For an increasing number of Canadian documentary crews, crossing the u.s. border to get their stories will continue to be a game of roulette – at least in the near future – until diplomacy and veiled threats work their political magic.

At issue is the apparent arbitrary interpretation by u.s. Immigration & Naturalization Service officials of what constitutes commercial versus informational programming.

Whether or not a crew gains entry into the u.s. depends on how the border official, who has discretionary powers, categorizes the kind of programming and the commissioning Canadian broadcaster.

By some estimates the border hassle, which has evolved only over the past two years, has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost business and lost news coverage. Frustration is high enough for an impressive coalition of Canadian unions, broadcasters and industry associations to publish an open letter of ‘outrage’ to United States Ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin in Ottawa.

‘Canadian representatives of foreign media are prevented from entering [the u.s.] because the ins, on the Canadian border, has determined that information programming and documentaries all fall within the ambit of commercial entertainment,’ states the letter dated July 14. ‘The INS is stifling the free flow of information and news, and ultimately freedom of the press. It is imperative that Canadians have the ability to report news, factual programming and current events from our own perspective.’

Signatories to the letter include: the Canadian Independent Film Caucus, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Unions of Canada, CHUM Television, Association des producteurs de films et de television du Quebec, the Global Television Network, The Sports Network, tvontario and the Canadian Learning Television Networks.

‘We know of the issue and are concerned for Canadian broadcasting and film crews,’ says Rodney Moore, spokesperson for the Canadian Embassy in Washington, d.c. ‘Our intention is to hold further discussions with US officials.’

Canadian government sources familiar with border traffic say, however, that another issue involves the definition of journalist. Documentary filmmakers, by definition, are not ‘journalists’ in either the u.s. or Canada and should not expect the same level of access, says the source.

While the appropriate ‘I Visa’ for foreign information media permits the entry of ‘an alien who is a bona fide representative of foreign press, radio, film or other foreign information media,’ confusion has developed because of the onset of the new Canadian specialties and the advent of ‘infotainment.’

Even the cbc is considered commercial because it airs advertising.

Freelance dop Don Purser of the Canadian Independent Camera Association, another signatory to the letter, suggests that the border problems arise as support for California’s ‘Blame Canada’ campaign tries to stem the amount of runaway production to Canada. He also says it may be the result of retaliation for Heritage Minister Sheila Copps’ campaign against u.s. magazine reprints in Canada.

Purser finds it ironic that it takes u.s. media 15 minutes to cross into Canada for a story, but it now takes Canadian media up to 13 weeks to get an entry visa for the States. Even then, there is no guarantee the media will be allowed in.

It’s this apparent discrimination of Canadian media, who have traditionally enjoyed unfettered access to u.s. stories, that is especially galling. Today, media from any other part of the world can be given admission to the u.s. faster than some Canadian media.

‘Should this matter not be resolved,’ warns the coalition in its letter to the u.s. ambassador, ‘we may recommend to our government, as a matter of reciprocity, to block American news and documentary crews who wish to come to Canada to report on Canadian news, in exactly the same manner as we are being denied access to the United States.’

‘Ideally the American law is upheld and there is true reciprocity [of access],’ says Heather Segal, a Toronto immigration lawyer and counsel to the coalition. ‘Ports [of entry to the u.s.] are requesting some sort of guidance with the law. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between commercial and informational programming.’

In the next couple of months, says Segal, the coalition will submit proposed definitions about the way the u.s. laws should be interpreted when it comes to Canadian media. She hopes this will expedite a solution to the problem at the border.

A strategy to avoid, she adds, is lying about your reason for getting into the u.s. Get found out and you risk a lifetime ban (that can be appealed in five years).

Among the many examples of border problems, the coalition cites these:

* A Toronto documentary crew, shooting an informational piece on nuclear weapons for the cbc, lost an interview at a u.s. Airforce base because the crew was turned away by ins at Pearson International Airport

* A Canadian crew, contracted to shoot an informational piece for a Canadian broadcaster about a new automobile being released, is denied entry because ins officials determined the work was ‘infotainment.’ American journalists, however, covered the event. *