How Canada's election may have left ‘gaps' in U.S. travel advice
But with Canada in a caretaker government at the time, bureaucrats weighed the potential 'sensitivities' of acting during a federal election campaign that revolved around U.S.-Canada relations.
Documents obtained by Global News through access to information laws show the department was aware Canadians were concerned about visiting the U.S., but federal officials lagged non-governmental organizations in providing citizens with guidance on the risk of searches of electronics and the possibility of detention.
6:31
Canadian dies in ICE custody. What we know so far
Prime Minister Mark Carney triggered a federal election on March 23.
Story continues below advertisement
Canada updated its travel advisory on April 4 urging Canadians to 'expect scrutiny' from U.S. border agents.
The newly-released documents raise questions about whether Global Affairs should have updated that advice sooner, given concerns around U.S. travel and the high-profile detention of at least one Canadian by U.S. border agents last March.
'I think we're seeing here is that they were slow on this and you can't be slow. You have to do your job,' said immigration lawyer and founder of Jain Immigration Law in Toronto Ravi Jain.
2:05
What Canadians need to know about new U.S. travel rules
Global Affairs Canada had considered how to respond, 'recognizing the requirement the department has to maintain accurate travel advice for Canadians, at the same time as any sensitivities to any communications during a writ period.'
'Canadians have been critical about the lack of information in the U.S. TAA [Travel Advice and Advisories] about the perceived risks of travelling to the U.S. at this time,' reads an email dated April 2, a week and a half after Carney triggered a federal election.
Story continues below advertisement
But federal officials acknowledged law firms and post-secondary institutions had already acted.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Bureaucrats noted 'leading migration lawyers and universities' had issued 'their own cautionary advice' to clients and staff by then, the documents obtained by Global News show. That advice often included warnings electronics could be searched.
In a statement, Global Affairs Canada spokesperson Charlotte MacLeod said the department provided 'up-to-date travel information that reflected publicly available information by U.S. government agencies and officials. The intent of the updates was to ensure Canadians have accurate information about traveling to the United States.'
But MacLeod did not answer questions about whether the writ period affected how and when information was shared with Canadians.
1:46
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' set to become law after it passes in US House
Back in the spring, Jain was one of the lawyers urging the federal government to update its advisory: 'I understand the political sensitivities, but our first responsibility is to our citizens.'
Story continues below advertisement
Federal officials discussed closing 'information gaps' and updating Canadians on what they described as four 'themes': visa applications; enhanced security at border points, including electronics; new U.S. info for stays beyond 30 days; guidance on carrying ID and evidence of status in the U.S. in light of the risk related to ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) operations.
On April 4 — two days after the email was sent to staff at Global Affairs — Ottawa made its updated U.S. travel advice public, warning Canadian citizens could be detained while awaiting deportation if they fail to meet entry or exit requirements.
'Individual border agents often have significant discretion in making those determinations. U.S. authorities strictly enforce entry requirements. Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices.'
The internal communication highlights the 'intricacies' the department faced during the writ period, as it tried to navigate U.S. President Donald Trump's ever-evolving policies and pronouncements and when to weigh into issues potentially at play during the election.
Caught between a 'rock and a hard place'
'The department was really caught between a rock and a hard place,' said former foreign affairs minister Perrin Beatty.
Story continues below advertisement
Beatty says the caretaker government likely did not want to find itself in the middle of a 'heated' political debate.
A caretaker government operates during this transition period and is expected to limit its actions to essential and urgent matters and avoid making major policy decisions.
'The Canada U.S.-issue was the number one partisan issue in the election they were wary about doing anything… (but) we were seeing developments taking place very rapidly with stories of people being detained at the border or changes coming by the day.'
6:43
Extended: B.C. woman detained in the U.S. returns home
Jasmine Mooney, originally from Vancouver, tried to enter the U.S. from Mexico at the San Diego border, and was taken into custody on March 3. She spent nearly two weeks in ICE detention.
Global Affairs was following public interest in her case.
Story continues below advertisement
'Since March 13… we have received 16 media calls on the detention of Canadian citizen Jasmine Mooney,' read the documents.
Federal officials also received more than 5,000 comments on their social media channels related to U.S. travel advice in March, 'the highest ever' received in a single month.
An internal memo contained a 'sentiment scan of the comments' and included calls for Global Affairs Canada 'to update the risk level for travel to the U.S., questions about registration and ICE/Border Patrol (fear of detainment, phone searches.)'
Jain would like to see more detailed advice in the current travel advisory to the U.S.
'We shouldn't be alarmist. Many Canadians are able to travel to travel to the U.S. and face no issues.'
But the immigration lawyer adds federal officials' first obligation should always be informing Canadians as quickly as possible.
'(Politics) shouldn't matter. There's politics to everything.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge recommends that case against Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty. The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump's administration and local authorities over the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition. Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge's recommendation or reject it. 'We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,' Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. 'This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.' Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case. Joseph also rejected Dugan's other arguments in favor of dismissal. 'It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,' the judge said in the recommendation. 'Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.' No trial date has been set. Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status. Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
China buying up mines globally FT
Beijing is reportedly racing to lock in critical mineral supplies as the West restricts Chinese investments Chinese companies are buying more mines abroad than they have in over a decade to secure key raw materials as Western countries restrict their investments, the Financial Times has reported. Ten deals each worth more than $100 million were signed last year, the highest since 2013, the outlet reported on Sunday, citing an analysis of S&P and Mergermarket data. "The rise in dealmaking partly reflects China's efforts to get ahead of the deteriorating geopolitical climate, which is making it increasingly unwelcome as an investor in key countries such as Canada and the US," the FT quoted analysts and investors as saying. Major deals reportedly included gold mines in Kazakhstan, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast, a copper mine in Zambia, a copper-gold mine in Brazil, and a 50% stake in a rare-earth project in Tanzania. China is the leading refiner of rare earths, responsible for 90% of global processing capacity, and holds the world's largest reserves of the critical elements. Beijing has made mineral security a national strategic priority, as the global demand for lithium, cobalt, and nickel rises with the growth of clean energy and high-tech manufacturing. Western governments have been trying to curb China's access to key minerals and processing technologies, aiming to secure their own supply chains and reduce dependency. The US and its allies have blocked Chinese investments, imposed export restrictions, and launched new partnerships to source minerals elsewhere. US President Donald Trump has framed mineral access as a strategic priority, tying it to diplomacy and conflict resolution. Last month, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed a US-brokered peace deal, which Trump said secured American rights to Congolese mineral wealth. In April, Washington also signed a minerals agreement with Ukraine, presented as partial repayment for military aid. In June, Washington and Beijing reached a deal to resume rare-earth exports. China previously imposed export restrictions on these materials in retaliation to US tariffs, disrupting global supply chains. (
