U.S. ambassador David Jacobson explains the border deal

‘It means that we put less focus on the border itself’

At a meeting today in Washington, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a “Shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness”. They announced that a group of senior government officials from both countries would form a “Beyond the Border Working Group.” The group will look for ways to streamline border security while creating a shared “perimeter security” around both countries. In addition, a Regulatory Cooperation Council will look for ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for companies that do business in both countries.

After the leaders’ meeting, I spoke with U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, about what this all means.

Q – What does the Obama administration want out of these talks?

A – There are two things: And I think they are inseparable. One thing is we want to increase the flow of goods and people that don’t pose any risk to security and by doing so, make the lives or citizens easier and better. And we want to ensure that people on both sides of the border are safer.

Q – But more specifically, what are the top one or two outcomes the administration would like to see? Increased information sharing by Canada, for example? Or some particular pilot program? Or something else?

A – I’m not going to get into the tiny specifics or say which one is the single most important.  But the thing that is very important is in the title – the perimeter approach. It means that we put less focus on the border itself – on the line along the 49th parallel or the geographic demarcation between the two countries – and try to move as much of what is done  at the order away from the border as possible –  not everything but as much as possible.

The reason it’s important is not so we can have another layer of security outside the border but so that when you move pressure away from the border to make it easier for people and goods that don’t post a security risk to move back and forth, and you can spend more time on people or goods that are the problem. This involves information sharing, shared infrastructure and common practices. But I think the key is to take some of the pressure off of the border.

Q – How committed is the Obama administration to making this happen?

A – We are very committed, very committed. You heard the president talk about the fact that this is a fundamental component of creating jobs. Our security is important factor as well. The fact of the matter is the administration is very committed.  I can tell you on a personal level that the administration is very committed to this. This is just a vision. The president and prime minister understand that like any other vision it is only as good as can be by following through on it. I believe it is very important that Canadian and American people hold us responsible to follow through.

Q – Is there are specific timeline?

A – Our goal is to get this done as fast as we can get it done. There is not a specific deadline in it. I believe the agreement mentioned months. The plan is we are going to start working on this right away.

Q – Who is in charge?

A – We don’t have names yet, but it’s going to be run by senior people in the Privy Council Office and the National Security Council on the American side. It will include senior representatives from a variety of departments.

Q – Under the Bush administration, there was a process called the Security and Prosperity Partnership in which the three countries also tried to increase cooperation on border issues and harmonize regulations. It was criticized by some people for having nameless, faceless bureaucrats making decisions and costing the countries their sovereignty.

A – This has nothing to do with sovereignty. Canadians are going to make decisions about what happens in Canada and the Americans will decide what happens in the US. It just stands to reason that if we talk and coordinate and try to work together, it’s going to be better for both sides. There may be things we can work together on and some we can’t. We share values with Canadians to a greater extent than with any other country in the world. This is not about sovereignty. There is no issue, no question. It’s not just Canadians who worry about surrendering sovereignty Americans are worried too.

Q – Where did the initiative come from? Did Canada ask for this or the U.S.?

A – It arose quite frankly out of a series of discussions. It started out at lower levels and worked its way up. It didn’t start with a lightning bolt. We have been working co-operatively for hundreds of years, and especially since 9/11,  on these issues and we have had some success –  but the view from the leaders was we were not having enough success and needed to be better. Their view was best way to achieve that was through a very clear statement of the vision of the two leaders so that when we work our way down to individuals who have to execute on policy they understand where their leaders stand. The belief is that through this vision we’ll be able to make changes more quickly and more clearly.

Q – Which side did it come from? Did the Harper government ask for it or the Obama administration?

A – It just kind of happened that way. It was based on both sides talking. There was a convergence of views that the time was right. It wasn’t one side demanding it of the other.

Q – The Bush-era SPP process was criticized for consulting only with an advisory group of top CEOs of North American corporations. The business leaders had a formal role in advising the leaders, but no one else did – not NGOs, not other citizens. What mechanism will this process have for public consultation?

A – The intention is that we are going to solicit opinions from a variety of sources. The history of the Obama administration in this regard is pretty clear. I think if it’s going to work, we have to know that people from a variety of groups say.

Q – What will be the mechanism for those consultations?

A – I don’t think were quite there yet. That is part of what is going to have to be determined by the Beyond the Border Working Group and the Regulatory Cooperation Council.

Q – Earlier this week, the Government Accountability Office in Washington released a report that was interpreted as saying only 32 miles of the border are secure. What is your response to that report?

A – On the specifics, I can tell you we are always working to improve our procedures and some of the issues have already been addressed. The one other thing I say is that there was some suggestion that somehow Canadians ought to be required to  get visas to come to US and I can assure that the Obama administration is not considering that.

Q – Now that the leaders have agreed on the vision, what is the next step?

A – The next step is this group is going to be formed soon. There is clearly urgency to that process. There have been discussions about the kinds of things we should be addressing. Hopefully we will start making progress and having things to report.

Q – Are you in the group?

A – I don’t know. It hasn’t been formed yet. I can tell you that I have a personal interest in this. I have been involved in this from day one and whether I am in the group or not, I intend to ensure that my voice is heard and that the group functions efficiently and effectively.  I can assure you that I am not washing my hands of the process now that the prime minister and president have had their meeting.

***

You can now follow me on Twitter: @luizachsavage




Browse

U.S. ambassador David Jacobson explains the border deal

  1. Now that Canada has rejuvinated its military, the potential for north american perimeter security is possible. This discussion could never have got off the ground if we had continued Chretien's policy that the military were to be adult boy scouts.

  2. Now that Canada has rejuvinated its military, the potential for north american perimeter security is possible. This discussion could never have got off the ground if we had continued Chretien's policy that the military were to be adult boy scouts.

  3. Great reporting on this. I've lost count of the numbers of times today we've been told that this has nothing to do with sovereignty. It's obviously at the top of the list of political problems they anticipate going forward.

    • This is not about Americans wanted to come in an take over Canada – it is to allay the fears of Americans that we are going to let someone into our country and then that "someone" will just march on in to the US through our poorly secured border. They believe we don't take security seriously enough. They want to blame us for 9/11 and every bad thing that happens to them. There are a group of Americans who want to errect a wall just like the one on the Mexican border. They do not want to run Canada. They want to keep rogue Canadians out….they don't believe you are good enough to be there, Jan and Canada is an insignificant pimple on their near region.

      • Ha – the Mexican border fence project has unfortunately died an unseemingly death. They just couldn't get it together. The American economy depends heavily on cheap illegal labour. The powers that be will continue to make sure that border stays porous.

        • I agree with you completely with regard to illegal Mexican workers. However, just look at Arizona's Governor – I watched her in a debate – her level of intelligence is questionable. That being said, the conservative right in the country are enamored with her and her laws regarding illegal aliens. There are people in Montana who volunteer to patrol unguarded portions of the Canadian/US border to catch our nefarious cannabis-selling hoodlums that will destroy their country. For goodness sakes, even their head of Homeland Security continues to believe that Canada let the 9/11 perps into the US despite being told time and again that this is not true. Obama has to be seen to be taking homeland security seriously. Since that terrorist almost got through the Canada/US border at NewYears 2000, Canada has been targetted for lax security – whether real or imagined – seeing how he was apprehended at the border. This is all politics.

          • Exactly – which is why I think that the chances of coming to an agreement with the U.S. that's rational and not politically motivated and clouded with mis-information is impossible.

          • I blogged a response to you farther down…..however, the agreement does not have to be rational, unpolitically motivated and based on real information to make it beneficial to Canada. Infact, nothing about this agreement meets any of that criteria. The truth is that Obama wants to do business with Canada. Some Americans are convinced Canada's a haven for terrorists. Obama has to show them that he is stepping up security and that the Canadians are fully on board. This deal does all that. He is seen as tough on the war on terror; we get a free-flowing border. End of story. Harper gets an excuse to flex his muscles in the arctic. It is a win/win for both leaders. Meanwhile, it is all an illusion in so far as the Mexican border is wide open but terrorists don't come out of Mexico……only cheap labor.

          • Meanwhile, in the real world they're fighting our forest industry at every turn. By the way there is no dea l yet, unless they're lying to us. Surely they wouldn't do that.

          • Hey, in their world cannabis kills more people than handguns. They are so concerned that no Canadian drug dealers get over the border to sell BC gold. Meanwhile, they don't see our concern that illegal American handguns are getting into Canada. They don't care about drugs INSIDE Canada, as long as that is where they stay. The same goes for terrorists really. I have visited the US many times. The immigration people make it clear that they actually believe that most Canadians want to stay in their country. They can't imagine that we like our own country better. Of course they are happy to import our doctors and nurses because they are always short. Everyone else they treat with a kind of disdain.

  4. Great reporting on this. I've lost count of the numbers of times today we've been told that this has nothing to do with sovereignty. It's obviously at the top of the list of political problems they anticipate going forward.

  5. Hopefully Canadian citizens will be excluded from this border group lest a combination of reality and idealism creeps into the discussions and ruins the decision making.

  6. Hopefully Canadian citizens will be excluded from this border group lest a combination of reality and idealism creeps into the discussions and ruins the decision making.

  7. When Stephen Harper tells us that Canadian sovereignty will not be effected, we all know Canadian sovereignty is in for a severe beating. Why would he even mention sovereignty if he didn't already know he had given some up.

    • What suprises me about the suspicions expressed in the entries here are not those related to Mr. Harper's credibility when he says sovereignty will not be effected but those directed toward President Obama. When Mr. Obama was initially elected, Liberals in this country tended to believe the man walked and water and doubted he and Mr. Harper could come to an agreement on anything. Of course, the suggestion was always that Mr. Harper wasn't good enough to "lick his boots'. Now Mr. Harper is going to let Mr. Obama run Canada….and do all sorts of nefarious things while he is at it. It just is not possible that this is a win/win business deal for both countries. Funny how neither Mr. Ignatieff, nor Mr. Layton are screaming from the rafters – no just you somewhat paranoid people. You sound just like someone I have heard before….I hate to say it……Glenn Beck.

  8. Well I don't want any 'Fortress North America'….and Canada is safe as it is. Always was, so this is hokum on our part.

    The rest is blather about our 'friendship', and again no details ….especially about things like 'information sharing'…which we shouldn't be doing, especially just to provide jobs for Americans.

    But I would like to thank you Luiza, for the yeoman's job you've done on this in getting information to us. Much appreciated!

  9. When Stephen Harper tells us that Canadian sovereignty will not be effected, we all know Canadian sovereignty is in for a severe beating. Why would he even mention sovereignty if he didn't already know he had given some up.

  10. Well I don't want any 'Fortress North America'….and Canada is safe as it is. Always was, so this is hokum on our part.

    The rest is blather about our 'friendship', and again no details ….especially about things like 'information sharing'…which we shouldn't be doing, especially just to provide jobs for Americans.

    But I would like to thank you Luiza, for the yeoman's job you've done on this in getting information to us. Much appreciated!

  11. In ten years, Mr. Jacobson is the only American I’ve ever heard express a concern for the security of Canadians as well as Americans.

  12. In ten years, Mr. Jacobson is the only American I’ve ever heard express a concern for the security of Canadians as well as Americans.

  13. Part1-

    As a concerned Canadian I want absolutely nothing to do with all the craziness south of our border that we as Canadians are force-fed from the day we are born by so-called "CDN" media etc.

    All I see is hyper paranoid war mongers with guns. mother kills both children, handguns, shooting innocent children when senator gets shot, handguns, teacher meeting interrupted by V nutjob with handgun, etc. a resent fifth estate? show or whatever on that woman who killed her husband wile hunting?, the NUTJOBS had a stockpile of OVER 100 guns!?! LOL! are you kidding me?! I've owned ONE GUN in my life, a double barrel shotgun, to try hunting, NO I couldn't kill anything! so I sold it. -

  14. Part1-

    As a concerned Canadian I want absolutely nothing to do with all the craziness south of our border that we as Canadians are force-fed from the day we are born by so-called "CDN" media etc.

    All I see is hyper paranoid war mongers with guns. mother kills both children, handguns, shooting innocent children when senator gets shot, handguns, teacher meeting interrupted by V nutjob with handgun, etc. a resent fifth estate? show or whatever on that woman who killed her husband wile hunting?, the NUTJOBS had a stockpile of OVER 100 guns!?! LOL! are you kidding me?! I've owned ONE GUN in my life, a double barrel shotgun, to try hunting, NO I couldn't kill anything! so I sold it. -

  15. Part2-

    And yet as I said our media & obviously the Conservatives just cant get enough of USA. anything & everything PLASTERED all over our couple of so-called "CDN" news channels etc 24/7/365. the resent state of union a perfect example, PLASTERED all over CBC,CTV,CPAC etc despite the fact that the MAJORITY of AMERICAN channels are already showing the FOREIGN leaders speech, why?. do you think the Americans are forced to watch our PM make a speech every time he does?… LOL! NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!, they could care less!.

    Trade blah blah trade blah……… I KNOW OK?! we know! Canadians know!. but just because we do allot of trade with the US does that mean we have TO BE THE US?. NO!.

    Now being PRO-Canadian, pro Canadian IDENTITY, CULTURE, HUMAN DECENCY, makes me anti-American? then so be it!.

    Third Option.

    • You are obviously not a business person. Some American people are paranoid over security. Some American people see Canada as a conduit for terrorists. Even the current ridiculous head of Homeland Security continues to insist the perpetrators of 9/11 came in through Canada. We need to be seen to be "secure" if we are going to do a brisk trade with the US. Now, you may not see how your life depends of this trade but maybe if you look around your community, you can understand that it starts with 1)a cattle producer….2) a feed lot opperator 3) the guys that work in the feed lot 4)the truckers the take the cattle over the border and then it fans out to the whole community that those ranchers live in; that those feedlots support, etc. etc. and it is like that for as many products as we sell to the US.

  16. Part2-

    And yet as I said our media & obviously the Conservatives just cant get enough of USA. anything & everything PLASTERED all over our couple of so-called "CDN" news channels etc 24/7/365. the resent state of union a perfect example, PLASTERED all over CBC,CTV,CPAC etc despite the fact that the MAJORITY of AMERICAN channels are already showing the FOREIGN leaders speech, why?. do you think the Americans are forced to watch our PM make a speech every time he does?… LOL! NOT A CHANCE IN HELL!, they could care less!.

    Trade blah blah trade blah……… I KNOW OK?! we know! Canadians know!. but just because we do allot of trade with the US does that mean we have TO BE THE US?. NO!.

    Now being PRO-Canadian, pro Canadian IDENTITY, CULTURE, HUMAN DECENCY, makes me anti-American? then so be it!.

    Third Option.

  17. STOP FORTRESS NORTH AMERICA

    Sign petition at Ceasefire.ca

    Third Option.

  18. I was aware several months ago, as a result of a media "leak" that talks were already underway. Now an agreement is signed. No details. None at all. The U.S. ambassador knows nothing, as he states in this interview, but also says that he is considering this as an ungent matter. All we are told is it is going to be good for us. What exactly is this all about. It's all too vague to comment on or criticise. But so very hush-hush. Why? Perhaps we need a WikiLeaks to tell us.

    • Some people need to take a deep breath. They've only decided to go ahead with a process to come up with an agreement; one that could still take a year to finalize and evaluate.

      • Harper never initiates anything unless he has already put in place agreements, budgets, regulations or other roadblocks that make it virtually certain that the initiative ends up where he wants it. Real consultaion isn't even in Harper's voabulary. In Harper's cabinet, this is already a done deal.

        • You may think that Harper is the most powerful being to ever live on this planet. I think the rest of us would acknowledge that no one is that powerful, especially in relation to the United States. Again, some people need to take a deep breath or three.

          • Powerful? Secretive is more the accusation.

          • I suggest you read the post again, and stop being a Liberal agitator spewing mindless talking points over and over again.

            And since when are international agreements negotiated on satellite radio?

            Is this really all you have? Wait, I know the answers. It's yes.

          • You just keep on being the Good German.

          • a) I'm not German.

            b) What do you have against Germans?

            c) Never mind.

            d) lol

            e) next

  19. I was aware several months ago, as a result of a media "leak" that talks were already underway. Now an agreement is signed. No details. None at all. The U.S. ambassador knows nothing, as he states in this interview, but also says that he is considering this as an ungent matter. All we are told is it is going to be good for us. What exactly is this all about. It's all too vague to comment on or criticise. But so very hush-hush. Why? Perhaps we need a WikiLeaks to tell us.

  20. It's about the economies of Canada and the USA. The better our economies are doing the better our social programs and health care will be. Stop the partisanship and bias and treat this as a business venture that will help people on both sides of the border.

    • Yeah, NAFTA was promoted using the same idea that it would improve our social programs and health care. It had exactly the opposite effect on social programs and the environment.

  21. It's about the economies of Canada and the USA. The better our economies are doing the better our social programs and health care will be. Stop the partisanship and bias and treat this as a business venture that will help people on both sides of the border.

  22. If I heard even a breath of a hint that someone at the top of pyramid had put a stake in the ground and said "Enough of Al Quaida turning us into trembling ninnies and totally delivering on its attempts to change our lifes – let's get back to some sense of sanity" – I'd applaud!
    As it is – I read this – with some suspicion – as Corporate Leaders on both sides of the border stacking the deck against the better interests of Joe Public.
    Only possible good ramification – since John Manley and the CCCE had a sneak peek at these documents before they have reached Parliament, Opposition Leaders and the Public on either side of the border – maybe Michael Ignatieff will understand why his version of the Liberal party has lost significant support from the Centre / Left – it just appears to be Conservative-Lite – and that's from a small-L liberal! Maybe he'll actually do something to change that – but I doubt it!

    • Why do people like you consider yourselves to be the guardians of the "better interests of Joe Public?" I know I never elected you to be such, and neither did any actual Canadians.

      • This is a public comment board. There is no requirment to be elected in order to express one's opinion here. Do you have an opinion on this issue? If so, go ahead and express it. If not, please don't abuse those who do.

        • Yes, this is a public comment board, which is precisely why I'm allowed to state my opinions as well, right? Geez. This guy claims to be speaking on behalf of "Joe Public" and I'm asking what gives him the right? He doesn't speak for me or anybody else I know. Why am I not allowed to say this?

          • Wascally Wabbit DID NOT claim to be speaking for anyone except himself. He expressed an opinion about the integrated security agreement having an impact on the public. One of the guidlines for this comment board is that they should be on topic. Do you have an opinion on the topic?

          • Instead of trying to censor me, why not actually read what has been written? Specifically, this is what your friend wrote:

            As it is – I read this – with some suspicion – as Corporate Leaders on both sides of the border stacking the deck against the better interests of Joe Public.

            I do not agree that this border deal is against "Joe Public" nor do I think W.W. represents the interests of the average Canadian.

            This is what I think. Why in the world am I not allowed to say it? Why are you so terrified of this? lol. God.

  23. If I heard even a breath of a hint that someone at the top of pyramid had put a stake in the ground and said "Enough of Al Quaida turning us into trembling ninnies and totally delivering on its attempts to change our lifes – let's get back to some sense of sanity" – I'd applaud!
    As it is – I read this – with some suspicion – as Corporate Leaders on both sides of the border stacking the deck against the better interests of Joe Public.
    Only possible good ramification – since John Manley and the CCCE had a sneak peek at these documents before they have reached Parliament, Opposition Leaders and the Public on either side of the border – maybe Michael Ignatieff will understand why his version of the Liberal party has lost significant support from the Centre / Left – it just appears to be Conservative-Lite – and that's from a small-L liberal! Maybe he'll actually do something to change that – but I doubt it!

  24. Some people need to take a deep breath. They've only decided to go ahead with a process to come up with an agreement; one that could still take a year to finalize and evaluate.

  25. Why do people like you consider yourselves to be the guardians of the "better interests of Joe Public?" I know I never elected you to be such, and neither did any actual Canadians.

  26. Harper never initiates anything unless he has already put in place agreements, budgets, regulations or other roadblocks that make it virtually certain that the initiative ends up where he wants it. Real consultaion isn't even in Harper's voabulary. In Harper's cabinet, this is already a done deal.

  27. Yeah, NAFTA was promoted using the same idea that it would improve our social programs and health care. It had exactly the opposite effect on social programs and the environment.

  28. This is a public comment board. There is no requirment to be elected in order to express one's opinion here. Do you have an opinion on this issue? If so, go ahead and express it. If not, please don't abuse those who do.

  29. This article says "a Regulatory Cooperation Council will look for ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for companies that do business in both countries."

    Translation: Canada will be buldozed into adopting US type regulation. NAFTA was supposed to create the same type of integration. But in reality NAFTA allowed crude oil and other resources scarce in USA to flow freely into the USA, but not goods that competed with USA resources such as softwood lumber.

    This initiative is simply an extension of George Bush's "war on terror". Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently in Egypt has shown that a "war on poverty" would have been far more effective in making North America and the rest of the world more secure.

    This is clearly a sovereignty issue that Canada will not win and it will NOT make North America more secure.

  30. This article says "a Regulatory Cooperation Council will look for ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for companies that do business in both countries."

    Translation: Canada will be buldozed into adopting US type regulation. NAFTA was supposed to create the same type of integration. But in reality NAFTA allowed crude oil and other resources scarce in USA to flow freely into the USA, but not goods that competed with USA resources such as softwood lumber.

    This initiative is simply an extension of George Bush's "war on terror". Events in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently in Egypt has shown that a "war on poverty" would have been far more effective in making North America and the rest of the world more secure.

    This is clearly a sovereignty issue that Canada will not win and it will NOT make North America more secure.

  31. You may think that Harper is the most powerful being to ever live on this planet. I think the rest of us would acknowledge that no one is that powerful, especially in relation to the United States. Again, some people need to take a deep breath or three.

  32. Powerful? Secretive is more the accusation.

  33. Yes, this is a public comment board, which is precisely why I'm allowed to state my opinions as well, right? Geez. This guy claims to be speaking on behalf of "Joe Public" and I'm asking what gives him the right? He doesn't speak for me or anybody else I know. Why am I not allowed to say this?

  34. I suggest you read the post again, and stop being a Liberal agitator spewing mindless talking points over and over again.

    And since when are international agreements negotiated on satellite radio?

    Is this really all you have? Wait, I know the answers. It's yes.

  35. You just keep on being the Good German.

  36. a) I'm not German.

    b) What do you have against Germans?

    c) Never mind.

    d) lol

    e) next

  37. Wascally Wabbit DID NOT claim to be speaking for anyone except himself. He expressed an opinion about the integrated security agreement having an impact on the public. One of the guidlines for this comment board is that they should be on topic. Do you have an opinion on the topic?

  38. "cooperating with Americans on the regulation of our common border [gate]"

    This sinister plan by Harper must be stopped.

    I say we have another major scandal on our hinds.

    I encourage the liberal media to run with this. Just as every man woman and child across this great land was discussing with much consternation at the dinner table, the scandal that was shortening a FORTY page mandatory government questionairre,

    this whole cooperating on border issues will surely drive voters into the Liberals' hands.

  39. "cooperating with Americans on the regulation of our common border [gate]"

    This sinister plan by Harper must be stopped.

    I say we have another major scandal on our hinds.

    I encourage the liberal media to run with this. Just as every man woman and child across this great land was discussing with much consternation at the dinner table, the scandal that was shortening a FORTY page mandatory government questionairre,

    this whole cooperating on border issues will surely drive voters into the Liberals' hands.

  40. As a middle manager myself, I admire Ambassador Jacobson's ability to talk that much without saying anything. It ain't as easy as it looks.

  41. As a middle manager myself, I admire Ambassador Jacobson's ability to talk that much without saying anything. It ain't as easy as it looks.

  42. Instead of trying to censor me, why not actually read what has been written? Specifically, this is what your friend wrote:

    As it is – I read this – with some suspicion – as Corporate Leaders on both sides of the border stacking the deck against the better interests of Joe Public.

    I do not agree that this border deal is against "Joe Public" nor do I think W.W. represents the interests of the average Canadian.

    This is what I think. Why in the world am I not allowed to say it? Why are you so terrified of this? lol. God.

  43. Well luckily the days when you could barricade and isolate yourself are over.

    It doesn't work for N Korea, and it won't work for us

    Harp and Obama are just wasting their time here on outdated tomfoolery.

  44. Well luckily the days when you could barricade and isolate yourself are over.

    It doesn't work for N Korea, and it won't work for us

    Harp and Obama are just wasting their time here on outdated tomfoolery.

  45. The US is failing. They have huge fiscal deficits, enormous trade deficits, a military complex that is out of control, an economy in the tank, a political system where it takes half a billion dollars to become president, a failed health care system and an economy that may or may not come back.

    We want to be integrated with them why?

    • Coupled with the fact that their whole assessment of security risk is based on inaccuracies and hysteria. Given that they've convinced themselves that the our border is more of a threat to them than their southern border, how can we think that they will be making accomodations to thin the border. This is what we're up against –
      http://lieberman.senate.gov/index-cfin/news-event

  46. The US is failing. They have huge fiscal deficits, enormous trade deficits, a military complex that is out of control, an economy in the tank, a political system where it takes half a billion dollars to become president, a failed health care system and an economy that may or may not come back.

    We want to be integrated with them why?

  47. Coupled with the fact that their whole assessment of security risk is based on inaccuracies and hysteria. Given that they've convinced themselves that the our border is more of a threat to them than their southern border, how can we think that they will be making accomodations to thin the border. This is what we're up against –
    http://lieberman.senate.gov/index-cfin/news-event

  48. Personally I think this is great news. If I understand the nuance correctly, it is that Canada and the US develop/negotiate rules for our border and then jointly utilize our resources to ensure those rules are enforced. Perhaps it seems to good to be true, but I am the eternal optimist.

    • I had the same reaction as you – albeit with the added hope that it might speed up the process for Canadians traveling to America.

  49. Personally I think this is great news. If I understand the nuance correctly, it is that Canada and the US develop/negotiate rules for our border and then jointly utilize our resources to ensure those rules are enforced. Perhaps it seems to good to be true, but I am the eternal optimist.

  50. Radical Liberal leftists prefer closed markets, closed borders and a closed mind – it's easier to micro-manage your life that way. However, as can be seen from history, that leads to economic and social ruin.

    We are lucky to have such a huge market right on our doorstep.

    • Oh rubbish. Everyone other than moronic Cons wants to trade with the world, not just the US.

      All our eggs in one basket has always been bad policy, and even worse economics.

      The LAST thing we want is to be tied into one economic structure with one country…especially one going downhill like the US.

      • A leftist predicting (hoping) for the decline of America?

        Is it noon already?

        • But I got it straight from Glenn Beck…

          • I knew it – you and Emily share Glenn's playbook!

          • Beck is a lunatic who should be in a straight jacket.

            If you've confused either of us with him….you should be too.

          • I know exactly who Glenn Beck is.

            I never confused you with Glenn Beck…I said you share a playbook….you regularly exagerate and you try to shock people.

          • No, you've just never been off your back porch, and you consider everything shocking.

            Everyone else calls it reality

          • Emily, I said you try to shock people.

          • If you're shocked by anything I've said grandma….get out of your rocker more often

        • LOL The US is in decline…no one has to 'hope' for it.

          And people who want to trade with the world aren't called 'leftists'…..they're called globalists

      • If presented as more secure makes it easier to do business with our neighbor, what exactly is your objection, Emily? We all do want to trade with the world, not just the US – however, to ignore the 300 million people that live next door would be folly. Even if the US is in economic decline, the people have to eat and in that country they like to eat. Luckily, we produce food stuffs that we want to export.
        Emily, even if you do not particularily like the US, you must see from an environmental standpoint, that it is more responsible to do business closer to home…..

        • Far too much of our trade is with the US…..we need to spread out

          And the US needs to get over it's hysteria, and behave normally again….why should we indulge them in nonsense?

          • You do not think that we are always trying to develop trade with other countries, Emily?

            We indulge their "hysteria" because it benefits us in dollars and cents. You still have answered how it hurts us to indulge their need for reassurance that we take security seriously.

          • No, we haven't been.

            And no, we shouldn't be indulging their hysteria.

            How far over do you want to bend for nonsense?

            SELL ELSEWHERE

          • Emily, perhaps you can get yourself put on a trade mission. Good luck with that.

          • I work with it daily, thanks.

          • Soooo what your saying is your partially responsible for the failure of Canada to develop more trading partners.

          • We are, in fact, working on a trade deal with the EU at the present time.

            What IS your problem?

          • In an earlier entry I said Canada is always trying to develop new trade partners, you said Canada is not. Now you say you are working on a trade deal with the EU. That is great.
            I do not have a problem.

          • Gawd you're so dense.

            Canada hasn't been trying in all these years….it's only recently we've made any effort at all.

            And no I didn't say anything about me personally…'we' is Canada

            Charest started a trade deal with the EU

          • Emily, 2 entries ago you said "i work with it daily" …"it" as in trade…………I just took it to mean you work with the federal government department that deals in international trade.
            Perhaps you should read your confusing entries – I assure you I have excellent communication skills – verbal and written. Prior to receiving my bacclaureate in nursing, I studied journalism. I have never been called "dense" in my entire life. At least not until now….

          • Yes, I'm in economic development….that involves trade, amongst many other things.

            Perhaps you could just be more alert.

  51. Radical Liberal leftists prefer closed markets, closed borders and a closed mind – it's easier to micro-manage your life that way. However, as can be seen from history, that leads to economic and social ruin.

    We are lucky to have such a huge market right on our doorstep.

  52. Oh rubbish. Everyone other than moronic Cons wants to trade with the world, not just the US.

    All our eggs in one basket has always been bad policy, and even worse economics.

    The LAST thing we want is to be tied into one economic structure with one country…especially one going downhill like the US.

  53. A leftist predicting (hoping) for the decline of America?

    Is it noon already?

  54. But I got it straight from Glenn Beck…

  55. LOL The US is in decline…no one has to 'hope' for it.

    And people who want to trade with the world aren't called 'leftists'…..they're called globalists

  56. I also encourage the liberal media to maintain the angle expressed by the commenters here:

    - this being akin to N. Korea
    - we're creating a barracaded "fortress"

    It would be in keeping with our "elite' media's ability to stay in touch with reality, rather than a politically charged, agenda driven, far leftist echo chamber that many have accused the Ottawa/Toronto media exemplifying.

    Harper's decision to cooperate with the US on border issues threatening to destroy our way of life as we know it?

    Don't all of his decisions….here in the land of the "progressive media"?

    • God chet, you sound a lot of 'Observant' this morning – same hackneyed cliches.

  57. I also encourage the liberal media to maintain the angle expressed by the commenters here:

    - this being akin to N. Korea
    - we're creating a barracaded "fortress"

    It would be in keeping with our "elite' media's ability to stay in touch with reality, rather than a politically charged, agenda driven, far leftist echo chamber that many have accused the Ottawa/Toronto media exemplifying.

    Harper's decision to cooperate with the US on border issues threatening to destroy our way of life as we know it?

    Don't all of his decisions….here in the land of the "progressive media"?

  58. I also understand that a new study will come out showing that this cross border cooperation will….

    contribute to global warming…

    thereby causing…er…massive cold spells in many parts of the world.

    Harper obviously all wants us to die a firey death due to global warming….which said firey death will actually be manifested in entire continents experiencing deep freezes.

    It's science.

  59. I also understand that a new study will come out showing that this cross border cooperation will….

    contribute to global warming…

    thereby causing…er…massive cold spells in many parts of the world.

    Harper obviously all wants us to die a firey death due to global warming….which said firey death will actually be manifested in entire continents experiencing deep freezes.

    It's science.

  60. The usual shrill shreiking Canuckistanis are out decrying ties with the Americans while sticking up for people who like to routinely stone women to death. Crazies, one and all. Sure, great reporting, IF one likes a slanted, biased left-wing view of reality. A perimiter always was and remains the only decent option. Unfortunately Canada's pathetic, anti-Canadian, pro-left policies only help the rabid left.

    • How can there be perimeter security when the U.S. 's southern border is so wide open. Soimething like 12 million illegals cross into the states from Mexico. How many are coming across their northern border?

      • Now you have the idea, Jan. There really is no security – it is just the perception of it so Obama can deal with people who are afraid of terrorists coming in through Canada. We go along because it opens the borders to allow us to do business. Does it affect our sovereignty – our governance of ourselves? Why would it – it's a business deal. Meanwhile, the Mexican borders flapping wide open …but then terrorists don't come in through Mexico don't ya know!

        • What do you mean 'go along' – we've been going along with their demands ever since 9/11. So you think we just keep rolling over, participating in this farcical 'War on Terror'. Sorry, I'm not sanctioning my government to do that. Americans don't respect weakness and we're not doing ourselves any long term good by being the weak sister.

          • What other choice is there, Jan. Refuse to go along and not do business. What happens to industries such as the production of food stuffs that rely on trade with the US? You just flush them down the toilet and say, "sorry, people and Jan and her friends were tired of 'participating in this farcical war on terror' and wouldn't 'sanction the government to do that'. Do you have any idea what mad cow cost beef producers when the US government closed the border to their product. An attitude of non-cooperation hurts everyone who relys on trade with the US from the producers and manufacters to the truckers to anyone who benefits from the businesses these people support. Wakeup and smell the coffee. This is about Canada flourishing and Canadians prospering. Whether you want to accept or not, we need their trade dollars and their tourism.

          • SELL ELSEWHERE!

          • We can sell elsewhere and the US, Emily. We are always working on developing other markets.

          • No, we haven't been. That's been the problem all along.

            Stop worrying about the US alltime and sell elsewhere.

          • Emily, you need to get over your hatred of the US. You were bemoaning Canada not treating UAE with enough respect and here you are suggesting we turn our back on our biggest trading partner because we don't want to make a few concessions.

          • I do wish you'd pay attention.

            SELL ELSEWHERE

          • Well Emily, glad to hear you are on the job. Please proceed and SELL ELSEWHERE. Meanwhile, while you are busy setting up all those other markets, we will continue to sell to the US and when you have things in hand, you and Jan can tell Mr. Obama to take his security concerns and …..well you know. Of course, you might want to check with Mr. Ignatieff before you send the message to Washington.

          • I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to have some obsessive/compulsive disorder about the US.

            There are 200 countries in the world…and there is no reason to do the majority of our trade with just one of them. In fact its a dangerous thing to do.

            WTF does Ignatieff have to do with any of this??

  61. The usual shrill shreiking Canuckistanis are out decrying ties with the Americans while sticking up for people who like to routinely stone women to death. Crazies, one and all. Sure, great reporting, IF one likes a slanted, biased left-wing view of reality. A perimiter always was and remains the only decent option. Unfortunately Canada's pathetic, anti-Canadian, pro-left policies only help the rabid left.

  62. Left out the word 'immigration' when referring to the anti-Canadian policies. Of course, with the left wing march of this country since Trudeau you could be referring to many, many policies. I see all those people really happy to be 'Canadians' out there demonstrating for Egypt. Multiculalism is gonna be the end of us.

    • You guys really should stop watching Glenn Beck….he's already turned you into Fifth Columnists.

      • No, no Emily. I'm ageeing with the media. Shortening a mandatory FORTY page questionairre did threaten our way of life as we know it. As will this sinister cooperation with the US.

        And prorogue? Don't even get me started. We all know when Chretien did it…..five times…he only had the best intentions of all of us in mind, and the previous 104 prorogues were fine. But that 105th one done by the sinister Harper? Well that threatened the fabric of our democracy, and was worthy of article after article, post after post, decrying this flouting of democracy.

        I'm on board.

        • Glenn Beck PLUS eggnog is an even worse choice.

        • Hey chet – the Americans may demand we go back to a real census. They're gonna want to know where all the Muslim/terrorists are so Homeland Security can keep an eye on them.

      • Emily, when you start talking about a Northern Fortress and comparing us to North Korea and predicting all this doom and gloom….I am sorry but Glenn Beck has nothing on you!

        • Except that's not what I said….now either quote me correctly, or stick to the topic.

  63. Left out the word 'immigration' when referring to the anti-Canadian policies. Of course, with the left wing march of this country since Trudeau you could be referring to many, many policies. I see all those people really happy to be 'Canadians' out there demonstrating for Egypt. Multiculalism is gonna be the end of us.

  64. God chet, you sound a lot of 'Observant' this morning – same hackneyed cliches.

  65. You guys really should stop watching Glenn Beck….he's already turned you into Fifth Columnists.

  66. How can there be perimeter security when the U.S. 's southern border is so wide open. Soimething like 12 million illegals cross into the states from Mexico. How many are coming across their northern border?

  67. No, no Emily. I'm ageeing with the media. Shortening a mandatory FORTY page questionairre did threaten our way of life as we know it. As will this sinister cooperation with the US.

    And prorogue? Don't even get me started. We all know when Chretien did it…..five times…he only had the best intentions of all of us in mind, and the previous 104 prorogues were fine. But that 105th one done by the sinister Harper? Well that threatened the fabric of our democracy, and was worthy of article after article, post after post, decrying this flouting of democracy.

    I'm on board.

  68. Glenn Beck PLUS eggnog is an even worse choice.

  69. Hey chet – the Americans may demand we go back to a real census. They're gonna want to know where all the Muslim/terrorists are so Homeland Security can keep an eye on them.

  70. This is not about Americans wanted to come in an take over Canada – it is to allay the fears of Americans that we are going to let someone into our country and then that "someone" will just march on in to the US through our poorly secured border. They believe we don't take security seriously enough. They want to blame us for 9/11 and every bad thing that happens to them. There are a group of Americans who want to errect a wall just like the one on the Mexican border. They do not want to run Canada. They want to keep rogue Canadians out….they don't believe you are good enough to be there, Jan and Canada is an insignificant pimple on their near region.

  71. You are obviously not a business person. Some American people are paranoid over security. Some American people see Canada as a conduit for terrorists. Even the current ridiculous head of Homeland Security continues to insist the perpetrators of 9/11 came in through Canada. We need to be seen to be "secure" if we are going to do a brisk trade with the US. Now, you may not see how your life depends of this trade but maybe if you look around your community, you can understand that it starts with 1)a cattle producer….2) a feed lot opperator 3) the guys that work in the feed lot 4)the truckers the take the cattle over the border and then it fans out to the whole community that those ranchers live in; that those feedlots support, etc. etc. and it is like that for as many products as we sell to the US.

  72. Ha – the Mexican border fence project has unfortunately died an unseemingly death. They just couldn't get it together. The American economy depends heavily on cheap illegal labour. The powers that be will continue to make sure that border stays porous.

  73. I agree with you completely with regard to illegal Mexican workers. However, just look at Arizona's Governor – I watched her in a debate – her level of intelligence is questionable. That being said, the conservative right in the country are enamored with her and her laws regarding illegal aliens. There are people in Montana who volunteer to patrol unguarded portions of the Canadian/US border to catch our nefarious cannabis-selling hoodlums that will destroy their country. For goodness sakes, even their head of Homeland Security continues to believe that Canada let the 9/11 perps into the US despite being told time and again that this is not true. Obama has to be seen to be taking homeland security seriously. Since that terrorist almost got through the Canada/US border at NewYears 2000, Canada has been targetted for lax security – whether real or imagined – seeing how he was apprehended at the border. This is all politics.

  74. If presented as more secure makes it easier to do business with our neighbor, what exactly is your objection, Emily? We all do want to trade with the world, not just the US – however, to ignore the 300 million people that live next door would be folly. Even if the US is in economic decline, the people have to eat and in that country they like to eat. Luckily, we produce food stuffs that we want to export.
    Emily, even if you do not particularily like the US, you must see from an environmental standpoint, that it is more responsible to do business closer to home…..

  75. Exactly – which is why I think that the chances of coming to an agreement with the U.S. that's rational and not politically motivated and clouded with mis-information is impossible.

  76. Now you have the idea, Jan. There really is no security – it is just the perception of it so Obama can deal with people who are afraid of terrorists coming in through Canada. We go along because it opens the borders to allow us to do business. Does it affect our sovereignty – our governance of ourselves? Why would it – it's a business deal. Meanwhile, the Mexican borders flapping wide open …but then terrorists don't come in through Mexico don't ya know!

  77. What do you mean 'go along' – we've been going along with their demands ever since 9/11. So you think we just keep rolling over, participating in this farcical 'War on Terror'. Sorry, I'm not sanctioning my government to do that. Americans don't respect weakness and we're not doing ourselves any long term good by being the weak sister.

  78. I blogged a response to you farther down…..however, the agreement does not have to be rational, unpolitically motivated and based on real information to make it beneficial to Canada. Infact, nothing about this agreement meets any of that criteria. The truth is that Obama wants to do business with Canada. Some Americans are convinced Canada's a haven for terrorists. Obama has to show them that he is stepping up security and that the Canadians are fully on board. This deal does all that. He is seen as tough on the war on terror; we get a free-flowing border. End of story. Harper gets an excuse to flex his muscles in the arctic. It is a win/win for both leaders. Meanwhile, it is all an illusion in so far as the Mexican border is wide open but terrorists don't come out of Mexico……only cheap labor.

  79. Meanwhile, in the real world they're fighting our forest industry at every turn. By the way there is no dea l yet, unless they're lying to us. Surely they wouldn't do that.

  80. The US economy will come roaring back to life after November 2012 once Obama and his marxist college buddies get cleared out of government, innovators and investors will then have some assurance that their wealth won't be expropriated. Starting negotiations on a better trade relationship now will help Canada be ready when their economy comes back.

  81. The US economy will come roaring back to life after November 2012 once Obama and his marxist college buddies get cleared out of government, innovators and investors will then have some assurance that their wealth won't be expropriated. Starting negotiations on a better trade relationship now will help Canada be ready when their economy comes back.

    • It hasn't been 'roaring' for years, so spare us the partisan nonsense.

      • Obviously you don't know very much about economics or trade, but if you did pay attention to such things you would realize that the US economy has great potential. Whether or not that potential is unleashed depends on the election in 2012, if Americans get back to their core values such as freedom from government, their economy will easily rebound, but it could be that too many US voters are already in the big government pocket and wouldn't want to risk losing their stipends if they can hold onto them for another couple years before it all goes bust. At that point freedom will be unleashed anyway, but there will be a lot more turmoil for the government leeches.

  82. Hey, in their world cannabis kills more people than handguns. They are so concerned that no Canadian drug dealers get over the border to sell BC gold. Meanwhile, they don't see our concern that illegal American handguns are getting into Canada. They don't care about drugs INSIDE Canada, as long as that is where they stay. The same goes for terrorists really. I have visited the US many times. The immigration people make it clear that they actually believe that most Canadians want to stay in their country. They can't imagine that we like our own country better. Of course they are happy to import our doctors and nurses because they are always short. Everyone else they treat with a kind of disdain.

  83. Far too much of our trade is with the US…..we need to spread out

    And the US needs to get over it's hysteria, and behave normally again….why should we indulge them in nonsense?

  84. It hasn't been 'roaring' for years, so spare us the partisan nonsense.

  85. What other choice is there, Jan. Refuse to go along and not do business. What happens to industries such as the production of food stuffs that rely on trade with the US? You just flush them down the toilet and say, "sorry, people and Jan and her friends were tired of 'participating in this farcical war on terror' and wouldn't 'sanction the government to do that'. Do you have any idea what mad cow cost beef producers when the US government closed the border to their product. An attitude of non-cooperation hurts everyone who relys on trade with the US from the producers and manufacters to the truckers to anyone who benefits from the businesses these people support. Wakeup and smell the coffee. This is about Canada flourishing and Canadians prospering. Whether you want to accept or not, we need their trade dollars and their tourism.

  86. What suprises me about the suspicions expressed in the entries here are not those related to Mr. Harper's credibility when he says sovereignty will not be effected but those directed toward President Obama. When Mr. Obama was initially elected, Liberals in this country tended to believe the man walked and water and doubted he and Mr. Harper could come to an agreement on anything. Of course, the suggestion was always that Mr. Harper wasn't good enough to "lick his boots'. Now Mr. Harper is going to let Mr. Obama run Canada….and do all sorts of nefarious things while he is at it. It just is not possible that this is a win/win business deal for both countries. Funny how neither Mr. Ignatieff, nor Mr. Layton are screaming from the rafters – no just you somewhat paranoid people. You sound just like someone I have heard before….I hate to say it……Glenn Beck.

  87. Emily, when you start talking about a Northern Fortress and comparing us to North Korea and predicting all this doom and gloom….I am sorry but Glenn Beck has nothing on you!

  88. Except that's not what I said….now either quote me correctly, or stick to the topic.

  89. SELL ELSEWHERE!

  90. We can sell elsewhere and the US, Emily. We are always working on developing other markets.

  91. You do not think that we are always trying to develop trade with other countries, Emily?

    We indulge their "hysteria" because it benefits us in dollars and cents. You still have answered how it hurts us to indulge their need for reassurance that we take security seriously.

  92. No, we haven't been. That's been the problem all along.

    Stop worrying about the US alltime and sell elsewhere.

  93. No, we haven't been.

    And no, we shouldn't be indulging their hysteria.

    How far over do you want to bend for nonsense?

    SELL ELSEWHERE

  94. Emily, you need to get over your hatred of the US. You were bemoaning Canada not treating UAE with enough respect and here you are suggesting we turn our back on our biggest trading partner because we don't want to make a few concessions.

  95. Emily, perhaps you can get yourself put on a trade mission. Good luck with that.

  96. I work with it daily, thanks.

  97. I do wish you'd pay attention.

    SELL ELSEWHERE

  98. Soooo what your saying is your partially responsible for the failure of Canada to develop more trading partners.

  99. Well Emily, glad to hear you are on the job. Please proceed and SELL ELSEWHERE. Meanwhile, while you are busy setting up all those other markets, we will continue to sell to the US and when you have things in hand, you and Jan can tell Mr. Obama to take his security concerns and …..well you know. Of course, you might want to check with Mr. Ignatieff before you send the message to Washington.

  100. I knew it – you and Emily share Glenn's playbook!

  101. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to have some obsessive/compulsive disorder about the US.

    There are 200 countries in the world…and there is no reason to do the majority of our trade with just one of them. In fact its a dangerous thing to do.

    WTF does Ignatieff have to do with any of this??

  102. We are, in fact, working on a trade deal with the EU at the present time.

    What IS your problem?

  103. Beck is a lunatic who should be in a straight jacket.

    If you've confused either of us with him….you should be too.

  104. Emily is right. We've had a good run with the US. And I have no problem encouraging trade with them, but if Canada were a corporation, it's management would be foolhardy not to be spending it's time on a strategic shift, particularly if that one big, but declining client continually demanded increasing concessions.

    • Canadian trade groups have been pounding the pavement around the globe for years now, and Canada does well in some sectors and commodities, but if you really want our trade with the rest of the world to be as lucrative as it is with the US – all you have to do is figure out how to make it just as cheap to ship stuff halfway around the world as it is to drive a truck across the border – do any of you anti-Americans have a solution to that? Didn't think so.

  105. Emily is right. We've had a good run with the US. And I have no problem encouraging trade with them, but if Canada were a corporation, it's management would be foolhardy not to be spending it's time on a strategic shift, particularly if that one big, but declining client continually demanded increasing concessions.

  106. In an earlier entry I said Canada is always trying to develop new trade partners, you said Canada is not. Now you say you are working on a trade deal with the EU. That is great.
    I do not have a problem.

  107. Gawd you're so dense.

    Canada hasn't been trying in all these years….it's only recently we've made any effort at all.

    And no I didn't say anything about me personally…'we' is Canada

    Charest started a trade deal with the EU

  108. I know exactly who Glenn Beck is.

    I never confused you with Glenn Beck…I said you share a playbook….you regularly exagerate and you try to shock people.

  109. No, you've just never been off your back porch, and you consider everything shocking.

    Everyone else calls it reality

  110. Emily, 2 entries ago you said "i work with it daily" …"it" as in trade…………I just took it to mean you work with the federal government department that deals in international trade.
    Perhaps you should read your confusing entries – I assure you I have excellent communication skills – verbal and written. Prior to receiving my bacclaureate in nursing, I studied journalism. I have never been called "dense" in my entire life. At least not until now….

  111. Emily, I said you try to shock people.

  112. If you're shocked by anything I've said grandma….get out of your rocker more often

  113. Yes, I'm in economic development….that involves trade, amongst many other things.

    Perhaps you could just be more alert.

  114. Obviously you don't know very much about economics or trade, but if you did pay attention to such things you would realize that the US economy has great potential. Whether or not that potential is unleashed depends on the election in 2012, if Americans get back to their core values such as freedom from government, their economy will easily rebound, but it could be that too many US voters are already in the big government pocket and wouldn't want to risk losing their stipends if they can hold onto them for another couple years before it all goes bust. At that point freedom will be unleashed anyway, but there will be a lot more turmoil for the government leeches.

  115. Canadian trade groups have been pounding the pavement around the globe for years now, and Canada does well in some sectors and commodities, but if you really want our trade with the rest of the world to be as lucrative as it is with the US – all you have to do is figure out how to make it just as cheap to ship stuff halfway around the world as it is to drive a truck across the border – do any of you anti-Americans have a solution to that? Didn't think so.

  116. I had the same reaction as you – albeit with the added hope that it might speed up the process for Canadians traveling to America.

  117. Great idea – Europe has had perimiter security and open borders within the common market for years – I live in a Border Community, we depend on American Business to survive – Our laws re so close to the Americans that it will take only minor adjustments to bring them into line. There are millions to be saved at our borders with free flow. At the most, I should be required to run my drivers permit through a scanner and drive away, going in either direction.
    US Customs is getting better all the time with commercial goods, now if its over 2,000 we call our broker and the paperwork is already in the Customs when we arrive. Under that amount and it 1 sheet of paper to fill out and show them copies of the invoice.
    Every time it is simplified it gets better and perimiter security could solve a lot of problems the main one being rather dumb Congresmen that don't know where Canada is..
    It used to be if you asked any American from more than 20 miles south of the border. who their biggest trading partner was, they answered Japan, now they answer China. As long as they are convinced that their borders are secure we can still stay below their radar and keep selling to them while doing things "Our Way" at home.

  118. Great idea – Europe has had perimiter security and open borders within the common market for years – I live in a Border Community, we depend on American Business to survive – Our laws re so close to the Americans that it will take only minor adjustments to bring them into line. There are millions to be saved at our borders with free flow. At the most, I should be required to run my drivers permit through a scanner and drive away, going in either direction.
    US Customs is getting better all the time with commercial goods, now if its over 2,000 we call our broker and the paperwork is already in the Customs when we arrive. Under that amount and it 1 sheet of paper to fill out and show them copies of the invoice.
    Every time it is simplified it gets better and perimiter security could solve a lot of problems the main one being rather dumb Congresmen that don't know where Canada is..
    It used to be if you asked any American from more than 20 miles south of the border. who their biggest trading partner was, they answered Japan, now they answer China. As long as they are convinced that their borders are secure we can still stay below their radar and keep selling to them while doing things "Our Way" at home.

Sign in to comment.