President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he wanted answers to the environmental questions about the Keystone XL pipeline, whose delay overshadowed a new U.S.-Canadian border agreement announced on Wednesday.

Standing next to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the White House, Obama rejected an effort by Republicans in Congress to tie support for the $7 billion project to a payroll tax extension and insisted a final decision would follow a “rigorous” review process apart from politics.

“Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject,” Obama said, responding to the move by Republican House Speaker John Boehner to link the pipeline to the middle class tax cut Obama has been campaigning for.

“It shouldn’t be held hostage for any other issues that they may be concerned about. And so my warning is not just specific to Keystone. Efforts to tie a whole bunch of other issues to what’s something that they should be doing anyway will be rejected by me,” he said.

Harper said the U.S. president had an “open mind” about the fate of the proposed TransCanada pipeline to transport Albertan oil to the Gulf of Mexico, which the White House put on hold until 2013, after next November’s U.S. election.

“He’s indicated to me, as he’s indicated to you today, that he is following a proper (process) to eventually take that decision here in the United States, and that he has an open mind in regards to what the final decision may or may not be,” Harper said.

The two leaders, who addressed themselves by their first names and described themselves as friends, both referred to “candor” in their closed-door conversation at the White House where Keystone was a major issue. They addressed the press after that meeting to unveil plans to modernize the U.S.-Canada border and synchronize their regulations to help exporters.

Harper said the trade and regulatory agreements would help create “a new modern border” between the countries, which are already linked by a free trade deal that also includes Mexico.

“Together, they represent the most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement,” he said.

The timeline for implementing the two accords – one about border management and infrastructure and one about regulations – were not immediately clear, though they contained benchmarks for progress in the next six months.

Both deals would have to be approved by Congress and Parliament, which may be especially difficult for Obama who has been struggling to pass components of his $447 billion jobs bill including the payroll tax cut he is now focused on.

But Washington and Ottawa agreed in principle to make it easier for cargo shippers to send goods to both American and Canadian ports, including by coordinating regulations on hazardous chemicals and auto safety, among other issues.

Canada is also set to introduce new screening measures for people traveling to Canada, similar of those in place in the United States, and both countries agreed to upgrade some border infrastructure and tighten cyber security.

The United States and Canada are each other’s largest trading partners, and the auto sector in particular often sees cars and car parts shipped back and forth across the border.

But concerns have been rising from Canada in recent years about burdensome security checks by U.S. authorities that have slowed commerce and discouraged some people from traveling.

Perrin Beatty, head of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the deal should help address problems with the border that has become “stickier, most costly, more impenetrable” over the last decade because of U.S. security concerns.

Canada estimates that inefficiencies at the border impose a direct cost on the Canadian economy of 1 percent of GDP.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Doug Palmer in Washington and Randall Palmer in Ottawa; Editing by Eric Walsh) © Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Finally, the stars aligned and after a 10-year effort there is consensus with the Americans on what might be done to ease border restrictions. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama announced Wednesday a plan establishing an agenda for improvements to cross-border goods and services traffic. In exchange, Canada will provide the United States with personal information on millions of Canadians and become part of a North American security zone.

Fundamentally, the consensus signals Canada signing on to the American-centric view of the world on security matters. In the process, Canadian security institutions will be more closely integrated with those of the United States.

The Feb. 4, 2011, meeting between Harper and Obama produced a “Declaration,” an intent document on “a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness.” This week’s meeting produced an “Announcement” on the same subject. It should be emphasized that these are not formal treaties or even formal agreements, although there could be greater formality in the future. They are expressions of hope.

Nowhere in the documentation resulting from the two meetings are there suggestions the people of Canada will be provided with detailed information on which judgments can be made on the wisdom of this consensual agreement negotiated in the backrooms of both capitals.

Instead, Canadians are given a large dose of bromide with the statement both countries will work “together in co-operation and partnership”; suggesting, at least for the government of Canada, that the troublesome details implicit in the agreement will be hidden behind the wall of national security. Equally, as a sign for our future, the consensus will not include issues such as “buy American” laws or the building of pipelines nor the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally when its interests are under stress.

The need for such an agreement grew out of the policy mistakes of the United States in the aftermath of 9/11 when the border was closed for several days and the implementation of border security measures which, at their heart, suggested Canada was the source of danger to the United States.

The 1988 and 1992 free trade agreements which, in the words of the American negotiator at the time, would “open the doors between Canada and the United States” with “awesome” economic benefits as we move into the next century were less than prophetic.

Throughout the 10 years since 9/11 there has been a drum roll of comments by American leaders that Canada represents an existential threat – a threat that needed to be countered by tough American measures including the arming and hardening of the border. Only last May, in congressional testimony, the American commissioner for Customs and Border Protection stated that there were more persons “suspected of alliances with terrorist organizations, or have had a terrorist suspicion in their background – crossing over from Canada than we have from Mexico.”

The earlier bilateral Smart Border Accord, its associated Action Plan and the trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America in 2005 were all touted as mechanisms to improve border security while at the same time freeing the forces of economic competitiveness. They all failed miserably and the failure was again reflected by unilateral American action to limit and control cross border travel through the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Again these unilateral American restrictions on travel will not be altered by the Beyond the Border consensus.

These long-running train wrecks had little effect on the United States. Instead, the American-centric trade community in Canada accepted the drum beat out of Washington that “security trumps trade.” It was that acceptance by the government of Canada that led to the Beyond the Border approach in the hope that it would neutralize American concerns on security. In the announcement Wednesday, Canada sold its national security independence in exchange for hoped-for minor changes to American border restrictions.

It is not an overstatement to suggest the United States blackmailed the government of Canada into making this deal. It was the American way or no way. Reducing restrictions for Canadian exports to the United States holds little political value for the Obama administration in the fervour of an election year nor can there be much hope that the environment will be much better after November 2012.

The lesson for Canada is that it should not be lured into negotiations of large comprehensive agreements which include unrelated matters. History has demonstrated that Canada is more successful in negotiations with the United States when disagreements are narrowed and offsets in unrelated areas avoided. The Beyond the Border initiative is so large and so nebulous that neither the security of Canada nor its access to American markets will be helped. Like the Maginot Line of old it provides a temporal sense of success. It offers nothing for a rapidly changing future.

Gar Pardy is retired from the Foreign Service and comments on matters of public and foreign policy from Ottawa.

What the border deal means to you, and Canada: Accord will affect security, wait times and businesses  Calgary Herald

Harper dismisses criticism, calls security perimeter deal with U.S. ‘critical’  The Vancouver Sun

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday it’s “critical” for Canada to reach a perimeter security deal with the United States that offers mutual protection from terrorists and also speeds up the flow of traffic at the border.

But opposition parties alleged that the Conservative government is being steamrollered into signing a deal that could imperil Canadian sovereignty.

Moreover, they complained the governing Tories are rushing into the agreement without first resolving other recent protectionist trade initiatives emerging from the U.S., such as the proposed Buy America law.

The political debate flared up in the House of Commons in the wake of a media report that said a perimeter security deal had been reached that includes a $1-billion price tag for new border facilities and programs.

All that’s left, reported The Canadian Press, was for Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama to agree on a time and place to jointly announce the agreement.

But the government described the report as inaccurate, and Harper told the Commons that more work needs to be done.

“In terms of the specific negotiation with the United States, we do not have an agreement yet, but we continue to work on it,” said Harper.

“However, unlike the other parties, we think it is critical to the Canadian economy that we have trade with the U.S., we have secure access to our market and we ensure our mutual security.”

Harper and Obama announced last February that negotiations would begin on an “action plan” for a border deal to tighten security but speed up cross border traffic for travellers and businesses.

The broad outlines of the deal were contained in a declaration released at the start of negotiations. Harper and Obama proposed a system which would see their governments co-operate much more closely to create a security “perimeter” around both nations.

On security, they want their governments to share more intelligence to disrupt threats early. There could be changes to passenger screening and to verify the identities of travellers. The countries could share more information about when someone has crossed the border.

On trade, the countries might develop joint facilities and harmonized programs — within both countries and in other nations. They might reduce duplication of cargo inspections so goods that pass inspection by a U.S. agent would not require re-inspection by a Canadian agent before crossing the border, and vice-versa.

In an early-September TV interview, Harper said a “comprehensive” action plan would be released “very shortly.”

In the Commons Wednesday, interim Liberal leader Bob Rae asked Harper for an assurance that before a deal is signed it will be tabled in the Commons for “parliamentary scrutiny and debate.”

Harper made no specific promise, prompting Rae to ask Harper why he would sign a deal while the Obama administration is “actively promoting” a “Buy American” plan and is also considering a new levy on cargo entering the U.S. from British Columbia ports.

Outside the chamber, Rae told reporters that Harper shouldn’t be so willing to sign a border security deal while it is facing “trade harassment actions” from the Obama administration.

“It doesn’t make any sense to play your final card,” said Rae.

“Play your cards right. I’m saying don’t get suckered into signing something when they’re going to whack you with some stuff on the side, and that’s exactly what’s happening.”

Deputy NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was just as scathing.

He told reporters that he continues to worry that the government will trade away Canadian sovereignty in return for getting a deal.

“They’ve been chumps when it comes to dealing with the Americans,” said Mulcair, who said the Tory government “rolled over” on issues such as the softwood lumber dispute and were weak in the face of the Buy American plan.

Mulcair said the NDP is worried that Canadians’ confidential personal privacy rights will be infringed through security measures in the deal.

“This is a sovereign country. We’ve got to exercise our full sovereignty at all times. Sure, the U.S. is our most important trading partner. We hope to remain that way. We want to keep open borders as much as possible but we should stop being saps when it comes to dealing with the Americans.”

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. HAL -6.13% , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.

Food for thought…