Bailey, I wonder how accurate these numbers really are? I'm sure in theory people will stick to this for a year or two, but as the Canadian dollar gets closer to being at par (if not beyond) Canadians may actually want to shop in the US more, especially those living so close to the border. The savings they could realize would easily cover the cost of a passport over its lifetime.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

The poll of 1,500 Canadians was conducted May 16-21 and distributed to The Canadian Press. It is considered accurate within 2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

I think you've missed the point Zed. Tourism from the US is already down 15-20 percent this year in both Toronto and Vancouver compared to last year. If these US policies come into effect there will be huge economic damage at the world's busiest commercial border crossings where more than $1,000,000,000 per DAY crosses the border! Politicians at the highest level in both Canada and the US from both left and right are now fighting to have these ill-advised US policies tossed out which makes me wonder about your agenda. The border is working just fine right now - trust the US to find a way to screw it up.

Lets look at the article bailey posted in more detail shall we? Before we start there is one thing we have learned very well In the US over the years. That is you can make a poll say pretty much anything you want to based on teh design of the questions. WHile I do not question this poll got the results it said it has, without seeing the questions I am not all that impressed or worried about the poll. After all we had polls that suggested Al Gore and then John Kerry were going to win their respective elections and we see how accurate that prediction was. So now back to baileys post.

I would point out that assuming this is accurate that still means 72% of all Canadians would travel to the US as much or almost as much as they do now. When you add the 17% number that claim they will not travel to the US at all that still leaves 11% of Canadians unaccounted for, presumable because they haven't made up their minds. While the numbers of Americans that will not travel to Canada once this goes into affect may be higher, that is an issue for the Canadians not us. And that is the whole point of Baileys rants on this topic (but more on that later.)

First of all I would point out that MR. Oplingers position make him a biased source, but lets put that aside for the moment. I can't speak to Bellinham or Niagra, but I can to Windsor which I believe is the busiest crossing. Trucks are backed up on heavy days now, but not because of cars, trucks and cars have their own lanes. Trucks are backed up at Windsor due to the amount of traffic and the fact that on the candian side the eccess to the Bridge isn't the best suited for a lot of truck traffic. The backups do not seem to be as bad on the US side of the border going into Canada. One problem may be that on the Canadian side the street leading to the border is a heavily traveled street even by those not wishing to cross. On the US side the access is pretty much seperated from normal Detroit city traffic. Next one thing Bailey constantly omits from these rants is the fact that even before the Senate bill passed there were on going negotiations about how to create a system that would allow commecial traffic to get through the border in an expedited manner.

Notice Bailey says very little about this statistic.

The bolded word is in fact the operative word here. Mr. Orr, and indeed all other people making dire prognostications including bailey, have no way of knowing whether these dire predictions will in fact come true or not because the rule as yet has not taken effect.

The question here is how would these people know this? While I have my doubts about it significantly improving security I don't know if it will or if it won't and in todays climate I would rather err on the side of caution on this matter. But then again I am not represetning the Washington Chamber of Commerce or the Windsor Convention Bureau.

This one stat shows how unreliable thse polls are. Either thi stat is wrong or the earlier stat in which 72% of Candians said they would either not change the frequency of travel to the US or would only moderately change it are wrong? Which one is it? I don't know and neither do you I would argue.

This is just one of Baileys attempts to scare people into thinking the world would come to an end if the US goes forward with its plans. Lets see isn't there a childs story about a chicken that told everyone repeated the sky was falling?

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

If your concern is about tourism from the US, why are you using results showing stats about Canadians going south? Why did you include the stat about how many Canadians would be getting proper documentation if required?

If you truly are concerned about Americans travelling to Canada, I think we would see a decline regardless of the new border rules.

1) With the rising cost of fuel most Americans (and Canadians as well) have decided to make shorter trips this year. I don't think we'll see too many U.S. campers around here much this year, they guzzle gas like crazy.

2) With the decrease in the value of the greenback, the buying power in Canada is a fraction of what it has been for more than a generation. Most crossings are primarily for shopping, which is why Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are big destinations as well, and they will feel it because of this.

These are 2 biggies but there are other minor ones such as the cancellation of the spring bear hunt in Ontario.

With that said, I also think that because of the increase in Canadians travelling south, most border states will benefit and won't want to require special cards for border crossings if there is a decline in tourism on their part. They already delayed the requirement by 17 months to facilitate the change and to prevent exactly this from happening.

@Gort: I agree that stats can be manipulated to make anything look the way a person wants. This is why I am more interested in the grand scope of things ($CDN etc...) and not just how people respond to some questions, biased or not. I don't dispute the article or its sincerity, but I don't think it took into account a number of factors that may change or already are.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

Well, the western premiers have all just come out against it....read on....


Western premiers urge delay of Canada-U.S. border passport requirement

By TIM COOK

Doer announces premiers' legacy project





GIMLI, Man. (CP) - The federal government needs to do everything it can to ensure a delay in U.S. legislation that would require travellers to have passports while crossing the border, Canada's western premiers said Tuesday.

If the regulations were put off until 2009, as the U.S. Senate has recommended, governments on both sides of the border could use the time to come up with a different form of identification that would be more affordable and family friendly than a passport, host Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said on the second day of the annual western premiers meeting.

"We cannot have a situation where this passport requirement comes in quickly without having a severe impact on the tourism industry across Canada," he said.

"The message here today is: delay and get it right."

Doer repeatedly stopped short of suggesting that Canada may need to create some sort of national identity card to allay American concerns about border security, but he didn't rule it out either.

"We are not proposing the how to," he said. "If we don't get the time, this is just an abstract discussion."

At issue is U.S. legislation, already passed by Congress, that would require a passport, electronic card or some other new mix of documentation for everyone crossing the border - including U.S. citizens returning home as well as Canadians headed south.

The target date for full implementation of the measures is Jan. 1, 2008, but concerns have been raised on both sides of the border about the impact on tourism and trade.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the deadline to June 1, 2009. However, that delay, in the form of an amendment to an immigration bill, would also have to pass the House of Representatives and receive presidential approval to become law.

"We believe now we have momentum to delay," Doer said.

"The costs of a passport and the numbers of people who have a passport now in Canada demonstrate that there is not a great deal of accessibility for the average Canadian family."

Saskatchewan Premier Lorne Calvert backed Doer's suggestion.

"What we are searching for is a way that can meet America's need for the sense of security at the border, but doesn't impact on the free flow of goods and services and people that we so much enjoy," Calvert said.

"The free flow on this border must be enhanced and not restricted."

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell said it's important to make the U.S. know that the effects of the new rules will be tough on Americans as well.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...602562-cp.html

Furthermore, US governors and politicians are against it as well....

American border states have indicated they are just as worried. New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer warned late last month that the proposed border security changes could devastate the Buffalo Bills football franchise which, like the city's Sabres hockey team, counts on Canadian fans to help fill stadium and arena seats.

Western premiers will be able to make their case to U.S. politicians in person Wednesday when they meet with governors from North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas and Colorado.

The U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, and Michael Wilson, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., will also be there.

Oh well hey there you go, we have to scrap the whole thing so we can continue to fill up teh Buffalo Bills and Sabres stadiums. Do you actually read the stuff you post before you post it? I mean this is just inane drivel frankly.

Further all of the statistics you have provided are centered on the Canadian viewpoint and how this will affect Canadians. Sorry but the possibility of a few empty seats in the Bills and Sabre Stadiums is not enough reason to put off this bill, and Schumer knoews it. He also know that the Senate ammendment is not very likely to pass in conference committee, unless there is a quip pro quo, which is what I think is happening here.

Look Bailey how this bill affects US tourism in Canada is not the major concern for us, nor should it be. Moreover I am always amazed at just how little time and effort you put into these rants of yours on this topic. I don't know how much more plainly I can say this, what we do within the borders of the US with respect to travel through an international border is frankly our decision to make. Not the Canadian Prime Minister, or any of the Premiers, or MP's, or frankly anyone other canadian unless they happen to hold dual citizenship. What you do on your side of the border is up to you, not the President, or the governors or anyCongressmans. Why is this simple fact so hard for you to grasp?

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

The border is shared. What part of this most basic concept do you fail to grasp? If you can't understand such a rudimentary aspect of international relations then you shouldn't be posting on this forum. I'm sorry but your perspective is truly laughable.

It's a border Bailey of course it is shared. However the rules you apply on your side of it are your business, and I neither have nor should have a say in it. The same applies to us on this side of the border. If we feel passports are in our interest you really have nothing to say about it, Other than ranting how much it will hurt the Canadian economy. Soverignty is a simple concept most children learn in grade school. What happened?

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Of course we have something to say about it as it is shared like you finally acknowledge (wow). We will have a say and I couldn't care less what your inconsequential opinion is of the matter. I'm with the mainstream on this one and you can't see the forest for the trees my friend. In the meantime, your posts provide me with a great source of amusement, if nothing else.

Frankly Bailey if you are referring to what Canada does on its side of the border you are right my opinion is inconsequential, but no more or less so than your opinion of what the US should do on its own side of the border. The fact that it is a shared border is a geographic fact, not something I have ever admitted or denied. It seems to me that you are so pissed off because you have nothing to say about who we vote for our leaders you are trying to fnd anything in the US that you do have a vote on. Tell you what you and a buch of other Canadians write letters to US congressmen. I and a bunch of other Americans will do the same. Who do you think they will listen to, given that you can't re-elect them and I can.
Your constant attempts to paint me as wrong on who does and who does not have a say on domestic American issues would e amusing if it weren't for the fact that you really think you should have a say on what we do inside the borders of our own country. So instead of amusing your delusion is simply pitiful.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Wow. The following comments by the Canadian ambassador to the USA indicate just how ill-thought out the proposed passport regulations at the Canada-US border actually are. There has been no analysis whatsoever! Random policy based upon....what exactly? Fear for sure but scant evidence of any actual cost-benefit analysis by the Bush administration. Unbelievable! Who elected these wingnuts?


Canadian ambassador frustrated by lack of information on passport rule

By JENNIFER DITCHBURN

OTTAWA (CP) - The American government wants anyone crossing its border to carry a secure piece of identification by the end of next year, but Canada's ambassador in Washington says he still doesn't know what that means.

Michael Wilson told a Senate committee Wednesday that despite the looming deadline, there is no information about what Washington wants when it comes to identification.

"There is a sense of frustration at not being able to find out information," Wilson said. "We don't know how much has been done. Some of the questions might have moved past what we think the answers are."

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was passed in the U.S. Congress, and will affect anybody crossing into the United States by any means of transport.

It calls for the use of a passport, or an unspecified piece of identification. The legislation has thrown Canada and several U.S. border states into turmoil, raising fears that tourism and business will be hurt.

Wilson repeatedly had to tell senators with questions about the law that he didn't have any answers.

For example, there has been no cost analysis done on the change, nor has there been any articulation of what specific security features the identification should have.

"We don't have information," Wilson said. "Again: frustration."

One glimmer of hope for Canada has been a recently passed Senate bill that called for a delay of 18 months before the border rules come into effect. That still must go through a congressional committee, but officials are hopeful it will give them more flexibility.

"What I am hearing in the calls particularly in the last few weeks is a growing concern about whether (the Departments of) Homeland Security and State will be in a position to meet those deadlines," Wilson said.

"We are trying to seek information about where the administration stands on key factors, whether there have been timelines set and whether they'll be met."

Wilson also noted that a bilateral working group examining the issue for the two countries has had "limited activity."

Wilson was joined at the committee by New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, a fervent critic of the new border legislation. Slaughter has teamed with fellow Democrats and Republicans to promote a piece of legislation that would rein in the travel initiative.

Among other things, it would require a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken before any new border measures are put in place.

"I want you to know that there are many members of Congress that do understand that the current . . . plan has the potential to inflict serious damage on our two countries," Slaughter said.

Now even former US ambassadors to Canada are against the proposed stupid border regulations proposed by Homeland Security.....which makes one wonder who exactly in the US government will take the fall for this cock-up??!!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...656415-cp.html

WASHINGTON (CP) - Two former ambassadors to Canada are urging U.S. officials to delay the plan for strict new identification documents at the border, saying it's a looming train wreck that won't make anyone safer.

James Blanchard and Paul Cellucci, who spoke Tuesday at a conference on Canada-U.S. relations, said there has to be a better way. "This is a potential disaster," said Cellucci, who served in Canada under President George W. Bush before David Wilkins was appointed a year ago.

"At the minimum we need to postpone this. I don't think it's going to stop any terrorist attack," said Cellucci, who applauded intelligence-sharing between the two countries leading up to Canada's anti-terror bust early this month.

Blanchard, the U.S. representative under former president Bill Clinton, said American officials simply aren't ready to properly implement the security program requiring passports or another secure document at land crossings by Jan. 1, 2008.

"It could be a total train wreck in our relationship," he told the forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"A lot of people in Washington don't understand the degree of social integration between our two countries."

There are already rumblings about delaying the rule requiring passports from air and sea travellers to the United States that's supposed to go into effect next Jan. 1, although American officials insist they're on track.

"I think they've already talked about pushing that one back because they're not ready," said Cellucci, who noted that Bush wasn't crazy about the land crossing plan in some of his early comments on the issue.

Congress passed the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative in 2004 as a way to more closely monitor who's entering the country after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

So it's going to require a stronger lobbying effort among politicians from border states on Capitol Hill to explain the devastating impacts on tourism and commerce, said Cellucci.

"I don't think those senators and congressmen can stand by and let these consequences take place."

The forum on Canada-U.S. ties was held as Alberta kicked off a week of events to promote its energy resources in the U.S. capital and participate in the Smithsonian Folklife Festival starting Friday.

Cellucci, who didn't endear himself to some Canadians with his pointed criticism at times, said he's a "little disturbed" by accusations from some U.S. politicians that Canada has become a haven for terrorists because of lax immigration laws.

First of all they are former Ambassadors and as such their opinions mean no more or less than mine or anyone else who is a citizen of the US or Canada on this issue. Next question is why would nayone need to take a fall in the administration. You still seem to be logic challenged my friend.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

What a strange and illogical conclusion on your part. The simplest thing to do would be to not implement these uneccessary and ineffective changes by the US in the first place. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!