogether in light of the obvious benefit to the BC economy.

I have an idea: why doesn’t BC PAY the fee since *they’re* the ones who will see the biggest profit from this? Even at the lower end of the potential winfall, after the fee is paid you’re still seeing $13.5 MILLION dollars being pumped into the local economy.

I don’t understand why the BC politicians think that they somehow deserve extra border protection for free *just because* it’ll help their economy. Border protection is a service provided by a government agency that is already looking at cutting back their workforce. Why should this agency be forced to find alternatives within their organization to allow more officers to patrol a single transportation line that benefits only one city of a single province?

I don’t get it. On paper, this is a no brainer: pay the fee and get the added border officers. If I’m missing something, someone please explain it to me.

Bill Maher – America is Greedy, Not Good

Saw this on his show the other night…New Rules segment is funny, but its followed with a great monologue on the culture of greed in America.

Being Wishy-Washy is More Frustrating Than Heavy Handed

For months we’ve heard of the requirements to cross into the US from Canada. Passports, Nexus, enhanced ID, WHTI…all of these buzzwords floating around. And yet its a safe bet that a large amount of people aren’t going to be ready on Monday with the right documents. Ce la vie.

But now we have a slight turnaround by the acting US customs commissioner Jayson Ahern. From a recent Boston.com article:

US customs officials said they will not strictly enforce new identification requirements at land and sea borders with Canada on June 1 because of business leaders' concerns about the impact on trade and travel.

Customs and Border Protection officers will issue warnings to most people who lack the correct documents and use discretion in detaining people for questioning, said Jayson Ahern, acting customs commissioner.

The United States "will have a flexible enforcement policy on June 1," he told reporters. Eventually, "we'll get to a point where" full compliance will be required, he said.

So all the tough talk about how the US will not waiver on the June 1st deadline apparently was just that: talk?! Because somehow pushing the date back would have been a sign of weakness or unpreparedness, and announcing that warnings will be issued for a non-specific amount of time (and potentially on which CBP officer you get on a given day) is somehow different?

We may not like the rules that the US is setting up, but at least we’re in a better position where we know what the rules are. When the target keeps changing, and when comments like this are made, it does nothing but cause confusion. People reading this article who do not have WHTI approved documents are going to think they can still cross on June 1st. Maybe they will, but probably they won’t.

An Economic Omen on the Eve of WHTI

WHTI goes into effect this Monday, the initiative meant to add an extra layer of security to the Canada/US border. What many critics of the program see is an initiative that will hurt relations and the lucrative cross border economies that have been established over years of good will.

Unfortunately, new numbers published by CBC today suggest that we don’t need to wait for June 1st to get an idea of what sort of economic impact WHTI will have. The article gives statistics for the first quarter of 2009:

Canadians spent $3.6 billion in the US, down 9.1% from 4th quarter 2008 and down 12.1% from the same period last year.

Americans spent $1.8 billion in Canada, down 7% from the previous quarter; the lowest since 1997!

Same-day car trips to Canada by Americans fell to 2.2 million, down 1.8% from the previous quarter; overnight trips were down 3.4% to 3.1 million.

What we see is that there’s already a decline in cross border travel and spending from both sides…and that’s without the extra document requirements set to go into action on June 1st. Some might suggest that this wouldn’t be an issue if the recession hadn’t hit…but the reality is that the recession did hit, and that the WHTI is just going to add to the negative atmosphere of border economics.

Interestingly, the CBC article mentions another stat: Canadians spent 4.1% more ($3.2 billion) to the previous quarter in countries other than the US.

So let’s recap:

- Canadians are spending less in the US
- Americans are travelling and spending less in Canada
- Canadians are spending more in foreign countries excluding the US

And on June 1st, WHTI goes into affect.

Any bets on what the stats for the second and third quarters of 2009 will look like?

It’s OK, She Was Just Kidding!

Remember all that rhetoric about how the US shouldn’t go light on one border (Can/US) and heavy on the other (Mex/US)?

Remember how outraged Canadians were over the idea that the US would see Canada’s border with the same scrutiny and fervour as the Mexican border even though Canada has none of the border issues that Mexico does?

Remember the 9/11 terrorist comment that Janet Napolitano made that brought to light the untrue myth that is still apparently living in some halls of Washington (as John McCain confirmed)?

Well let’s forget all that. Janet Napolitano is visiting Canada, and she’s apparently decided to take a different approach to the Canadian border now. At a news conference she was quoted as saying:

We're going to be using a different mix of manpower and technology between the ports of entry, for example, than we would at the southern border.

So, the law is the same but the techniques we use to implement that law will be differentiated because of the differences between Canada and Mexico.

So there’s good and bad in all this. The good is that the US has obviously listened to the rumblings coming from Canada. Whether this is just lip service to make nice while visiting Canada or not, that remains to be seen. But at the very least Ms. Napolitano has acknowledged the concerns, even if it is just in a soundbite. What her comments translate to as far as policy remains to be seen.

And that’s where the bad comes in. For the last year we’ve seen incidents of US CBP officers overstepping bounds when it comes to Canadians crossing over the border, specifically heightened to the perceived loss of American jobs to Canadians. We’ve also seen political heavyweights such as John McCain and Hilary Clinton both make public statements that the Canada/US border should be policed better. It’s obvious that there is a certain sentiment that has been built up towards how America views the Can/US border, and its not a positive one.

It’s great that the Secretary of Homeland Security is now saying that Canada’s border is different from the US/Mexico border, but the real weight of that statement will be determined in how many incidents of Canadians being accused of stealing American jobs or undergoing hassles at the border are reported in the coming year.

Either It’s a Real Border Or It Isn’t

Janet Napolitano has made it clear that, from the US point of view, the Canada/US border needs to be a “real” border complete with added security and defences. While many may disagree, the fact of the matter is that the US, as a sovereign country, has every right to restrict their borders as they feel is appropriate.

But what the US does *not* have authority to do is request that their officers be given powers on *our* side of this real border.

Two programs, one that has been piloted and looks to be continue and one that while failed in talks the first time may still come up again, are showing that the US is demanding a more defined border while trying to overstep their boundaries. One of those programs is Shiprider.

The shiprider program is a joint venture between the RCMP and USCG (United States Coast Guard) where members of each force ride on the same vessel to patrol waters. So instead of two separate fleets performing the same job, this allows one unified border patrol across the line dividing Canada and the US through water ways.

From an article about the program on the RCMP website:

Upon graduation, each officer was cross-designated as a law enforcement officer for the other country — RCMP members were cross-designated as U.S. officers of the customs and USCG officers were cross-designated as supernumerary constables of the RCMP.

Interesting…so we (Canada) basically gave USCG officers honorary status within the RCMP? This doesn’t sound like a strong, separated border to me. In fact, it sounds like an opportunity for US officers to have an inroad to Canadian waters...and possibly airspace and land as well. According to the Council of Canadians:

CBC radio also reported last year that U.S. Coast Guard ships have been entering Canadian waters in the St. Lawrence to investigate and even question Canadians, in one case simply for snapping photos. But Shiprider appears to go much further than patrolling shared waters.

The RCMP and Coast Guard "are partnering with a number of other agencies, including provincial police, the Canadian Forces, U.S. state police and immigration and border patrol agencies to also develop the capability to pursue criminals on the ground and in the air," claimed Cpl. Luc Bessette of the RCMP.

So while the RCMP may tout the success in arrests and illegal goods discovered, they’re also downplaying the larger issue in all of this: our sovereignty being threatened. If Ms. Napolitano wants a “real” border, so be it. But she can’t bend the rules that suit only US interests and as Canadians we should be outraged that our government has allowed these policies and decisions to go through without public input or response.

Blueberries and Raspberries: Microeconomic Effects of Protectionism

I went to the grocery store today to pick up some extra fruit and vegetables. Raspberries and blueberries were on sale and I started looking through the 1/2 pints to find the best ones.

But then I stopped and was repulsed by what I saw. It wasn’t the quality of the produce though. It was the label of origin on the containers: California.

How could I support foreign growers from a country who is pushing its citizens to not choose products from my country? Of course the Obama administration isn’t outright saying “Don’t Buy Canadian”, but by saying “Buy American” its really 6 one way, 1/2 a dozen the other.

As Canadians we don’t realize how much of our food supply offered to us originates outside of our borders…or maybe the correct statement is that we don’t really care. We see ourselves supporting Canadian businesses at the higher levels (Sobey’s in this case), while ignoring the growers supplying produce at the lower levels and where they come from.

I’m not saying that Canadians should not purchase imported goods. The global economy relies on both exports and imports to thrive. Saying one should only buy Canadian only is hypocritical when we want other countries to purchase our exports.

But when a government (the US) is outright suggesting that its citizens ignore foreign imports in favour of locally generated goods, it leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of people living in what equates to one of the largest export and import partners of the protectionist country.

Now, I did still purchase the berries…although it killed me to do so. In a few weeks a truck will pull into town that sells fruit grown from British Columbia all summer long and I plan to buy all my fruit there.

Sure it may cost a bit more, but I’d rather pay a bit more and know that I’m supporting a Canadian industry that many other Canadians are comfortable seeing suffer at the hands of an economic bully.

A Glimpse of the Future

We inch closer and closer to June 1st: the day that Canadians and Americans will require WHTI acceptable documents to cross into the United States.from Canada by land and sea in addition to the already implemented air.

But even now, with our still accepted driver’s license and birth certificate combination allowed, we’re seeing a glimpse of what the future of a “more secure” border have on the two country’s relations.

A BC radio station posted a news article on their website entitled Update: Massive weekend border lineups have many people reconsidering future travel plans. From the write up:

On Friday afternoon, the lineups heading into the States at Peace Arch, the 'Truck Crossing' and Aldergrove stretched for hours.  Canadians flying out of Bellingham were forced to leave home hours early, while others just heading down to the states to visit family over the long weekend decided to turn around and make other plans.

Yesterday afternoon the northbound lineups started growing, and by last night, a border wait of five hours was reported at the Huntington crossing.  One caller to our newsroom says he's tired of taking the chance, and says from now on, he'll enjoy his weekends up north.

At the same time that the US border is being strengthened, Canada is reportedly cutting back on their border staff, and yet also looking to arm the ones remaining. And through all this, those that depend on business from their neighbours over the border, in both countries, are the ones suffering.

As one person said when calling in to the radio station:

"We used to go down every week and a half, but if this keeps up, we'll be lucky if we go down every four to six weeks."

This is not a fad, this is not temporary. This is a glimpse of the future of Canada/US relations.

Canada’s Border - Providing Guns but Not Training Doesn’t Make Sense

The Montreal Gazette ran a story on the Conservatives’ plan to arm border guards and the response from the Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland. He’s quoted as saying:

"When you take a look at the fact that there hasn't been any instance that has been documented where a gun would have been helpful to a border agent, it seems that throwing guns into the mix could create some serious problems,"

I think Mr. Holland should maybe talk to the officers working in Manitoba when a man driving a van carrying weapons, ammunition, and fuel ran the border. Or maybe the officers in Ontario who had a similar situation with an American “accidentally” driving into Canada. Our officers deal with real border issues and should have the same level of personal protection as other law enforcement.

But the article raises some real concerns, ones that are more troubling than what Mr. Holland or the members of the Mohawks at Akwesasne, who are against the arming, are saying. No, the bigger concern for me is in the details of how this arming is going to be carried out.

There are 4,800 border guards and it will take until 2016 to outfit them all with 9mm Berettas. There are only 850 guards that have been armed so far(the article doesn’t mention when this program began). At first glance this might seem like too long a time to perform the work needed. I question whether its too short.

The union representing the border guards is mentioned in the article as being critical of the government because they’re only supplying three weeks of training in firearms. Comparatively, RCMP officers receive sixteen weeks. Out of those that have been trained, one in five guards can’t shoot straight according to the union.

There’s also concern about the number of reports filed when weapons are used. Last year it was found that in half the cases where border guards pulled their weapons, reports were incomplete. Considering the findings of a recent CBSA internal review, this is not adding to the public confidence in its operation.

The issue, for me anyway, isn’t whether arming our border guards will make our border safer. It won’t. It will, however, give our border officers who are on the front lines the ability to defend themselves when required; I see nothing wrong with this for law enforcement.

The bigger issue for me is why our border guards seem to be treated as second class law enforcement compared to organizations like the RCMP. If we’re going to commit to arming our officers we have a duty to ensure they receive the proper training in the equipment given to them.

We also need to ensure that procedures and policies are carried out and not just optionally followed as it seems so many in the CBSA are currently doing.

The Conservatives’ plan is a good idea, but we need to see more details in how this will be carried out and what we’re really trying to solve here to ensure that we’re thinking of Canada first and not, as the article suggests, simply pandering to the US to show we’re in line with their current border view.

The Impact of US Border Policy with Canada - Trade

American’s would do well to consider the economic impact that further stringent border policy will cause, especially in light of a brief published by the Border Policy Research Institute of Western Washington University. The BPRI has been around since 2005 and “examines processes and policies related to the Canada – US border”. This is the first of two posts highlighting information published in the brief and how border policy plays a role.

Canada – The Main Exporter for the US

Many Americans may not realize how Canada ranks as an export partner of the US. Consider the image below (from the brief):

Canada is the primary export partner for 36 of the 48 states shown on the map, and is the secondary partner for all other states except for New Mexico and Louisiana. There are five states that had over 50% of all exports head to Canada in October 2007.

For Americans thinking that Canada is a country that relies heavily on the US, the bi-lateral reliance may come as a surprise. Both country’s economies are tightly linked and are very reliant on each other. In its winter brief and associated with the above diagram, the BPRI states under the heading Policy Implications:

From a viewpoint of economic self-interest, the US – Canadian relationship should be of paramount importance to both countries’ governments and citizenry.

And yet all we’ve heard form the Department of Homeland Security is how the border between Canada and the US needs to have parity with the Mexico/US border. In addition to Canadians being outraged at the obvious social disparity between the two borders, we can now point to the trade disparity as well.

According to the US Census Bureau numbers (last updated May 12, 2009), the US has exported $47 billion YTD to Canada compared to only $29.1 billion YTD to Mexico. Some may point out that Canada also has the second highest imports to the US YTD as well.
However, most of those imports are energy resources. The US Energy Information Administration’s website points out that…

In 2007, Canada exported 2.4 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined products to the US, the single-largest source of US oil imports.

In fact, Canada outpaced Mexico by almost one thousand barrels of oil a day that the US imported in 2007. So while Canada may benefit from being the second largest importer into the US, realize that a significant percentage of those imports are energy resources the US depends on.

The brief goes on to talk about how trade is affected by border security practices, and points out that after 9/11 trade slowed across the border. The biggest impact: US imports from Canada. They go on to state that:

The increased cost of cross-border trade, likely associated with higher costs of security compliance, is thought to be the problem.

So while Canada has continued to be a strong trading partner with the US, Canada has lost export dollars due potentially, according to the brief, to the higher cost of security compliance. Regardless of the fact that we supply key resources to the US, regardless that we have a peaceful border compared to Mexico, and regardless of the export/import relationships Canada has built with the majority of the states, the DHS continues to speak of increased security and scrutiny at the border.

There is a growing movement for Canada to re-assess their participation in NAFTA and the clauses around exporting our natural resources. There are active negotiations with other countries and Canada to open new trade agreements. And there is a growing frustration with what people are seeing at the border.

Canada and the US can have a safe, secure border without hindering bi-lateral trade. Unfortunately, the US seems to see trade as secondary to perceived security.