Reference Library – Canada – Manitoba
Political commentator David Frum says there s good, bad and potentially ugly for Canadian farmers in the United States new and unpredictable Trump administration. Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic magazine and, more recently, an owner of Ontario farmland, told the Grain Farmers of Ontario March Classic in London recently that global markets have been poor at pricing in political risk, so farmers should take steps to manage their risk themselves. The good for the economy includes a likely end to tepid economic growth in the U.S. over the past 15 years, said Frum.
There is a big tax cut on the way in the U.S. It will have two powerful and positive effects, including putting more money in people s pockets and creating government deficits. Deficits are also stimulating to the economy, said Frum, who recently took possession of a piece of Prince Edward County farmland through a family succession process. Stimulus should lead to more demand for products, including food from Canada. That fiscal stimulus will be thrown into an economy that is already growing and creating more consumer confidence.
The Trump administration has already limited some of the regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act and as a result, consumer lending will be made easier.
There will also be a lot less petty, harassing regulation, especially in agriculture, he said. The Waters of the United States regulations was one of the worst offenders, said Frum, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was claiming authority over areas where water ran for limited periods of time each year. ADVERTISEMENT
The foot of government will be less on their neck and that will be a positive thing, he said. Regulatory changes in the U.S. will have knock-on effects here too.
He expects 2017 to be a bullish year and 2018 likely will be so too.
However, there are other concerns with the U.S. administration that we haven t seen from previous presidents. Not only is the Trump administration protectionist, it will be manifested in petty and capricious protectionism, through regulation, not through law, said Frum. He doesn t expect that the administration will have the capacity to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) anytime soon. But he expects to see petty harassment, including harassment of travellers.
Trump s travel ban, now on six countries, isn t just affecting residents of those countries, but also the large diasporas of those countries. Foreign applications to U.S. universities are already down 40,000 year over year, Frum said, and businesspeople and professionals with conferences and holdings in the U.S. are limiting their travel. A rise in interest rates driven by consumer spending and greater deficits in the U.S. could mean a rising U.S. dollar, which could help Canadian exports. It could also inflame protectionist sentiment in the administration, which has yet to find much problem with Canada. Frum s other concerns include the way the Trump family is acting and the deals they are completing to their benefit, along with cash infusions they are taking from foreign entities.
The presidential family is behaving in a way the presidential family has never behaved before, he said.
He worries about the decline in public integrity, the tradition of a lack of corruption.
It is a precious, precious thing and once it is damaged it is hard to change it. It starts from the top.
Frum said his concerns about potential ugly implications of the Trump presidency include areas harder to predict. He s chiefly concerned with the unpredictability and renegade tendencies of the Trump administration. There are members of the White House who can t even get security clearance because of their previous relationships and transgressions.
There s a real instinct for conflict and a bad instinct for bringing friends along.
Trump has also hit back at critical allies Germany, Britain and Australia. There s a potential for a conflict that the U.S. could get bogged down in and is in alone. However, Frum said, there are numerous ways that Trump could be sidelined in his tone and agenda, including by Congress, by the fact that government is paralyzed due to a lack of the many appointees needed to make it work, or by the potential Trump could find other interests that are less dangerous. The challenge for businesses is that no one knows, and unlike previous administrations, no one can predict outcomes from this administration. Managing that risk will be up to businesses themselves.
John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia based at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @jgreig on Twitter.
New Mexico is on the cusp of becoming the 48th state to enact a data breach notification law, which would leave Alabama and South Dakota as the only states without such a statute.
The New Mexico Senate on March 15 passed the Data Breach Notification Act, or HB 15, by a 40-0 vote and sent the bill to Gov. Susana Martinez for her signature. The House approved the bill by a 68-0 margin on Feb. 15. A gubernatorial spokesman says Martinez is reviewing the legislation and has 20 days from passage to decide whether to approve it. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bill Rehm, says he believes his fellow Republican will sign the measure. What took New Mexico so long to enact a data breach notification law? Resistance from some businesses was a key factor, says Mark Medley, who runs ID Theft Resolutions, a not-for-profit organization that supports New Mexicans victimized by identity theft. “Lobbyists who didn’t want it [the bill’s passage] are very strong and influential in Santa Fe,” Medley says.
To win passage this year, Rehm says he worked closely with business representatives, seeking compromises on specific provisions. For instance, earlier data breach notification bills that failed to win passage included a provision that breached organization had only 30 days to notify victims. The law passed this year gives organizations 45 days to issue notification.
New Mexico’s law, if enacted, would require businesses operating in the state to take reasonable security procedures to safeguard personally identifiable information. Unlike Massachusetts’ law, the New Mexico measure is not prescriptive, giving much latitude to businesses to decide how best to protect PII. The measure also would require organizations to notify the state attorney general if more than 1,000 New Mexicans fell victim to a breach. Breached organizations must notify individuals “in the most expedient time possible, but not later than 45 days following discovery of the security breach,” according to an analysis of bill by the law firm Baker Hostetler. Organizations would be exempt from notification if, after an investigation, it’s determined the breach didn’t pose a significant risk of identity theft or fraud.
Like notification laws in many other states, organizations would be exempt from complying with the New Mexico statute if they must comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that governs financial institutions handling private information or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that regulates patient information. The New Mexico measure would require organizations to provide breach victims with advice on how to access personal account statements and credit reports to detect errors resulting from the security breach and also inform them of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting and Identity Security Act.
Besides 47 states, the District of Columbia and three territories also have data breach notification laws on the books.
“No two state data breach notification laws are alike, and this can create a complicated landscape for privacy teams working to assess privacy incidents and remain compliant across multiple jurisdictions,” says Alan Wall, senior counsel and global privacy officer at Radar, a company that provides online incident response management service. “The nuances of state penalties for noncompliance with data breach laws can have very real impacts on a privacy team already spread thin dealing with a data breach.”
Such concerns have been behind calls for Congress to enact a federal statute to establish a single data breach notification standard that supersedes state laws. But efforts since 2008 to enact such a law have faltered (see Single US Breach Notification Law: Stalled). A national data breach notification law would simplify reporting breaches to law enforcement, citizens and consumers because organizations would only have to follow one set of rules, rather than a patchwork of state requirements.
But a federal data breach notification requirement – at least in the eyes of some consumer advocates – could potentially weaken security safeguards found in some state laws (see Barriers to a Breach Notification Law). For example, Massachusetts’ and California’s data breach notification laws contain prescriptive security processes that likely would not be included in a federal law.
In testimony before Congress in 2015, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Sara Cable argued that pre-empting state laws could “represent significant retraction of existing protections for consumers at a time when such protections are imperative.”
No legislation calling for a national data breach notification requirement has been introduced in Congress this year, according to a search of Congress.gov. “Now we play the waiting game for either state No. 49 to throw its hat into the notification ring or the federal government to pass a law that would unify notification obligations across all states,” says Erich Falke, a partner at the law firm Baker Hostetler who specializes in data privacy and data protection. “I’m not holding my breath for the latter.”
- ^ Breach Notification (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Data Breach (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Legislation (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Eric Chabrow (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ GovInfoSecurity (www.twitter.com)
- ^ Three and a Half Crimeware Trends to Watch in 2017 (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Data Breach Notification Act (www.nmlegis.gov)
- ^ data breach notification (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ identity theft (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Baker Hostetler (www.jdsupra.com)
- ^ Single US Breach Notification Law: Stalled (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ Barriers to a Breach Notification Law (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
- ^ legislation (www.bankinfosecurity.com)
The following editorial appeared in the New Castle News, a CNHI newspaper. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Tribune-Democrat. It s happening. But not the way people thought it would. In recent weeks, people began streaming from the United States into Canada.
But they re not disappointed Democrats, disgruntled Californians or, for that matter, anyone who might have voted for Hillary Clinton. The majority of the estimated 3,800 individuals illegally stealing across the world s longest unprotected border into Canada since Feb. 3 are anxious refugees and undocumented immigrants fearing detention or deportation and seeking asylum. According to London s Daily Mail, most of those slipping across America s northern border this winter are carrying passports from Syria, Somalia, Burundi, Eritrea, Ghana and Sudan, Turkey, Columbia or Mexico.
Many obtain tourist visas to the United States then jump into airport taxis and deliver themselves to Canadian border checkpoints where they asked for asylum. Others, laden with luggage still bearing airline tags, walk across fields, wade through ditches and push baby strollers in deep snow from Quebec to Manitoba to elude Canadian border patrols and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Some have lived in the United States for years.
When seeking office, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to deport or incarcerate 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records living in the United States. The surge of asylum seekers has grown since now-President Donald Trump issued his ban temporarily barring travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries. They are now flowing into Canada in response to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau s offer to welcome those in need with open arms and open hearts. Since Jan. 1, according to the RCMP in Manitoba, located to the north of North Dakota, almost 200 asylum seekers have braved freezing temperatures and sometimes waist-deep snow to cross the border into Emerson, Manitoba population 689. An estimated 1,200 have illegally entered Quebec since November, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.
Although border patrol union officials are calling for 1,000 more workers and conservatives in Parliament are calling for a refugee strategy and housing and support service resources are being stressed in rural areas where the crossings are happening, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the increase isn t enough to warrant additional border security measures. But, he said, the government is following closely the recent accelerated rate of crossings. Canada adheres to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement of 2004. In this, any one in the United States, which is considered a safe country, can t request to be admitted into Canada as a refugee.
However, refugee status may be requested once the individual is on Canadian soil. Generally 60 percent are accepted. Border patrols at official border crossings are turning back those who have already made refugee claims in the United States prompting the increase in illegal entries. An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States may now fear for their future. Canada, which has vast, unpopulated spaces and dwindling family sizes, may be looking to a wave of immigrants to fill their nation. But Canada has also not experienced its own 9/11 attack by irrational militants determined to destroy America.
The Nation to the North is free to open its borders to anyone it wants. But to avoid its own Trump-like backlash somewhere down the road, Canada should heed the warnings of its own government officials who are calling for a strategy to cope with these unexpected visitors, as well as the call of the Canadian border patrol to have more workers.