SES-University at Buffalo Poll of Canadians and Americans - Americans Keen on Co-operation with Canada

I love my American cousins. My Dad was born in the Bronx, fought in the Pacific in WWII, and after the war had the good sense to emigrate to Canada to marry and settle down. But "integration" is a big word. What exactly does it mean in respect to the energy file and what does it mean to your respondents ? We supply the energy and the U-S sets the price? Doesn't the U-S have a lot of "integration" right now, with its big money invested in many Canadian energy sources, including the Tar Sands? We are already the second largest supplier to the U-S. Canada's energy policy should be first and foremost independent and no more integrated with the U-S than Saudi oil. The free market, not politics nor NAFTA, should set the price. Lumping energy into the border and security polling question basket it blurs the issue in my opinion. It's not a yes or no question. It's much more complicated than that.

Hello, Nic:

It is not surprising that an overwhelming majority of Americans or Canadians approve of cooperation on security issues. Such cooperation inherently increases the potential for Americans' domestic security (across a variety of issues), while being inherently preferable to most Canadians who recognize that greater American insecurity and mistrust of Canadian security cooperation is more likely to result in unilateral US actions that work to their disadvantage.

It is interesting to see that a statistically significant percentage of Canadians distinguish between broader foreign policy cooperation and cooperation over border security and anti-terrorism issues. The two cleavages that are most significant are region and education – with Atlantic Canada and the Prairies being more inclined to closer cooperation, and BC being least inclined to that view on all three sets of questions. Interestingly, both Ontario (relatively “pro”) and Quebec (relatively “anti”) are both close to the national average’s margin of error on all three sets of questions, suggesting that issues of “cooperation” are more matters of detail than principle. When positions on “border security” and “anti-terrorism” are compared, they are statistically similar in all jurisdictions – with a slightly greater preference intensity for “much closer” cooperation on anti-terrorism matters. This figure would suggest that there is no particular down-side risk for the government in maintaining a strong position on its anti-terrorism legislation, as long as there are reasonable protections for civil liberties.

The figures on cooperation on “an integrated energy policy” are more suspect and worth probing in greater detail. Canada and the United States currently have a very high degree of market integration for most major energy sources. The degree of policy integration is much smaller, and characterized by “parallel” macro-policies which leave a great deal of room for local, regional and national variations, rather than policy coordination per se. Based on NAFTA and other agreements, both countries broadly respect the principles of non-discrimination against one another’s nationals. It would be interesting to see the extent to which either public (US or Canadian) recognizes either the extent of market integration or the degree to which governments have left considerable room for the market to function without formally coordinating energy policies.

The economic awareness of the Canadian public on these issues is perhaps best reflected by the polling figure from just after Hurricane Katrina that indicated that something around 80% of respondents in Canada were supportive of nationalizing the big oil companies in response to the spike in gasoline prices to $ 1.24 a litre. Aside from the fact that such a policy would have meant buying out foreign investors at the peak of the market (just as the Trudeau government tried to do in the late 1970s and early 1980s), it wouldn’t have lowered the price of gas by as much as a nickel.

Geoffrey Hale
Department of Political Science
University of Lethbridge

Nik, without a doubt, United States is "family" but their side of the family usually gets what it wants. The great wealth of Canada is with its natural resources that Canadians develop / extract and trade over the world. United States has an energy deficit while Canada has an energy surplus-------why would the US not want to "tie up", "integrate" Canada's energy resources-------it is strategically vital for them to do so. Is our fresh water on the "integrate" list too ? Have you heard of the US offering an "integrated" lumber policy------not in THEIR interest you say? Have we forgotten about their softwood lumber embargo? Border security and trade cooperation are each important but separate items. Being circumspect, the Quebecers are more thoughtful than the rest of us.

I would say the support would be stronger in British Columbia and Washington State, because we travel North > South than we do West > East has much to with the Rocky Mountains, Richmond is 450 miles from BC - Alberta, and I can be in the USA in about 20 minutes from my home, if the border crossing is not busy. And in downtown Seattle in 1.5 hours doing their speed limit of 70 mph, not this pathetic Metric system, that was brought by French Canadian Public Servants, because this system came from France. From that day, food sizes went down and prices went up, that is why I go to Costco in the USA, for better value for money spent even with the exhange, All Canadian Retailers do is screw and the same with our bloody Charter Banks with ATM fees, but the Liberals and Jim Peterson mainly were gutless to hold Banks accountable, for 13 years 13 years 13 years of do nothing lazy Liberal Politicians. Like Ralph Goodale

Hello Nik,
You did well this eve on cpac!!!
Tom Good is right insofar that Quebeckers are definately less paranoid about our close
neighbours, and our borders. Just like Pressman, I lived for years in the USA, and ages
ago, at the American border it had always been more serious than passing at Canadian
customs. Go back, not even ten years ago, one could just drive thru without another
passenger car waiting at the border. Never asked me for an ID.The Americans are putting the tighter pressure on us,
demanding more co-operation, but to what extent? What can be defined as proportionate?
I certainly do not envision a wall on our Norther border, as they are doing with Mexico.
First thing, is that the immigration officers should be armed at the border...this would already
make them look more serious. With the passport issues today - $90./per passport for the
Americans who have families is far too expensive, and already we have seen a decline in
tourism last year, since our dollar was worth more. The Americans should start watching
their ports, and what's in those containers. It is evident that the Harper/bush relations
are more in tune with stricter co-operation with the two Countries, since they pretty much
see eye to eye already. However, one must not forget the small engine plane that crashed into
a building in N.Y. City, once again, last Fall, and because while flying over the Hudson River,
below 1,000ft, a pilot does not have to report or be on radar??? Perhaps the US should
concentrate on taking on their own internal security share, before demanding that we lose
some of our rights. They haven't even yet recovered from katrina, and should another
catastrophy happen, they are just not prepared. On the Mexican side of their border,
two border patrols are in jail because they shot an illegal alien, as they call them, who was
trying to cross the border. He was a smuggler, but he got off scott-free, and the two border
patrols are still in jail, and their lives in danger because they are incarcerated with the
smuggler crowd. So far, in Canada, our security has not been treathened, and Canadians
seem to feel safe. At the meeting last week, For the North American Alliance, security
took all of the attention, rather than trade and investment. Harper is going to lose the
vote on the Sunset Clauses, because we have not yet used them, and if need, all the
provisions for our security are in the detail of the Bill. They will make a few changes, and
adapt, and we shall not risk losing our Charter Right's to appease the US.
Cheers,
blos

When it comes to energy, it is essential for the United States to have close ties with Canada but it might not be to Canada’s advantage. When it comes to national security our southern cousins are very predictable. They believe that whatever is good for the U.S.A. is also good for the rest of the world, and it really does not matter much what the world thinks about their position. If they bring this attitude to the negotiating table, Canada might find itself in another softwood deal.
Canada is a net exporter of energy, and right now there is no shortage of customers. I would be extremely careful before snuggling further under the covers with our Yankee friends.

Nik your the expert, you can check this out, can a Senator be removed from the Senate for being Mentally Insane, the way this Liberal Senator like J.C. buddy Munson and this guy writing a bloody book at the expense of taxpayer's, I think we should have them committed, check that out please, imagine having their sponsorship fund inside the Senate, did they take their training from Jean Chretien, they really nuts especailly Munson and this other ding bat Senator from Quebec. Have these people ever had a real job.