A perusal of Canadian newspapers over the past two weeks makes it clear that Americans aren’t the only ones affected by the DP World deal — but Americans do seem to be far more worried about the national security implications than their allies to the north.

In addition to running terminal operations at six key U.S. ports, the United Arab Emirates-owned DP World is poised to take over terminal operations at Canada’s largest port in Vancouver, B.C.

Canadians — who have had their own problems with terrorism and border security — seem to be taking a much more laid-back approach to DP World’s arrival.

“Get a grip fellas,” Canadian Senator Colin Kenny told his U.S. congressional counterparts in a story in Canada’s largest paper, the Globe and Mail. “The folks in Dubai certainly are good allies,” said Kenny, who has often complained of poor security at Canadian seaports.

Supporters of the deal in Canada say the government will still be in charge of port security — an argument that mirrors President Bush’s own — and also that corruption is a much bigger problem than terrorism at Canadian ports.

Indeed, Canadian newspapers are flooded this week with articles about why the ports deal is not a problem and why Americans are overreacting. “No Waves in Canada Over Arab Role at Seaport,” reads a headline in the Edmonton Journal on Feb. 24. “In Canada, the takeover has appropriately been a non-issue,” says a Feb. 28 editorial in the Vancouver Sun.

Canada expert Chris Sands says the seemingly sanguine response to the DP World purchase is due to a feeling among Canadians that they are less at risk of a terrorist attack than people in the United States.

“Canada is this odd looking-glass world where there is a risk but they have displaced it on to the United States and assume they are safe — which is false,” says Sands, a Canada watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a nonpartisan Washington-based think tank.

Canadians have largely gone along with the DP World deal, Sands said, because the Canadian public perceives that it is less at risk due to the nation’s low profile in Iraq and relations with Palestinians.

But Canadians may be hiding behind a false sense of security. The Canadian government, which formed a homeland security cabinet in 2003, has faced a barrage of criticism for failing to take a tougher stance on terrorism.

The nation is a potential launching pad for terrorist attacks due to the presence of terrorist networks — including Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups — that have resided or continue to reside in the country, according to a new report released on Tuesday by the Fraser Institute, an independent think tank in Vancouver.

Despite those warnings, Canadian government officials have tended to hew to one of the arguments made by the Bush administration — that the DP World deal is not a security risk because government officials are ultimately responsible for security at ports.

Duncan Wilson, a spokesman for the port of Vancouver, told CQ Homeland Security the port is “very comfortable” with the arrival of DP World, and views the purchase as “business as usual,” since the port authority will continue to control access to the port and undertake other routine security measures.

While Canadian officials have adopted the Bush administration’s line on the government responsibility for port security, a cursory survey of Canadian papers seems to indicate they have stopped short of offering the second rationale for allowing the deal to go through: the principle of free trade.

Bush and supporters of the deal in the United States say barring DP World would set a poor precedent for Middle Eastern countries attempting economic integration with the West.

Sands said Canadians are not so hung up on the question of encouraging free trade because 86 percent of Canadian trade is with the United States.

As a result, Sands says, if the United States ultimately decides to ban the deal and asks Canada to do the same, Canada would likely acquiesce. He believes that while Canada is not overly concerned about the deal, it would not be inclined to do anything that jeopardizes the U.S.-Canada relationship.

“There is free trade, and then there is trade with the Americans,” Sands said.

“We [Americans] are crazy, but we’re their neighbors so they’ll humor us on these things.”

Caitlin Harrington can be reached at charrington@cq.com