Canadian Crossing

Canada PM Stephen Harper says he prefers watching U.S. news

If I lived in Canada, I would watch Canadian news, especially with the announcement that "The National" -- CBC's nightly newscast -- is being revamped with the debut of its new format tomorrow night.

Canada's PM Stephen Harper lives in Canada, but says he doesn't watch Canadian news. Instead, he watches U.S. news.

Unfortunately, we don't know which news channel Harper watches. Given his Conservative Party leadership, he could watch Fox News Channel. But he could watch CNN. I don't think MSNBC gets much if any play in Canada, and probably isn't Harper's cup of tea. 

The one issue that Harper ignores in not watching Canadian TV news is that Canada media outlets cover the world much better than U.S. news. Even "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" can't hold a candle to regular Canadian news.

Stories that would never see the light of day from all around the world regularly show up on Canadian TV newscasts. This isn't liberal or conservative; people of all political stripes would agree that U.S. news does a lousy job of covering the world around them.

However, on a political tone, conservatives by and large are more afraid to watch anything they might disagree with, a tone that doesn't bode well in society, but is rather appalling for a country's leader to avoid watching because he may not like some things.

"It’s a strange signal to send to the public at a time when Canadian networks, aside from covering this country, which U.S. networks don’t, also spend considerable resources, and some of their correspondents literally risk their lives, to bring the Canadian perspective on international stories home from places that some U.S. networks ignore," Peter Mansbridge, CBC's national news anchor on “The National” told The New York Times. 

The idea that Canada's leader would find the U.S. news perspective to be sufficiently homogenized enough for the Canadian perspective is rather startling. Watching a helicopter follow a car chase in Southern California is rarely relevant outside the LA area, yet it still makes its way onto U.S. newscasts. Watching all of this in Ottawa would be even less relevant.

New U.S. Ambassador to Canada debuts his blog

David Jacobson is the relatively new U.S. Ambassador to Canada. It would have been nice if ambassadorships were neatly tied into the inauguration date, but it's good to see we have a new ambassador, especially since the Obama Administration has already shown more appreciation for Canada than in the previous eight years.

One way that Ambassador Jacobson is improving communication is starting a blog. So far, he has been sharing his inspirations about the country where he is now residing. The blog can be found at http://blogs.ottawa.usembassy.gov/ambassador/.

So far, the Ambassador has shared adventures in the Ottawa Valley and Byward Market in the nation's capital, Montréal (including a picture of him eating poutine), and experiencing early winter in Calgary. Though the ambassador isn't that familiar with the neighbor to the north, his enthusiasm seems sincere.

Of course, there are a number of issues where Ambassador Jacobson will walk the tightrope of diplomacy, so some seriousness will have to come around at some point. Still, the blog is a good sign of more openness and a chance to see Canada through the eyes of someone seeing it in wonder.

Sports teams caught up in latest grudge match with U.S. & Canada over 'terrorism'

Professional athletes get to travel in a style that not even frequent business travelers get to do. But their travel schedules are more hectic.

Unfortunately, for Canadian-based teams and teams traveling to Canada, traveling for the job just become rather difficult.

Let's have The Associated Press explain the situation:

Years of exemptions for sports teams ended in August when the United States Department of Transportation stepped up enforcement of a rule that prohibits foreign charter carriers from making domestic flights between American cities. Canada responded by enforcing the rule on its side of the border.

If you have trouble following the logic of any of this, you are not alone.

So because of restrictions due to terrorism (among baseball players??), the United States made it illegal for a foreign charter to fly between U.S. cities. Then, Canada struck back on its side of the border.

Where this really gets messed up, the Toronto Blue Jays -- using an American charter company -- was going to Detroit. The logical choice was to fly into Windsor and then bus across the river to the stadium. But due to the rules change, the Blue Jays had to fly all the way to Detroit Metro, far away from the stadium.

The proposal primarily affects the NHL and teams traveling to the Toronto Raptors of the NBA (and of course, the Raptors themselves). It might force teams to fly back home in between road trips, adding aggravation to a busy travel schedule.

But this is the latest in the ongoing "pissing match" between the two countries over travel restrictions to make each country seem "tough on terrorism." Yes, the United States started it, but both countries share a level of blame.

Trucks carrying products and produce have suffered as have vacationers because of this grudge match. The U.S. and Canada have had a mostly friendly relationship for years. The sooner they get back to being mostly friends, the happier the citizens will be in their travels, even professional athletes.

On vacation, learning about where Canadians laws are made

_{the primary Parliament building in Ottawa, Canada (all pictures by me)}

My friends tease me that I know everything about Canada. As much as I know about Canada, and it's a lot, I learned something quite interesting on my string of vacations.

I know the federal Senate in Canada is quite different from the U.S. Senate. When I learned about Canadian politics back in college, I remember that Western Canada wanted a Triple E Senate -- Elected, Equal, Effective. Canada still doesn't have any of those traits in its Senate. But I assumed, for some reason, that the provinces had Senates as well (just like the U.S. states).

When I went to the Parliament in Quebec City, capital of Quebec, I found out that the provinces no longer had Senates. In fact, Quebec was the last province to give up having a Senate, sometime in the 1960s.

I went on an unofficial quest to see provincial legislative buildings on my most recent Canadian trips. It wasn't something I planned deeply. After all, I've seen the legislative buildings (from the outside) of British Columbia (Victoria) and Ontario (Queen's Park/Toronto), and yet never went inside them or toured them.

_{main legislative rooms in Quebec City...}

But when you are in smaller cities, sometimes unusual trips end up on your itinerary. After all, the provincial building in Quebec City was amazingly beautiful. And the tour was very intriguing.

_{... and Halifax, Nova Scotia ...}

When I was in Halifax, the tour had the most ideal 1-1 ratio of tour guide and me. I even got to sit in the speaker's chair in the Nova Scotia parliament room.

_{... and the House of Commons for the federal government in Ottawa.}

And only having about 2 hours in Ottawa, the most logical quest is a tour of the national Parliament. I sneaked into the back of a tour that just started. And I enjoyed getting to see where the laws get introduced and debated. And the federal Parliament has a working Senate.

Both Quebec and Nova Scotia used their former Senate rooms as meeting spots for legislative committees. The rooms in these buildings are so ornate, so it's good to see rooms are used well.

The contrasts to the U.S. political system are quite startling. The leader of the province and country are MPs, or members of Parliament. They are legislative AND executive members. Also, the Speaker of the House, while belonging to the party in power, has to be neutral in running the business of the House, and doesn't usually vote.

The members of the minority party get to directly question the leader and the members of the majority party.

This isn't to say Canadian systems are better or worse than the U.S. This is only to say that I now have a much more significant knowledge of how and where laws are made in Canada.

'Homeland Security USA' back to burn off final episodes

The much-aligned, yet sickly fascinating "Homeland Security USA" is back, if only to burn off its remaining episodes. As you may recall, there were supposed to be 13 episodes, but only 8 were shown when the show disappeared from the airwaves.

The ABC owned station in Chicago is burning off the last few episodes on Sunday afternoons. It's even possible that your ABC station isn't even wasting time slots meant otherwise for infomercials. The episodes are available for free on ABC.com. The programs were supposed to come with commercials, but when I watched the latest episode, it was commercial-free.

The Canadian content wasn't very exciting in this last episode. They stopped a young woman traveling by bus from Toronto to New York at the border crossing in Buffalo. They felt she was auditioning/working without a visa (she was an unconventional model) and sent her back. She didn't seem to fight that hard -- seeming unusual behavior.

If there are significant Canadian crossing border stories in these last few episodes, we will try and bring you the highlights.

Bill O'Reilly clueless on why Canadians live longer than Americans

A proper coda to yesterday's essay on Canadians and health care...

Bill O'Reilly was answering viewer mail on his FNC program. When asked about the fact that Canadians live longer on average than Americans, O'Reilly "explains" that since Americans have 10 times as many people, there are 10 times as many accidents, et al.

Of course, this has nothing to do with life expectancies. And even if it did, the U.S. would have to have way more accidents to make the math work. Canadians live longer, on average. Even conservatives in the U.S. would like to know why, wouldn't they?

Canada's health care system, good and bad, still beats out U.S.

If you are looking for the biggest difference between Canada and the United States, especially these days, both sides of the border would say, "health care."

Canadians are understandably upset that some in the U.S. -- for political purposes -- are maligning their health care system. And the understandable defensiveness of Canadians doesn't help shine an accurate light on elements of Canadian health care that could be improved, so the U.S. can learn from Canada -- good and bad.

In terms of understanding the Canadian system, health care is administered on the provincial level, though there are federal standards. So if you hear a horror story from Ontario, and it's true, the situation might be different in Manitoba or British Columbia or Nova Scotia.

Then there is criticism of a setup for a health care system, and criticism of the funding of the system. Canadians don't have to worry about hospital bills, but because of lack of funding, prescription drugs and dental aren't covered (though Canadians pay far less for prescription drugs than Americans). Canadians may love their system, but imagine how much more they would love it if the system had more money.

Canadians can pick their own doctor, but due to a shortage of doctors, a small percentage can't get a family doctor. Canada does need more doctors and more specialists. Like in most places in the world, those who live in urban areas have more availability to doctors and specialists. The Canadian population can be very spread out, especially in the three territories to the north.

One consistent theme in the horror stories -- true or false -- the criticism focuses on treatments that Canadians can't get in their country. But there are many examples where provinces have paid for treatment in the U.S. in a scenario where Canada couldn't properly provide the equipment or care.

Canadians could easily argue that they wish their care were as good as that in Great Britain, France, or Sweden. For all the lumping together of "socialized medicine," there are many different variations between other industralized countries. Other industrialized countries, of course, except for the United States.

One argument from U.S. President Barack Obama is that Americans want their own system. And even if the U.S. were ever to go for single-payer, a far more significant reform than what is currently before Congress, prescription drugs would be covered but probably not dental.

But millions of Americans can't help but wonder if they would be better off in the Canadian health care system. And there are certainly are Canadians who might think the U.S. health care system is a better fit for them.

Perhaps we could create a binational health care system: give those Americans/Canadians who love single payer that option, and allow those who love private insurance to buy and keep that. Even now, Canadians who travel to the U.S., by and large, buy supplemental health insurance in case they get sick or injured while visiting the United States.

Those Americans who have trouble getting health insurance (full disclosure: this reporter is in this group) may not say the Canadian system is perfect, but they do know that they won't lose their health insurance or suddenly won't be covered. They know if they lose their jobs, their health insurance won't be in jeopardy. They won't be in financial ruin and they can keep their houses. And Canadians live longer than Americans, perhaps because they aren't as worried about their health insurance.

"Peace of Mind" is not just a song from Boston's first album, but this is what those Americans see in the Canadian system that they like. The Canadian system isn't perfect, but they do a lot of things right. And the Canadian health care system should be judged on its own merits, good and bad.

But in a study released late last week from the Canadian Institute for Health Information -- the largest survey on primary health care ever conducted in Canada -- 92 percent would recommend their physician to a relative or friend. Also from the survey, 85 percent of people aged 12 and older have a regular doctor, and two thirds have been seeing the same doctor for five years or more.

Those who bash the Canadian system, and who don't have to live in it, are usually those who oppose it for political reasons. Even though the U.S. government provides health care to its veterans, and runs Medicaid and Medicare, they don't believe the federal government should run health care. There are those who oppose it because their taxes would go up, though there would be an obvious trade-off.

The discussion would be more fruitful if those who opposed Canadian-style health care would have a thorough analysis of what they think is wrong with the system. Until then, they can stop bashing something that could help millions of Americans.

Beauty of Canada dominates U.S. government Web site

If you are old enough to remember when TV stations signed off in the middle of the night, often you would see a video montage of the physical beauty of the United States. There are sections that are amazing.

So when you saw the picture of a beautiful landscape on the Web site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, it would be easy to believe that it reflected somewhere in the U.S.

Except the picture was of Lake Louise, just north of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.

When the Chicago Blackhawks were in Calgary earlier this season, the local TV people showed a beautiful shot of Lake Louise. It was gorgeous and magnificent, just a part of the amazing landscape that Canada offers as well.

While this was clearly a mistake, it would be tempting to say that they couldn't find as pretty a picture in the U.S. as Lake Louise in Alberta. We know that isn't true, but the beauty of Lake Louise is so apparent that it passed for the U.S.

Filming in Canada is done in part due to tax breaks and the difference in the dollar exchange rate. So Canada is used to being incorporated to pretend to be the U.S. This government Web site snafu just took it to extremes.

_{Image portrayal courtesy of this link.}

Canadians can still get analog while U.S. goes digital for TV

If you are one of those people who have chosen not to get a converter box or buy a TV with a digital tuner, and you live near the Canadian border, you may have more television options. The U.S. went all-digital at midnight last night, but the deadline for Canada isn't until August 31, 2011.

For the next two years, you can still receive over-the-air analog signals from Canadian TV stations. Since analog signals travel farther than digital signals, some along the border may not be able to get those signals once the transition takes place.

In summertime, on occasion, TV signals travel farther than normal, allowing people to get TV signals they otherwise wouldn't get under normal circumstances. So this summer might be brighter for those who live near the Canadian border.

One other old-time tradition Canadians will still be able to do than Americans can't is get the audio from television (channels 2-13) on certain radios. For those who have enjoyed this practice, you can't do it for U.S. stations, but you will be able to do so from Canadian stations until August 31, 2011.

Canada just got way more into the auto business

(picture of Daimler Chrysler's Canadian headquarters in downtown Windsor, Ontario, taken by me last month)

Despite the heavy emphasis on the Big Three in the United States, each company has a significant stake in Canada, some of that literally across the Detroit River in Windsor, Ontario.

While the big news was that the United States government is taking a 60% stake in General Motors, the Canadian federal and Ontario provincial governments are taking a 12% stake in the fledgling auto company. The federal government will take 2/3 of the shares and Ontario gets 1/3.

Southern Ontario, an area that feels ignored by the rest of the country (and the province), is heavily depended on the auto industry, whether that be auto plants or companies that make parts for cars or businesses that rely on those workers for shopping and consuming.

One intriguing contrast between the two countries is that while U.S. President Barack Obama is optimistic about that country getting its investment back, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't optimistic.

But the reality of letting GM completely go under would have been devastating for parts of the U.S. Midwest and Canada's Southern Ontario.

Canada's other big automotive news came with the announcement that the Magna auto parts company acquired a 20% stake in GM's European operations with the Opel line.

This becomes significant because it could mean more cars being built in Canada. However, General Motors required in the deal that Opel cars not be sold in the United States. Theoretically, they could be sold in Canada.

Even if everything goes right, the process will be difficult to make Opel cars even in Canada.

Magna is run by Frank Stronach. His daughter, Belinda, might be one of the few Canadian politicians you have heard of. When Stronach crossed the floor (changed parties) from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 2005, she also broke up with fellow Conservative PM Peter MacKay, who subsequently held a press conference with his dog by his side.