-=- Patriot Act Impeading On Canadians -=-

A Canadian company Dealing with Americans, has refused busness with ther Americans beacuse the States want to check up on Every employee the Canadian Comopany Has hired.

The States Reserve the right to Sue the Cndian Company if they refuse to be checked up on.

It is through things like this that Americans can justify intrusion of privacy.

We have a right to know who were dealing with when it comes to National Security. If your company employed Americans, would you
do the same to us if WE refused YOUR background checks? Just curious.

C'mon now. Every company has a right to know if anyone in
their employ has a criminal background history..background checks are part of normal everyday jobs as well. I think that's only fair.

I feel that we have no business in Canadian affairs. You don't see us checking up on everyone in England, Germany, France, China, the Moon. It's just because Canada is right next to us, and so far they're trying to resist becoming a puppet.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
C'mon now. Every company has a right to know if anyone in
their employ has a criminal background history..background checks are part of normal everyday jobs as well. I think that's only fair.

I do know that reading comprehension can be difficult in these circumstances, but take more care with it. In any case, though, there does seem to be a contract involved. No agreement was reached because of one of the government's conditions (some manner of source would have been nice, as would actual details, and coherent sentences), but they have no means to force the matter. So, on the whole, no harm no foul... except that both parties lost some business... what the nature of that business might be, I have no idea.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
A Canadian company Dealing with Americans, has refused busness with ther Americans beacuse the States want to check up on Every employee the Canadian Comopany Has hired.

The States Reserve the right to Sue the Cndian Company if they refuse to be checked up on.

It is through things like this that Americans can justify intrusion of privacy.

Was this the American government demanding this or an American corporation?

Originally posted by Zarathustra
I don't think that's what he said at all. Inarticulate as the first post (and this subsequent one) was, it seemed to say that an American government was going to run background checks on everyone in the (Canadian) company. So the company having a right to know about people it employs has not thing one to do with it.

I do know that reading comprehension can be difficult in these circumstances, but take more care with it.

It's only as good as it's worded. That I assume no resp. for.

I think we meant background checks and nothing more, that's standard ops for any company. I don't agree with being sued for it though. That's a bit far if you ask me. That's not needed.

Way I see it, you have nothing in your background to worry about, no prob. It also depends on what kind of business you're running too. Certain businesses require some lofty background checks. That's only natural.

You wouldn't hire a convicted felon for an armored car job now would you?

Patriot act sucks anyway🙂 And after that little snippet I read it was for a canadian company that was doing business with an american business as said before no blood no foul.

the US has no right to interfere in any other countries affairs without prior agreement with the country they are dealing with (Canada in this case)

so if they Canada does not want (or think) that this is fair and We don't want the US to look into such things and they wont trade with this one company, then screw the US as far as I'm concerned.

I understand that both the US and Canada rely on the massive trade between out countries, but I'm sick of the US imposing their laws on others. we don't have a "patriot act" in Canada, and the US has no right to force us into abiding by a law we don't have.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
We have a right to know who were dealing with when it comes to National Security. If your company employed Americans, would you
do the same to us if WE refused YOUR background checks? Just curious.

C'mon now. Every company has a right to know if anyone in
their employ has a criminal background history..background checks are part of normal everyday jobs as well. I think that's only fair.

Companies, all around the world, you might be suprised, do a criminal background check on their employees - not just America.

This kind of thing just undermines the Canadians - its like ''you don't know who you're hiering, so we'll have a little dig around''

Besides, what is up with just freely allowing this kind of doctatorship to take place...

The thread title has bad spelling and grammar. Let no-one say you aren't thorough.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Companies, all around the world, you might be suprised, do a criminal background check on their employees - not just America.

No kidding. And based on this, I'm suprised that Canada is taking such a stance about dictatorships. It seems as if they're trying to exempt themselves from the procedure. I hear all these kneejerk reactions about background checks and dictatorships...can you actually prove that that's the case?

Seems to me Canada would refuse even if it WASN'T the Patriot Act. And they're the only ones doing it so...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This kind of thing just undermines the Canadians - its like ''you don't know who you're hiering, so we'll have a little dig around''.

I don't hear anyone else bitching about this, only Canada.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Besides, what is up with just freely allowing this kind of doctatorship to take place...

Again, prove to me that that's the case. What evidence do you have? (Oh nevermind, Michael Moore and Paul Martin just walked thru the door....)

Originally posted by Zarathustra
I do know that reading comprehension can be difficult in these circumstances, but take more care with it. In any case, though, there does seem to be a contract involved. No agreement was reached because of one of the government's conditions (some manner of source would have been nice, as would actual details, and coherent sentences), but they have no means to force the matter. So, on the whole, no harm no foul... except that both parties lost some business... what the nature of that business might be, I have no idea.

Yeah they lost business over something as simple as background checks, with the kneejerk reaction of the imposition of dictatorship.
It seems to me that Canada would refuse even if the Patriot Act wasn't involved. And I don't see any other country moaning, only Canada.

Yet I'm sure if we refused to submit to their laws..there would be all hell to pay. If the Patriot Act wan't involved, would there still be refusals?

If the text of the agreement is a reasonable one, then what's the problem? If both sides can work on a deal that circumvents whatever it is that has the Canadians so spooked, then why not work together?
It can be done..and I hate to say this but there's a bit of sefishness here.

Again I say: would you give a convicted felon an armored car job? NO? And how do you find out that he ISN'T a felon? 2 words-background check.

Canada and the US are going to have a bad relationship for next few years under Bush's rule. Canadian view America as a crazy circus and Americans view Canada as some place up north.

Canada is a very liberal country while the US is not so they are not going to agree with each other. Our PM said the US should start listening to the world on the environment and then the stupid US Ambassador got right into our election saying stop bashing us.

Now tell me isn't that interfering.

Damn Bush is trying to get a Conservative Guy (stephen Harper) elected here so he can make us do everything they wan't. Like go help in Iraq and give us free riegn on your oil.

Canada? They're still around?

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah they lost business over something as simple as background checks, with the kneejerk reaction of the imposition of dictatorship.
It seems to me that Canada would refuse even if the Patriot Act wasn't involved. And I don't see any other country moaning, only Canada.

Yet I'm sure if we refused to submit to their laws..there would be all hell to pay. If the Patriot Act wan't involved, would there still be refusals?

If the text of the agreement is a reasonable one, then what's the problem? If both sides can work on a deal that circumvents whatever it is that has the Canadians so spooked, then why not work together?
It can be done..and I hate to say this but there's a bit of sefishness here.

Again I say: would you give a convicted felon an armored car job? NO? And how do you find out that he ISN'T a felon? 2 words-background check.

You seem to be under the misconception that the majority of Canadian businisesses do not have appropriate hiring procedures or perform background check themselves.

What (to my understanding) is the problem, is the U.S. government thinking that they can do a better job. Or that the U.S. government thinks it has the right to dictate how other countries conduct business, yet feel free to do anything, such as go into Iraq, without the concent or concern for the rest of the world.

It isn't the fact that we are 'spooked', it is the fact that the American government has enough of it's own problems to deal with, they should keep their attention to their own back yard.

actually if you could like the story that correlates to this story it might help to put it in better perspective.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
If the text of the agreement is a reasonable one, then what's the problem? If both sides can work on a deal that circumvents whatever it is that has the Canadians so spooked, then why not work together?
It can be done..and I hate to say this but there's a bit of sefishness here.

One more point, it would behoove the Canadian government to be cautious of the actions of the American government as they have shown themselves untrustworthy, when concerning themselves with international business relations, in the recent past. I refer directly to the softwood lumber dispute which is the result of Washington maintaining extremely high duties on softwood lumber despite a final trade ruling (made by an international body) in Canada's favour.

Originally posted by BackFire
Canada? They're still around?

People. You're asking the wrong questions. Where is the Canadian company located? A Canadian company doesn't mean it's in Canada. It could mean it's in Wyoming or New Jersey for all we know. THINK. We also have Japanese companies in America. We make sure they're not up to any hocus-pocus too. If you do business in America, than you're subject to our laws. If you don't like it, do business somewhere else.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
One more point, it would behoove the Canadian government to be cautious of the actions of the American government as they have shown themselves untrustworthy, when concerning themselves with international business relations, in the recent past. I refer directly to the softwood lumber dispute which is the result of Washington maintaining extremely high duties on softwood lumber despite a final trade ruling (made by an international body) in Canada's favour.

I'm aware of that business deal. But to be fair, how many other countries, in the past, have made laws they don't have to listen to? I agree though that international ruling should have been the final word if it was fair for everyone involved. And let's face it, high duties on ANY product sucks 🙁 One bad deal dosen't make the whole portfolio though.