Trying to get some advice. Self employed here. About 9 years ago, an attorney here in the US wrote me an NSF check for a lot of money. Took about 4.5 months to get the money. And on top of that, a contractor did not pay me for a job completed. We are a small, family-owned company.

To make a long story short, I received two bad check charges here in OH. Looking back, an attorney would have been helpful, but these two events already had me pinned to the ground financially without adding more bills. Things are much better now.

I applied for an RABC permit. I was denied. It mentions appeal. Has anyone ever done this or would I be wasting my time? I am just not sure what to do. I have been an upstanding citizen besides this. I requested a BCI check here in the states and the results showed up with nothing on it. I am not sure what they are looking at. I did self declare these offenses on my original application and provided additional information when they requested it. We planned to travel in just a couple of weeks. Border services said I could fax up request and have an answer pretty quickly.

Anyone???

Are you sure these issues you list are the reason you were denied? Usually the Canadians deny for a DUI/DWI, drug offenses, speeding, assault of a peace officer, weapons offenses,
not the issues you listed. I think you should call the office where you sent it and ask to have them clarify the reason you were denied.

They do offer a rehabilitation package that, of course, costs money, time, attorney fees...

I guess you need to decide how important it is that you get into Canada either by car at a crossing or using an RABC.

It was definitely the check charges. There were two. Both 9 years ago. I have nothing else on my record. The letter of denial stated that was the reason. What is crazy about it is that I had a local BCI check and nothing shows up at all, not even those two things.

I sent close to thirty pages of documentation on everything which was no easy task...most of the local courts and authorities didn't even have the original information anymore. I don't understand it. I have written a letter of appeal but not sure if that will help. The details provided about the appeals process were vague.

I am so disappointed that this is still biting me all these years later. The financials and digging ourselves out of that mess was hard enough. Paid everyone back. Didn't even file bankruptcy and paid all creditors. So much for taking the high road.

Yep, been there done that. I don't want to discourage you, but a lot depends on how badly you want into Canada.

First and foremost, be patient and decide how badly you want access to Canada, because this is a long road if you want to be granted permanent access. There are temporary visa's available that can be obtained at border crossings, but my understanding is they are not available at remote crossings. I also understand temps are issued to you only once in your lifetime and travel circumstances greatly weigh into the granting process. My understanding is that most of these are issued to athletes, celebrities, and VIP's who may be required to work in Canada. I'm not at all sure a canoe trip into the Q would be reason enough to qualify for a temp visa.

I've been working through my own Canadian border crossing denial for two full years, now. Since the Spring of 2015. Albeit mine is different in that I'm dealing with an 18 year old aggravated DUI. Even though my circumstances are different, there may be some nuggets of information you can use out of my story.

You may not believe this, but just start reading about North American border crossing after 911. In short, all federal records of US citizens are an open book the the Canadian government. The Canadian government has access to more information in your personal record than you do, or any other local or state authority does. At their fingertips. At any border crossing, 24/7. When the statute of limitations has been reached on any given offense most folks think those offenses "disappear" from their record. And in some ways they do, to some people, anyway, including to your own eyes yourself. But they don't ever really go away. They don't ever disappear altogether. Access to them has been limited, but they're still there, and can viewed by any agency that has been granted access to them. The Canadian government is one of those agencies granted access. The US is the only country in the world that has granted in depth, unobstructed access, to background information of it's citizens. For what it's worth, all of my background checks are clean, there isn't so much as a parking ticket on any one of them that I can see.

No matter how trivial your offense may seem to you, or the court and legal system of this country, the Canadian government views it as if it was a Canadian offense. In other words, Canada views any given offense as if the infraction was committed on Canadian soil no matter where it was actually committed. The offense, and the sentence handed down, is taken into consideration when border crossing is considered. My 18 year old DUI was a gross misdemeanor here in the US. I paid a fine, spent 30 days on work release on a one year stayed sentence pending no same or similar during three years of unsupervised probation. I had my drivers licence suspended, and reinstated, before I ever went to court. The same infraction in Canada was equal to a felony with a 10 year sentence and revocation of driving privileges. DUI's are treated very, very strongly in the North. Much more harshly than here in the US. I'm not sure where they stand on a conviction for writing bad check's, but it's something I would consider looking into if I were you.

After my initial application was submitted in late July of 2015, (300+ pages of required documentation that included the application, personal letters of recommendation from local and state law enforcement agencies, current local, state and federal criminal background checks, 10 years worth of employment, residential and financial records along with the $200 application fee), I waited for 18 months before I heard a single word. Even then, it was just an acknowledgement that my application had been received and was in the queue. Just last month I received a request to provide the Canadian government with a SECOND, more recent, federal criminal background check to be obtained from, and certified by, the FBI. This wasn't unexpected. My attorney forewarned me that this is SOP and is actually a sign of progress. My file is finally being considered at the level necessary to make the final decision of yes or no. She's pretty confident I'll be approved.

There were three places I could file my paperwork. One of either Canadian consulates located in the US, one in LA or New York, or directly to the office of the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship in Ottawa. Mine went to Ottawa.

The process seems intentionally vague and ambiguous if for no other reason that I can figure other than making it nearly impossible to apply successfully without legal representation. Canadian legal representation, at that. Most local immigration attorney's I found aren't licensed to work across the northern border.

My reasons for doing all of this? I have relatives in Canada. My grandmother was born in Canada. Her farmstead is still there. The land still owned by family. There's Quetico, and the Canadian North shore of Lake Superior, and a road trip around the big lake, and fly-in fishing trips with my son. To me it was worth the effort and expense of applying. And waiting. I finally feel like the process is starting to reach a conclusion, but in reality I probably won't know if my application has been accepted or rejected until mid-winter at the earliest.

I've looked into their criminal rehabilitation - seems insanely onerous. I've driven into Canada a dozen times since my "offense" with no issues. I suspect Canada's probably more amenable to letting unvetted middle eastern refugees in than they are me.

Experience with a son, who was not convicted and record was expunged, showed the Canadians had the arrest record but none of the follow up. In his case, the local police - who arrested him - sent a letter to the Canadians and that cleared it.

I've been told that RABC is most difficult way to enter Canada. So are you saying driving in might be a different story? Am I considered now "flagged"?

Wow is all I can say! I have one question. Do you mind sharing how much this has cost you? 2 years??? Wow again! That's crazy.

These RABC denial issues come up from time to time. My biggest concern with it is the privacy issue. Why does the US Government allow the Canadian Government, in any foreign Government for that matter, access to any information, criminal or otherwise, on American citizens?

For Americans to travel abroad, you need a passport. If you've committed and been convicted of a felony or are pending trial for such, you don't get a passport. If the US Government doesn't feel you are a travel risk, that should be good enough for Canada or any other country.

Regarding the current system, it's been said that Canada treats any crime commited outside Canada as if it were commited on Canadian soil. So, as an American, if you write a bad check or had a DUI or as a young kid did something foolish like underage drinking or speeding, you are denied the RABC.

Aside from the privacy objections that even allows Canada access to this information, I guess it's their right as a sovereign country to allow or deny entry to anyone for any reason.

It is strange though that Canada will deny entry via an RABC, but if you have a valid US Passport, there is a 99% chance that you can drive into Canada without even being asked the questions that caused you to be denied entry via an RABC.

My last observation concerns the hypocrisy in what constitutes being denied entry into Canada. Trivial things like ba bad check or speeding, minor offenses here in the States , get you denied but an American draft dodger or deserter is welcomed with open arms.

Easy answer,
Just tell the Canadians, "been nice talking to you, see ya later!" :)

quote The Great Outdoors: "Easy answer,
Just tell the Canadians, "been nice talking to you, see ya later!" :)"

But then we'd be back to Ely to inconvenience you some more :) Oh the horror! OT I do agree its ridiculous the Federal Government of the USA will issue a person a Visa allowing them to travel the world as a citizen in good standing in the USA and then turn around and release all personal records to a foreign country. Good Luck!

I am missing the significance of this. What is a RABC used for? I understand that it is a remote access to Canada permit but what is the reason for getting one and how does this apply to the BWCA or Quetico? Is it needed to cross the boarder from the BW to QP?

quote A1t2o: "I am missing the significance of this. What is a RABC used for? I understand that it is a remote access to Canada permit but what is the reason for getting one and how does this apply to the BWCA or Quetico? Is it needed to cross the boarder from the BW to QP? "

It's effectively clearing customs by mail, rather than in person at the border. And yes, in these instances it's for folks paddling into Quetico.

I know once you get into their system, it's hard to get out. When they first started requiring passports to enter Canada, my dad attempted to cross sans his passport. They told him to turn around, which he cheerfully did. However, they marked his file as "refused entry" and now every time he attempts to cross, they pull him into the building and make him tell his story; they never update his file. He's 86 and wobbly and one time when we went inside, the Mennonites and a Scout troop were also being questioned. It was anti-profiling with an old man, peaceful Mennonites, and the Scouts, which made us laugh.

quote A1t2o: "I am missing the significance of this. What is a RABC used for? I understand that it is a remote access to Canada permit but what is the reason for getting one and how does this apply to the BWCA or Quetico? Is it needed to cross the boarder from the BW to QP? "

Yes you cannot enter any part of Canada without going through Customs. There are no customs stations along the border between Canada/Quetico and the Boundary Waters. The only way to legally cross into Canada is with an RABC. The RABC can be used on Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods as well where you may be doing a border crossing by water. Even when you enter Quetico/Canada through a permit issuing station such as at Cache Bay or Prairie Portage you need an RABC since they removed the customs station many years ago.

You essentially allow/consent to them to do an in-depth background check on your past and they allow this special border access entry if you pass. The RABC is good for 1 year. Once you re-enter the U.S. you need to check in at a U.S. Customs station, that's why there is one located in Ely by the Forest Service station.

T

As soon as the US institutes a reciprocity agreement with Canada where a Canadian citizen is denied entry to the US with a speeding ticket, or anything else that denies a US citizen entry to Canada, they may rethink there policies.

quote mutz: "As soon as the US institutes a reciprocity agreement with Canada where a Canadian citizen is denied entry to the US with a speeding ticket, or anything else that denies a US c ifitizen entry to Canada, they may rethink there policies."

A reciprocity agreement sounds reasonable and should be standard process whether it's customs, trade agreements, memberships in international organizations or anything else.

I'd be curious if Canada allows US Customs officials access to personal information on it's citizens as the US obviously does. I can understand felony conviction being available. But DUI's and speeding tickets if all things. It's no other countries business if I have speeding tickets and the US should stop providing this type if non felony information to any and all countries.

Off the subject of RABC but but how far back do the Canadians look into the records?

I really don't think a speeding ticket will make you have a problem with entry into Canada...if that is the case I wouldn't of gotten 15 years of RABC's :) I am not even sure they can check that?

Resisting arrest, drag racing, DUI's (I've heard the U.S. Denies entry to DUI's as well but it isn't absolute like it is in Canada) running from police, interference with official acts, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, not paying fines or paying tickets late may get you banned from entry.

P.s. I am not a lawyer and have no idea what I am talking about :)

T

I believe it's offenses that Canada considers a felony. Simple DUI is not a felony conviction n US. It is in Canada. I don't think speeding is in either country.

I thought you were deemed rehabilitated by Canada after 10 years, but may still have to comply.

quote beekeeper:

I am so disappointed that this is still biting me all these years later. The financials and digging ourselves out of that mess was hard enough. Paid everyone back. Didn't even file bankruptcy and paid all creditors. So much for taking the high road."

You did the right thing, and that is something to be proud of. Never forget that.

Good point SaganagaJoe I totally concur!

Sorry to hear this Beekeeper. I totally agree with MT and LMB on this. We need to stop giving other countries this information. It's none of thier business what happened in our country. If I commit a felony in Canada, then ban me from returning after I pay for my crime. If my government allows me to have a current passport and travel then that's all they need to know. What a stupid law we agreed to abide to.

quote Savage Voyageur: "Sorry to hear this Beekeeper. I totally agree with MT and LMB on this. We need to stop giving other countries this information. It's none of thier business what happened in our country. If I commit a felony in Canada, then ban me from returning after I pay for my crime. If my government allows me to have a current passport and travel then that's all they need to know. What a stupid law we agreed to abide to.


"

The U.S. might be giving too much access to Canada, I don't know for sure but I do know that if you have a felony on your record, you can still in most cases leave the country and get a passport in the U.S.

Just like the U.S., Canada can't rely on if you have a passport or not to decide entry into their country...they both look at the record and make a decision. Unfortunately in some cases people are not allowed access into either that are perfectly safe. I am sure some people slip through the cracks as well but they have to have some process in place for checking and allowing people people entry into countries.

T

quote Savage Voyageur: "Sorry to hear this Beekeeper. I totally agree with MT and LMB on this. We need to stop giving other countries this information. It's none of thier business what happened in our country. If I commit a felony in Canada, then ban me from returning after I pay for my crime. If my government allows me to have a current passport and travel then that's all they need to know. What a stupid law we agreed to abide to.
"

Would you apply this same agreement to any other country coming into the US? Maybe it's none of their business what happens outside their country but it's also not our right to enter their country. And no country should delegate the decision of whether someone can enter their country to another country. There's got to be some give and take to make the system work.

quote andym: "

quote Savage Voyageur: "Sorry to hear this Beekeeper. I totally agree with MT and LMB on this. We need to stop giving other countries this information. It's none of thier business what happened in our country. If I commit a felony in Canada, then ban me from returning after I pay for my crime. If my government allows me to have a current passport and travel then that's all they need to know. What a stupid law we agreed to abide to.
"

Would you apply this same agreement to any other country coming into the US? Maybe it's none of their business what happens outside their country but it's also not our right to enter their country. And no country should delegate the decision of whether someone can enter their country to another country. There's got to be some give and take to make the system work."

Every sovereign country has the right to allow or deny entry into their country using whatever criteria they choose. That's not what is in dispute here.

Allowing foreign governments access to information about US citizens is a violation of our privacy rights. In the case of a felony conviction, I have no issues with that being placed on an international law enforcement system, such as Interpol. In that case, the US Government would not issue a passport.

Getting a speeding ticket, in and of itself, will not result in the denial of a passport, neither will being in an overdraft situation with your bank. This and similar, non-felony information should not be given to any other countries. And that includes other countries providing such non relevant data to the US.

Getting back to beekeeper's original question - I am wondering, if you already have the appeal paperwork ready, is there a downside to just going ahead and submitting it? Is there a significant fee you would have to pay? Or are you worried that maybe it's not written up right and will become a part of your record when maybe a Canadian immigration lawyer should look at it first? Those might be things to think about, but otherwise, maybe you should just do it and see what happens. It is possible that the appeals officer will view it different from the the first bureaucrat who looked it it.

And you definitely have my sympathies. I hope it works out in the end.

I agree with Ho Ho. If you were not convicted of a felony or what Canada considers a felony, just provide evidence of that. In my son's case, it was a letter from the police department, and then he received the RABC.

Homeland Security... I can't see it EVER getting easier to cross borders here. I get their (almost) zero tolerance for drunk driving. We are an outlier here.

quote mapsguy1955: "Homeland Security... I can't see it EVER getting easier to cross borders here. I get their (almost) zero tolerance for drunk driving. We are an outlier here. "

I don't get the 'we are an outlier here'. I don't know of any State that doesn't have a zero tolerance policy for DUI's.

A first offense may not be considered a felony but the penalties are harsh, justifiably bso, and can cost you your license for 6 months and up to $10,000 in fines and other legal costs.

What does a DUI, especially a one-time first offense, have to do with paddling a canoe to camp and fish? If you get a DUI while traveling in Canada and they want to prevent you from ever coming back into Canada, by any method, that's their right. Same with having multiple DUI's which is considered a felony.

But the US Government should not be providing first time, non-felony data to any country.

My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.

Butch

The US definitely has more lenient laws for dui than most of the rest of the world.

I don't think its wrong that if someone wants to enter another country, that that country be allowed too ask for any and all information on that person. You don't have to give that info up, unless you want to go there.

quote billconner: "I don't think its wrong that if someone wants to enter another country, that that country be allowed too ask for any and all information on that person. You don't have to give that info up, unless you want to go there."

+1

And I seriously doubt they're looking at our information unless we're asking permission to enter their country - probably not even able to without our permission, given as a part of making the request in the 1st place.

quote billconner: "The US definitely has more lenient laws for dui than most of the rest of the world.


I don't think its wrong that if someone wants to enter another country, that that country be allowed too ask for any and all information on that person. You don't have to give that info up, unless you want to go there."

I don't think you can say the US has more lenient laws for DUI, definitely or otherwise. We here in the US actually have at least 50 different laws with different standards as to what constitutes a DUI infraction and what the penalty is. In some states, counties can determine the penalties.

I've never had a DUI, but I know people who have. In my state, a first infraction, without an accident involving injuries, you loose you license for 6 months, and between fines, court costs, lawyer fees and mandatory classes to get your license reinstated after 6 months, you are looking at a minimum bif $10,000.

I wouldn't say there is anything lenient about that.

quote Beekeeper : "Wow is all I can say! I have one question. Do you mind sharing how much this has cost you? 2 years??? Wow again! That's crazy. "

Total around $3500.00.

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote billconner: "The US definitely has more lenient laws for dui than most of the rest of the world.



I don't think its wrong that if someone wants to enter another country, that that country be allowed too ask for any and all information on that person. You don't have to give that info up, unless you want to go there."

I don't think you can say the US has more lenient laws for DUI, definitely or otherwise. We here in the US actually have at least 50 different laws with different standards as to what constitutes a DUI infraction and what the penalty is. In some states, counties can determine the penalties.


I've never had a DUI, but I know people who have. In my state, a first infraction, without an accident involving injuries, you loose you license for 6 months, and between fines, court costs, lawyer fees and mandatory classes to get your license reinstated after 6 months, you are looking at a minimum bif $10,000.


I wouldn't say there is anything lenient about that."

I didn't say lenient, I said more lenient than rest of the world. DID I laws in other countries. Its true you won't have the same lawyer fees, since it's all based on BAC test at arrest. And generally lower or much lower BAC levels. And as I recall, in Sweden it was 3 years, 10 years, and life suspension for offenses 1 to 3, no 6 months crap, and only based on the BAC test.

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.

Butch"

might want to edit the last line of your post Butch

Maybe it would be more appropriate to edit the last 2 words but sure made me laugh :)

T

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.

Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits.

As an aside to this thread, the last time I crossed into Canada at Buffalo's Peace Bridge the Canadian border agent asked me a couple of unusual questions. First one, "How many handguns do you own?" Taken aback I answered, "Several." His follow-up question, "When was the last time one of them was in this vehicle?" I answered, over a year ago (which wasn't exactly accurate). I thought for sure I was going to be directed to secondary inspection, but after staring at his computer for (what seemed like) several minutes he waved us through.

I cross into Canada at least twice a year at Peace Bridge and this is the first time questions like these were ever asked of me. I do have concealed carry permits for Pennsylvania and Utah...but have had them for ~10 years. Strange.

quote billconner: "

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.


Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits."

Bill I read the above post as "you are at the whims of whom ever does your permit or entry" not advocating breaking the law as you seem to suggest. Several people in this thread are reporting not being allowed into Canada for minor violations that do not seem to be felony equivalent in Canada...he then went on to give an example of someone who has been working jobs in Canada for 5 years but was denied an RABC. I take that more as a warning of the unknown inconsistency of the Canadian enforcement than advocating breaking the rules. I know people who had a DUI 10-12 years ago and got an RABC no issues, no extra fees, no questions. They seem to be all over the place based on this thread on when they deny people.

T

Bureaucrats in a bureaucracy will apply laws erratically.

If I weren't permitted to paddle in Canada, my heart would break and I would spend thousands and months trying to regain entry. I love Canada and Canadians.

quote buckshot: "As an aside to this thread, the last time I crossed into Canada at Buffalo's Peace Bridge the Canadian border agent asked me a couple of unusual questions. First one, "How many handguns do you own?" Taken aback I answered, "Several." His follow-up question, "When was the last time one of them was in this vehicle?" I answered, over a year ago (which wasn't exactly accurate). I thought for sure I was going to be directed to secondary inspection, but after staring at his computer for (what seemed like) several minutes he waved us through.


I cross into Canada at least twice a year at Peace Bridge and this is the first time questions like these were ever asked of me. I do have concealed carry permits for Pennsylvania and Utah...but have had them for ~10 years. Strange."

Wow!

It's a fair question to be asked if you currently have firearms, of any kind, in your vehicle when crossing a border. When visiting a foreign country you should be expected to know and follow all of their laws, even if they differ from ours.

But to find out that a foreign Government is given this type of personal information by our Government is unthinkable.

A few points:
1) a passport does not mean the US government is saying you are safe for other countries. It means that the US promise to accept you back into the US and is willing to risk you leaving for the sake of the US. For only a few felonies will they deny a passport or take away an existing one.

2) yes, we give info to other countries. We also get it back in return. That's how we decide if we want to let people into the US. I can see why you don't like that but getting rid of the exchange of info would either halt international travel or mean we were relying solely on other countries to decide if people can enter our country.

3) an RABC is different than simply allowing someone across a border. It gives you permission to cross, without inspection, for a year. I'm not sure that all of the requirements and decisions make sense but I'm not surprised that they are different for the two cases.

Good luck to the OP on getting the RABC. I know from family experience that things like this can happen to honorable people who deserve to be able to put things behind them.

USA Today article on what will keep you from getting a US passport.

quote buckshot: "As an aside to this thread, the last time I crossed into Canada at Buffalo's Peace Bridge the Canadian border agent asked me a couple of unusual questions. First one, "How many handguns do you own?" Taken aback I answered, "Several." His follow-up question, "When was the last time one of them was in this vehicle?" I answered, over a year ago (which wasn't exactly accurate). I thought for sure I was going to be directed to secondary inspection, but after staring at his computer for (what seemed like) several minutes he waved us through.


I cross into Canada at least twice a year at Peace Bridge and this is the first time questions like these were ever asked of me. I do have concealed carry permits for Pennsylvania and Utah...but have had them for ~10 years. Strange."

Do you think they knew you had a conceal and carry permit? or was a just a weird random question...I know sometimes border agents on both sides ask weird questions to throw people off and see their reaction. I know I got asked if I had a bomb in my car one time :)

I don't think other countries should have access to a conceal and carry or gun ownership database for sure.

T

quote buckshot: "As an aside to this thread, the last time I crossed into Canada at Buffalo's Peace Bridge the Canadian border agent asked me a couple of unusual questions. First one, "How many handguns do you own?" Taken aback I answered, "Several." His follow-up question, "When was the last time one of them was in this vehicle?" I answered, over a year ago (which wasn't exactly accurate). I thought for sure I was going to be directed to secondary inspection, but after staring at his computer for (what seemed like) several minutes he waved us through.


I cross into Canada at least twice a year at Peace Bridge and this is the first time questions like these were ever asked of me. I do have concealed carry permits for Pennsylvania and Utah...but have had them for ~10 years. Strange."

Another forum, but almost verbatim to your account albeit with more harassment:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=543893


Two things occur to me:

A) They have US supplied data on firearm carry licenses, and perhaps even simple purchase licenses.

B) Knowing you don't necessarily know this, they'd like to catch you in a lie. Typical of a lot of these lines of questioning, for good reason. People who lie are more likely to lie about other things, do criminal things.

I'd imagine the Federal Government is very cozy with Canada and likely give them similar access that US law enforcement would have in the interest of security. Its makes a little sense, I guess. Makes me squirm a bit. Also makes me wonder how much of this is done behind closed doors with no over site because it doesn't pass constitutional muster.

Daniel

Last time I went through IF, the Canadian border agent asked if my wife or I had a DUI conviction. (We responded truthfully that we had none ever.)

Timatkn - my point was simply it seems less likely that the laws of Canada are enforced by an agent at a regular border crossing than by the review for an RABC. Because you don't get caught doesn't mean you are not in violation. True of speeding, jay walking, stopping to eat lunch or sight see in Canada while just portraying along the border. O.J. sort of tested this principle to the extreme.

Maybe this is one instance where it easier to get through customs at the airport. I flew to Toronto back in June and I got through easily. "What is your purpose for coming to Canada. Where are you going? How long will you be here?" I do have a Global Entry card but the machines were just being installed and were not yet operating. They never asked for the card.

This line "The Canadian border now has full access to the FBI criminal database via the country's CPIC database, which is operated by the RCMP and interfaced with the United States National Crime Information Center (NCIC). " from this site is interesting. It seems you can count on your record being checked if applying for an RABC; at manned crossings and airports, not for sure.

Since arrests and trials are generally a matter of public record, I'm not sure I understand why sharing this public data with the Canadians is so repulsive. If the government didn't, some enterprising company would.

quote billconner: "Since arrests and trials are generally a matter of public record, I'm not sure I understand why sharing this public data with the Canadians is so repulsive. If the government didn't, some enterprising company would. "

Criminal data is one thing, but sharing data about law-abiding citizens who invoke their rights, specifically enumerated in the constitution, is very concerning. Not only that, these folks are the ones who jump through the hoops to do it the right way, only to have it held against them by a foreign government? Yuck. I'd wager that gun owners with CCL are firmly part of the most law abiding segment in the US. Criminals tend to not follow rules and regulations.

Can you imagine the US Government sharing your voting record? Its a similar right enumerated in the constitution.

Daniel

quote timatkn: "

quote billconner: "

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.



Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits."

Bill I read the above post as "you are at the whims of whom ever does your permit or entry" not advocating breaking the law as you seem to suggest. Several people in this thread are reporting not being allowed into Canada for minor violations that do not seem to be felony equivalent in Canada...he then went on to give an example of someone who has been working jobs in Canada for 5 years but was denied an RABC. I take that more as a warning of the unknown inconsistency of the Canadian enforcement than advocating breaking the rules. I know people who had a DUI 10-12 years ago and got an RABC no issues, no extra fees, no questions. They seem to be all over the place based on this thread on when they deny people.


T"

It is MOST DEFINITELY inconsistent. Canadian Immigration will wholeheartedly admit the decision to deny entry is 100% at the discretion of the border patrol agent at the point of crossing. One agent, alone, is all it takes. Sheesh! Maybe the guy or gal is having marital problems, or didn't get their morning coffee. You hit them up on a bad day and you're out!

In my own experience I was on a trip where I flew from Minneapolis to Seattle to catch a commuter flight from Seattle to Vancouver to board an Alaskan Cruise. I was turned away in Vancouver. I was literally going to be in Canada for less than two hours before the ship departed. I wasn't allowed to leave the international arrival gate at the Vancouver airport and was sent back to Seattle on the next available flight. Vancouver is one of the busiest border crossings, if not the busiest, in all of Canada.

Afterwards, when I started digging into criminal rehab, my Canadian attorney told me that if I'd been flying into Winnipeg the denial likely wouldn't have happened. When I asked her to explain why her answers were simple and eye opening. Winnipeg is far less busy than Vancouver. It's a "cushy", and sought after, deployment for border patrol agents. Meaning that agents with seniority get those jobs. With more experience, and better at spotting "questionable travelers" they're far less likely to check the average travelers background than rookie agents who are working their way up at the busier crossings. She also said, with a little forethought she could have cleared the way for me with border patrol at Winnipeg before I even arrived there.

It was very disappointing for me to hear those things after the fact, but it is what it is.

quote dew042: "

quote billconner: "Since arrests and trials are generally a matter of public record, I'm not sure I understand why sharing this public data with the Canadians is so repulsive. If the government didn't, some enterprising company would. "

Criminal data is one thing, but sharing data about law-abiding citizens who invoke their rights, specifically enumerated in the constitution, is very concerning. Not only that, these folks are the ones who jump through the hoops to do it the right way, only to have it held against them by a foreign government? Yuck. I'd wager that gun owners with CCL are firmly part of the most law abiding segment in the US. Criminals tend to not follow rules and regulations.


Can you imagine the US Government sharing your voting record? Its a similar right enumerated in the constitution.


Daniel"

I'm sorry. I missed what non-criminal and non-public information is being shared, and how it's being used to deny admittance into Canada. Is who has a foid card not public? It is certainly public in Illinois - the Attorney General published the list of foid card holders.

quote billconner: "

quote dew042: "

quote billconner: "Since arrests and trials are generally a matter of public record, I'm not sure I understand why sharing this public data with the Canadians is so repulsive. If the government didn't, some enterprising company would. "

Criminal data is one thing, but sharing data about law-abiding citizens who invoke their rights, specifically enumerated in the constitution, is very concerning. Not only that, these folks are the ones who jump through the hoops to do it the right way, only to have it held against them by a foreign government? Yuck. I'd wager that gun owners with CCL are firmly part of the most law abiding segment in the US. Criminals tend to not follow rules and regulations.



Can you imagine the US Government sharing your voting record? Its a similar right enumerated in the constitution.



Daniel"

I'm sorry. I missed what non-criminal and non-public information is being shared, and how it's being used to deny admittance into Canada. Is who has a foid card not public? It is certainly public in Illinois - the Attorney General published the list of foid card holders."

Just my opinion.....lists of conceal carry permit holders, whether at the State or Federal level, should not be a matter of public record IMO.

In my opinion it's a back-door to registration. Further, it can be used as a violation of privacy rights and could lead to harrassment of gun owners by the minority, albeit vocal, anti-gun crowd.

Once you fill out the required paperwork and pass a background check, the paperwork should have to be destroyed to ensure the information is not misused by any private individual or group, or by the government, local, state or federal. It's nobody's damn business if I own a gun or how many or even what type.

Crimes are committed by criminals, who by definition aren't permitted to buy, own or possess firearms. Keeping track of legal gun owners has never, and will never prevent one single crime.

quote billconner: "
I'm sorry. I missed what non-criminal and non-public information is being shared, and how it's being used to deny admittance into Canada. Is who has a foid card not public? It is certainly public in Illinois - the Attorney General published the list of foid card holders."

Well, its a hodge-podge, but gun owner data is mostly restricted or inaccessible per this website:

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-winter-2013/chart-gun-permit-data-acces


I'm with LuvMyBell on this - law abiding citizens who invoke their right to bear firearms should not be tracked and outed to the general public, much less a foreign government. Its sinister, and ripe for abuse. Not even a gun owner here, I just distrust those who have time and time again proven to be untrustworthy. If Canadian officials have gun owners data from US citizens, as it appears so from the anecdotal evidence we've seen here, my point has been proven.

Daniel

Thanks for finding that Daniel. I searched a while and only found data on Illinois.

I don't recall any report of the gun ownership question other than buchshots's. Rereading that post I'm not convinced the agent might not just have been fishing. I think the supposition that Canada has the names of non-public foid card holders is not a certainty. Foid cards from 2 states for 10 years and crossing twice a year and this is first time? Since 9/11 border crossing agents have really upped their game.

quote billconner: "

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.


Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits."

Entry rules are different. You're not breaking any law as entering from the northern entry points without the RABC. It's not required. You are not subject to the same laws crossing 'regular' as opposed to the RABC
That's is a fact and it does not reconcile. My point was my buddy covered Canada for a major paper and always entered legally of course. The issue came in to play with the Rabc and its very different vetting process

quote dew042
Can you imagine the US Government sharing your voting record? Its a similar right enumerated in the constitution.


Daniel

Actually, it is public record (not who you voted for, but which elections you voted in, party registration, which ballot you took in a partisan primary, contact information).

quote Porkeater: "

quote dew042
Can you imagine the US Government sharing your voting record? Its a similar right enumerated in the constitution.



Daniel

Actually, it is public record (not who you voted for, but which elections you voted in, party registration, which ballot you took in a partisan primary, contact information). "

Is this true for all states? If true, I wonder why the current voting commission is having an issue getting voter information from blue States to verify voter fraud?

If States can block an official US Government agency or commission from obtaining voter data, how can it be considered a public record?

The commission was asking for data beyond what is public (I think including social security numbers, birth dates).

quote billconner: "

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.


Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits."

That's my thinking exactly. Fight the Man

quote LuvMyBell:


Is this true for all states? If true, I wonder why the current voting commission is having an issue getting voter information from blue States to verify voter fraud?


If States can block an official US Government agency or commission from obtaining voter data, how can it be considered a public record?"

Google says: http://voterlist.electproject.org/

quote golanibutch: "

quote billconner: "

quote golanibutch: "My buddy is a reporter for the Wall st journal and covered Canada for 5 years. Got denied an Rabc for our June quetico trip for a minor offense when he was 16. A lot depends who you speak with on the phone and how you approach it.
If that fails, you don't need an Rabc if you enter from the north. Get an outfitter to drive you to atikokan and paddle down and exit pp or cache or wherever. Fuck em.



Butch"

It does seem you are less likely to get caught breaking the law by crossing at a manned border crossing than remotely. Similarly, you could just cross the border remotely without an RABC, and most likely not get caught. Re-entering US has similar same thing - don't stop at immigration. Probably won't get caught. It doesn't seem the border agencies have yet started to cross check park permits."

Entry rules are different. You're not breaking any law as entering from the northern entry points without the RABC. It's not required. You are not subject to the same laws crossing 'regular' as opposed to the RABC
That's is a fact and it does not reconcile. My point was my buddy covered Canada for a major paper and always entered legally of course. The issue came in to play with the Rabc and its very different vetting process "

I do not understand what you mean by "not subject to same laws". I believe that the requirements for admission into Canada are the same whether by RABC or in person with a CBSA agent. The procedures do of course vary. It does seem that the RABC does ask and check every question routinely, where as the CBSA agent meeting is somewhat random - they might or might not ask any or all of the same questions. I guess by law the CBSA agents are given that authority to ask as many or as few questions and to check as much or little as they determine appropriate, where as the folks processing the RABC apps do 100%. Perhaps that means admission is not subject to the same laws.

Just was thinking "on the other hand" is the RABC ever more permissive than meeting a CBSA agent. At crossing, you might be checked for prohibited items, like (cut and pasted):

Fresh fruit
Firewood. Campers should buy firewood on site, burn firewood on site, and leave all unused firewood on site.
Most types weapons such as tasers, brass knuckles, and pepper spray.
Certain knives, even those used for hunting or fishing.
Radar detectors
Obscene material, hate propaganda and child pornography. They can inspect your laptops, cellphones and other computer equipment to see what you have on them.
All camping gear, recreational equipment and supplies must be clean and free of pests and soil.

The last one got me a little. If I'd been camping in BWCA no way I can be sure of that crossing remotely. But in general, a lot you won't be caught for remotely. I think potatoes or root vegetables from US and maybe beef during the mad cow flurry were once banned?

I just experienced this this over the weekend. Myself and a friend were on the north shore for a few days and decided to take a day trip into Canada to visit Thunder Bay and Kekabeka Falls. At the border, customs officials pulled us aside and had us come inside the immigrations services building for "additional questioning". To make a long story short, border patrol ran a background check on me and found a 30 year old drug possession charge and deemed me "inadmissible to Canada". (Note that I have since done my own BCA background check, and the offense doesn't show up in current state database records.)

This is despite the fact that I have had no criminal offenses since that time and in fact, I have been allowed entry into to Canada twice since then (1998 and 2007). I even showed them the Canada stamp in my passport. The agent I spoke with told me about the "Rehabilitation" process and two armed policemen summarily escorted us back to American soil.

While I had planned to one day paddle my canoe in Quetico, those plans are now out of the question. I will not pay the Canadian government to "forgive me" for something that happened 30 years ago. Additionally, from here forward, neither me nor my family will ever support anything Canadian or purchase anything with a maple leaf on it.

Canada.... You are dead to me.

quote greywolf33: "I just experienced this this over the weekend. Myself and a friend were on the north shore for a few days and decided to take a day trip into Canada to visit Thunder Bay and Kekabeka Falls. At the border, customs officials pulled us aside and had us come inside the immigrations services building for "additional questioning". To make a long story short, border patrol ran a background check on me and found a 30 year old drug possession charge and deemed me "inadmissible to Canada". (Note that I have since done my own BCA background check, and the offense doesn't show up in current state database records.)


This is despite the fact that I have had no criminal offenses since that time and in fact, I have been allowed entry into to Canada twice since then (1998 and 2007). I even showed them the Canada stamp in my passport. The agent I spoke with told me about the "Rehabilitation" process and two armed policemen summarily escorted us back to American soil.
"

Curious, were your other trips 'day-trips'?

I'm also curious if US returns this level of scrutiny on Canadians? Perhaps its a reaction to our call for border tightening and our policies, tit-for-tat reaction?

Daniel

Daniel,

Not Day trips. In 1998, I entered Canada at Niagra Falls and spent a week driving around Lake Ontario. In 2007 I flew into Vancouver and spent a week in and around that city. They never looked twice at me and I was not asked any questions about my legal history.

quote dew042: "

quote greywolf33: "I just experienced this this over the weekend. Myself and a friend were on the north shore for a few days and decided to take a day trip into Canada to visit Thunder Bay and Kekabeka Falls. At the border, customs officials pulled us aside and had us come inside the immigrations services building for "additional questioning". To make a long story short, border patrol ran a background check on me and found a 30 year old drug possession charge and deemed me "inadmissible to Canada". (Note that I have since done my own BCA background check, and the offense doesn't show up in current state database records.)



This is despite the fact that I have had no criminal offenses since that time and in fact, I have been allowed entry into to Canada twice since then (1998 and 2007). I even showed them the Canada stamp in my passport. The agent I spoke with told me about the "Rehabilitation" process and two armed policemen summarily escorted us back to American soil.
"

Curious, were your other trips 'day-trips'?


I'm also curious if US returns this level of scrutiny on Canadians? Perhaps its a reaction to our call for border tightening and our policies, tit-for-tat reaction?


Daniel"

It is reciprocal. The US has the same stringent rules for Canadians crossing south, and there is no "temporary" allowance in the US laws. Canadians have to make criminal rehab permanent to legally cross into the US. The difference being that Canadian penalties for same or similar US crimes are already much more harsh in Canada. Looking at it from the USBP point of view, the Canadian has done his time ... in Canada. So, there is much less rehabilitation to be considered by US agents.

quote greywolf33:
Canada.... You are dead to me."

Wow, ... here's a suggestion, read up on the situation on both sides of the border, find out why Canada is now doing exactly what the US has done to Canadian citizens for years, then, well, then stay out. Canada is alive and well.

Just seemed time to revive. BWCA.COM Oath of Dignity and Respect

quote LuvMyBell: "

quote mutz: "As soon as the US institutes a reciprocity agreement with Canada where a Canadian citizen is denied entry to the US with a speeding ticket, or anything else that denies a US c ifitizen entry to Canada, they may rethink there policies."

A reciprocity agreement sounds reasonable and should be standard process whether it's customs, trade agreements, memberships in international organizations or anything else.


I'd be curious if Canada allows US Customs officials access to personal information on it's citizens as the US obviously does. I can understand felony conviction being available. But DUI's and speeding tickets if all things. It's no other countries business if I have speeding tickets and the US should stop providing this type if non felony information to any and all countries."

That would be great, but I think the reason the database is so open to the Canadian Government is mostly because of the blurred line between misdemeanor and felony. Our two countries view them differently.

I think the problem here is that most of the offenses that are causing a denial of RABC seem “minor” to US citizens, but in Canada, many of those same offenses are felonies and are much, much more serious and stay on your record much longer. Serious enough to deny admittance, but if Canada wasn’t given deep access to US records, those people with misdemeanors in the US (often times felonies in Canada) would slip through the cracks.

I have no problem with this open book policy because it is encourages transparency and strengthens border relations with our neighbors to the north. Although, I’m sorry to hear that it’s causing problems for people who simply want to experience the Q.