Border crossing fee a bad idea
Proposal by U.S.
to recoup security costs would simply create more obstacles at border
A proposal being floated by the United States to hit travellers with a new crossing fee at U.S. land border crossings is, not surprisingly, coming under attack on both sides of the 49th parallel.
The new levy is being proposed as a way to help the cash-strapped U.S. cover increased security costs. But the problems it will cause – not to mention the bad PR with Canadians who travel to the U.S. for either business or pleasure – is going to make any such fee more trouble than it’s worth.
As the executive director of the Canadian Snowbird Association and its 70,000 members suggested in a Canadian Press story in Tuesday’s Herald, U.S. officials are reaching into Canadians’ pockets in their effort to ease the country’s financial plight.
“While we appreciate the fiscal challenges faced by our friends in the United States, we would prefer the U.S. government focus on ways to reduce obstacles at the border that hinder trade and tourism,” said Michael MacKenzie. “People feel like maybe they’re being nickel and dimed a little bit and politicians are taxing people who can’t vote, which makes sense politically but it just sends the wrong message.”
Air passengers already pay a fee to enter the U.S. but it is included in the price of the plane ticket. Hitting up travellers crossing the border by land presents a greater logistical problem. There are an estimated 140,000 vehicles and 400,000 people traversing the Canada-U.S. border every day, accounting for roughly $1.6 billion in trade daily between the two countries. Throwing an extra fee into the mix would cause delays when the focus should be on reducing obstacles to cross-border traffic, not creating new ones.
As a commentary piece by Colin Robertson in Wednesday’s Globe and Mail asked, “Does the U.S. really want to slow down traffic and turn the border agents into toll collectors when their primary task is to look for bad guys?”
The answer, of course, is no, not if they’re smart.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says the proposed fee would be a “serious mistake” and is promising to lobby against the proposal.
“Any fee on travellers crossing the border is bad for individuals and for the economy,” the chamber said.
The U.S. government might not be concerned about a fee being bad for individuals, but it might want to think again before doing something that will hurt the economy. Such an outcome would ultimately come back to bite Washington in the pocket by eroding any fiscal gains from the new fee.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion refers to an action creating an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, putting into motion a new crossing fee on land travellers would surely produce a negative reaction. In fact, the mere suggestion already has.